China's Debt-Trap Diplomacy in Central Asia
By Vali Kaleji
Over the past decade, “Debt-trap Diplomacy” has emerged as a significant instrument for China to advance its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The inability of certain nations, such as Sri Lanka and various African countries, to repay their loans has resulted in China acquiring ownership of key infrastructure, including ports and mines. However, the repercussions of China’s debt-trap diplomacy vary across Central Asian countries. Kazakhstan’s debt to China is considered the most manageable within the region. Uzbekistan, benefiting from economic growth, and Turkmenistan, leveraging gas exports to China, do not encounter substantial difficulties. Conversely, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are the most susceptible Central Asian nations to China’s “Debt-trap Diplomacy.”
BACKGROUND: The concept of “Debt-trap Diplomacy” was first introduced by Indian academic Brahma Chellaney in 2017. This term describes a relatively new policy tool employed by China in connection with its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The strategy involves China extending excessive loans to low-income, heavily indebted countries that are unable to repay them. Consequently, these borrowing nations are compelled to cede strategic assets to China in a debt-for-equity swap to alleviate their debt burden. Recent studies indicate that Beijing has also become a significant emergency rescue lender to these same countries, many of which are struggling to manage their debts. Between 2008 and 2021, China allocated US$ 240 billion to bail out 22 countries, predominantly those involved in Xi Jinping’s BRI. Countries such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Mongolia, Zambia, Congo, Djibouti, Kenya, and Ethiopia have been notably impacted by China’s debt-trap policy in recent years. A prominent example of this policy is the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. The Chinese government provided a loan for the port’s development, which was carried out by Chinese contractors. When Sri Lanka failed to meet its loan repayments, China leased the port for 99 years as a form of debt repayment. This 99-year lease is strategically significant for Beijing, particularly in the context of its competition with India in the Indian Ocean. In Central Asia, statistical data indicate that with the expansion of China’s economic and commercial influence, the debt owed by countries in this region to Beijing has increased significantly. By the first half of 2023, Central Asia’s collective debt to China had reached US$ 15.7 billion, representing 7.6 percent of the region’s external debt. Kazakhstan, in particular, has accumulated a substantial amount of hidden debt. According to central bank data, as of January 1, 2024, Astana owed US$ 9.2 billion, primarily to the China Export-Import Bank (Exim Bank). However, this debt constitutes only about 3.5 percent of Kazakhstan’s gross domestic product (GDP), a figure that has remained relatively stable over the past three years. Tajikistan, on the other hand, owes an estimated US$ 3.3 billion to foreign investors, with half of this amount owed to China, equating 27 percent of its total GDP. Consequently, China is Tajikistan’s primary creditor. According to the Ministry of Finance of Tajikistan, as of early 2024, the country’s debt to China stood at US$ 900 million, which accounts for 27.8 percent of its total external debt. By the end of 2023, Uzbekistan’s debt to China amounted to US$ 3.775 billion, representing just under 13 percent of its total external debt. Notably, by 2022, the China Development Bank (CDB) held US$ 2.2 billion of this debt, making it Uzbekistan’s third-largest creditor. Kyrgyzstan, meanwhile, has approximately US$ 4 billion in outstanding loans to China, which constitutes around 40 percent of its total GDP. This equates to roughly US$ 700 owed to China per Kyrgyz citizen. The country’s bilateral concessional loans exceed US$ 2 billion, or 44 percent of its total debt. Of this, 36.7 percent of Kyrgyzstan’s foreign debt is owed to the Export-Import Bank of China, amounting to US$ 1.7 billion in 2023. Akylbek Japarov, the chairman of the Kyrgyz Cabinet of Ministers, has stated that the country has reached the peak of its external debt payments. Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov has expressed optimism that, if the current situation remains stable, the country’s foreign debt could be paid off by 2035. Regarding Turkmenistan, the information available is limited and unclear. The only notable instance is a statement by then-President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov on June 12, 2021, asserting that Turkmenistan had fully repaid loans provided by China for the pipeline and the first stage of the Galkynysh gas field development on time and in full.
IMPLICATIONS: Over the past two decades, China has supplanted Russia as the primary economic and trading partner of Central Asian countries. Debt-trap diplomacy plays a crucial role in solidifying this shift. The inability of Central Asian nations, particularly those with weaker economies like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, to repay their loans could result in China acquiring ownership of key infrastructure within these countries. For instance, China might gain control over the Kyrgyz thermal power plant in Bishkek, the Datka-Kemin power transmission line, and the road connecting the northern and southern regions of Kyrgyzstan. Similarly, China could potentially own and manage Tajikistan’s gold and silver mines. Consequently, the capacity of Central Asian countries, especially Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, to repay their debts to China holds significant and long-term strategic implications. Debt repayment can sustain China as a crucial economic and trade partner for Central Asian countries, which is vital for maintaining a balance against Russia. However, the inability to repay these loans will lead to a strong dependence on China, creating conditions similar to Russia’s relationships with Belarus and Armenia. In 2002, under the “Property for Debt” agreement between then-President of Armenia Robert Kocharian and the Russian Federation, Armenia’s inability to repay its loans resulted in the Russian government taking ownership of significant economic infrastructure, including electricity, gas, telecommunications, and railways. This process has significantly contributed to Armenia’s strong dependence on Russia. Even after two decades, despite considerable dissatisfaction with Russia, Nikol Pashinyan’s government has struggled to establish a more independent and diverse foreign policy. Similarly, debt-trap diplomacy and China’s potential ownership of infrastructure could lead to comparable outcomes for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, akin to the situation in Armenia or the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. This scenario poses a serious challenge for these small Central Asian countries in terms of “diversifying” and “balancing” their foreign policies. This challenging process has led to a rise in anti-Chinese sentiments and Sinophobia in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in recent years. Notably, in 2011, Tajikistan resolved a border dispute by ceding land, a move believed to be part of a debt relief agreement with China. Furthermore, in 2018, over 30,000 Chinese migrants, many of whom were construction workers on BRI-funded projects, arrived in Kyrgyzstan. Given this context, there are serious concerns about the negative and potentially dangerous consequences of China’s debt-trap diplomacy in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Tajik political scientist Parviz Mullojanov has warned that accumulating Chinese debt is “playing with fire,” as it could serve as a pretext for political and geopolitical expansion at any moment. However, leaders and experts close to Central Asian governments dismiss these concerns as Western propaganda against China. They argue that borrowing and repayment are part of economic interdependence in today’s world, which can foster economic growth. This perspective is reflected in signs around Tajikistan’s capital that read: “Assistance from China for a common future.” On the other hand, the lack of transparency in Chinese loan agreements, coupled with infrastructure investments, has exacerbated issues of corruption and oligarchy. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan appear to face fewer challenges and threats from China’s debt-trap diplomacy, largely due to their stable and growing economies. Additionally, Turkmenistan stands out as the only Central Asian country with a positive trade balance with China, primarily due to its gas exports. Consequently, the loans and debt to China, whose full extent remains unclear, do not pose a significant threat to Turkmenistan’s economy.
CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 22 years, China has invested US$ 105 billion in Central Asia through development finance, with the China Development Bank (CDB) playing a pivotal role in this process. “Debt-trap Diplomacy” has become a crucial tool for advancing China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as it enters its second decade. During a virtual summit in January 2022, marking 30 years of diplomatic ties with Central Asian countries, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China would provide US$ 500 million in aid to Central Asia over the next three years to support socially significant projects. Furthermore, in October 2023, at the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, China and Central Asian states adopted a joint action plan for developing green technology in the region. Given these developments, it is expected that China’s loan policies and debt-trap diplomacy will continue in Central Asia. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine presents an opportunity for China to further expand its economic and financial influence in the region, similar to the Ruble Crisis of 1998. However, the impact of China’s debt-trap diplomacy varies across Central Asian countries. Kazakhstan’s debt to China is considered the most manageable by regional standards. Uzbekistan, benefiting from economic growth, and Turkmenistan, with its positive trade balance due to gas exports to China, do not face significant challenges. In contrast, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are the most vulnerable to China’s debt-trap diplomacy. If these countries are unable to repay their substantial debts to China, which constitute a significant portion of their GDP, they may face situations similar to those experienced by Sri Lanka and Armenia. This could pose serious challenges to their efforts to diversify and balance their foreign policies.
AUTHOR'S BIO: Vali Kaleji, based in Tehran, Iran, holds a Ph.D. in Regional Studies, Central Asian and Caucasian Studies. He has published numerous analytical articles on Eurasian issues for the Eurasia Daily Monitor, the Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, The Middle East Institute and the Valdai Club. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Tokayev's Strategy: Balancing Regional Cooperation and Global Ambitions
By Emma Krdzalic
In the heart of Central Asia, Kazakhstan has been steadily asserting itself as a regional powerhouse. At the sixth consultative meeting of Central Asian leaders in Astana in August 2024, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev convened with his counterparts from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to discuss regional unity and a shared vision for the future. This pivotal gathering, which produced the ambitious “Central Asia – 2040” development concept, was a testament to the groundwork Tokayev laid in his 2023 address on sustainable development and prosperity the previous year. His speech then outlined Kazakhstan’s goals of evolving into a stable middle power by fostering deeper cooperation among Central Asian states, and the 2024 summit reinforced his vision with concrete actions and agreements. By merging strategic foresight with regional collaboration, Tokayev is positioning Kazakhstan as a mediator and a leader capable of navigating Central Asia through modern geopolitical challenges.
BACKGROUND: Kazakhstan’s journey to middle-power status has been driven by several factors, including its rich natural resources, strategic location, and a sensible foreign policy that balances relationships with global powers including Russia, China, Iran, and the West. The country’s role as a key player in the Central Asian region is further cemented by its participation in global organizations such as the United Nations, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC), Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). However, Kazakhstan faces significant challenges in its role as a mediator and middle power due to the decline of the liberal international order, which has traditionally supported such nations. The erosion of norms that regulate state behavior has diminished Kazakhstan’s ability to act as a mediator in global conflicts, particularly in an era of heightened tensions between Russia and the West. Additionally, increased cooperation among revisionist powers like Russia, China, and Iran further complicates Kazakhstan’s strategic position, as these nations challenge the liberal international system that Kazakhstan relies on. The ongoing economic tensions between Russia and the West have disrupted key trade routes, forcing Kazakhstan to seek costlier alternatives and exacerbating the challenges of being landlocked. Despite these obstacles, Kazakhstan is adapting by leveraging its geographic advantages, strengthening regional partnerships, and exploring new trade routes that may offer fresh opportunities for influence and collaboration. Internally, President Tokayev has demonstrated a keen understanding of Kazakhstan’s challenges, particularly in maintaining political stability and responding to public demands for reform. The events of early 2022, when an attempted coup exposed rifts within the elite, highlighted the need for Tokayev to consolidate power and initiate meaningful reforms. While some steps have been taken to address these challenges, such as regaining control over state institutions and exploring new regional partnerships, the government faces a delicate balancing act. It must navigate the competing interests of various elite groups, respond to public demands for change, and maintain its strategic position in a shifting global landscape. The success of Kazakhstan’s “New Kazakhstan” initiative will largely depend on its ability to implement genuine reforms while maintaining stability and leveraging its geographic advantages in an increasingly complex international environment. While Tokayev has succeeded in regaining control over state institutions, the underlying tensions within the political elite remain, posing long-term challenges to the country’s stability.
IMPLICATIONS: To address these challenges, Tokayev has prioritized reforms aimed at improving governance, expanding human capital development, and enhancing the country’s competitiveness on the global stage. A key aspect of these reforms is Tokayev’s focus on education and culture. Kazakhstan has actively expanded its partnerships with top universities and invited Central Asian youth to study in the country, recognizing the importance of education in fostering innovation and economic growth. This strategy not only builds a more skilled workforce but also strengthens Kazakhstan’s regional influence by creating educational ties with neighboring countries. Pouring resources and effort into this cause, if done well, will ultimately give Kazakhstan long-term solutions and results that not only support the current state of the country but also build an overall more educated population that fosters stability and cooperation within the region. Additionally, Tokayev has called for greater cooperation in information and analytics, suggesting the creation of joint media products and even a pan-regional TV channel or internet news portal. This initiative is part of a broader effort to enhance Kazakhstan's soft power in the region and promote cultural and humanitarian cooperation. By investing in these areas, Tokayev aims to build a more cohesive regional identity while showcasing Kazakhstan as a model for development and modernization. On August 9th, President Tokayev underlined Kazakhstan’s strategic course for strengthening regional partnerships and increasing the role of Central Asia on the global scale at the sixth consultative meeting of Central Asian heads of state. This showed that Kazakhstan, as a middle power, has a unique role in shaping the future of Central Asia. Its geographic location as a bridge between the Caspian Sea and China, coupled with its economic interests across the region, positions Kazakhstan as a key player in the East-West corridor. However, Kazakhstan’s success as a middle power will depend not only on its ability to manage relationships with great powers but also on its cooperation with other regional states. Tokayev proved himself to be making consistent and conscious efforts to promote these ideals in this meeting through his speech, which supported models and roadmaps for continuous cooperation in a variety of sectors for Central Asia. Additionally, Tokayev’s advancements in cooperation with states like Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan support his claim to commit to regional cooperation that would stabilize the Central Asian region. The partnerships with Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, both of which are emerging as aspiring middle powers, are crucial for the stability and development of Greater Central Asia. These partnerships facilitate trade, security cooperation, and regional integration, while also counterbalancing the influence of larger powers like Russia and China. At the same time, Kazakhstan’s role in stabilizing smaller states in the region, such as Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, is essential for maintaining peace and security in Central Asia. Tokayev’s efforts to reinforce Kazakhstan’s influence are evident in his focus on strengthening regional alliances, particularly with Uzbekistan. Recent visits to Astana by Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev have marked a new era of cooperation between the two countries, leading to strategic partnerships in the trade, transport, energy, and agriculture sectors. The leaders signed key documents, including the 2040 Concept for Regional Development and a roadmap for industrial cooperation, deepening economic and cultural ties. With nearly 70 joint projects valued at over US$ 3 billion and employing 14,000 people, the partnership aims to enhance connectivity and create new trade corridors. Additionally, agreements on water resource management and cultural cooperation for 2024-2025 further highlight the countries’ commitment to regional sustainability and shared values.
CONCLUSIONS: Kazakhstan’s rise as a middle power is a complex balancing act that requires both internal reforms and strategic external partnerships. In his August speech, President Tokayev outlined a clear vision for Kazakhstan’s future, emphasizing sustainable development as a pathway to long-term prosperity. The country’s middle-power status depends on its ability to navigate geopolitical challenges while fostering strong regional alliances, particularly with Uzbekistan, and ensuring internal stability through meaningful reforms. President Tokayev’s response to Kazakhstan’s rise as a middle power reflects a forward-looking strategy emphasizing regional cooperation, domestic reforms, and global engagement. By expanding educational and cultural ties, enhancing cooperation in information and analytics, and strengthening alliances with neighboring countries, Tokayev is positioning Kazakhstan as a key player in the future of Central Asia. However, the challenges posed by geopolitical tensions, economic disruptions, and internal political dynamics remain significant. Tokayev’s ability to navigate these challenges will determine whether Kazakhstan can sustain its middle-power status and continue to play a stabilizing role in the region. Tokayev’s efforts as Kazakhstan moves forward to maintain its middle-power role have not gone unnoticed as Kazakhstan confirms and fortifies its partnerships with countries like Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, as well as its engagement with Central Asia and the broader international community. The path it remains on will be key to its success in shaping the future of Central Asia and beyond.
AUTHOR’S BIO: Emma Krdzalic is a current intern at the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC), where she researches National Security dynamics, Russia, Russia-Ukraine, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. She is a student at the University of Georgia, pursuing her studies in International Relations, Political Science, and Russian while interning in Washington, D.C. through the Washington Semester Program.
Astana Summit and the Rise of Middle Powers in Central Asia
by Svante E. Cornell
In August 2024, the leaders of Central Asian states met in Astana, Kazakhstan, for their sixth summit since 2018. This summit – at which regional leaders further committed to deepen regional cooperation – was an important development, indicating that Central Asian states are determined not to be pawns in rising great power competition.
BACKGROUND: Since the states of Central Asia gained independence three decades ago, a key question has been whether the region’s future will be determined by the countries of the region itself, or by outside powers. The decline of international norms in recent years is a decidedly unwelcome one for Central Asian states, which find themselves at the fulcrum of great power competition on the Eurasian continent. Dividing lines became stronger around them, and the region confronts the risk of coming under the domination of an emerging axis of revisionist powers consisting of Russia, China and Iran.
In recent years, the relationship among these three revisionist powers has become stronger. The growing coordination between Russia and China has been visible for the world to see, even though their relationship in Central Asia is more complex than it seems. Similarly, there has been a steadily expanding alignment between Russia and Iran. Iran’s active support for Russia’s war in Ukraine has brought the two powers closer, and led to heightened risks that coordination between them can expand to matters relating to Central Asia and the Caucasus. China and Iran have also increased their coordination, not least in circumventing U.S. sanctions. Beyond this, there has been increasing coordination between the three revisionist powers, including joint maritime drills in the Gulf of Oman, the latest in April 2024.
The extent of the trilateral axis between Russia, China and Iran has been subject to considerable debate. Some have correctly pointed out that it remains largely rhetorical and relies mainly on three bilateral relations. Still, the axis has the potential to strengthen, particularly if the U.S.-China relationship further deteriorates and a crisis in the Taiwan straits causes Beijing to turn with renewed interest to Russia and Iran.
It is to the good fortune of Greater Central Asia that it has so far been largely spared from the direct and military intervention of these revisionist powers. Still, the emergence of this new axis changes the parameters for the region, creating new elements of vulnerability and threatening to confront it with a fait accompli of being subsumed under this new axis.
In the face of these challenges, however, Central Asian states have maintained their independent approach to the world. They have shown that they are no longer “pawns” in a “Great Game,” or at the mercy of great powers. Quite to the contrary, states in the region are developing an ability to impact the region surrounding them, gaining sufficient power to assert their own priorities – not least strengthening cooperation among each other.
IMPLICATIONS: One of the most defining developments that has made this possible is the rise of Middle Powers in Central Asia. The first state to emerge as a Middle Power is Kazakhstan, which did so through a combination of its economic strength, foreign policy strategy, and multilateral initiatives; more recently, Uzbekistan is also emerging as a Middle Power.
The concept of Middle Powers is particularly relevant to Central Asia because the region lacks a functioning collective security mechanism. This is all the more concerning because of the size differential between regional states and surrounding powers – and the fluctuating relations among those surrounding powers further contributes to instability.
This instability makes the role of Middle Powers crucial in order to anchor Central Asian security. A Middle Power has the ability to impact, to some extent, the policy of great powers and stabilize the interaction among them in its region. It can raise the situation in the region to the attention of multilateral organizations and external powers. More importantly, a Middle Power can help organize neighboring states so that otherwise smaller and weaker states can band together and pool resources.
Kazakhstan began to emerge as the first Middle Power in greater Central Asia a decade or so ago. It did so for several reasons, which include both objective attributes as well as choices its leadership made. First, Kazakhstan’s economy is by far the most developed of the region. Second, it has taken a proactive approach to developing a foreign policy to handle the competition among great powers. Third, it is taking a leading role in promoting regional cooperation. Fourth, it plays a crucial role in the connectivity of the region. Fifth, Kazakhstan has gone beyond the region with international initiatives that cemented its role. Finally, its internal reforms make its status as a Middle Power increasingly sustainable.
The August 8 summit of Central Asian leaders is an example of how Kazakhstan exercises this role as a Middle Power. Ahead of the Summit, Kazakhstani leaders had indicated their efforts to “strengthen the region’s international subjectivity,” as leaders now term their effort to build regional institutions. At the Summit, Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev commented that these meetings have “given regional cooperation a systematic, comprehensive and, above all, reliable character.”
Key to this success is also the increasingly tight cooperation between Kazakhstan and Central Asia’s most populous state, Uzbekistan. With the two larger states taking the lead, Central Asia has begun to resemble the Franco-German cooperation in post-war Europe that led to the process of European Integration.
CONCLUSIONS: The rise of Middle Powers in Central Asia has considerable implications. It should lead to a fundamental rethink in many quarters about how the Greater Central Asian region should be understood. Too often, the region is still viewed in terms of a “Great Game,” where large power compete for influence, while local states are seen as helpless and possibly hopeless satrapies that lack agency of their own.
That description of the region is now not just inaccurate but misleading. Furthermore, for external forces – be it powers such as the EU, US or Japan, or international organizations – the emergence of Middle Powers in Greater Central Asia present an important opportunity. The strategies adopted by foreign states toward the region have yet to explicitly acknowledge the emergence of Middle Powers that can serve as key partners with which foreign powers can safeguard their interests in the region.
The United States and EU both developed strategy documents toward Central Asia in the late 2010s. These strategies took a step toward acknowledging the regional states as subjects rather than objects of international relations. Events since then have largely made these strategies obsolete. As these strategies are revised, it is imperative that they reflect the new reality in the region – the emergence of Middle Powers that have considerable agency in helping shape their region for the future.
AUTHOR’S BIO: Svante E. Cornell is Research Director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Center.
One Step Forward, Half a Step Back: The Sixth Consultative Meeting of Central Asian Leaders
By Farkhod Tolipov
On August 9-10, 2024, the Sixth Consultative Meeting of the Presidents of Central Asian states was held in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. During this meeting, a number of strategically important documents were adopted, including the “Conception of Regional Cooperation until 2040.” Expectations were high regarding the potential for new initiatives aimed at enhancing regional integration, and significant progress was indeed made. However, the pace of this process was perceived as excessively slow, with the participating presidents displaying a degree of caution. While the Conception is promising and forward-looking, it appears to lack the necessary conceptual strength to effectively guide regional cooperation.
BACKGROUND: Regional integration in Central Asia was formally declared by the five independent states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Since that time, the integration process has progressed through several significant phases. However, throughout this period, these nations have contended with substantial geopolitical burdens. The admission of Russia to the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO) led to the merger of the CACO with the Eurasian Economic Community (EvrAzES), resulting in the dissolution of the CACO. This state of “frozen integration” persisted for nearly a decade until 2017, when the President of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoev, initiated a revitalization of the integration process by proposing the establishment of Consultative Meetings (CM) of the Central Asian presidents. CMs were held in Astana in March 2018; Tashkent in November 2019; Avaza, Turkmenistan in August 2021; Cholponata, Kyrgyzstan on July 20-21, 2022, and Dushanbe in September 2023. During each CM, the presidents adopted a Joint Statement – a declarative document that, while important, primarily serves to express their unity, fraternity, and common intentions. At the fourth CM, the presidents adopted the Treaty “On Friendship, Good Neighborhood, and Cooperation for the Development of Central Asia in the 21st Century.” This treaty, while unique, effectively complemented a collection of existing strategically significant documents, such as the Treaty “On Eternal Friendship” signed in 1997, and the Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan Treaty “On Alliance Relationship” signed in December 2023. During the third CM, a Joint Statement was issued in which the presidents tasked their respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs with developing the Treaty for presentation at the subsequent meeting. This task was successfully accomplished, illustrating a relatively new approach to regional decision-making: the leaders had begun to draft roadmaps and plan actions from one meeting to the next. When the presidents of Central Asia convene for their summits, Russian media consistently respond to these events by expressing geopolitical concerns regarding the “without-Russia” nature of these gatherings. While such reactions may appear ridiculous, baseless, and unfriendly, they reveal an underlying truth: Moscow is genuinely apprehensive about the potential loss of its neo-imperial influence in Central Asia, particularly in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine. The fourth CM itself and the treaty adopted during the meeting convened the impression of an inadequately slow progress of regional integration. Notably, the presidents of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan have hitherto abstained from signing the Treaty “On Friendship, Good Neighborhood, and Cooperation,” and the Treaty was not even mentioned during the sixth summit. Yet while the Treaty appears to have been forgotten, the Conception-2040 was adopted, indicating a potential shift in focus away from previous agreements toward broader strategic visions for regional cooperation.
IMPLICATIONS: The title of the Conception-2040 emphasizes cooperation rather than integration. Not only does the title overlook the notion of “integration,” but the text of the Conception itself does not mention this concept at all. This omission raises the question of whether, by 2040 – nearly half a century after gaining independence – Central Asian nations will still not be fully integrated. Moreover, by 2040, it is unlikely that the current presidents will still be in power, making it improbable that they would take political and moral responsibility for the implementation or non-implementation of the Conception. In contrast to previous CMs, this summit introduced several innovative ideas. The President of Uzbekistan proposed the establishment of a Free Trade Zone and a Common Market in Central Asia. The President of Kazakhstan suggested the re-establishment of Water-Energy and Transport Consortiums. One of the most significant ideas articulated during the summit was President Tokaev’s proposal to create a “defense and security architecture” in Central Asia and to develop a Catalog of Security Risks for the region. This proposal is indeed timely and, if realized, it would signify a genuine breakthrough in regional integration. However, three Central Asian states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan – are members of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and two of them – Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan – are also members of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Clearly, these two structures divert the Central Asian states from pursuing solely regional formats of integration. Consequently, the timely idea of establishing a regional security and defense architecture will inevitably conflict with the commitments of Central Asian states to CSTO and EAEU. Overall, the initiatives proposed during the sixth Consultative Meeting bear resemblance to the European functionalist approach to regional integration, wherein the unification process gradually extends from one sphere to another based on successful cooperation in each domain. The recent summit fostered the impression of synchronized regional policies between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. In March 2024, the leaders of these two states convened for an informal meeting in the Uzbek city of Khiva, during which they announced their intention to act in “tandem,” indicating a close and empathetic relationship. This mode of cooperation was preceded by the signing of the Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan Treaty “On Alliance Relationship” in December 2022. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan signed a Treaty on Alliance Relationships in April 2024. Additionally, Kazakhstan has similar alliance treaties with both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. This trend reflects the overarching direction in regional affairs within Central Asia, which is driven by a historical imperative for integration. There is now a demand for the transformation of several bilateral alliances into a cohesive regional alliance in Central Asia. This process should, in theory, facilitate the rapid institutionalization of integration within a shorter timeframe than the proposed deadline of 2040. Furthermore, the idea of forming, strengthening, and developing a “regional identity” was officially articulated for the first time during the summit. This significant notion has gained considerable relevance and academic attention and is now recognized by the leaders of the five Central Asian countries. This discourse bears resemblance to the European identity narrative, which emerged in the context of deep political and social integration. However, while the European identity is a byproduct of robust integration among European nations, the impetus for stronger integration in Central Asia is largely rooted in the pre-existing regional identity shared by the nations of the region. Thus, the sixth Consultative Meeting left an ambiguous impression. On one hand, it showcased a relatively “new thinking,” as the presidents discussed regional identity and the establishment of a regional security architecture. On the other hand, after 33 years of independence, they appeared hesitant to engage in discussions about the prospects for full integration, even extending to the year 2040.
CONCLUSIONS: The question of whether to pursue consultation or integration has become a dilemma for the presidents of Central Asia. By designating their meetings as consultations from the outset, they appear to have alleviated themselves of greater responsibility for regional affairs. This tendency may stem from a prevailing perception – the memory of the failures of integration during the 1990s and early 2000s – that continues to shape their decision-making regarding regional development. Additionally, the geopolitical landscape, characterized by Russia’s divide-and-rule policy, can further impede the momentum of this process. It is important to recognize that the evolution of integration in Central Asia is likely to encounter friction, which is inevitable in any context of international relations. However, as long as the course of regional affairs is primarily dependent on the decisions of the presidents, the potential for aberrations in the integration process will remain significant and even risky. It is evident that the overall pace of the CMs is too slow, and the leaders are overly cautious. One contributing factor to this hesitance is the absence of a conceptual vision for the future. The leaders continue to avoid discussing integration, instead opting for rhetoric centered on cooperation, which obscures and undermines the genuine goals of regional development based on a shared regional identity. Another related issue is the elitist nature of the CMs, which remain a power-centric process. It is crucial for civil society and the expert community to be actively involved in this discourse. To paraphrase a classical maxim, we might argue that integration is too important and too serious an issue to be left solely in the hands of presidents.
AUTHOR'S BIO: Dr. Farkhod Tolipov holds a PhD in Political Science and is Director of the Research Institution “Knowledge Caravan”, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Visit also
Staff Publications
Silk Road Paper S. Frederick Starr, Greater Central Asia as A Component of U.S. Global Strategy, October 2024.
Analysis Laura Linderman, "Rising Stakes in Tbilisi as Elections Approach," Civil Georgia, September 7, 2024.
Analysis Mamuka Tsereteli, "U.S. Black Sea Strategy: The Georgian Connection", CEPA, February 9, 2024.
Silk Road Paper Svante E. Cornell, ed., Türkiye's Return to Central Asia and the Caucasus, July 2024.
Book Svante E. Cornell, ed., "The Changing Geopolitics of Central Asia and the Caucasus" AFPC Press/Armin LEar, 2023.
Silk Road Paper Svante E. Cornell and S. Frederick Starr, Stepping up to the “Agency Challenge”: Central Asian Diplomacy in a Time of Troubles, July 2023.
Silk Road Paper S. Frederick Starr, U.S. Policy in Central Asia through Central Asian Eyes, May 2023.