Alexey Malashenko
{
"authors": [
"Alexey Malashenko"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [
"Eurasia in Transition"
],
"regions": [
"Asia"
],
"topics": []
}Source: Getty
Tajikistan: Civil War’s Long Echo
Tajikistan is among the most problematic countries in Central Asia. The country faces a number of challenges, including an economic crisis, regionalism, domestic political confrontation, and radical Islam.
In terms of internal and external security, Tajikistan has been among the most problematic countries in Central Asia. It is the only state in the region to have gone through a protracted civil war (1992-1997), which, according to various estimates, killed between 23,500 and 100,000 people (perhaps even more) and left the economy in ruins. The causes of this war were rooted not only in political confrontation, but also in confrontation between different regions, clans, and personalities, as well as confrontation within Islam between those who sought to build a secular state and those who wanted an Islamic state.
In his new Briefing, Alexey Malashenko writes about the current situation in Tajikistan and the country’s possible developments.
Key Conclusions:
- After signing the Agreement on Peace and National Accord with the opposition in 1997, President Rakhmon set about building an authoritarian regime in Tajikistan.
- Today, the authorities face several internal challenges: an economic crisis, regionalism, domestic political confrontation, and radical Islam.
- It will be difficult, if not impossible, to organize “Maidan Tahrir”-type mass protests of the kind that took place on Cairo’s main square and toppled Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt in the spring of 2011.
- None of the external players today has an interest in radically escalating the situation in the country, much less in provoking Tajikistan’s collapse. Russia hopes to keep the country within its sphere of influence by participating in key projects there and providing military aid.
About the Author
Former Scholar in Residence, Religion, Society, and Security Program
Malashenko is a former chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Religion, Society, and Security Program.
- What Will Uzbekistan’s New President Do?Commentary
- Preserving the Calm in Russia’s Muslim CommunityCommentary
Alexey Malashenko
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Leveraging Internal Security Cooperation with Vietnam Offers a Glimpse of Future Chinese Diplomacy with Southeast AsiaArticle
Despite long-standing differences, China and Vietnam are reinforcing common ground for collaboration, especially in public security. This internal security–centered diplomacy offers a strengthened road map for how China moves forward with Southeast Asia.
Sophie Zhuang
- Digital Hegemony and the Reification of Taiwan’s “Unification-Independence” DichotomyArticle
Governments now deploy online platforms to shape public opinion and influence collective cognition. This is acutely apparent between China and Taiwan.
Frank Cheng-Shan Liu
- Southeast Asia’s Agency Amid the New Oil CrisisCommentary
There is no better time for the countries of Southeast Asia to reconsider their energy security than during this latest crisis.
Gita Wirjawan
- Fuel Crisis Forces Politically Perilous Trade-Offs in IndonesiaCommentary
As conflict in the Middle East drives up fuel costs across Asia, Indonesia faces difficult policy trade-offs over subsidies, inflation, and fiscal credibility. President Prabowo’s personalized governance style may make these hard choices even harder to navigate.
Sana Jaffrey
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in AsiaCommentary
The United States ignores the region’s lived experience—and the tough political and social trade-offs the war has produced—at its peril.
Evan A. Feigenbaum