Central Asia affected by the two southern border wars, and Kazakhstan votes to replace the country’s constitution

Already navigating competing geopolitical pressures since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Central Asian countries now face new spillover effects from two southern conflicts. The first conflict affecting the region is the “open warfare” between Afghanistan and Pakistan that has been ongoing since late February. At the core of the conflict is Pakistan’s claim that the Afghan Taliban is allowing the militant group, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), to operate from Afghan territory, an allegation that the Afghan Taliban consistently denies. Although Pakistan and Afghanistan have agreed to a ceasefire for Eid al Fitr, the situation remains highly volatile. While none of the five republics have been directly involved in this conflict, they all face its spillover economic and security burdens.  

Despite the Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan in 2021, Central Asian states have continued to advocate for cautious economic integration and the development of trade routes through Afghanistan, viewing these as potential means to reduce instability in the country. The republics view Afghanistan as a critical gateway to accessing markets in India and have long discussed possibilities of rail and energy links connecting Central Asia to South Asia. However, the conflict has led the five republics to question whether these trade routes are strategically viable. In addition, concerns around border security, illicit trafficking, and the potential of a high influx of refugees fleeing war have become priorities for Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, which share a border with Afghanistan. 

The second conflict that is affecting the region is the war launched by Israel and the United States against Iran, which began on 28 February. As with the conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the landlocked republics’ trade routes are the ones mainly affected. The war in Iran significantly disrupts two key transport corridors: the International North–South Transport Corridor (linking Russia, the Caspian Sea, Iran, and India) and the southern branch of the Eurasian East–West corridor passing through Iran. 

While the previous issue of Central Asia Concise has discussed the negative impact of this conflict on the five republics, it is important to recognise that the rising oil prices as a result of the Hormuz Crisis have had a positive impact on Kazakhstan, which is a major oil exporter. Turkmenistan may also benefit, albeit to a lesser extent. Its economy is heavily dependent on natural gas exports, primarily to China, and while it is not a significant oil exporter, gas pricing is partly linked to oil and broader energy market trends. As a result, higher oil prices can translate into increased revenues, though the effect is more indirect. Uzbekistan is in a more mixed position; it produces some oil and gas but not at levels that make it a major exporter, and it remains partly dependent on energy imports. As a result, higher oil prices generate limited gains alongside economic pressures for Uzbekistan. For the energy-importing economies of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, rising oil prices create economic pressures.  

The five republics will need to strengthen cooperation on both economic and security matters to mitigate the spillover effects of these two conflicts.

Kazakhstan votes to replace its constitution

In the midst of these conflicts, on Sunday (15 March), Kazakhstan held a national referendum on a new constitution, marking an important political moment for the country. Voters were asked whether they approve of the proposed constitution, which suggests modernizing governance by clarifying the roles of state institutions, recreating the office of the vice president, strengthening legal frameworks, and improving the protection of fundamental rights. According to the Central Election Commission of Kazakhstan, more than 85 percent voted in favour of the new constitutional draft, with preliminary figures indicating that more than 72 percent of Kazakhstan’s eligible voters took part.

Kate Mallinson argues in her article for Chatham House that when it comes to the proposed changes in Kazakhstan, “China is likely to welcome the transition to a more stable and institutionalized system more akin to its own. But Russia will be wary that the new constitution cements Kazakhstan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of increasing Russian attempts to assert its influence.” 

Human Rights Watch has warned that certain proposed changes could weaken checks on executive power and introduce new restrictions on civil society, including limits on foreign funding for political parties and NGOs, as well as increased reporting requirements. Moreover,  there are concerns as the draft removes the reference to international law taking precedence over domestic law. 

Proponents of the new constitution argue that the new constitution would “initiate a process of moving Kazakhstan away from authoritarianism towards a system featuring stronger checks and balances.” Whether the new constitution achieves these goals depends on how its 95 provisions will be interpreted and applied.  

Source: This briefing was first published on Central Asia Concise on 19 March 2026

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)