Tajikistan International Affairs - The Times Of Central Asia

Viewing results 37 - 42 of 438

Freedom in the World

Central Asia Pushes Back on “Not Free” Label as Debate Over Rankings Grows

According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2026 report, all five countries in Central Asia are classified as “Not Free.” Nevertheless, governments in the region are increasingly questioning the impartiality of such assessments. At the same time, some regional experts point to ongoing political and economic reforms as signs that the region is making progress. A “Not Free” Region In its report released on March 19, 2026, Freedom House classifies all five Central Asian states as "Not Free." The designation is based on Freedom House’s assessment of political rights and civil liberties. According to the report’s authors, the ranking reflects pressure on independent media, tightening control over civil society, and the absence of genuine political competition. Kazakhstan received 23 points out of 100. The report highlights restrictions on opposition groups and civil society activists, pressure on independent journalism, and tightly managed elections that do not ensure genuine political competition. Kyrgyzstan, long considered the most politically open country in the region, scored 25 out of 100 and was also classified as “Not Free.” The organization says the score fell by one point from the previous year, reflecting continued pressure on independent media, the designation of several outlets as ‘extremist,’ and criminal cases against journalists, alongside concerns about election integrity. Uzbekistan scored 12 out of 100. Freedom House points to the concentration of power in the executive branch, the absence of a genuine parliamentary opposition, and severe restrictions on independent human rights defenders and journalists. Since President Shavkat Mirziyoyev took office in 2016, Uzbekistan has pursued a series of controlled political and economic reforms aimed at opening the country after decades of isolation. These have included currency liberalization, efforts to end the use of forced labor in the cotton sector, and steps to ease restrictions on business and foreign investment. While critics say political liberalization remains limited, supporters argue the reforms mark a significant shift from the policies of the previous era. Tajikistan received just 5 points. The report highlights the long rule of President Emomali Rahmon, the elimination of legal opposition, systematic persecution of its members and their families, and a de facto lack of electoral competition. Turkmenistan recorded one of the lowest scores globally, with just 1 point. The report describes the country as one of the most repressive in the world, citing total state control over political life and the media, the absence of opposition participation in elections, and harsh punishment for dissent. Turkmenistan remains one of the most closed countries in the world, with extremely limited access for foreign media and independent observers. Political life is tightly controlled, and reliable information about internal developments is scarce. While the authorities have signaled gradual generational change following the 2022 transfer of power to President Serdar Berdimuhamedov, there has been little visible shift in the country’s political system. Impartiality in Doubt? Trust in international assessments has also been affected by developments in U.S. foreign aid policy and a wider shift in global perceptions about the appropriateness of Western-linked organizations categorising...

India

India–Central Asia: Connectivity, Security, and Sustainable Partnerships in a Multipolar World

A widening conflict in West Asia is forcing India and Central Asia to reassess trade routes, diplomacy, and regional security, with key projects such as Iran’s Chabahar port now facing growing uncertainty. These risks framed discussions in New Delhi on March 25–26, where experts gathered under the banner of “India–Central Asia: Connectivity, Security, and Sustainable Partnerships in a Multipolar World,” with The Times of Central Asia in attendance. The conference unfolded against the backdrop of two active Eurasian wars—the Russo-Ukrainian and the Israel/U.S.-Iran conflict. Central Asian and Indian participants agreed that the West Asian crisis is widening, putting not only ports and logistics routes but also economies across the globe under serious threat. India's Chabahar link to Afghanistan and Central Asia is now a high-risk, uncertain investment, weakening overall continental strategic thinking across Eurasia, including efforts to consolidate new trans-Caspian trade corridors. If the conflict cripples or destroys Chabahar, years of progress, hard-won partnerships, and millions in strategic investment would be erased. On the sidelines, some participants suggested that India could help cool what's becoming a dangerously global conflict. Unbeknownst to them, India had already held an all-party meeting on March 25 on the West Asia crisis. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar's message: India will not mediate. The revelation surprised some participants—others, not at all. In any event, Central Asian states, in principle, have backed any diplomatic push for peace. With West Asia in turmoil and platitudes in abundance, conference participants emphasized the need to rethink geopolitics, trade, security, and cultural ties beyond stale frameworks at a time of conflict. Four themes defined the Central and South Asian moment: the dangers of bloc politics, even as regional organizations continue to evolve and expand their influence, the ascendancy of national interests over external pressure, and the emergence of a firm refusal to pick sides in the midst of frictions between competing global pressures. Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, a member of the India Central Asia Foundation, stated: “The conference provided an important platform to move beyond theoretical discussion and toward practical engagement. With Central Asia’s ambassadors to India present, we focused on exploring concrete mechanisms to promote peace through sustained diplomatic efforts. Despite the proximity of the conflict in West Asia to both Central Asia and India, participants expressed confidence that dialogue and restraint – buttressed by trade and investment – will ultimately guide outcomes, with particular concern for civilians and those enduring hardship. Notably, the crisis did not overshadow the conference’s primary agenda or its scholarly contributions. Overall, the gathering can be seen as a constructive step in reinforcing diplomatic initiatives dedicated to peace and stability in a conflict-affected region.” The conference witnessed the release of three significant publications on India–Central Asia relations: India – Kazakhstan Partnership in a Changing Geopolitical Order (eds. Ramakant Dwivedi, Lalit Aggarwal, Kuralay Baizakova), Manas: Kirgiz Vir Gatha Kavya by Ramakant Dwivedi & Hemchandra Pandey and India and Central, East and Southeast Asia: Enhancing the Partnership (eds. Ramakant Dwivedi & Lalit Aggarwal). [caption id="attachment_46364" align="aligncenter" width="1379"]...

Kyrgyz-Tajik Border

Kyrgyzstan Develops Territories Received from Tajikistan

The Kyrgyz authorities have adopted a resolution that transfers into state ownership land and real estate received from Tajikistan under the agreement on the delimitation and demarcation of the state border. According to the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, the State Agency for State Property Management must register the transferred assets on its balance sheet, after which they will be handed over to local administrations in the Batken and Leylek districts of Batken region. District authorities are expected to distribute the property among citizens who lost their homes and assets as a result of the border agreement, as well as those whose properties were demolished during the construction of border infrastructure. The government has also instructed the State Agency for Land Resources, Cadastre, Geodesy, and Cartography to conduct an inventory of land plots in the region, while the Ministry of Construction will develop master plans for settlements in the transferred territories. The resolution notes that the list of real estate assets may be revised as the border line is refined during the demarcation process. The border agreement was reached following negotiations between the two countries' presidents, Sadyr Japarov and Emomali Rahmon, and was subsequently ratified by the parliaments of both countries. Under its terms, the sides exchanged territories, including previously disputed areas. Following the agreement, Kyrgyzstan began constructing barriers along the new border line. Authorities in both countries expect that completing the demarcation process will help stabilize the situation and prevent further conflict.

Security

Global Terrorism Index: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan Show Zero Risk of Terrorism

The countries of Central Asia are among those least affected by terrorism globally, according to the newly published Global Terrorism Index 2026 report. However, the report suggests that the region’s stability is increasingly influenced by external factors, particularly its proximity to Afghanistan. Country scores are a composite measure made up of four indicators: incidents, fatalities, injuries and hostages. To measure the impact of terrorism, a five-year weighted average is applied. The main concentrations of terrorist activity remain in Africa and South Asia. The overall level of terrorism worldwide declined in 2025, although the nature of the threats became more complex and less predictable. The report indicates that no terrorist incidents were recorded in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, or Turkmenistan, who all scored 0 for terrorism risk, placing them all joint 163rd out of the 163 nations researched. Uzbekistan (95th) remains in the minimal-risk category. Tajikistan is the only country in the region with a higher threat level, ranking 41st globally. Central Asia’s relative stability is attributed to several factors, including robust security measures, the absence of active armed conflicts, and the limited presence of international terrorist organisations. Despite relative internal stability, risks to Central Asia are increasingly emerging from outside the region. The report highlights growing activity by extremist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as worsening relations between the two countries, which could potentially escalate into open conflict by 2026. Particular concern is focused on the Tajik-Afghan border, where structural vulnerabilities persist. In addition to external pressures, experts are drawing attention to internal dynamics. The report notes an acceleration of radicalisation, particularly among young people, with digital platforms and online content playing a significant role.

Southern Corridor

The Iran Conflict Is Stress-Testing Central Asia’s Southern Corridors

Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s proposal of Turkestan city as a venue for Iran-war negotiations shows how directly the conflict had already begun to affect Central Asia itself. The region is no longer simply observing events in Iran. By the time Tokayev made the offer, Central Asian governments were already dealing with evacuations, route disruption, emergency diplomatic coordination, and growing concern over the war’s economic effects. The Iran war has thus become a real test of Central Asia’s southern diversification strategy. Governments across the region have, in recent years, sought to widen access to world markets through Iran, the South Caucasus, and, in some cases, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These channels reduce dependence on northern routes by opening access to Türkiye, Europe, Gulf markets, and the Indian Ocean. The present crisis subjects that strategy to wartime conditions. The strain of war makes it easier to distinguish durable links, conditional ones, and routes that remain more aspirational than real. The C6 and Crisis Coordination The first effects have been practical. Turkmenistan has opened four additional checkpoints along its frontier with Iran, supplementing the Serakhs crossing, while Azerbaijan’s overland route through Astara became another critical outlet, evacuating 312 people from 17 countries between February 28 and March 2. Turkmenistan, according to official reporting, transited more than 200 foreign citizens from 16 countries during the same period. Uzbekistan used the Turkmen route to repatriate its citizens, while Kazakhstan directed its nationals toward overland exits through Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Türkiye. The war is already affecting borders, consular work, and the regional diplomatic agenda. This immediate response gives sharper political meaning to the widening of the Central Asian C5 into a C6 with Azerbaijan. The March 2 call among the five Central Asian foreign ministers and Azerbaijan showed that the format was already there to be used under pressure. What had until now appeared mainly as a corridor framework shaped by summit diplomacy and expert work appeared instead as a working format for crisis coordination linking Central Asia to the South Caucasus. The C6 idea is becoming more practical and more overtly diplomatic. The Organization of Turkic States adds a second, broader layer. Its foreign ministers met in Istanbul on March 7 and issued a joint statement expressing concern over the escalation in the Middle East, condemning actions that endanger civilians, warning against further regional destabilization, and affirming that threats to the security and interests of member states concern the organization as a whole. The statement was cautious, and the OTS is not turning into a military instrument. Even so, the war is testing whether a Turkic political space extending from Turkey through the South Caucasus to Central Asia can do more than express concern as regional security deteriorates. The C6 is becoming a working format for immediate coordination, while the OTS remains the broader political frame within which that coordination takes on institutional meaning. Corridor Stress and Resilience The trans-Iran transit option offers Central Asia a continuous land arc from regional railheads and road networks...

Caspian

Caspian Escalation Raises Stakes for Central Asia

Central Asia, which has increasingly sought to present itself as a coordinated actor on the global political stage, has until recently maintained a cautious, non-aligned stance regarding the escalation in the Middle East. However, attacks affecting infrastructure in the Caspian region have altered the diplomatic balance. The Caspian Sea is a critical transit zone for Central Asia, linking Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan and onward to European and Middle Eastern markets. It forms part of key east–west and north–south trade corridors that have gained importance since Russia’s war in Ukraine disrupted traditional transit routes. In recent years, regional dynamics have also been shaped by Azerbaijan’s growing engagement with Central Asian states, including its formal inclusion in the expanded Central Asian consultative format, which has effectively evolved from the C5 into the C6. Baku has played an important role in regional connectivity. It has developed close relations with both Turkey and Israel, factors that influence geopolitical calculations in the Caspian basin, which directly borders Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. This growing alignment has reinforced efforts to develop the Middle Corridor across the Caspian, linking Central Asia to Europe via the South Caucasus. Turkey maintains political, economic, and cultural influence in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan through the Organization of Turkic States. Russian political discourse has at times portrayed this cooperation as part of a broader pan-Turkic geopolitical project, a characterization widely dismissed by officials and analysts in Central Asia. Nevertheless, Astana and Baku continue to maintain strong relations with Ankara, a development that has periodically caused concern in Moscow. Under President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Kazakhstan has also strengthened ties with Gulf states. Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia have become significant investors in the country’s economy. In this context, Iranian attacks on Gulf states not directly involved in the conflict have shaped Astana’s diplomatic positioning during the current crisis. Reports of drone attacks widely blamed on Iran targeting the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan have further heightened regional tensions. At the initial stage of the escalation, Kazakhstan’s response was largely limited to diplomatic contacts with regional leaders. At the same time, several Central Asian countries, along with Azerbaijan, expressed concern over the humanitarian consequences of the conflict and began dispatching aid to Iran. Azerbaijan sent nearly 30 tons of food and medical supplies on March 10, followed by another 82 tons of humanitarian aid on March 18. Uzbekistan delivered approximately 120 tons of humanitarian supplies, including flour, vegetable oil, sugar, and canned food, according to regional media reports. Turkmenistan also sent humanitarian aid consisting of medicines, medical supplies, and other goods, primarily intended for children. The Tajik government reported sending a convoy of 110 heavy trucks carrying humanitarian cargo to Iran, with a total weight of 3,610 tons. The diplomatic environment shifted further after Israeli air strikes on March 18 targeting Iranian naval facilities in the Caspian Sea. According to Israeli military statements cited by international media, the targets included a major port of the Iranian Navy, where, reportedly, "dozens of ships were destroyed,”...