Commentary: Central Asia is safer together

Whilst it is often the case that the five Central Asian republics are lumped together and seen by outsiders as one group, in truth there are between them huge differences, a lot of competition, some rivalry, and every now and then, some conflict, writes the commonspace.eu editorial team.

The big two, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, are often perceived to be in competition with each other. The two have different strengths and weaknesses, which means that if they play their cards right they can turn this competition into a healthy collaborative relationship with a win-win situation.

This is what appears to be happening at the moment.

Kazakh President, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, met his Uzbek counterpart Shavkat Mirziyoyev in Shymkent on 3 March to discuss “trade and prospects for strengthening allied relations between the two countries”. The Kazakh presidential administration described the meeting as “informal”.

The two leaders appear to have two priorities. The first is to co-ordinate positions in the face of what appears to be considerable pressure from Moscow for the two countries to tow the line and stay in the fold, at a time when the Kremlin feels embattled due to the ongoing war in Ukraine. 

The second priority of the two presidents seems to be a desire to ensure that the many documents on major areas of co-operation, including the treaty on allied relations and an agreement on border demarcation, which they signed during Tokayev’s state visit to Tashkent in December 2022, are realised and fulfilled.  The 40 agreements signed in December envisioned 40 economic initiatives worth $2.5 billion. 

The official statement at the end of the meeting said that: 

“in Shymkent, the presidents focused on trade and economic cooperation, including opportunities for strengthening mutual trade, attracting investments, and expanding collaboration in the industrial, energy, agricultural, transportation, and logistics sectors. They also exchanged views on regional issues.”

Both countries are very cautiously exploring political reforms, and more boldly, seeking economic reform. The two leaders are firmly entrenched, but are vulnerable to threats, including from their own elites. They appear to be developing strong personal bonds, which can be very useful, especially in times of crisis.

The meeting in Shymkent came immediately after the two leaders received in their respective capitals US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. Making a point of going to both Astana and Tashkent, Blinken once more emphasised the importance of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in the region, and no doubt encouraged the two to increase the co-operation between them.

Image
a
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Central Asian foreign ministers last week. westernslopenow.com

Blinken signals a firm but nuanced US approach to Central Asia

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Central Asia last week, first going to Astana where he met President Tokayev and where he participated in the regular meeting of the C5+1 – a forum bringing together the five Central Asian nations with the United States. He then went on to Tashkent to meet President Mirziyoyev.

In the region Blinken took the opportunity to restate the US position towards the Central Asian republics namely, “enduring support for their sovereignty, for their independence, for their territorial integrity”, and US “determination that each be able to determine their own futures consistent with those principles.”

But Blinken was quick to also add the economic dimension of the US relationship with the region. He stated:

“a big part of the work that we’re doing here is to help the region diversify trade relationships, to build new partnerships and relationships with other countries, including with the United States, so they’re not dependent on any one country or any one source for trade and investment, and at the same time to increase trade and investment within Central Asia itself.  There’s a very strong potential market here, and the more connectivity we have among the countries of Central Asia, the more collaboration we have, the stronger that market’s going to be, the more investment it’s going to attract from outside of Central Asia.”

Blinken however made it clear that the US will move cautiously:

“Central Asia is in a complicated part of the world with longstanding relationships with different countries based on history, based on geography, and that’s something that we well understand. But I think we also see each of these countries looking to multiply and deepen their relationships and partnerships with other countries around the world.  And in that, the United States wants to be a steadfast partner and a partner that works with them to create new opportunities for people in this region and new opportunities for us to work together.”

The visit of the US Secretary of State to Central Asia was as timely as it was important. As the region works to break out of its Russian straightjacket, an intelligent and well calibrated US approach is hugely important.

Image
a
Non-Aligned Movement meeting on COVID-19 recovery on 2 March 2023 in Baku. APA.

 Guests of honour in Baku

On 2 March, Azerbaijan hosted a meeting of the contact group of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) focusing on the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Azerbaijan currently holds the Chairmanship of the Movement, which has around 120 member states, mostly in the global south. Whilst most delegations were led by the vice-presidents, prime ministers or foreign ministers, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were represented by their presidents, and they were clearly the guests of honour at the event.

Baku has been seeking for some time to nurture relations with the Central Asian republics and it appears to be making progress. Azerbaijan is keen to consolidate connectivity links with Central Asia, and to provide the alternative corridor for the export of energy and other goods from the region to European markets. But there is also a political angle. Azerbaijan has generally been supported by Central Asian countries in its dispute with Armenia. It also sees the Central Asian republics as allies in its efforts to manage relations with Moscow. 

So the presence in Baku of the presidents of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan was very well received by the Azerbaijani leadership, and reflects a broader sense of increased co-operation between Azerbaijan and the Central Asian region.

source: commonspace.eu editorial team
photo: Akorda press service
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

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).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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)