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

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)