Page 231 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 231 of 265 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
225
between society and the world.” (Ibid, p. 19) Prizel also emphasizes the role of the “custodianship of collective memories” which translates into the ability of both the state and particular social groups to guide national identity in a specific direction. (Ibid, p. 14)
Kazakhstan’s pursuit of multi-vector diplomacy326 after the initial failure of reviving the former Soviet Union via the Commonwealth of Independent States is a prime example of the Hopf’s and Prizel’s relationship between foreign policy and national identity. If initially no one in Kazakhstan could imagine surviving without the “big brother” – Russia,327 after the failure of the CIS to restore the economic integration of the former Soviet Union and continued reluctance of Russia to cooperate with Kazakhstan, the latter tried to break away from the age-long dependency on Russia and establish a (semi-)independent course in foreign policy to back up the flailing regime. This occurs around 1993-94, when Nazarbayev comes up with the idea for moving the capital which becomes the marker of the shift in foreign policy and nation-building policies of Kazakhstan away from Russia and toward a more independent route. The multi-vector diplomacy becomes a vehicle for this shift: launching a multitude of international initiatives aiming at promoting international integration and recognition of Kazakhstan as a full-fledged member of the international system which so far culminates in 2010 with Kazakhstan chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). All these initiatives, irrespective of their a success internationally, are
326 Defined as multidirectional diplomacy which aims to develop good, working relations with many states, regional and global powers without giving preference to any one of them.
327 Except for a few nationalists and even then they did not seek full sovereignty at the time of independence (Olcott M. , 2010)
Object Description
| Title | Market reforms, foreign direct investment and national identity: Non-national identity of Kazakhstan |
| Author | Zhanalin, Azamat |
| Author email | janalin_a@yahoo.com; zhanalin@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | International Relations |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-22 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-29 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | English, Robert |
| Advisor (committee member) |
James, Patrick Rorlich, Azade-Ayse |
| Abstract | The present study offers an analysis of the concept of non-national identity in application to the Republic of Kazakhstan as the most likely case. The primary hypothesis is that newly independent states, which are undergoing a rapid transition to market economy and actively pursue integration in the world economy and foreign direct investment, will experience fragmentation of their national identity, defined as non-national identity.; Three sites in Kazakhstan, Almaty, Astana and Aktau, were chosen for the study as representative of the market reforms in the republic as well as the best examples of the country’s pursuit of foreign direct investment and integration into the global economy. The data collected indicates that while Kazakhstan does demonstrate fragmentation of its national identity, it is not necessarily caused by the market reforms and the participation in the global trade. Alternative causal variables such as the Soviet and Russian colonial legacy, intra-ethnic cleavages among the Kazakhs and the prevalence of multi-vector foreign policy were found to contribute to the development of non-national identity of Kazakhstan. The study’s results also suggest that in the last few years, Kazakh identity is experiencing a rather strong revival as well, which may yet counteract the existing factors leading to the emergence of the non-national identity of Kazakhstan. |
| Keyword | identity; nationalism; Kazakhstan; market reforms; globalization; foreign direct investment; national identity; countries in transition; foreign policy; culture; former Soviet Union; Central Asia; patronage networks; energy; oil; post-colonial legacy; nation-state |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Almaty; Astana; Aktau |
| Geographic subject (country) | Kazakhstan |
| Coverage date | 1970/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3812 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Zhanalin, Azamat |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Zhanalin-4506 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume51/etd-Zhanalin-4506.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 231 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 225 between society and the world.” (Ibid, p. 19) Prizel also emphasizes the role of the “custodianship of collective memories” which translates into the ability of both the state and particular social groups to guide national identity in a specific direction. (Ibid, p. 14) Kazakhstan’s pursuit of multi-vector diplomacy326 after the initial failure of reviving the former Soviet Union via the Commonwealth of Independent States is a prime example of the Hopf’s and Prizel’s relationship between foreign policy and national identity. If initially no one in Kazakhstan could imagine surviving without the “big brother” – Russia,327 after the failure of the CIS to restore the economic integration of the former Soviet Union and continued reluctance of Russia to cooperate with Kazakhstan, the latter tried to break away from the age-long dependency on Russia and establish a (semi-)independent course in foreign policy to back up the flailing regime. This occurs around 1993-94, when Nazarbayev comes up with the idea for moving the capital which becomes the marker of the shift in foreign policy and nation-building policies of Kazakhstan away from Russia and toward a more independent route. The multi-vector diplomacy becomes a vehicle for this shift: launching a multitude of international initiatives aiming at promoting international integration and recognition of Kazakhstan as a full-fledged member of the international system which so far culminates in 2010 with Kazakhstan chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). All these initiatives, irrespective of their a success internationally, are 326 Defined as multidirectional diplomacy which aims to develop good, working relations with many states, regional and global powers without giving preference to any one of them. 327 Except for a few nationalists and even then they did not seek full sovereignty at the time of independence (Olcott M. , 2010) |
