TRANSNATIONAL MEMORY IN POST-SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA AS A RESOURCE OF “SOFT POWER”

While the politics of memory has been extensively explored as a domestic policy instrument, its function in shaping foreign affairs remains underexamined. Drawing on Joseph Nye’s concept of “soft power,” this article investigates how the politics of memory influences diplomatic and cultural engagements in postSoviet Central Asia. The region is conceptualized as a contested space in which historical memory serves as a strategic resource for external actors – including Turkey, Iran, India, China, and Russia – seeking to project influence and foster alignment among local populations. These “mnemonic actors” deploy narratives of shared cultural and historical legacies, such as the “Turkish world” and the “Legacy of the Silk Road,” to encourage the development of transnational memories that transcend national boundaries. The analysis evaluates each actor’s “mnemonic soft power” by examining the various historical narratives and symbolic initiatives they promote. Turkey emerges as particularly effective, leveraging the notion of the “Turkish world” through collaborative historical textbooks, scholarly conferences, and cultural festivals to solidify a sense of shared identity. China, by contrast, exhibits comparatively limited resources for mobilizing soft power in the region. Meanwhile, Russia – historically the imperial “metropole” – faces significant challenges in forging a common memory that encompasses both the pre­Soviet and Soviet periods. Nonetheless, it relies on the evocative power of World War II as part of the region’s “short­term memory,” although this advantage is likely to erode as generational change reshapes collective memory. The article concludes that memory politics constitutes a pivotal dimension of contemporary geopolitics in Central Asia, with evolving implications for regional alignments.

1. Ahmadi H. (2019). Iran and Tajikistan: How Culture and Civilization Fade in the Shadow of Politics and the Political. Iran and the Caucasus. Vol. 23.No. 1. P. 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 1573384X-20190110

2. Alpatov V.M. (2020). Myagkaya sila i yazyk [Soft Power and Language]. In: E. G. Borisova (ed.) Soft Power, myagkaya sila, myagkaya vlast'. Mezhdisciplinarnyj analiz [Soft power, soft rule. Interdisciplinary analysis]. Moscow: FLINTA. P. 134–139.

3. Ankhol't S., Khil'dret D. (2010). Brend Amerika: mat' vsekh brendov [Brand America: mother of all brands]. Moscow: Dobraya kniga. 231 p.

4. Assmann A. (2022). Evropeyskaya mechta. Pereizobretenie natsii [European Dream, Reinventing the Nation]. Moscow: NLO. 507 p.

5. Assman A. (2023). Dlinnaya ten' proshlogo. Memorial'naya kul'tura i istoricheskaya politika [The long shadow of the past. Memorial culture and historical politics]. Moscow: NLO. 323 p.

6. Bachleitner K. (2021). Collective Memory in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 176 p.

7. Bahareva M.D. (2022). Sovremennaya imagologiya: znachenie i perspektivy razvitiya [Contemporary Imagology: Meaning and Development Prospects]. Concept: philosophy, religion, culture. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 86–101. https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2022-2-22-86-101

8. Baronian M.-A. (2014). Archive, Memory, and Loss: Constructing Images in the Armenian Diaspora. In: C. De Cesari, A. Rigney (eds) Transnational Memory. Circulation, Articulation, Scales. Berlin; München; Boston: De Gruyter. P. 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110359107.79

9. Beller M., Leerssen J. (eds.) (2007). Imagology: The Cultural Construction and Literary Representation of National Characters. A Critical Survey. Leiden: Brill. 476 p.

10. Brubaker R. (1995). National Minorities, Nationalizing States, and External National Homelands in the New Europe. Daedalus. Vol. 124. No. 2. P. 107–132.

11. Clark B. (2015). Ahmadinejad, Iran, and Foreign Policy Dysfunction in Tajikistan. Asian Politics & Policy. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 213–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12180

12. Crownshaw R.(ed.) (2014). Transcultural Memory. London; New York: Routledge. 144 p.

13. Davydov Yu.P. (2007). “Zhestkaya” i “myagkaya” sila v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh [“Hard” and “Soft” Power in international relations]. USA&Canada: economy, politics, culture. No. 1(445). P. 3–24.

14. Glajar V., Teodorescu J. (eds) (2011). Local History, Transnational Memory in the Romanian Holocaust. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 275 p.

15. Gorak S. (2005). Mify Velikogo Turkmenbashi [Great Türkmenbaşy’s Myths]. Vestnik Evrazii. No. 2. P. 105–132.

16. Hong Y. (2021). The power of Bollywood: A study on opportunities, challenges, and audiences’ perceptions of Indian cinema in China. Global Media and China. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 345–363. https://doi. org/10.1177/20594364211022605

17. Ilgen Th.L. (ed.) (2006). Hard Power, Soft Power and the Future of Transatlantic Relations. London; New York: Routledge. 222 p.

18. Iriye A., Saunier P.-Y. (eds.) (2009). The Palgrave Dictionary Of Transnational History. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 1226 p.

19. Jacquesson S. (2020). Claiming heritage: the Manas epic between China and Kyrgyzstan. Central Asian Survey. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2020.1765739

20. Joshi N. (2010). Introduction. In: N. Joshi (ed.) (2010). Reconnecting India and Central Asia. Emerging Security and Economic Dimensions. Singapore. Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program. P. 21–27.

21. Kasianov G., Ther Ph. (eds) (2009). A Laboratory of Transnational History. Ukraine and Recent Ukrainian Historiography. Budapest; New York: Central European University Press. 310 p.

22. Kaukenova T.V. (2018). Kul'turno-gumanitarnaya sostavlyayuschaya initsiativy “Odin poyas i odin put'”: znachenie i tekuschee sostoyanie [Cultural and humanitarian component of the “One Belt and One Road” initiative: significance and current state]. Initsiativa “Odin pojas i odin put'”: sostojanie i perspektivy. Sbornik materialov nauchnoy konferentsii Almaty, 19 sentyabrja [The “One Belt and One Road” initiative: status and prospects. Collection of materials of the scientific conference Almaty, September 19]. Almaty: DKU. P. 136–144.

23. Kazantsev A.A., Merkushev N.N. (2008). Rossiya i postsovetskoe prostranstvo: perspektivy ispol'zovaniya “myagkoy sily” [Russia and the post-Soviet space: prospects for using “soft power”]. Polis. Political Studies. No. 2. P. 122–135.

24. Klymenko L., Siddi M. (2020). Exploring the link between historical memory and foreign policy: an introduction. International Politics. Vol. 57. No. 6. P. 945–953. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311020-00269-x

25. Kosmarskiy A. (2003). Smysly latinizatsii v Uzbekistane (konets XX – nachalo XXI vv.) [Meanings of Latinization in Uzbekistan (late 20th – early 21st centuries)]. Acta Eurasica. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 62–79.

26. Koureas G., Prosser J., Wilson C., Hakim-Dowek L. (2019). Ottoman Transcultural Memories: Introduc tion. Memory Studies. Vol. 12. No. 5. P. 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698019870687

27. Krivokhizh S.V., Soboleva E.D. (2023). KNR i bor'ba za diskursivnuyu gegemoniyu: rol' strategicheskikh narrativov [Strategic Narratives in China’s Bid for Discursive Hegemony]. International Organisations Research Journal. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 178–192. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2023-02-09

28. Lan'shina T.A. (2014). “Myagkaya sila” Germanii: kul'tura, obrazovanie, nauka [German “soft power”:

29. culture, education, science]. International Organisations Research Journal. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 28–58.

30. Lebedeva M.M. (2017). “Myagkaya sila”: ponyatie i podkhody [Soft power: concept and approaches]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. No. 3(54). P. 212–213. https://doi.org/10.24833/20718160-2017-3-54-212-223

31. Levi D., Sznaider N. (2006). The Holocaust and Memory in the Global Age. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 240 p.

32. Nye J.S.Jr. (1990). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. New York: Basic Books. 336 p.

33. Nye J.S.Jr. (2006). Gibkaja vlast': kak dobit'sya uspekha v mirovoy politike [Soft power: The means to success in World Politics]. Novosibirsk; Moscow: Trendy. 221 p.

34. Nye J.S.Jr. (2011). The future of power. New York: Public Affairs. 320 p.

35. Ohnesorge H. W., Owen J. M. (2023). Mnemonic Soft Power: The Role of Memory in China's Quest for Global Power. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs. Vol. 52. No. 2. P. 287–310. DOI: 10.1177/18681026231193035

36. Otmazgin N.K. (2012). Geopolitics and soft power: Japan’s cultural policy and cultural diplomacy in Asia. Asia-Pacific Review. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2012.678629

37. Ozkan B.I., Boylu Y. (2021). A Study on the Use of Tourism as a Soft Power Instrument in International Relations. Journal of Tourismology. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 73–99. DOI :10.26650/jot.2021.7.1.0004

38. Parmar I., Cox M. (eds) (2010). Soft Power and US Foreign Policy. Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. London; New York: Routledge. 256 p.

39. Pavlovskiy A.F. (2023). V poiskakh global'noy pamyati: kuda vedet transnatsional'nyy povorot v Memory Studies? [In search of global memory: where does the transnational turn in Memory Studies lead?]. Politea. No. 2 (109). P. 166–194. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2023-109-2-166-194

40. Ponamareva A.M. (2023). Mnemonicheskaya diplomatiya v rossiysko-serbskikh otnosheniyakh: predely vozmozhnogo [Mnemonic diplomacy in Russian-Serbian relations: the limits of the possible]. Lomonosov World Politics Journal. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 93–132. https://doi.org/10.48015/2076-7404-2023-151-93-132

41. Roberts G. (2006). History, Theory and the Narrative Turn in IR. Review of International Studies. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210506007248

42. Ryan R. (2014). Cosmopolitan memory and national memory conflicts: On the dynamics of their inter action. Journal of Sociology. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783312467097

43. TRANSNATIONAL MEMORY IN POST-SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA AS A RESOURCE OF “SOFT POWER”

44. Simons J. (2017). The Soft Power of Elephants. In: N. Chitty, L. Ji, G. D. Rawnsley, C. Hayden (eds).

45. The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power. London; NY: Routledge. P. 177–184. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781315671185

46. Singh A.K. (2015). India and Central Asia: An Interpretation of Mutually Indelible Historical Relationship and its Multi Faceted Impact. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies. Vol. 2. No. 7. P. 61–72.

47. Sutyrin V.V. (2020). Za predelami “myagkoy sily”: gumanitarnoye vliyanie i sotrudnichestvo vo vneshney politike [Beyond Soft Power: Humanitarian Influence and Foreign Policy Cooperation]. The International Affairs. No. 9. P. 44–57.

48. Uostindzh Eh. (2014). Vneshnyaya kul’turnaya politika Irana v Tsentral’noy Azii: demonstracija politicheskogo pragmatizma [Iran's foreign cultural policy in Central Asia: a demonstration of political pragmatism]. Central Asia and the Caucasus Journal. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 131–144.

49. Watanabe Y., McConnell D.L. (2008). Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States. Abingdon, England: Routledge. 296 p.

50. Wüstenberg J. (2020). Introduction. Agency and Practice in the Making of Transnational Memory Spaces. In: J. Wustenberg, A. Sierp (eds) Agency in Transnational Memory Politics. New York; London: Berghahn. P. 3–23.