Opinions - The Times Of Central Asia

Viewing results 67 - 72 of 266

Central Asia-China Summit

Opinion: Xi Jinping Heads to Astana – What’s at Stake in the Central Asia-China Summit?

On June 16-17, President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China will visit Kazakhstan. The second Central Asia-China summit is scheduled for June 17 in Astana. Leading up to the event, a series of forums, meetings, and conferences have been unfolding across Central Asia and China, drawing experts, journalists, diplomats, and energy-sector representatives. These activities suggest that the upcoming summit is poised to overshadow its predecessor. While U.S. analysts continue debating the viability of their own C5+1 framework for engaging with Central Asia, and the European Union advanced its outreach with the inaugural EU-Central Asia summit, China has relied on a well-worn path. The thousand-year legacy of the Middle Kingdom is filled with moments when it had to engage with the complex mosaic of Central Asia, once a turbulent region of khanates, emirates, and nomadic tribes. Despite the chaos, China succeeded in carving out a secure overland corridor, the Great Silk Road, which threaded through what are now the independent Central Asian republics, linking them like beads in a continental necklace. Then, as now, China is seeking stability in the region, not just for political influence but to safeguard its global supply chains. Beijing’s modern initiatives, including the Belt and Road Initiative and its broader “community of shared future” concept, aim to establish global “islands of comfort” conducive to Chinese interests. At the heart of this strategy lies a deeply embedded worldview: that China represents civilization itself. The Chinese learned long ago to deal with their neighbors not with violence, but through economic incentives, a method which is proving just as effective today. This layer of understanding is notably absent in many Western and post-Soviet analyses of China’s actions in Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and beyond. The reasons for this are twofold. First, Chinese officials are careful never to state views about cultural hierarchies explicitly; doing so would risk alienating partners. This reticence is a feature of traditional Eastern diplomacy. Second, Beijing has cultivated its own expert ecosystem within the post-Soviet sphere. In response to a wave of Sinophobia that swept through Central Asia a decade ago, China now primarily engages with favorable media outlets and Sinologists, many of whom are nurtured through carefully managed media tours. One such tour, organized by People’s Daily, is currently underway ahead of the Astana summit. As a result, the discourse surrounding the summit is shaped less by hard policy proposals than by diplomatic pageantry, with everything presented in the best possible light. At the recent 5th Forum of Think Tanks, “Central Asia-China: New Horizons for Regional Partnership,” Kazakhstan's State Councilor Yerlan Karin likened China and Central Asia to “the two lungs of Asia,” emphasizing the symbolic depth of their growing relationship. The 6th Central Asia-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, chaired by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and held in Almaty in April, likewise offered little in terms of concrete summit outcomes. According to a general statement from Kazakhstan’s Foreign Ministry, topics included political dialogue, trade, connectivity, sustainable development, and security cooperation,...

4th India-Central Asia Dialogue

Opinion: Strengthening the Silk Bonds — India’s Renewed Push Towards Central Asia

The velvet-draped tables of New Delhi’s 4th India-Central Asia Dialogue convened under the stewardship of External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar on June 6, 2025, radiated congeniality, with history and strategy converging. This high-level engagement, attended by foreign ministers from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, marked more than a diplomatic ritual — it signaled India's deepening resolve to recalibrate its strategic posture in a region too long shaped by other powers. Yet beneath pledges of shared civilizational futures and energy corridors, an uncomfortable truth lingered as India remains a guest, not a player, in Central Asia’s great power theatre. Further, India’s internal socio-political landscape presents notable challenges that inadvertently shape its foreign policy credibility, particularly in the eyes of Central Asian nations. Persistent communal tensions — most visibly manifested in the Hindu-Muslim divide, the controversial demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, and the politically charged construction of the Ram Mandir — have deepened perceptions of religious polarization. Such domestic developments, while largely internal, resonate beyond India’s borders, especially in the Muslim-majority Central Asian republics, raising concerns about inclusivity and pluralism in India’s governance model. Simultaneously, India’s strained relations with key neighbors — Pakistan, and China, and increasingly volatile dynamics with Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka — have reinforced a regional image of discord and inconsistency. These internal and regional complexities contribute to a trust deficit, making Central Asian countries cautious in placing long-term strategic confidence in India. For New Delhi to emerge as a dependable partner in the region, addressing internal fissures and presenting a coherent, inclusive national vision is as vital as economic or diplomatic outreach. Central Asia sits at the center of ancient trade routes and modern geopolitical competition. For India, its importance is twofold: the region is a bridge to Eurasia and a repository of energy resources critical to India’s growing economy. But India’s historical connectivity to Central Asia — through the Silk Road, shared cultural legacies, and spiritual exchanges — has, for decades, been overshadowed by geographic and political barriers, notably the lack of direct overland access due to Pakistan. Recognizing these constraints, the dialogue showcased a strategic pivot. India reaffirmed its commitment to enhancing regional connectivity through the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the Chabahar Port in Iran. While geopolitical instability in Iran and Afghanistan poses challenges, India's emphasis on multimodal routes demonstrates pragmatic flexibility. In an era defined by supply chain resilience and multipolar geopolitics, connectivity is no longer just an infrastructure question — it is a currency of influence. The dialogue also addressed the evolving regional security architecture. India’s proposal for counter-terrorism cooperation, capacity building, and intelligence sharing was timely and necessary. However, the dialogue echoed with familiar refrains, viz. civilizational bonds, shared destiny, and multipolar cooperation. Yet beneath the diplomatic choreography lies a haunting question. Can India transcend its historical role as Central Asia’s cultural cousin to become its strategic confidant? History whispers caution. The Burden of History: From Silk Roads to Shadow Roads For centuries, the Silk Road...

Sports

Opinion: What Uzbekistan’s FIFA World Cup Breakthrough Tells Us About State-Building

When Uzbekistan's goalkeeper Utkir Yusupov made those crucial saves against the UAE last night, securing his country's first-ever FIFA World Cup qualification, he was putting the finishing touches to a decade-long story about how nations build capacity, and what happens when they finally get it right. Uzbekistan's journey to the 2026 World Cup is not just a sports story. Go deeper, and you'll find something more interesting: a case study in institutional development. The Numbers Don't Lie Consider what Uzbekistan has pulled off in recent years. At Rio 2016, the country won 13 Olympic medals, placing 21st globally. In Tokyo, they obtained three gold medals despite disruptions caused by the pandemic. Uzbekistan achieved its best-ever performance at the Paris Olympics, securing 13 medals (8 gold, 2 silver, and 3 bronze), placing them 13th overall in the medal standings, first among post-Soviet states, and fourth among Asian nations overall. But the real story is the systematic nature of their success. Seven of those 13 Rio medals came in boxing alone, with three golds. At the 2023 World Boxing Championships in Tashkent, Uzbek fighters received five gold medals, the tournament's best overall performance. Boxers also dominated the Paris Olympics, bringing five gold medals to the national team’s account. Uzbekistan’s youth football teams have been even more dominant: AFC U-23 champions in 2018, U-20 Asian Cup winners in 2023, and U-17 continental champions twice since 2012. This is not random. Big tournaments reward institutional capacity, not just individual talent. Success on this scale requires functional sports federations, coherent youth development systems, and the kind of long-term planning that only works when bureaucracies can actually implement policies rather than just announce them. Small Economy, Outsized Results What makes Uzbekistan's breakthrough particularly striking is the economic context. Uzbekistan is not Germany or Japan leveraging massive GDP advantages. Uzbekistan's sports budget doubled to roughly $230 million by 2025, serious money for the country, but pocket change compared to what traditional powers spend. Yet they're outperforming nations with far deeper pockets. Their junior teams dominate youth football rankings. Their boxers routinely defeat athletes from wealthier countries. That efficiency ratio, results per dollar invested, suggests something important is happening at the governance level. The government has built over a hundred new sports facilities while doubling coaches' salaries. President Mirziyoyev's Presidential Olympics program scouts talent across all regions, attracting the best prospects to national training centers. Athletes now receive meaningful incentives: houses, cars, and scholarships. This is a systematic investment with clear metrics and accountability. The Quiet Politics of Athletic Success Sports remain one of the few arenas where state effectiveness can reveal itself without the outsized intrusion of politics. You can't fake your way to consistent Olympic medals or sustained success in FIFA youth competitions. These achievements require multiple sectors - education, healthcare, and urban planning - to function in coordination. Uzbekistan's sporting surge coincides with broader signs of improved state capacity under Mirziyoyev's administration. The infrastructure investments are real. The youth development programs are producing measurable results....

Trump Administration

Opinion: How the Emerging Trump Doctrine Played at Astana International Forum

With His Riyadh Allocution, Trump Ripped Up the Foreign Policy Playbook The May 29–30 Astana International Forum (AIF) in Kazakhstan drew thousands of attendees — heads of state, senior diplomats, and entrepreneurs — eager for insights into Central Asia’s rising global significance. Topics ranged from foreign policy and water management to energy, trade, and economic integration. A key message from the organizers was that Middle Powers — Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Türkiye, South Africa, Argentina, and others — should serve as bridges to peace and solidarity amid growing global polarization and Great Power conflict. Unsurprisingly, lots of folk were trying to horn in on business opportunities – mainly agriculture, mining, and metals, of which there is an abundance in the region. Yet the real buzz in the hallways and cafés wasn’t about panel discussions, raw materials, or the next sound bite for the press. What had international policy mavens all atwitter was President Trump’s unexpected speech in Saudi Arabia – which might well prove to be the Trump Doctrine: global crises, he said, are better resolved through diplomacy and mutually beneficial business partnerships, not bayonets, diktat, and moral sermonizing. That message, coming from the President of the United States, landed with force. During the three days I spent in Astana, I noticed that many delegates who normally spoke in well-rehearsed sound bites designed not to offend, suddenly spoke more bluntly, even going off-script. They dropped the cautious language and the standard foreign policy group-speak. What was going on? Was this the Trump effect? My guess is that Trump’s Riyadh allocution was intended to rip up the decades-old foreign policy playbook of Brussels, London, and prior U.S. administrations. Instead of promoting the globalist/woke agenda, which had been de rigueur at international diplomatic clambakes of the Astana sort, Trump called for détente and reciprocity – more the realism of Nixon and Kissinger (leavened with a pinch of Ronald Reagan) than the idealism of Wilson and FDR. He wanted to deliver on his promise to the American people to make America great again (including boosting domestic manufacturing) rather than squander precious resources beating down any country that looks at us cross-eyed. Trump’s Riyadh speech — like his inaugural address — called for a peaceable foreign policy. That message reverberated in Astana: “Before our eyes, a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts and tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together — not bombing each other out of existence.” Perhaps most cutting was Trump’s indictment of interventionist dogma: “This great transformation has not come from Western interventionists giving you lectures... The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not built by 'nation-builders,' 'neo-cons,' or 'liberal non-profits'... Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought about by the people of the region themselves – pursuing their own visions and charting...

China

Opinion – The Quiet Competition: How the U.S. Is Losing Ground to China in Central Asia

Over the past decade, China has steadily expanded its presence in Central Asia, not through military force, but by building roads, trade corridors, and digital infrastructure. As the United States scaled back its regional footprint following its withdrawal from Afghanistan, Beijing moved quickly to fill the void. Today, China has positioned itself as the region's dominant external power, while the U.S. risks being left on the sidelines. At the heart of China’s strategy is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which has provided over $1 trillion into infrastructure projects globally since its launch in 2013. This includes $704 billion in construction contracts and $470 billion in non-financial investments. In 2024 alone, BRI engagement reached $121.8 billion – $70.7 billion in construction and $51 billion in investments – and trade between China and the countries of Central Asia hit a record $95 billion, highlighting the depth of China's economic integration. This engagement has also created significant financial dependencies. Central Asian countries owe China roughly $15.7 billion, about 8% of the region's total external debt, and these loans are often opaque and carry terms that provide Beijing with outsized political leverage. Chinese firms are also laying fiber-optic networks and constructing electric vehicle corridors to link western China with its neighbors. In Tajikistan, for example, contractors are upgrading the Pamir Highway to support cross-border EV transport. Huawei and other Chinese tech giants are also expanding the region’s telecommunications infrastructure, raising serious concerns about surveillance, data sovereignty, and long-term digital dependency. China’s economic outreach is reinforced by high-level diplomacy. The China–Central Asia (C+C5) format has become the centerpiece of Beijing’s regional engagement. At the 2025 summit, leaders from across the region gathered to coordinate on connectivity, climate resilience, and trade facilitation. The regularity and substance of these summits stand in sharp contrast to the United States’ more sporadic diplomatic presence. The U.S. maintains the C5+1 platform and launched a promising Critical Minerals Dialogue in 2024. However, these initiatives have yet to match the scale or consistency of China's approach as U.S. infrastructure investment is limited, its commercial footprint is small, and diplomatic engagement is too infrequent to shift the region’s strategic trajectory. This matters. Central Asia is strategically located, resource-rich, and increasingly central to global supply chains and geopolitical competition. Kazakhstan alone supplies more than 40% of the world’s uranium. The region also serves as a testing ground for competing development models, and if the United States fails to become a more engaged and credible partner, China’s infrastructure-heavy, state-centric model may become the default. To remain competitive, Washington should recalibrate its approach in Central Asia. This includes pursuing bilateral deals that deliver real impact, such as deepening ties with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan through targeted investment packages, trade agreements, and joint-sector initiatives. It also means securing access to critical minerals by expanding private-sector investment in mining, processing, and transport infrastructure aligned with U.S. supply chain needs. Offering digital infrastructure alternatives is equally essential; the United States must support secure, interoperable, and transparent technology networks that...

Russia's War

Opinion: The Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks Need Multiple Platforms for Negotiations

The proposed Istanbul meeting between Zelensky and Putin on May 15 did not take place, with no Russian ministers attending the talks Putin himself had called for, leading Zelensky to describe the Russian delegation as "phony". Hopes for peace remain, however, as other stakeholders have expressed their eagerness to support a resolution. With its unique geopolitical position as a bridge between Europe and Asia, Turkey was an obvious choice to host the negotiations. While Turkey has sought to maintain balanced relations throughout the conflict, its provision of military support to Ukraine, including drones, has complicated its image as a neutral party. Despite this, as a NATO member with significant energy partnerships with Russia, Turkey serves as a crucial intermediary. Furthermore, its active role in initiatives like the Black Sea Grain Agreement has reinforced its credibility in international diplomacy. Turkey’s continued involvement, therefore, benefits not only the peace process but also its own economic and strategic interests. Turkey is not the only stakeholder on the periphery of Russia, however; Kazakhstan is also well-positioned to contribute to the peace negotiations. Kazakhstan’s shared history with Russia and Ukraine as former Soviet republics has shaped mutual economic and security frameworks, rooted in decades of centralized governance and cooperation. The continued use of the Russian language as one medium of communication across these nations underscores intertwined cultural and historical links. Kazakhstan’s relationship with Russia spans centuries, marked by alliances, trade, and cultural exchange, further deepening ties beyond the Soviet era. In recent years, Kazakhstan has diversified its alliances through its multi-vector foreign policy. It has forged strong relationships with China, the U.S., the EU, and organizations like the SCO and EAEU while cultivating robust economic ties. Its energy sector has attracted major foreign investors such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell. By hosting peace talks and global summits, Kazakhstan has established itself as a neutral mediator, balancing traditional ties with Russia while expanding its global influence. Kazakhstan also has an impressive record in terms of peace negotiations. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev hosted pivotal talks in Almaty in 2024 between Armenia and Azerbaijan, addressing over three decades of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Kazakhstan also played a key role in facilitating the 2018 agreement on the Caspian Sea’s legal status, which resolved disputes over resources and territorial boundaries. The country hosted multiple rounds of Syrian peace talks starting in Astana in 2017, bringing together the Syrian government, opposition groups, and international stakeholders, including Russia and Turkey. Similarly, it provided a platform for the Iran nuclear talks in 2013 and supported the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Kazakhstan’s neutrality and commitment to diplomacy have earned it credibility as a Middle Power in fostering agreements on contentious issues. Additionally, Kazakhstan hosted the 2010 OSCE Summit that led to the adoption of the Astana Declaration. This reaffirmed the Helsinki Principles on peace, security, and cooperation from Vancouver to Vladivostok. It represented a critical collective commitment to territorial integrity, sovereignty, and human rights since the dissolution of the USSR. The summit underscored Kazakhstan’s role in...