Turkmenistan International Affairs - The Times Of Central Asia

Viewing results 1 - 6 of 570

C6+1

Opinion: Trump Has Golden Opportunity to Launch C6+1 on Sidelines of UN

Representatives of the five Central Asian states — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan — along with Azerbaijan, are expected in New York for the United Nations General Assembly in September. Historically, meetings between the Central Asian states and the United States – the C5+1 – have taken place on the sidelines of the United Nations. It is the most natural and logistically efficient venue for President Donald Trump to re-engage with the C5 partners he hosted at the White House last November. As of now, only foreign ministers are expected to attend the UNGA. But this could change if Trump extends an invitation to the leaders, according to a Central Asian diplomatic source. This time, however, he has the opportunity to add Azerbaijan, transforming the format into a C6+1. Baku has already been invited to participate as a full member in Central Asian gatherings, and Washington should build on that momentum. Azerbaijan is uniquely positioned: close to both Israel and Turkey – two of America’s most important regional partners – it sits astride one of the most important connectivity corridors linking Europe and Asia. Its inclusion would turn the C5+1 into a genuinely trans‑Caspian framework that reflects the emerging realities of Eurasian integration. The move would also link two major diplomatic achievements of Trump’s second term: the launch of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), a 43-km strategic transit corridor connecting mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenia, and Trump’s elevation of the C5+1 to a White House-level summit. While TRIPP was discussed at the C5+1 meeting in November, bringing Azerbaijan into the next gathering would allow the administration to present itself as the architect of a new Eurasian trade and energy map. Strategically, a C6+1 format carries significant implications for great-power competition with China. This is because Central Asia is so crucial to Beijing’s grand strategy. In its recently adopted 15th five-year plan, neighborhood diplomacy is listed as the top priority — ahead of relations with major powers or developing countries. Beijing seeks to build a “community with a shared future” with 17 neighboring states, including all five in Central Asia, to “create a favorable external environment” for national rejuvenation, as Foreign Minister Wang Yi has stated. For China, Central Asia is a vital “hinterland” for energy and resource security, and a buffer against maritime disruptions. The United States does not need to dominate the Eurasian Heartland or force Central Asian states to choose between Washington and Beijing. It simply needs to ensure that any Chinese westward access runs through a vast landmass of countries that maintain constructive relations with the United States. A C6+1 format helps shape that environment without confrontation. A stable Middle Corridor – the energy and trade route running through Central Asia, across the Caspian Sea and through Azerbaijan to Turkey and the Mediterranean – also benefits America's energy-hungry allies in Asia, such as Japan and South Korea. Both increasingly look to Kazakhstan as an alternative oil supplier as they...

Iran

The Iran War Is Repricing Central Asia’s Connectivity

Europe’s aviation regulator has extended its current conflict-zone bulletin for the Middle East and Persian Gulf through April 10 and continues to advise operators to avoid Iranian and adjacent airspace at all altitudes. Reuters reported soon after that the squeeze on normal flight paths was pushing more traffic into narrower routes, notably over Azerbaijan and Central Asia. The Strait of Hormuz, meanwhile, has not returned to normal commercial use. A limited number of exempted vessels have crossed, but passage remains selective, politicized, and uncertain rather than routine. The question, consequently, is no longer only whether Central Asia has alternatives to single-route dependence but whether those alternatives remain commercially usable, taking into account the increased risk, delay, insurance, fuel burn, and congestion. What has changed is the cost of maintaining reliable connectivity. The Cost of Reliability The Iran conflict imposes higher operating costs on the wider Eurasian air corridor that is now taking displaced traffic. EUROCONTROL estimates that about 1,150 flights a day continue to be affected by re-routing linked to the Middle East crisis. These add roughly 206,000 kilometers of flying and 602 tons of extra fuel burn per day. Maritime trends are similar. In March, war-risk premiums in or near the Gulf had risen more than tenfold in some cases, with hull war premiums moving from about 0.25% of vessel value to as much as 3%. Air-freight rates on some routes rose by as much as 70% as shippers redirected urgent cargo away from disrupted sea lanes and restricted airspace. Higher surcharges and narrower margins for operational error can make routes lose commercial value even if they remain formally open. The wider macroeconomic setting has also made resilience more expensive. Higher oil prices make every detour costlier, raising freight charges, power costs, and production costs across the region’s trading partners. Even where Central Asian cargo does not move through Iranian waters, the same pattern is still present. Asian policymakers were already confronting a combined oil-price and currency shock at a moment when roughly 80% of the oil shipped through Hormuz normally goes to Asia. The World Bank’s March food and nutrition security update notes that around 20% of global oil supplies and about one-third of global fertilizer trade transit the Strait of Hormuz. Urea prices, for example, surged by nearly 46% month on month between February and March 2026. Importers in Central Asia, as well as in Europe and the South Caucasus, remain under pressure from higher household food costs and tighter producer margins. The price of resilience is now showing up in increased costs for farm inputs, food costs, and household budgets. How the Burden Falls Kazakhstan remains the best placed in the region to absorb the shift. The CPC pipeline still carries about 80% of Kazakhstan’s oil exports; oil income contributes 52% of the state budget. Earlier disruptions had constrained Kazakhstan to reroute 300,000 tons of crude, and the country continues to rely on supplementary outlets such as Ust-Luga, the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline, and China when its main...

Organization of Turkic States

Meeting of the Organization of Turkic States Held in Baku

On April 2, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev met with participants of a meeting of the heads of government of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) in Baku, outlining key areas of cooperation. Among those attending were Turkish Vice President Cevdet Yılmaz, Uzbek Prime Minister Abdulla Aripov, Kazakh Prime Minister Olzhas Bektenov, Kyrgyz Prime Minister Adylbek Kasymaliev, Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers of Turkmenistan Nokerguly Atagulyev, Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Unal Ustel, and OTS Secretary General Kubanychbek Omuraliev. Opening the meeting, Aliyev stressed the importance of dialogue. “This meeting of the heads of government of the Organization of Turkic States is being held in Baku. I warmly welcome you all,” he said. According to Aliyev, such meetings allow not only for the discussion of economic issues but also for reaffirming unity among member states. He noted that cooperation within the organization remains a priority of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy. He also reiterated a key message that ran throughout his speech: “We have repeatedly stated from various platforms that the Turkic world is our family; we have no other family,” Aliyev said. Special attention was devoted to economic cooperation. According to the president, trade between member states is growing, and investment volumes are increasing. He noted that Azerbaijan has invested more than $20 billion in the economies of OTS member states. Most of this has been directed to Turkey, though investment activity is expanding elsewhere. In particular, joint funds have been established with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan to support project implementation. Aliyev also thanked partners for their participation in the reconstruction of Karabakh. Facilities built with the support of OTS countries are already operational in the region, including the Mirza Ulugbek School, the Kurmangazy Children’s Creative Center, and the Manas School. In addition, a garment factory has been opened in Khankendi with the participation of Uzbekistan. He also highlighted mutual support among member states. Following the earthquake in Turkey, Azerbaijan financed the construction of the “Azerbaijani Quarter” in Kahramanmaraş, valued at $100 million. Transport and logistics projects were another key topic. According to the president, infrastructure development remains a top priority. These include the Middle Corridor, the Trans-Caspian route, and the Zangezur Corridor, all of which are gaining importance in the current geopolitical environment. Aliyev said that infrastructure within Azerbaijan is largely complete. Railways, the Baku port, highways, and airports are operational. Construction of the Zangezur Corridor is also progressing, with the highway nearly 90% complete and the railway approximately 70% complete. He also noted the construction of the Kars-Nakhchivan railway line in Turkey, which is expected to enable a new international route with an initial capacity of about 15 million tons of cargo. In conclusion, Aliyev said these projects are aimed not only at serving regional interests but also at expanding international transport connectivity. He expressed confidence that the meeting would contribute to the further development of the OTS and strengthen cooperation among member states.

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"]...

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.