International Affairs - The Times Of Central Asia

Viewing results 1 - 6 of 1560

C5+1

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio Plans Visit to Central Asia in 2026

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday his intention to visit all five Central Asian countries in 2026. Rubio made the statement during a meeting with the foreign ministers of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The visit is part of a broader diplomatic initiative by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to strengthen ties with the resource-rich region. Today, the presidents of the five Central Asian republics, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev (Kazakhstan), Sadyr Japarov (Kyrgyzstan), Emomali Rahmon (Tajikistan), Serdar Berdimuhamedov (Turkmenistan), and Shavkat Mirziyoyev (Uzbekistan), are scheduled to meet with President Trump in Washington. The summit is expected to focus on cooperation in the extraction of rare earth elements and other natural resources in Central Asia. Rubio emphasized the alignment of U.S. and Central Asian interests in promoting responsible and sustainable development of the extractive sector. “You are seeking to use the resources that God has blessed your countries with to create responsible development and diversify your economies,” he said at a reception hosted by the State Department. “I personally intend to visit in the coming year. All five [countries], so I know it would probably be a week-long trip. So we’ve got to work on that and make that happen together.” U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau stated that the invitation extended to Central Asian leaders is part of President Trump’s personal initiative to deepen engagement with the region. He highlighted broad opportunities for cooperation in business, investment, and strategic partnerships. Also speaking at the reception, Republican Senator James Risch said he intends to introduce legislation to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a Cold War-era law that restricts U.S. trade with non-market economies.

Central Asia-U.S. Summit

Deals, Not Declarations: U.S.–Central Asia Cooperation at Summit Crossroads

A landmark summit between the United States and the five Central Asian republics is scheduled for November 6 in Washington, D.C., bringing together the presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. It will be the second leaders-level C5+1 meeting with a U.S. president—the first took place on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in 2023—and the first time the format is hosted in the U.S. capital. The gathering also marks the 10th anniversary of the C5+1 diplomatic platform that connects Central Asia with Washington. The summit comes at a pivotal moment geopolitically; Russia remains consumed by its war in Ukraine, whilst China continues to expand its Belt and Road footprint across Eurasia. As the region’s strategic importance grows, both the United States and the Central Asian states see an opportunity to recalibrate their relationships, each approaching the meeting with distinct priorities and expectations. Washington’s Agenda: Critical Minerals and Connectivity For the United States, this summit is about converting diplomatic engagement into tangible deliverables. Officials want to see results in three main areas: critical minerals, regional connectivity, and security coordination. Congress and the administration view the region’s reserves of antimony, tungsten, uranium, and rare earth elements as essential to securing U.S. supply chains. During his October 2025 visit to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau emphasized expanding cooperation on critical minerals and trade diversification. The Trump administration has prioritized these resources as part of a broader effort to reduce dependence on China. Trade routes are also in focus. The U.S. supports the Middle Corridor, a trans-Caspian route that links Central Asia with the South Caucasus and Europe. Infrastructure investments that bypass Russia are strategically important, and Washington wants to help harmonize customs and logistics to make that corridor more viable. These priorities form part of a wider push to anchor the region in transparent, market-based supply chains that connect Central Asia more directly with Western markets. Kazakhstan: Trade Normalization and Resource Investment Central Asia’s largest economy, Kazakhstan is expected to push for permanent normal trade relations with the U.S. The country still faces Cold War-era restrictions under the Jackson-Vanik amendment – as do Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan - with Astana long having viewed its repeal as a key milestone. That push has taken on new importance after Washington imposed a 25% tariff on Kazakh imports in mid-2025 - though Kazakh exports were exempted shortly thereafter - a move viewed by officials in Astana as inconsistent with efforts to expand economic cooperation. Kazakhstan is also looking to the U.S. for support in developing its mineral wealth. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s government is actively mapping new rare earth deposits, and Washington has recently backed a private American bid to reopen Kazakhstan’s long-idle tungsten mine at Upper Kairakty, underscoring growing U.S. interest in Central Asia’s critical minerals sector. The two sides are also expanding industrial ties: in September 2025, Astana signed a $4.2 billion deal with U.S. rail manufacturer Wabtec to modernize Kazakhstan’s locomotive fleet and develop regional transport corridors...

Middle Powers

Which Central Asian States Qualify as Middle Powers in 2025?

As global power shifts toward multipolarity, Central Asia’s states are emerging as active regional players. This article assesses which of the five republics—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan—qualify as middle powers in 2025, based on economic strength, diplomatic reach, strategic capacity, and governance. Kazakhstan stands as the region’s only consolidated middle power, balancing fiscal stability, institutional reform, and multi-vector diplomacy. Uzbekistan is a rising aspirant, propelled by reforms but still reliant on external financing and centralized authority. The remaining states remain constrained by dependence and limited institutional depth. Together, they reflect a region increasingly capable of shaping, rather than merely absorbing, global and regional change. A comparative analysis of five Central Asian republics shows how far each has advanced toward this status. [vc_row][vc_column][vc_raw_html css=""]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_column_text css="" woodmart_inline="no" text_larger="no"] As global power shifts toward multipolarity, Central Asia’s states are emerging as active regional players. This article assesses which of the five republics—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan—qualify as middle powers in 2025, based on economic strength, diplomatic reach, strategic capacity, and governance. Kazakhstan stands as the region’s only consolidated middle power, balancing fiscal stability, institutional reform, and multi-vector diplomacy. Uzbekistan is a rising aspirant, propelled by reforms but still reliant on external financing and centralized authority. The remaining states remain constrained by dependence and limited institutional depth. Together, they reflect a region increasingly capable of shaping, rather than merely absorbing, global and regional change. A comparative analysis of five Central Asian republics shows how far each has advanced toward this status. Economic Power Economic autonomy is a defining attribute of middle-power capability, enabling states to project influence, sustain policy independence, and finance external engagement. In Central Asia, dependence on Official Development Assistance (ODA) and remittances often reflects constrained fiscal capacity and limited domestic capital formation, while diversified, resilient economies underpin strategic autonomy. Key indicators—GDP per capita, credit ratings, debt sustainability, and export diversification—illuminate the region’s economic hierarchy. Kazakhstan stands as Central Asia’s only consolidated economic middle power. Resource-backed growth, a prudent fiscal regime, and a sovereign wealth fund (the National Fund of Kazakhstan) have anchored macroeconomic stability. With a “BBB” credit rating or equivalent from major agencies, Kazakhstan demonstrates sound debt management and policy credibility. Ongoing diversification efforts under the new economic policies—from renewables to financial modernization—aim to reduce hydrocarbon dependence and deepen integration into global supply chains. Its role as a trans-Caspian logistics hub enhances both strategic and commercial influence. Uzbekistan, by contrast, is an emerging frontier market propelled by post-2017 reforms in currency liberalization, taxation, and state-enterprise restructuring. Rapid GDP growth and expanding private-sector activity mark its trajectory toward fiscal autonomy, though continued ODA inflows averaging around $1.1 billion to 1.3 billion annually, primarily from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, and bilateral partners such as Japan, the United States, and the European Union, highlight its residual dependence on external concessional financing. To achieve genuine middle power status, Uzbekistan must roughly double its real economic output over the next decade, a scale of growth aligned with the shift...

Afghanistan

Afghanistan Restores Power Imports from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan After Earthquake

A powerful earthquake that struck northern Afghanistan on November 2 caused significant destruction and disrupted electricity imports from neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, according to Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS), the country’s national power company. The earthquake damaged two major transmission lines, Nayibabad to Samangan and Kholm to Pul-e-Khumri, severing power supplies from Uzbekistan to several provinces, including Kabul, Baghlan, Parwan, Panjshir, Kapisa, Logar, Paktia, Ghazni, and Maidan Wardak. Electricity imported from Tajikistan to Kunduz was also interrupted, leaving large swathes of northern Afghanistan without power. Technical teams were immediately deployed to assess the damage and begin restoration work. The U.S. Geological Survey reported that the 6.3-magnitude quake struck at a depth of 28 kilometers near Mazar-i-Sharif. Tremors were felt across multiple provinces, including Samangan, Balkh, and the capital, Kabul. The cities of Aybak, Mazar-i-Sharif, Maymana, Takhar, Kunduz, and Sar-e-Pul experienced the strongest shocks. According to CNN, at least 27 people were killed and more than 950 injured, citing Dr. Sharafat Zaman Amar, spokesperson for Afghanistan’s Ministry of Public Health. The quake also damaged one of the country’s historic mosques in the north. DABS confirmed that electricity imports have now been fully restored, including the damaged 220-kilovolt transmission line from Tajikistan. On November 3, the company’s spokesperson told TOLONews that imports from both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan had been interrupted due to the earthquake. DABS representative Mohammad Sadiq Haqparast said, “Our technical teams are working diligently to restore both transmission lines as quickly as possible.” Following the disruption, Kabul residents urged the government to accelerate repairs, emphasizing that stable and reliable access to electricity remains a critical concern, particularly in the capital. Afghanistan is heavily reliant on imported electricity, receiving over 720 megawatts from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran. These imports cost the country between $250 million and $280 million annually. Separately, on the sidelines of the International Conference and Exhibition on Energy, Construction Affairs, Industry and Development of Chemicals of Turkmenistan-2025, DABS General Director Dr. Abdul Bari Omar met with Turkmen Deputy Cabinet Minister Batur Amanov. Their discussions focused on key regional energy projects, including the 500 kV transmission line, the TAPI gas pipeline, and the electrification of Bala Murghab district. The meeting underscored the importance of regional cooperation in bolstering Afghanistan’s energy infrastructure.

Higher Education

Moscow International Relations University Opens Branch in Astana

The Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), a leading Russian university affiliated to Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has officially opened a branch at L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University in Astana. On November 1, the inaugural class of 103 students at the new MGIMO Astana campus received their student ID cards from Kazakhstan’s Minister of Science and Higher Education, Sayasat Nurbek, and MGIMO Rector Anatoly Torkunov. According to Torkunov, the academic programs at the Astana branch are designed to train specialists for key sectors of Kazakhstan’s economy, business, and international relations. Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Science and Higher Education reported that MGIMO Astana currently offers two undergraduate programs, World Mineral Resources and Energy Markets and Analysis and Modeling of Socioeconomic and Business Processes, as well as two master’s programs: Financial Economics and Financial Technologies and Multilateral Institutions and Management of Global Technological Development. Artem Malgin, director of the MGIMO Astana branch, noted that undergraduate students will spend two semesters studying in Moscow, while master’s students will study there for one semester. Courses at the branch are taught by faculty from both MGIMO and the Eurasian National University. MGIMO Astana is the university’s second international campus. Its first overseas branch, MGIMO Tashkent, opened in Uzbekistan and currently offers six undergraduate and graduate programs tailored to the local academic context and taught by MGIMO faculty.

U.S.-Central Asia Summit

Opinion: A Trump Visit to Central Asia Would Deliver Results and Anchor a Corridor Strategy

On November 6, Washington will host the C5+1 leaders’ summit, marking the format’s 10th anniversary and signaling a rare alignment of political attention and regional appetite for concrete outcomes. The date is confirmed by regional and U.S.-focused reporting, with Kazakhstan’s presidency and multiple outlets noting heads-of-state attendance in the U.S. capital. This timing is decisive. Russia’s bandwidth is constrained by the war in Ukraine, China’s trade weight in Central Asia has grown, and European demand for secure inputs and routes has intensified. All these developments together create a window where a visible United States presence can meaningfully alter the deal flow. A visit sequenced off the November C5+1 will attach U.S. political attention to minerals, corridors, and standards that regional governments already prioritize, confirming the conversion of the summit's symbolism into leverage. Washington already has the instruments but has lacked a synchronized presence. Development finance, export credit, and C5+1 working groups exist, yet announcements have too often outpaced commissioning. A targeted tour could unveil named offtakes, corridor slot guarantees, and training compacts. This would move from the dialogue to bankable packages if paired with financing envelopes, posted schedules, and third-party verification. Deals, dates, and delivery would make operational signals clear to partners and competitors alike. Strategic Rationale and Operating Concept The United States has three clear goals. These are to diversify critical minerals away from single-point dependency on China, de-risk trans-Eurasian routes that connect Asian manufacturing to European demand, and reinforce the sovereignty of the states in the region without pressuring them to choose sides in great-power competition over other issues. These imperatives already guide the national-security strategies of Central Asian governments, which implement them according to multi-vector doctrines. A presidential visit that treats minerals, corridors, and standards as a single package would show that Washington is prepared to move forward on the same problem set that the region has defined for itself. The ways to do that are through finance-first diplomacy and an end-to-end corridor approach, including the Caspian crossing. Finance-first diplomacy pairs every political announcement with insurance, offtake letters, and term sheets (short non-binding summaries of key commercial and legal terms for a proposed deal). These signal the intention to convert declarations into commissioning. An end-to-end corridor approach accepts the physical reality that Central Asian outputs move west through Central Asia, across the Caspian Sea, and across the South Caucasus, with Azerbaijan functioning as the hinge that makes Europe reachable at scale. Each element of the “minerals–corridors–standards” triad reinforces the others when the whole is pursued as a single program. Reliable customs and traceability raise corridor credibility, which raises project bankability, which in turn attracts the private capital required for mineral processing. The instrumentalities for this already exist. The C5+1 framework can be tasked to track deliverables; the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) can cover risk and long-term debt; aid and technical programs of the Department of State and Commerce can align standards, procurement integrity, and traceable supply chains; U.S. universities and labs can...