To mark the 10th anniversary of Turkmenistan’s declaration of neutrality, Deutsche Welle has carried the report below, of which I have attempted a speedy translation. It covers broadly the genesis of this historic step and its implications for Turkmen domestic policy

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Ten years ago the country declared its readiness to undertake obligations on political, economic, military non-alignment; it renounced all claims to weapons of mass destruction and imposed a ban on the transportation of these through the republic’s territory; and finally it announced its adherence to universal values, principles of democracy, and vowed close cooperation with international humanitarian organizations. But why was this diplomatic move undertaken?
In 1995, the UN General Assembly backed the principle of Turkmen neutrality, and since then the neutrality of republic has been estimated in its management and in its policies as one of the great achievements of President Saparmurat Niyazov. That notwithstanding, the ten-year history of Turkmen neutrality is paradoxical and not as unequivocal as the republic’s authorities would like people to believe. The follow interview is with the Carnegie Moscow Centre’s Yury Dubov:

First it is necessary to recall how Turkmen neutrality was born. This idea was first proposed to Niyazov by then Minister for Foreign Affairs Boris Shikhmuradov, sentenced at the end of 2002 to life imprisonment on charges of having organized an attempted state coup. An active role in implementation was also played by Turkmen Ambassador to the United States, Halil Ugur, who had considerable connections with the U.S. establishment and in UN circles.
What happened was that on 12 December, 1995, during the 50th session of the General Assembly 52 resolutions were passed, among which one was entitled “Maintenance of International Security.” This consisted of two items; one considering the question of the permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan and another urging goodwill among Balkan states.
The recognition and support of Turkmen neutrality was accepted in the first point, and members of the United Nations were called on to respect and support this newly adopted status. The resolution was passed without a vote. Therefore, it is quite ridiculous for the Turkmens to pompously claim that United Nations members voted unanimously for granting neutral status to Turkmenistan. There was no vote, and the resolution that is referred to was accepted on first hearing.
But this primitive lie has been rolled out so much by Ashgabat that some heads of state have become used to the fact. That is why Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko congratulated the “esteemed President Niyazov on the 10th anniversary of neutrality,” adding also that Ukraine was among those states that voted in favour of Turkmen neutrality. What is one not prepared to write when one depends so heavily on Turkmen gas deliveries!
And how this decision to opt out of the superpowers’ Great Game, generally regarded positively, has turned out is readily evident on cursory observation.
Turkmenistan, having wrapped itself in its own Iron Curtain, has practically completely isolated itself from the rest of the world. There seems to be an impression that the country is on the dark side of the moon, and the Turkmens condemned to listening to Niyazov’s fantastical words have come to be sure that for the last few years the United Nations has busied itself merely with glorifying Turkmen neutrality, and that the General Assembly has not been passing resolutions attacking Turkmenistan’s breach of human rights and persecution of religious and national minorities.
Niyazov has transformed neutrality into a dodge that allows him to conceal the country’s unattractive features from the international community: the country remains one of the main conduits for drug transit; Ashgabat refuses to cooperate in allowing the monitoring of the transport and sale of portable ground-to-air missiles, which endanger global civilian flights; and Turkmen authorities have also failed to admit Red Cross representatives into its prisons, and international observers and foreign diplomats are not permitted to intervene in the course of legal cases
The disgraceful circumstances of the unilateral termination on the Turkmen side of the dual citizenship agreement with Russia, and the even more shameful barring of access by Russian State Duma candidates to tens of thousands of potential voters in Turkmenistan in the recent Duma by-election are all consequences of the so-called neutral status imposed on the country by Niyazov.”

As to how the idea of neutrality first arose, an employee at the Tajik Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed Deutsche Welle on condition of anonymity that the plan first cropped up in Pakistan in 1995 during negotiations about the building of the Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline. Among the representatives at these negotiations were the Taliban and the Tajik armed opposition. The Taliban put severe constraints on the negotiations and construction plans as a result of their contribution to the instability of Afghanistan and Tajikistan. It was at this point, according to Tajik Ministry of Foreign Affairs sources, that Shikhmuradov had the idea of taking on a mediating position by flagging neutrality. A number of emergency meetings were quickly held, involving representatives from India, Iran, and Pakistan, out of which the new policy emerged. And it was at this point that the concept was presented to the United Nations.
As is well-known, credit for the idea has been claimed by Niyazov, while Shikhmuradov, having seen what his plan had become, ended in exile some years later where he became leader of the opposition movement. One of his closest colleagues in the ranks of the opposition movement, former Turkmen Ambassador to Turkey and Israel Nurmukhammed Khanamov commented further:

If we return to the first half of the 1990s, to look at the events which took place in the region, we can certainly see that it was necessary for a country, where it would be possible to deescalate situations by bringing together conflicting parties and allow them to discuss matters with the participation of neutral international organizations and state. I’m thinking in particular of the war in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, the latter being where the Taliban came to power. All this pointed to the idea that Turkmenistan could become one such place.
We know that the basic tenet for a neutral state is non-alignment in any military and political blocs. Central Asia is a turbulent region today, and if Turkmenistan worked in this direction it would be fitting with its status. And if efforts were made in that direction in early years, this status of permanent neutrality was eventually used by Niyazov for his own ends. When it came to CIS affairs, whenever heads of state gathered, Niyazov contrived to avoid attending, or signing any agreements, and steered clear of becoming involved in controversial issues. Neutrality was always cited as the reason.
But the CIS is not a military or political bloc. Its basic concern is with resolving regional economic issues, the joint struggle against drug trafficking and so on. So as not to be bothered over the follies he carried out in running his government, Niyazov hid behind the smokescreen of neutrality. In general, whenever affairs concern him personally, Niyazov is far-sighted enough. For example, if we consider the events of 9/11, neutrality was of great help to Niyazov: other countries in the region taking part in the struggle against terrorism allowed the U.S. to build military bases on their territory, which are now proving to be headaches. Niyazov was mindful of avoiding this path, agreeing only to become involved in humanitarian assistance, which puts him in a better position in respect of his neighbours.
Nonetheless, Turkmenistan’s foreign policies indicate that though its regime is authoritarian, it is also stable and non-aggressive. Moreover, the country’s citizens receive free gas, electricity, and water.
Niyazov tries to not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. On the contrary, he won’t even get involved in discussions about regional questions. He tries to maintain a state of isolation that won’t disturb him. As the country is completely closed, there are few who have any awareness of what is happening inside it. It is highly indicative that he has chosen to rebuild the capital; those who visit relate how beautiful it is. And that you can take one step outside the centre to be plunged back into the Middle Ages, where you can’t go anywhere if you’re not in a 4X4 is also indicative. There you’ll find no running water, no drainage, and a defective electrical network; which is what you get for you free-of-charge water, electricity and gas.

As to Turkmen achievements, Niyazov himself put it best during a Cabinet meeting on the eve of the anniversary of the declaration of neutrality. Having congratulated his ministers on the event, he then reminded them of how some inhabitants of the Mary velyat were captured attempting to smuggle bread out of the Dashoguz velyat. Niyazov expressed his indignation and ordered MNB (Ministry of Internal Affairs) security services to impose bolder control posts between regions and to keep the price of bread under control. Our correspondent Oraz Sariyev was informed of this by sources within the Niyazov’s administration. Judging by these reports, neutrality has failed to provide Turkmen citizens with even bread.