Op-eds by Valikhan Tuleshov on shaping international political culture
04.07.2025
By Valikhan Tuleshov
Are tariffs good or bad for the US?
The initial effects of the trade war were disappointingly negative for the global economy. The sharp decline in stock market indices brought the world close to an economic downturn. The simplistic and flawed idea that trade imbalances can be fixed easily by imposing tariffs, without the hard work of creating new economic strategies for domestic businesses and developing promising future industries, is unlikely to yield positive results even in the medium term. While temporarily attracting foreign companies might seem beneficial, it won't be a long-term solution because of deeper factors at play in a global shift like a trade war.
Is it truly possible to quickly revive domestic steel production by reducing steel and aluminum imports from Canada through a 25% tariff? And more broadly, can a country increase its exports by simply rejecting or limiting imports from other nations? For the United States, rapidly replacing the vast amount of imported goods, worth trillions of dollars, with domestic production is far from guaranteed or straightforward. After all, import substitution isn't genuine innovation; it's more like a copy of another country's production, just within one's own borders.
Consider this: would the Chinese goods you buy at a dollar store be as cheap if they were made in the USA? What about French champagne and cognac, furniture, and fruits and vegetables from other countries? The list goes on. This approach could soon lead not only to a significant increase in the cost of living, a decrease in consumer spending, and the need to find funds to support massive import substitution efforts, but also to higher costs for labor, services, and capital within the country.
Even in the first week of the trade war, it became clear that national debt could rise again. The emerging global decline in confidence in the dollar, along with increased uncertainty, will likely cause investments to flow into government bonds, threatening a new surge in government debt and the dollar's status as the world's currency.
Over the next decade, this approach could position the United States as a declining global power. The pursuit of widespread import substitution will destroy the undeniable benefits of economic competition and integration, which have been crucial drivers of economic progress for the US and all other nations that have benefited from global societal advancement.
Tariffs and Global Governance: The Emerging Divide in Economic Strategies
04.04.2025
The tariffs that the U.S. is imposing as part of its strategy to correct the trade imbalance are more than just a response to an economic crisis; they signal a deeper political and economic shift. The ongoing trade tensions are indicative of a broader division between two economic approaches: socially-oriented economies and mercantilist ones. While the U.S. follows a purely mercantilist approach, emphasizing national interest over cooperative economic relationships, countries like Europe and China adopt a more socially-oriented strategy, which favors dialogue and negotiation rather than ultimatums.
This distinction between the U.S. and other global powers reflects not just economic imbalances but underlying geo-economic differences. While the division of economies into socially-oriented and liberal-mercantilist models is an interesting framework, it is essential to explore and refine this distinction further. After all, the U.S.'s decision to impose tariffs on nearly 180 countries demonstrates a unilateral approach that contrasts sharply with the multilateral stance championed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and nations that prefer diplomatic coordination.
This situation, then, can be framed as a confrontation between imperial nationalism and liberal nationalism—or, perhaps more accurately, between hegemonic nationalism and cultural-social nationalism. The question now arises: which form of nationalism will dominate in the context of global trade wars and the redistribution of economic power?
The U.S. vs. China: A Clash of Nationalisms
When examining the trade war between the U.S. and China, one could interpret it through the lens of imperial versus liberal nationalism. The U.S. embodies liberal nationalism, blending market principles with the protection of national industry. This model is reactive: the U.S. feels compelled to defend its economic standing amid global shifts in production capacity.
In contrast, China exemplifies imperial nationalism, combining market expansion with long-term state-directed planning. Projects such as the “One Belt, One Road” initiative illustrate China’s strategy to extend its influence through infrastructure development and global partnerships.
However, this framework becomes complicated when considering Europe and Japan, which do not neatly fit into the imperial-liberal dichotomy. These nations may be better categorized under cultural-social nationalism, which seeks a balance between global economic integration and the protection of domestic social standards.
The Three Economic Axes
This ideological divide between hegemonic and cultural-social nationalism suggests a world that may be shaped by three key economic axes:
Hegemonic Powers (U.S., China): These nations actively promote their interests through aggressive policies aimed at controlling global markets and technological supply chains.
Cultural-Social States (EU, Japan, South Korea): These countries rely on sustainable development and regulatory power, engaging in international trade with a focus on protecting social standards and domestic interests.
Hybrid Players (India, Brazil, Turkey, etc.): These nations navigate between the hegemonic powers and cultural-social states, adapting to both models as their interests dictate.
Yet, while the U.S. imposes tariffs on nearly everyone, China does not. Instead, China and other countries like those in the Turkic world foster multilateral ties, presenting an alternative to the U.S.’s unilateral approach. Whereas the U.S. attempts to control the global economy through tariffs, sanctions, and financial mechanisms, China, the EU, and others are building structural influence by integrating countries into their economic ecosystems.
Hegemonic Nationalism vs. Multilateral Nationalism
This differentiation points to a deeper rift between hegemonic and multilateral nationalism. The U.S. adopts a hegemonic model, using tough economic protectionism to maintain dominance. On the other hand, the EU, China, and several other nations follow a multilateral approach, realizing national interests through cooperation, infrastructure projects, and partnerships.
In essence, the U.S. is attempting to maintain a hegemonic position through force and coercion, while the EU and China pursue integration, creating interdependencies to ensure their influence. This represents a broader struggle between domination and collaboration in the global economic order.
The Battle for Global Dominance: Will U.S. Unilateralism Prevail?
The question remains: can U.S. unilateralism overcome the multilateralism of the rest of the world in the battle for global dominance?
Several factors will determine the outcome: economic power, military strength, diplomatic strategy, and the stability of international alliances.
Arguments in Favor of U.S. Unilateralism:
Financial and Military Hegemony: The U.S. dollar remains the world’s primary reserve currency, and the U.S. controls key international financial institutions such as SWIFT, the IMF, and the World Bank. Additionally, the U.S. has the world’s largest military, enabling it to dictate the global order, even in the face of resistance.
Flexibility and Decisiveness: The U.S. can act quickly and decisively, without the cumbersome bureaucratic structures that often delay action in the EU. This ability to impose sanctions, tariffs, and military interventions without consensus gives the U.S. a significant advantage.
Technological Dominance: The U.S. controls critical industries like AI, semiconductors, and biotechnology, granting it the ability to impose technological dependence on other countries. Restrictions on China and actions against Huawei exemplify this power.
However, these advantages are not without limitations, particularly in light of the growing global interconnectedness.
Arguments in Favor of Multilateralism:
Global Economic Interdependence: The U.S. economy is deeply intertwined with the rest of the world. Major powers like China, the EU, and Russia can coordinate policies to create alternatives to the dollar-centric financial system, reducing the U.S.’s global influence.
Erosion of Trust: The U.S.’s use of sanctions and tariffs has alienated many of its allies. Countries like Germany and France are seeking greater strategic autonomy, while others are exploring alternatives to the dollar and seeking new trade relationships.
China’s Independent Technological Development: China’s focus on developing independent technologies and building economic ties without strict political conditions (as seen in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East) positions it as a strong contender for global leadership. Projects like the One Belt, One Road initiative are fostering the creation of new infrastructure and economic dependencies.
Who Will Win the Battle for Global Leadership?
In the short term, the U.S. may retain its dominance through its economic and military strength. However, in the long term, if China, the EU, and other developing nations can create a sustainable multilateral system—focusing on finance, trade, and alternative global institutions—the U.S. may face significant challenges to its global hegemony.
Ultimately, the question is whether the U.S. can successfully undermine multilateral initiatives before they gain traction. As of now, the balance of power appears to be tilting towards competition between these two models, rather than a clear victory for one side. The current U.S. administration, under President Trump, has left the door open for potential shifts in policy, as evidenced by ongoing discussions in Congress and NATO. The question of tariffs and trade wars remains unresolved, but one thing is clear: the global economic landscape is undergoing a transformation that will shape future international relations.
Roots of Multilateralism and Polysociculturalism
04.01.2025
The paradigm of national sovereignty and attractiveness is shifting for the Turkic peoples of Russia. Many relocators who have moved from the Turkic regions of Russia to Kazakhstan and Central Asia highlight a deeper sense of cultural connection with the Kazakh and other Central Asian nations. They emphasize their Turkic identity and express a desire to live in Turkic countries rather than in Russia.
There is a valid reason for this shift, rooted in the multilateralism and polysociocultural nature of the Turkic world. While the multiculturalism in the EU has primarily developed from pragmatic considerations and democratic rhetoric, the multiculturalism in countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and Azerbaijan is based on shared historical and cultural roots. Despite differing geographical locations, these nations share common anthropogenetic, cultural-historical, and civilizational ties, which foster a society that encourages the coexistence of various cultures and ethnic groups. This form of multiculturalism promotes respect for diversity in cultures, languages, religions, and traditions, while encouraging dialogue and interaction between them.
Historically, Turkic multiculturalism did not always strive for a more open, tolerant, and inclusive society where individuals could freely express their cultural identity. Both external and internal factors have played a role in this. However, the Turkic peoples, as an ethnic group, have long engaged in migration and cultural exchange with other peoples. They have vast experience in the creation and reformation of states, political and military alliances, enriching their culture with diverse traditions, languages, and customs along the way.
Religious tolerance among the Turkic peoples is deeply rooted in the understanding that all processes, including spiritual ones, take place "under the sky." The sky is seen as the primary substance of life on Earth, filled with the energy of space and air, which are vital for both individuals and nations. In Tengriism, the philosophy of the nomadic Turks, the sky is not only the source of life but also the protector of the Earth, safeguarding it from any destructive forces from space. Therefore, the Turks have traditionally recognized the sky as the guardian of life and have deified it, often referring to themselves as "heavenly." This belief has contributed to their universal materialistic monotheism, which serves as a unifier across various spiritual practices and religions.
This inclusivity is also reflected in the congresses of world religions that were first held in Kazakhstan. It is important that this practice continues, as it reflects the Turkic people's commitment to religious and cultural harmony. Turkic nationalism is inherently international, as the nomadic philosophy naturally cultivated the idea of unity within diversity, especially across the vast Eurasian space. The waves of nomads spreading out from the heart of Eurasia enriched their identity with diverse spiritual and religious practices, forging common interests and shared communities.
This international, polysociocultural, and multilateral ideology of the Turks was later recognized by European politicians in the 18th-20th centuries as one of the earliest forms of globalist philosophy. With capitalist expansion to the East (e.g., India, Japan, China), this Turkic concept of global unity and diversity was eventually recognized as geopolitics and globalism. Today, the Turkic peoples and their elites continue to exemplify strong multicultural features in their culture and society.
Their cultural code remains open to new influences, and more than ever, they actively incorporate elements from various cultures. This openness reflects their enduring commitment to peaceful coexistence with all ethnic groups. In general, multiculturalism is an integral part of Turkic culture and society, rooted in their cultural-anthropological nomadic network, which has historically been a key element of their social organization and way of life. This open-mindedness and historical experience continue to shape their approach to diversity, both within their societies and in their interactions with the world.
**** **** **** ****
The influence of the Turkic states on the consolidation of approaches and conflict resolution in Eurasia
04.01.2025
In recent years, Turkic countries have made significant strides in consolidating approaches to foster cooperation and resolve conflicts across Eurasia. The creation of the C5 format, the United Territory, and the resolution of border delimitation issues in Central Asia are key milestones. Ongoing support is being provided to Afghanistan, the Karabakh conflict has been effectively addressed, and security control in Syria has been restored. Efforts are also underway to resolve the Middle East conflict, the Middle Corridor is being developed, and much more remains to be achieved, including Kazakhstan's decision not to join BRICS and Armenia's practical withdrawal from the CSTO, among other developments.
Yet, there is already a glimmer of hope on the horizon: Eurasia is poised to become the world's most powerful continent in the future. Let me explain why. The Middle Corridor is evolving into a true bridge of civilizations across Eurasia, uniting the East and West of the continent through the Middle (Turkic) civilization. Europe is set to invest 10 billion euros into the Middle Corridor, which, although much less than China's investments, marks the beginning of Europe’s recognition of the region as an important partner and ally. This initiative stems from multilateral cooperation first proposed by Kazakhstan and other Turkic countries, which have championed a multi-vector foreign policy and enhanced diplomatic engagement.
The future of this process lies in the formation of a new power center based on multilateral connections, strategic positioning, and economic diversification. The Middle Corridor will evolve from a mere transportation route into a geo-economic axis around which a new space of interaction between Europe, China, and the Turkic world will take shape.
Furthermore, as Europe gradually assumes full responsibility for Ukraine, peace based on the terms set by Ukraine and the EU becomes increasingly attainable. This shift opens the door for the entire Eurasian continent to potentially become a land of peace and mutual consent. As for Russia, it will need to either embrace this new reality or face the full consequences of its own eventual disintegration.
**** **** **** ****
The Reviving Geographic Axis of the Turkic World
04.01.2025
In recent years, modern middle-class Turkic powers have made significant strides in building a "circle of friends" around them through internal multilateralism. They have initiated a common integration project (CIP), and through the promotion of intra-super-ethnic multiculturalism, they are contributing to the renaissance and unification of the Turkic world, leading to the emergence of the Middle Turanian civilization. This combined super-ethnic multiculturalism is spreading beyond Central Asia to the South Caucasus and Asia Minor. The primary axis of this resurgent civilization today includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey.
Though Turkey is geographically located in Asia Minor, it serves as the face, flagship, and driving force of the Turkic world. As a powerful regional power, Turkey's geopolitical position, coupled with its growing economic and cultural influence, positions it as the main guarantor of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the emerging pan-Turkic world. This vision extends into Central Asia, where Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan also play pivotal roles.
Kazakhstan, as the historical homeland of many Turkic peoples and the heart of their nomadic civilization, shoulders the responsibility for formulating a unified multilateral approach among Central Asian countries. It serves as the primary trade route between China and Europe and acts as a natural buffer between Russia and Central Asia, ensuring that Russia's influence does not penetrate too deeply into the region. Uzbekistan, on the other hand, focuses on the socio-economic well-being and cultural development of Central Asia, while also becoming the region’s geopolitical stronghold, central to the revival of Turkic civilization.
Uzbekistan’s active engagement in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which currently unites 120 countries seeking to avoid bloc confrontations and promote cooperation, further strengthens its role in the Turkic world. Together with Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan aims to help reshape the NAM, positioning it as a coalition of middle powers that could contribute significantly to global stability and development.
Kazakhstan has already indicated its intention to eventually withdraw from the CSTO, in line with its strategy of prioritizing multilateral partnerships that promote peace, such as the Non-Aligned Movement. Turkmenistan, as an observer in the Organization of Turkic States and a potential full member, is increasingly integrating into the Turkic world. The country's access to the Caspian Sea offers strategic advantages, turning the Caspian into an internal sea of the Turkic world, vital for energy and infrastructure projects.
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan also play critical roles in Central Asia's political and economic framework. These two countries, with their intertwined territories, represent the region's natural border and are key hubs for trade and transit, connecting Central Asia with China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and beyond. They are poised to take on vital responsibilities in managing the region's water-energy resources, becoming the "circulatory system" of Central Asia, which is often referred to as the heart of the Turkic civilization.
The multi-vector foreign policy initiated by Kazakhstan has given rise to a new Turkic project that is emerging as a central operator in the new Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Middle Corridor. This has allowed the Turkic world to reduce its geopolitical dependence on Russia while benefiting from China's economic growth. Azerbaijan, with its restored territorial integrity and military-political support from Turkey, is acting as the linchpin of this new geopolitical reality, particularly through the Zangezur Corridor, connecting Turkey and Azerbaijan with the broader Turkic world.
Azerbaijan also serves as the transit hub for energy, trade, and cultural exchange, facilitating cooperation across the Turkic states. Through new customs corridors and agreements on a unified Turkic alphabet, the region is accelerating the unification of socio-economic, military, political, and cultural frameworks. These efforts contribute to the development of the Turkic world as a super-ethnos, spanning the divide between the West and East, between Russia and China, and acting as a bridge between the civilizations of the Christian West, the Muslim South, Confucian China, and Buddhist India.
The burgeoning transport and logistics infrastructure is laying the foundation for a common market and political integration across the Turkic world. One of the next steps will be the creation of a migration zone, similar to the European Union's Schengen Area. This will enhance the Turkic world’s unique ability to unite diverse peoples and form new states, providing a universal response to the often futile attempts of other global players to resolve conflicts through force rather than diplomacy.
The Middle Turanian civilization is already playing a crucial role in drawing Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan back into its "circle of friends" through multilateral and multicultural approaches. The rapidly evolving global dynamics are opening new possibilities for cooperation, evidenced by the growing participation of Turkic countries in BRICS, including Turkey. This collaboration, though not opposed by the European Union or the United States, signals the rise of Central Turan civilization, which will eventually redefine the Heartland of Eurasia, replacing outdated models that focused on Siberia, the Urals, and the Volga region—territories that have already fallen within the orbit of the Turkic world.
In contrast to former empires like Russia or Iran, which attempt to coerce developing states into their geopolitical spheres, the Turkic world offers a model of voluntary cooperation and mutual benefit. The goal is to transform the Middle Turan civilization into a universal, mediating civilization—a bridge that guarantees security and fosters cooperation between the great powers of the East and West, North and South, and across Eurasia. This new civilization could prevent conflicts between the USA, Europe, China, India, and other global powers, while creating a platform for the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Ultimately, the Turkic world’s vision of a Middle Turan civilization, in partnership with the United States and the European Union, could reshape global geopolitics. This approach, grounded in principles of cooperation, could turn the Heartland from a geopolitical adversary into an ally, bringing about a new era of stability and collaboration on the Eurasian continent.
About the author: Valikhan Tuleshov (US)
PhD in Philosophy, a scientific consultant for National Geographic Kazakhstan, and an analyst for the Expert Group on sanctions report at the American Center for Global Civic and Political Strategies. He is a contributor to George Washington University’s Central Asian Analytical Network. He also writes for Exclusive.kz and is a professor at Almaty Management University (Kazakhstan).
