By Svante E. Cornell

In October 2025, the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) convened a pivotal summit in Gabala, Azerbaijan, demonstrating its emergence as a significant geopolitical entity in the Eurasian landscape. During the summit, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev emphasized the OTS's evolution into a key geopolitical center, while Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev referred to it as an authoritative structure uniting Turkic populations. This marked a critical juncture in the organization’s development, solidifying its influence in a region that links the Mediterranean to Central Asia. 



                                                            Credit: Wikimedia Commons

BACKGROUND: The level of interest in Turkic cooperation has diverged over time and among the Turkic states. Some, like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, have consistently been enthusiastic participants. Türkiye, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, on the other hand, have seen fluctuations in their enthusiasm. It is mainly in the last 7 to 8 years that a consensus has developed on the importance of Turkic cooperation.

Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev in the late 2000s proposed the creation of a Council of Turkic-speaking States, which was formed in 2009. Twelve years later, it was turned into a formal inter-state organization, the Organization of Turkic States (OTS).

Up until recently, the intensification of cooperation among Turkic states was focused on non-security areas. Still, the OTS provided a platform where individual member states developed dialogue on security issues in both bilateral and trilateral formats. Thus, in parallel with the intensification of OTS activities, there has been a parallel rise in security, intelligence, and defense agreements among members of the organization.

Two types of formats can be seen in the growing security cooperation within the Turkic world. A first, not surprisingly, involves Türkiye’s bilateral security ties with other Turkic states. Importantly, however, a second format involves cooperation among those other states themselves, without Turkish participation.

The first type of format involves the growing Turkish engagement with Azerbaijan and the Turkic states of Central Asia. A key step was the formation of a defense treaty between Türkiye and Azerbaijan in the shape of the Shusha Declaration of June 2021, the same year OTS was created. The Shusha Declaration followed on the decisive role of Türkiye in supporting Azerbaijan in the 2020 Second Karabakh War. That, in turn, followed upon Türkiye’s active involvement in conflicts in Syria and Libya, where Ankara actively sided against Moscow-supported proxy forces; had a decisive impact on the outcome of the conflict; and managed to do so while maintaining a functional, if transactional, relationship with Moscow. There is no question that this was duly noted in Central Asian capitals and made a security and defense relationship with Türkiye increasingly attractive for the Turkic states of Central Asia.

In fact, Türkiye stands out among external powers in the region as it has shown a willingness and ability to engage across the spheres of security, intelligence, and defense (where Europe and the U.S. have generally been absent, with the notable exception of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program).  As Richard Outzen put it, all Turkic states of Central Asia are at one point or another in the process of developing “military education exchanges, training and exercises, a broader range of equipment and defense technologies, and, perhaps most importantly, development of common doctrine and operational approaches” with Türkiye.

While Azerbaijan has reached the level of near-complete integration with Türkiye, other states are at less advanced stages of the process. They may not desire the same level of military integration with Türkiye as Azerbaijan does, but all are intensifying exchanges with Ankara. Kazakhstan began to expand military ties with Türkiye in 2020 when it signed an agreement for joint defense and industrial projects. That was followed by a protocol for intelligence cooperation in 2022, as well as an enhanced strategic partnership. Kazakhstan purchased Turkish UAVs and now holds a license to produce them in Kazakhstan.

Uzbekistan also started its process of deepening military ties with Türkiye. In 2022, the two countries signed a defense cooperation agreement on intelligence cooperation, as well as training and logistics. In November of that year, a further agreement included military education and defense industrial cooperation. As for Kyrgyzstan, it has purchased several types of Turkish UAVs, including TB-2 Bayraktar drones. Turkmenistan has also purchased Bayraktar drones. In late December 2023, Turkmenistan’s top leadership welcomed leaders of Türkiye’s largest defense industrial companies and publicly spoke of the potential role of these firms – and Türkiye – in helping Turkmenistan strengthen its defense capabilities.

As noted, not all security and defense cooperation involves Türkiye. On a bilateral level, security and defense cooperation has grown rapidly involving Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and most recently Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. These three states have all raised their respective sets of bilateral relations to the level of allied relations, including through the formation of “Supreme Interstate Councils” for inter-state coordination on a government level. In the defense sphere, cooperation has developed through military exchanges, joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and the development of the defense industry.

Until recently, it was obvious that the development of Turkic Cooperation under the Organization of Turkic States served as a catalyst for the myriad of bilateral agreements in the security and military field. Yet formally, while OTS member states have discussed holding security consultations and developing a common stance on security issues ever since the Turkic Council’s Almaty Summit in 2011, defense and security cooperation remained outside the purview of the OTS. This has nevertheless begun to change as the OTS has more recently taken steps to expand into the security field. 

IMPLICATIONS: The OTS’s organizational move into the field of security and defense dates to the summit in Samarkand in 2022. The member states “went beyond consultations by adding a new dimension to their security cooperation ... they called for closer cooperation and military collaboration in the defense industry.”

Similarly, at the following summit in Astana in November 2023, the final communiqué called for “closer cooperation in the field of defense industry and military collaboration.” At the summit, a key advocate for the intensification of military cooperation was Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who stressed during his speech that “the main guarantor of security becomes defense potential” in the developing security situation and that he “believe[s] that cooperation between the member states in areas such as security, defense, and the defense industry should be further increased.”  Following his re-election in 2024, Aliyev subsequently declared that the OTS was the main vector in Azerbaijani foreign policy.

The eleventh summit in Kyrgyzstan in 2024 focused on the adoption of a “Charter for the Turkic World” which did not specifically go into matters relating to security and defense. Still, a seed was planted: the charter includes language that “the Turkic people will strive together to prevent any actions and threats aimed at undermining their unity, solidarity, and dignity.”  While far from a mutual defense clause, it is reminiscent of how the EU adopted a solidarity clause before moving to the mutual defense clause adopted with the EU’s Lisbon treaty. At this summit as well, Aliyev repeated his earlier call, saying, “Given the growing global threats, our cooperation in defense, security, and the defense industry is of tremendous importance.”

In July 2025, the first meeting of the heads of defense industries of the Turkic states was held in Istanbul, under the banner of the OTS. The meeting mainly served to take stock of existing bilateral cooperation programs and to plan for multilateral cooperation in the future. Azerbaijan has offered to host a second meeting in 2026.

The 2025 OTS Summit in Gabala, Azerbaijan, proved a turning point. The theme for the summit was “Regional Peace and Security,” indicating the organization’s more open embrace of security issues. The leading section of the summit’s declaration focused on security issues and particularly put forward the objective of signing a “Treaty on Strategic Partnership, Eternal Friendship, and Brotherhood of Turkic States.” While not included in the formal communiqué of the summit, Azerbaijan offered to host the first military exercises under the banner of the OTS.

CONCLUSION: It is clear that, in the past few years, the OTS has been rapidly expanding its purview into the security area, defense industrial cooperation, and military coordination.  It remains to be seen whether the OTS will transform into a formal alliance, as seems to be the intent of at least several of the member states. What is clear is that the OTS has turned into a vehicle for regional middle powers – specifically Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan – to work to fill the security vacuum that has plagued the heart of Eurasia over the past three decades. That vacuum has been the result of the weakness of internal security arrangements in the region, as well as the prevalence of security arrangements dominated by external actors, such as Russia’s CSTO. While Türkiye is prominent among the OTS member states due to its military capabilities and the size of its economy, it is clear that the Turkic “middle powers” have been at least as forceful as Türkiye in driving the rise of Turkic cooperation. 

Turkic cooperation is expanding and intensifying so rapidly that it can no longer be ignored. In many ways, the expansion of Turkic cooperation is directly in line with American and European policy objectives in Central Asia and the Caucasus. OTS activities are largely complementary to Western policies, while also filling voids that Western powers themselves have proven unwilling or unable to fill. For both the EU and the United States, the role of the OTS in maintaining a balanced international environment in Greater Central Asia has become significant enough that the factors limiting Western engagement with the OTS should not obscure the clear alignment of interests that is at play.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Svante E. Cornell is Research Director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center. 

By Emil Avdaliani

China is closely assessing the outcomes of the November 6 U.S.-Central Asia summit and its implications for the region. From Beijing’s perspective, the relatively active U.S. engagement with this landlocked region is noteworthy but does not constitute a major geopolitical challenge. In terms of actual influence on the ground, China remains in a significantly stronger position. It enjoys geographical proximity to Central Asia and has made substantially larger investments than the U.S. is either able or willing to undertake. These investments span multiple sectors, including education, green energy, physical infrastructure development, and the extraction and processing of natural resources.

                                                           Credit: Wikimedia Commons

BACKGROUND: On November 6, Washington hosted a summit between the U.S. and the five Central Asian republics. The meeting was notable for several reasons. It marked the first time such a summit had been held at the White House and it followed President Trump’s recent bilateral meetings with the leaders of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
Washington approached the summit with a pragmatic agenda. Its priorities were twofold: to secure long-term access to critical mineral resources and to strengthen the Middle Corridor as a reliable route to Central Asia that bypasses sanctioned Russian and Iranian territory.

Notably absent from the discussions were themes that had dominated earlier decades, such as the promotion of human rights, democratization, and the export of Western governance models. This marks a clear departure from the period when the C5+1 format was first introduced under President Obama in 2015. At that time, the initiative was largely designed to counter Russian and Chinese influence, rather than to promote trade and investment from the U.S.

President Trump’s regional policy is explicitly transactional. An agreement with Uzbekistan envisages approximately US$ 100 billion in investments flowing into U.S. industries over the coming years. Kazakhstan, meanwhile, has joined the Abraham Accords and concluded around US$ 17 billion in commercial agreements with the U.S., including a US$ 1 billion joint mining venture.

Cooperation on rare earths has emerged as a particularly promising area. China currently accounts for nearly 70 percent of global rare-earth production and up to 90 percent of processing capacity, which has increased Washington’s interest in diversifying its supply chains. Central Asia holds significant mineral potential, and the basis for cooperation already exists. In 2024, the U.S. and Uzbekistan signed a memorandum of understanding on critical minerals, marking the beginning of more extensive collaboration.

Historically, Central Asia has not occupied a central position in U.S. foreign policy. Limited trade ties and an excessive emphasis on democratization yielded few strategic benefits for Washington. What has changed is the broader geopolitical context. Russia’s war in Ukraine has redirected Moscow’s focus, prompting Central Asian governments to seek greater engagement with other major powers.

IMPLICATIONS: Despite the progress achieved by the U.S. in Central Asia, Washington is unlikely to marginalize China. Geography remains decisive. Any long-term American presence in Central Asia depends on secure access through the South Caucasus. The Armenia–Azerbaijan TRIPP agreement, developed under U.S. supervision, proposes a new transit corridor connecting the two states, but building the required infrastructure will take time. Even so, the Armenian route lacks direct sea access, making the existing Georgian segment of the Middle Corridor the more practical choice for large-scale trade. Ultimately, because China borders the region, logistics are simpler, and Beijing’s expanding military and security role is significant. These factors support China’s increasingly dominant position in regional trade and investment flows.

Assuming that the U.S. seeks to replace China would be a misguided analysis. Under Trump’s second term, Washington has adopted a more transactional approach, favoring a foreign policy largely devoid of human rights and democracy-promotion elements. The U.S. aims to capitalize on the willingness of Central Asian states to diversify their foreign relations, thereby enabling them to reduce their dependence on China, Russia, or other major powers.

Moreover, the U.S. is focused on a limited set of cooperative areas. Resource extraction and processing, as well as the development of east–west infrastructure that would enable exports from Central Asia, are central to Washington’s approach. By contrast, China invests across nearly all sectors of the economy. It actively pursues cooperation in education, security, and military affairs as well. Chinese companies are deeply embedded in almost every sector, ranging from renewable energy and transport to mineral extraction and processing. Uzbekistan alone has recently secured US$ 2.7 billion in Chinese investment in copper and silver projects, while U.S. processing capacity for critical minerals continues to lag far behind that of China. In September, further evidence of China’s enduring influence emerged when energy agreements worth around US$ 1.5 billion were signed during the Kazakh president’s visit to Beijing. In addition, approximately 70 commercial agreements totaling about US$ 15 billion were concluded.

It is therefore unsurprising that, following the Washington summit, China’s top diplomat Wang Yi conducted a tour of Central Asia on November 19-22 to discuss trade and infrastructure issues, underscoring Beijing’s strong position in the region. Bilateral commercial relations continue to expand. In the first ten months of 2025, trade between China and the Central Asian states increased markedly compared with the same period in 2024. In Kyrgyzstan’s case, trade rose from US$ 17.4 billion to US$ 23.6 billion, while trade between Kazakhstan and China increased from US$ 36.5 billion to US$ 39.8 billion. More modest growth was recorded in China’s trade with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Central Asian states also do not seek to expand their ties with the U.S. in ways that could create tensions with China. The summit in Washington did not include cooperation on military and security issues, which are particularly sensitive for Beijing. Central Asian governments are concerned that a strong shift toward the U.S. could increase their geopolitical vulnerability vis-à-vis China. A similar logic shapes Central Asia’s relations with Russia. It is therefore notable that, following the Washington summit, Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev visited Moscow, describing the trip as “perhaps the main event of this year.” Shortly thereafter, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Kyrgyzstan to sign several major agreements and to reaffirm the strength of bilateral relations.

Yet China is building an extraordinarily influential geopolitical position in Central Asia due to the broad multilateral framework through which it has engaged the region. Beijing now regularly hosts summits at the level of heads of state with Central Asian countries, marking a clear elevation from earlier formats in which delegations were led by the Chinese foreign minister or other senior officials. In addition, Central Asian states are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and have joined several China-led initiatives, including the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI), as well as the more recent Global Governance Initiative (GGI).

CONCLUSIONS: The U.S. has intensified its engagement with Central Asia by elevating the level of cooperation with the region. However, its influence remains limited when compared with the range of tools available to China. Geographic proximity, together with increasingly close cooperation between Chinese and Central Asian political elites, provides a strong foundation for bilateral relations. As a result, the summit in Washington is not a major concern for Beijing but is instead viewed as part of a broader and well-established pattern in which Central Asian states engage multiple global actors through summits and major agreements. Central Asian countries also show little inclination to abandon, or even significantly reduce, their close economic and political ties with China in favor of the U.S. Rather, they continue to pursue a policy of multi-alignment, which offers greater flexibility in foreign affairs and does not generate significant concerns in Beijing.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Emil Avdaliani is a research fellow at the Turan Research Center and a professor of international relations at the European University in Tbilisi, Georgia. His research focuses on the history of the Silk Roads and the interests of great powers in the Middle East and the Caucasus.

By Aleksandar Ivanović

During a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in September, U.S. President Donald Trump expressed interest in retaking the Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, citing concerns about monitoring China’s nuclear program. The statement drew immediate opposition from the Taliban and China, while placing Central Asian states in an uncomfortable diplomatic position. The region’s governments must now balance their growing economic partnerships with Taliban-run Afghanistan against potential benefits from renewed U.S. engagement, while maintaining critical relationships with Russia and China.

                                                                      Credit: Get Archives

BACKGROUND: Ever since retaking office in January, Donald Trump’s stance on Afghanistan has been quite clear. The idea of a U.S. presence in the country has quickly faded away since the turbulent withdrawal, for which Trump has publicly expressed his frustration. He criticized it for multiple reasons, partly fueled by his ideological differences with President Joe Biden, as well as concerning the handling of the situation, at times suggesting it should never have happened at all. His recent confrontational attitude turn the spotlight back to the now Taliban-run state, triggering a multitude of responses from regional actors, including open condemnations from the Taliban itself and China.

The Taliban’s Chief of Staff at its Defense Ministry, Fasihuddin Fitrat, has publicly opposed any military intervention in Afghanistan and expressed shortly after Trump’s statements that “ceding even an inch of our soil is out of the question and impossible.” However, according to the White House, the ambitions towards Bagram are driven less by Taliban-run Afghanistan than by a strategic effort to monitor China.

The airbase was first built in the 1950s by the Soviet Union and redeveloped in 2001 following the U.S.-led invasion. It is located 40 miles north of Kabul, and is, according to Trump, close to where China “makes its nuclear weapons.” The closest nuclear weapons test site in China is in Lop Nur, in the Xinjiang region of northwestern China, 1,200 miles from Bagram. The last nuclear test was conducted in 1996; however, recent satellite images have shown probable test-related preparation at the site since 2019, including newly graded access roads in the historic test area.
China has openly expressed its opinion regarding intervention, offering harsh opposition to the U.S. proposal. Foreign ministry spokesperson Lian Jian stated that China respects Afghanistan’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Reports have also uncovered that Beijing invited the Taliban’s Defense Minister, Mulla Yaqub Mujahid, for a visit.

IMPLICATIONS: ​The tense clash in opinions over Bagram has left Central Asian countries, Afghanistan’s northern neighbors, in a complex position. The five states initially hinted at opposition to Trump’s efforts, shown in a joint statement of the Moscow Format of Consultations on Afghanistan, reaffirming their “unwavering support for the establishment of Afghanistan as an independent, united, and peaceful state” and deeming unacceptable “the attempts by countries to deploy their military infrastructure in Afghanistan and neighboring states, since this does not serve the interests of regional peace and stability.”

Central Asian governments have also stressed cooperation with Taliban-run Afghanistan in the past few years, with partnerships that have demonstrated significant resilience and evolution, a dramatic pivot from some initial opposition after the 2021 takeover. The Kazakh-proposed UN Almaty Centre is a notable testimony that became a reality in August. It aims to connect Central Asian governments, UN country teams, the private sector, and regional organizations to foster further initiatives in Afghanistan regarding humanitarian efforts and human rights issues. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan also each expect to conduct US$ 3 billion worth of trade with Afghanistan in 2025 in hopes of fostering regional cooperation and improve the country’s poor economic indicators, which instigate external security challenges like extremism. Supporting a U.S. seizure of Bagram airbase could therefore damage the economic potential of their direct neighbor, which also harbors extreme security threats.

Recent developments between Russia, China, and Afghanistan have added another dimension to the race for investing in Afghanistan, and Central Asian support for a U.S. military intervention would derail their efforts to compete with the main economic and political actors in the region. The issue also contributes to an uneasy diplomatic situation between them and their two largest and most reliable trading partners. China has accelerated infrastructure investments in Afghanistan, including its copper mining project at Mes Aynak, potentially the world’s second-largest copper deposit. Russia formally recognized the Taliban government in July 2025, becoming the first country to do so and facilitating a path for future diplomatic partnerships.
Russia and China have also proven to be more reliable and consistent partners to Central Asian governments than the U.S., which has pivoted its policy in the region on multiple occasions, shifting from joint military initiatives after 9/11, to reduced attention the following decade, to the present effort to revitalize relations. Central Asian states have responded cautiously while simultaneously cooperating with Russia and China.

Siding with regional powers and acknowledging Afghanistan’s territorial integrity is clearly the safest option for these states. However, the White House’s latest gambits, recent trade deals, and U.S. military capabilities could incentivize a shift in their position. Central Asia could access diversified investment opportunities, offering a rare moment to collaborate with the U.S. and change the Western perception surrounding this region. Washington has already helped set this scenario, in recent years paying special attention to Central Asia, a region that was expected to be at the bottom of U.S. priorities since the disengagement with Afghanistan.
​
Trump has praised Central Asian leaders, writing about Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev on his social media accounts. This year, he endorsed a US$ 8 billion deal for Uzbekistan to buy Boeing 787 Dreamliners. President Mirziyoyev later announced other agreements with U.S. firms covering mining, energy, and transport. Similarly, Washington embraced a deal with President Tokayev concerning US$ 4.2 billion worth of freight railroad equipment. Tokayev also held talks at the UN General Assembly with U.S. officials and corporate executives. These economic deals, along with continued U.S. interest in the Middle Corridor, an economic priority for the region, may reorient Central Asia’s stance on the airbase dilemma.

Another benefit is that the Bagram Airbase can potentially serve as a place for shared anti-terrorism intelligence. Central Asia has been plagued by extremist challenges originating from Afghanistan in the past, most notably from ISIS-K, an Islamic State branch that recruits non-Pashtun minority ethnic groups living in the northern region of Afghanistan, like Uzbeks and Tajiks. ISIS-K also includes radicalized extremists from Central Asia, who oppose their home governments in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and travel to Afghanistan to become fighters. Despite being their number one adversary, the Taliban government has failed to suppress ISIS-K attacks in the region, which have continued since the U.S. departure. One example includes the alleged missile attacks in 2022 near the Uzbek border, which the Taliban openly condemned but failed to prevent.
A U.S. presence in Afghanistan can provide new capabilities for combating Afghan security challenges, unavailable to the Taliban and other external powers. These could build on past initiatives, which included U.S. funding of training for Tajik border forces and strategic drone strikes on ISIS-K members in Nangarhar, Afghanistan’s eastern province.

CONCLUSIONS: Central Asia has for now collectively taken a conservative route. They refrain from initiatives that could jeopardize relations with their large and reliable trade partners or the already progressive efforts to rebuild Afghanistan. On a global scale, the region’s economic potential is still emerging, and the regional states seek to build economic relations with multiple external actors to stay on a steady path of economic growth.

The specifics of the Trump administration’s approach towards the Bagram Airbase are also unknown and fraught with significant risks. There are currently no guarantees that this objective is attainable, that it will ensure effective monitoring of China’s nuclear program, or that it will not trigger further conflict. These concerns heavily undermine the credibility of Trump’s statements on the matter, and the lack of official discussions with the Department of Defense or formal endorsements from Congress currently makes a U.S. attempt to retake Bagram highly unlikely.
This could change, however, and a potential takeover of the Bagram Airbase in the future will likely offset Central Asia’s steady economic and political trajectory, which builds on multiple partners. For now, they have decided to lay low and continue focusing on existing economic and security efforts.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Aleksandar Ivanović is a researcher at the American Foreign Policy Council Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

By Farkhod Tolipov

On November 14-15, 2025, the 7th Consultative Meeting of Heads of States (CMHS) of Central Asia took place in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The meeting constituted a milestone in the 34 years of Central Asia integration since 1991. Long-awaited signs of institutionalization of this process emerged alongside the decision to grant Azerbaijan membership in this regional format. This was the hitherto most consequential CMHS, giving rise to potentially serious implications concerning the further evolution of Central Asian regionalism and its geopolitical implications. 



                                                       Credit: Wikimedia Commons

BACKGROUND: Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoev initiated the format of CMHS of Central Asia in 2017; and six meetings have been held since. This new format was introduced after almost 10 years of “frozen” integration from 2006 to 2016, during which the Central Asian states, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, maintained mostly bilateral relations.

Regional integration, which had seen some progress between 1991 and 2005, was interrupted due to the merger of the regional structure Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO) with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Community (EvrAzES) after Russia joined CACO. Central Asian states could not restore their own regional structure until 2018 when the first Consultative Meeting was held in Astana, Kazakhstan. Five consecutive meetings took place in Tashkent, November 2019; in Avaza, Turkmenistan, August 2021; in Cholpon-Ata, Kyrgyzstan, July 2022; in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, September 2023; and in Astana, August 2024.

The CMHS has had a controversial dual effect. They consistently demonstrated seemingly resolute political will to strengthen and advance regional cooperation, while at the same time the participating presidents persistently refrained from rhetorical commitments to integration – perhaps out of concern that stronger integration could undermine their sovereignty. The regional cooperation/integration dilemma has thus constrained strategic choices and visions for the future.

In particular, this tendency was reflected during the 6th CMHS when the presidents adopted the Conception of Regional Cooperation “Central Asia-2040” which does not envisage integration at all. Yet the 7th Meeting included steps towards the establishment of institutions pertinent to a full-fledged regional organization. Although the presidents still avoid speaking in terms of real integration, they decided on four important issues: the creation of a permanent Secretariat; renaming the CMHS “Central Asian Community”; raising the status of National Coordinators of Consultative Meetings to Special Representatives of Heads of States; and adopting the Conception of Regional Security based on the Catalog of Risks.

However, the most controversial decision was the admission of Azerbaijan to the “C5” structure.

IMPLICATIONS: The first institutional forms of regional integration in Central Asia were set up in the 1990s. At that time, institutions such as the Council of Heads of States, the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and other Councils were created, and attempts were even made to establish a Central Asian parliament. Central Asian leaders now make efforts to revitalize the initial integration process, albeit without articulating the very concept of “integration.”

The preceding six CMHS have yielded important experiences in terms of maintaining the impulse and rhetoric of regionalism as such. Moreover, the CMHS not only reintroduced the regional format of cooperation but also stipulated a geopolitical recalibration in and around Central Asia. One manifestation of this is the proliferation of so-called “C5+1” formats which reflected, among other things, the emerging regional order in Central Asia.

It was expected that Uzbekistan, as the initiator of CMHS and chair of the 7th Meeting in Tashkent, would push the pro-integration agenda forward. This intention appeared successful. Renaming the regional format the Central Asian Community (CAC) associates with the Central Asian Economic Community (CAEC) which functioned between 1994 and 2000. The successful operation of CAEC led the overall process of creating CACO. Hopefully, CAC can also promote stronger political unity among the states concerned. However, the new name must signify not only a positive disposition but also the real new political status of this community of five states. The “old” challenges remain in this “new” stage when it comes to their constantly repeated mantra about conducting common foreign policy concerning key international and regional issues.

A significant decision in this regard was taken regarding the Concept of regional security and stability as well as the Catalogue of security risks in Central Asia and measures to address them for 2026-2028. The idea of establishing a regional security architecture was articulated also in the previous CMHS. This is, indeed, a very crucial strategic task to be addressed urgently, requiring coordination of foreign policies. The content of the Catalogue clarifies what these risks are and how the regional security system will be created. Indeed, since Central Asian states have strategic partnership agreements and alliance relationships with each other, now is the time to test them by agreeing on the Catalogue to address regional security challenges.

Mirziyoev also proposed another, normative, idea: “based on our values and traditions of public diplomacy, we believe it would be appropriate to create a Council of Elders consisting of renowned public figures with extensive life experience. We believe this will contribute to generational continuity in our countries, as well as to strengthening regional solidarity and identity.” This message points to the importance of a common regional identity for the peoples of Central Asia. It was a call to engage citizens in regional integration and bring this process to the broader public. Indeed, broader involvement of civil society in regional integration has hitherto been lacking and this was a signal to the Central Asian public to contribute to making the region a real community.

In Tashkent, the five presidents were accompanied by Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliev. The summit adopted the decision to admit Azerbaijan into the Central Asian structure, which gave rise to a number of questions regarding the transformation of the five-lateral CMHS format into a six-lateral one and producing an equation with one unknown variable. Azerbaijan is a South Caucasian state, not a Central Asian one. How this seemingly bi-regional format will evolve in terms of future integration remains to be seen.

Uzbekistan’s former foreign minister Abdulaziz Komilov noted in an interview that Azerbaijan joining the CMHS as a member created a new geopolitical reality. The admission of Russia into CACO in 2004 was fatal for this organization and destroyed it. Azerbaijan, in contrast, is not an imperial state and does not have hegemonic ambitions. Azerbaijan’s membership in CMHS coincides with the transformation of this format into CAC.

Azerbaijan already has close relations to Central Asian states; together with Azerbaijan, four Central Asian states (excluding Tajikistan) are members of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS). Azerbaijan is also a geopolitically experienced state and can in many respects pose a good example for Central Asians. At the same time, its membership in CMHS can profoundly impact the regional integration process. Whether Baku can play a special geopolitical role in Central Asia depends on its ability to contribute to what Central Asians have so far lacked in their regional and international actions – a single agency in the international system. The extent to which they will be able to achieve this together with Azerbaijan remains an open question.

The Tashkent summit also gave rise to another surge of criticism in Russian media and analytical circles. Especially Azerbaijan’s intensified participation in Central Asian regional affairs was described as a cause for concern and as concealing a pro-Western geopolitical design.

CONCLUSIONS: Previous CMHS have produced several positive statements and documents. The time has now come to address crucial practical questions regarding the new institutional structures agreed upon. Determining the actual content of the Catalog of Risks is an important issue. So is the status of the newly instituted high-ranking Special Representatives, and whether they will become more visible and engage with the broader public. Stronger visibility will undoubtedly motivate broader public engagement and thereby add more dynamism to the integration process. Another important issue is whether the Secretariat will be a transparent structure. It should avoid the risks of becoming overly bureaucratic and becoming preoccupied with the narrow interest in maintaining national sovereignty at all costs.

It also remains to be seen whether Azerbaijan’s membership is only eclectic – a mechanical expansion for the sake of showcasing regionalism; or a strategic enlargement based on a long-term and well calculated decision for the sake of confronting a new round of geopolitical challenges.

The Central Asian five-lateral format will experience a new round of geopolitical challenges related to great power rivalry in and around this region, especially in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine; the diversification of international transport and other connectivity in Central Asian states; and the rising profile of Central Asia in terms of its strategic autonomy in the international system.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Farkhod Tolipov holds a PhD in Political Science and is Director of the Education and Research Institution “Bilim Karvoni” (“Knowledge Caravan”) in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.