In the last week of March, EU delegation headed by EU¡¯s term president German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has paid a visit to Kazakhistan¡¯s capital Astana for two days. During this visit, the delegation has made several meetings with the Central Asian foreign ministers. In their common press conference, both sides have emphasized their interest in cooperation. In this regard, Steinmeir underlined the importance of this meeting as being the first of such a kind among foreign ministers. He also said the time has arrived to start ¡°

all-inclusive and strategic partnership¡± between EU and Central Asian republics, and the common problems with security and international terrorism has made it necessary to form a strategic partnership. This statement was not perceived as a surprise. Previously, German minister Steinmeir has told that ¡°We need a new strategy in the Central Asia¡± in his latest visit to the region 5 months ago (31 October-4 November 2006) which has started in Kazakhistan and ended in Kyrgyzstan.

Without a doubt, EU¡¯s latest interest to the region is notable. As stated by EU¡¯s external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the current relations between EU and Central Asia is undergoing through a ¡°historical¡± period.  Both parties¡¯ statements confirming their willingness to increase the frequency of such meetings is also a proof of this situation. EU has spent around 1.3 billion euro in 15 years period between 1991-2006. In the future, EU has proposed in its budget to spent 750 million euro till 2013. These are accepted as the indicators for EU¡¯s long term commitment for an increased cooperation with the countries of the region.

However, Central Asia has never been given priority to such an extent since 1991. For the EU, the preferential actor of the region was Russia. As a matter of fact, Oliver Roy in his article titled ¡°Afghanistan and Central Asia¡± dated back to 1992, claims that the preferential choice of western bloc is Russia hence stability, and ¡°Westerners, to avoid instability, has supported Russia¡±.  From the perspective of western world, compared with Central Asia, Russia was having a better potential and was a bigger emerging market. Therefore, in the beginning the western countries were not having direct interest in the Central Asia. Caucasus, especially Azerbaijan, with its energy potential was attracting the primary interest when compared to Central Asia.

In this regard, Robert D. Blackwill and Micheal St¨¹rmer, in their ¡°Relations with Turkey and the Caspian Basin Countries¡± article published in 1997, has suggested the following remarks while analyzing the Western policies for the region: Indeed, this region may be perceived as the latest game fields of the classical geopolitics. Russia is sending out mixed signals about her regional demands; Iran and Turkey are obvious competitors; Pakistan is wishing to get her share; Saudi Arabia is involved with silent diplomacy. US looks like being the only power to fully understand the game. Europe has an interest but no policies¡±. Blackwill and St¨¹rmer¡¯s claims about EU¡¯s lack of commitment to develop policies for Central Asia and Caucasus have been accepted as correct by many researchers, at least implicitly. Therefore, there were not enough studies about this subject. For example, in Roy Allison and Lena Johson¡¯s book ¡°Central Asian Security¡±, although they have analyzed the roles of US, China, Iran and Turkey in their book, they have not spared a chapter for EU. Also Alexander Rahr claims: ¡°Contrary to US policy, neither European states nor EU as a whole has managed to develop a comprehensive agenda for the politically and economically rapidly developing region.¡±. The documents showing EU¡¯s policy priorities were also in parallel to this claim.

On the other hand, 1997 has been a turning point for the west for its policies regarding the region, EU Commission¡¯s energy report dated 1997 has given the changing signals of the EU policy about the region. Also, on 11 December 1998 in Vienna, EU Council has emphasized the economical deteriorating turmoil in the region under the title ¡°Newly Independent Countries¡±.

EU¡¯s interest of the region can be summarized with the crucial points: Energy and stability. Hence, EU has endeavored to progress in her Central Asia policies through these parameters and to achieve her goals has developed new projects around these points. It is possible to gather up these projects under three headlines: TACIS (Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States), INOGATE (Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe) which is on the way to get realized through opportunities stemming from TACIS and TRACECA (Transport Corridor Europe Caucasus Asia). Also since 1999, partnership and cooperation agreements between EU and Central Asian Republics and Azerbaijan constitute the political framework.

Besides, the EU¡¯s interest is also related to the drug smuggling, migration and environmental problems in the region. These issues have been revealed once again in the latest visit. In fact, Steinmeir has attracted the attention to the Central Asia¡¯s strategic importance in this regard and stated that common problems of security and international terrorism has made the cooperation a must. ¡°Problems such as drug trafficking, arms smuggling and organized crime are the common threat areas. In Afghanistan we have to be succesfull. A moderate Islamic understanding in the region, is one of the factors to necessiate us to cooperate with the region.¡±

With this last visit, EU, in its strategy to achieve concrete steps, has spoken out its willingness to support clear and concluding policies in the region. Nevertheless, in this blunt and changed policy, EU¡¯s increasing energy problem and Russia¡¯s policies those not inspiring confidence have a share. By grouping these issues from the EU perspective, we have the following realities:

EU¡¯s energy dilemma and Russia¡¯s non-trustable position regarding this issue. Recently, especially Putin¡¯s policies which are far away from relaxing EU in terms of energy supply security and not ratifying the ¡°EU Energy Charter¡± treaty.
In the central Asian region, increasing dominance of Russia, and the ¡°energy security¡± anxiety of EU caused by the return of Russia
The reflections of Russia¡¯s authoritarian state-strong leadership policies to foreign policy and its initiatives to expand in the framework of ¡°imperial policies¡±. EU¡¯s desire to answer these policies, especially Russia¡¯s return with regard to Baltic countries and Eastern Europe, with policies involving Central Asia and Caucasus.
The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the undesired instabilities which is expected to be caused by this situation in the Central Asia and its side effects to energy security dimension
China¡¯s growing influence in the region from an energy security point of view and the India¡¯s desire to follow the China. These messages are well received by EU. In this regard, the competition caused by North-South and Asia-Pacific against East-West routes and the shifting of Central Asian energy sources supply demand balance towards East and the EU¡¯s growing anxiety to supply its growing hunger for energy sources which is expected to be caused by these reasons.
In terms of energy security, EU countries¡¯ discomfort with the possible US dominance and their preference to put forward initiatives to block a second Russia.

On the other hand, another trivet of the latest developments, from the perspectives of pragmatist foreign policies of Central Asian republics, the underlining aims to start a new period with the EU are as follows:

The increasing dominance of Russia in the regional countries¡¯ foreign, domestic policies and security perspectives, and the annoyance caused by these
US¡¯s strategy to change the ¡°political framework¡± in the region and in this regard countries of the region are aiming to create an alternative to counteract US rhetoric.
In the regional politics, China is portraying a power which is far away from being a balancing or a trustable ally. With relations to West, in terms of ¡°balancing¡± there is a need for a brand new start and with in this framework, Central Asian states¡¯ desire to implement multilateral relations in their foreign policies.
The latest developments in Afghanistan and the possible future threats directed towards Central Asia over Afghanistan and opposition/terror organizations acts to recover in the region.
Central Asian republics¡¯ desire to optimize their benefits through increasing the number of players in this ¡°New Great Game¡±. It can be interpreted that EU¡¯s wish to be active in the regional policies is an indication of increasing competition in the region. (On the other hand, the ¡°loose¡± situation in the union¡¯s foreign policy and the hesitancies regarding Germany are the pitfalls of this policy.
As a result, the ¡°late comer¡± of the global power struggle, namely EU¡¯s latest pragmatist move to reconstruct its relations with the Central Asian countries by setting aside its previous ¡°hesitancies¡± and ¡°sensitivities¡±, is worth investigating. It looks like, EU¡¯s interests and security anxieties have overridden the ethical dimension of its foreign policy understanding. In fact, Kazakhstan¡¯s Foreign Minister Dr. Marat Tazhin¡¯s expression of his pleasure to host such a meeting, his belief in the progression of future relations if EU commits to ¡°mutual tolerance and the understanding of Central Asian Republics¡¯ unique situation¡± is an indication of this result. Also, Uzbekistan¡¯s foreign minister Vladimir Norow underlined the lack of EU policies to focus on the relations with the countries of region.  He also said this meeting was a good base for mutual exchange of ideas and if this cooperation is expected to be successful it should rely on ¡°equal conditions and pragmatic understandings¡±. Therefore, West¡¯s ¡°dilemma¡± and ¡°double standards¡± in its policies are once again revealing themselves.