Our People > Dr. Robert M. Cutler

Dr. Robert M. Cutler

Senior Editor and Contributor

Robert M. Cutler has written and consulted on Central Asian affairs for over 30 years at all levels. He was a founding member of the Central Eurasian Studies Society’s executive board and founding editor of its Perspectives publication. He has written for Asia Times, Foreign Policy Magazine, The National Interest, Euractiv, Radio Free Europe, National Post (Toronto), FSU Oil & Gas Monitor, and many other outlets.

He directs the NATO Association of Canada’s Energy Security Program, where he is also senior fellow, and is a practitioner member at the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Complexity and Innovation. Educated at MIT, the Graduate Institute of International Studies (Geneva), and the University of Michigan, he was for many years a senior researcher at Carleton University’s Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, and is past chairman of the Montreal Press Club’s Board of Directors.

Articles

TRIPP

TRIPP and the Middle Corridor After Vance

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance’s Armenia and Azerbaijan tour is being sold as a “peace dividend” for the South Caucasus, but for Central Asia, the significance is the infrastructure potential of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). Vance’s trip is another move in positioning the new Caucasus transit route for the Middle Corridor. His visit necessarily focuses on the Armenia–Azerbaijan fix, but recent diplomatic context makes clear that it is at least equally a Central Asia to Europe proposition. Current constraints on Trans-Caspian connectivity have been the shortage of dependable shipping capacity across the Caspian, port access, and border processing times. As the European Commission pointed out last week, traffic has surged since 2022, but the next jump depends on targeted investment and practical fixes along the route. The Middle Corridor’s Central Asian Axis through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Kazakhstan’s recent moves treat the bottlenecks as practical engineering and scheduling problems. The dredging project at Kuryk aims to deepen the port approach channel to five meters to support year-round navigation. Work is scheduled for early 2026 and backed by ERSAI Caspian Contractor LLC, a joint venture between Saipem and the Kazakhstan-based business group ERC Holdings. ERSAI is a major industrial port and fabrication yard operator specializing in offshore construction, logistics, and port services in the Caspian Sea. The dredging project is tied to broader terminal and shipyard expansion designed to create a key industrial hub. Shipping capacity is the other half of that story. A plan reported late last year envisages six ferries on the Kuryk–Alat line, with the first two entering service in the first half of 2026 and additional vessels added through 2028. Even if timelines slip, the point is to create a predictable schedule. Uzbekistan’s connectivity push has been running on two tracks at once: east to west via the Caspian, and southward toward ports beyond Central Asia. In Washington, a delegation from Tashkent, led by Foreign Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov, a week ago signed a memorandum with the United States on critical minerals and rare earths. This move treats extraction and processing as a supply-chain partnership rather than a one-off investment pitch. At the same time, Uzbekistan has been pushing rule-making with corridor partners, not waiting for outsiders to do it. On February 10, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Georgia signed a protocol covering digitalization and freight development along the Middle Corridor, including shared methods for tracking delays and pinch points. This is in line with the necessary streamlining of paperwork. TRIPP as the South Caucasus Link for Central Asia TRIPP is meant to make the Caucasus segment less fragile by adding a second path, other than the recently renovated and expanded Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway route. The U.S-backing and institutional presence are meant to create confidence and reliability. Armenia’s own published implementation framework describes a TRIPP Development Company with an initial 49-year development term and a proposed 74% U.S. share, while stating that Armenian sovereignty, law enforcement, customs, and taxation authority remain intact. This satisfies domestic Armenian...

3 months ago

Parliamentary Reform

Kazakhstan’s Draft Constitution and the Reordering of State Authority

Kazakhstan’s current constitutional reform is no longer limited to parliamentary redesign. A draft updated basic law has been released for public discussion, and it presents the effort as a review of the state’s political architecture culminating in a nationwide referendum. The draft is described as the product of months of work initiated by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, with large-scale changes proposed for the country’s political system. A replacement-style text, an explicit state-architecture rationale, and a referendum endpoint together signal a reform agenda that reaches beyond legislative mechanics to the overall distribution of authority, the protection of fundamental rights, and strengthening of the rule of law. Kazakhstan’s current constitution was adopted by referendum in August 1995, replacing the January 1993 basic law. It has been amended repeatedly, including significant revisions in 1998, 2007, 2011, and 2022. The 2022 referendum package was a particularly extensive set of amendments. It presented a model of a presidential republic with a strong parliament, redistributed selected powers from the presidency to parliament, and created new parliamentary mechanisms. It also strengthened the ombudsman, enabled direct citizen appeals to the Constitutional Court, established a commissioner framework for socially vulnerable categories, established a ban on the death penalty, and set a single seven-year presidential term without the possibility of reelection. From Proposal to Draft Basic Law The current draft emerged from a process launched under Tokayev in late 2025. In September 2025, he proposed moving to a unicameral parliament, which set the reform’s initial direction. A working group was established in October 2025 to develop proposals, and in January 2026, a commission was formed to carry the work forward. The commission was chaired by Elvira Azimova, head of the Constitutional Court of Kazakhstan, linking the drafting process to the institution that reviews the basic law. The commission’s work moved beyond incremental amendments. It reviewed proposals affecting seventy-seven constitutional articles, about 84% of the current text, and that breadth drove the decision to prepare a fundamentally new basic law rather than another package of revisions. Rewriting most of the operative text shifts the reform from a parliamentary adjustment to a redesign of the state’s governing framework. The resulting draft is structured as a replacement-style document, with an updated preamble and a reorganization into eleven sections and ninety-five articles. The institutional centerpiece of the draft is a shift from a two-chamber parliament to a single chamber and to proportional representation for electing deputies. The proposed supreme legislative body, the Kurultai, would have 145 deputies, slightly fewer than the combined 148 members of the current Mazhilis and Senate of Kazakhstan. The draft also grants the Kurultai expanded powers, pairing structural consolidation with a change in how legislative authority is organized, including oversight, political accountability, and approval of key state appointments and conciliation procedures. Alongside the proposed legislature, the draft creates a national dialogue platform, the People's Council of Kazakhstan, described as the highest advisory body representing citizens’ interests and granted the right of legislative initiative. This adds a second channel for agenda-setting with...

4 months ago

Official Visit

Kazakhstan and Israel Deepen Cooperation in Astana

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s official visit to Astana on January 27, 2026, was the first by an Israeli foreign minister to Kazakhstan in 16 years, and it yielded a package of institutional and economic steps. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev received Sa’ar and Foreign Minister Yermek Kosherbayev, holding talks that both sides framed as elevating cooperation to a new level. The two foreign ministries signed documents on diplomatic training and public diplomacy, and agreed to pursue visa-free travel for holders of ordinary passports. A Kazakhstan–Israel business forum convened in parallel, with January–November 2025 trade of about US$162.4 million cited as the baseline for expansion. The visit’s value lay in its forward-looking measures to deepen cooperation. The sides agreed to convene the Kazakhstan–Israel Joint Economic Commission at a ministerial level. This move creates a regular venue where sector priorities can be translated into specific workstreams. The Kazakhstan–Israel business forum was framed as the practical feeder for that process, as both sides publicly identified a project map running from high-tech agriculture and water-resource management through digital technologies (including artificial intelligence) to infrastructure and logistics, energy efficiency and renewables, and healthcare and pharmaceuticals. In parallel, the two foreign ministries’ political consultations, in their twelfth round, covered wider international and regional agendas, including Middle East confidence-building and peaceful-settlement initiatives. Regularizing Cooperation Channels The documents signed in Astana were narrow-gauge instruments designed to regularize contacts. The memorandum on diplomatic training provides for structured interaction in the preparation of diplomatic personnel. What this means in practice is that exchanges between the two foreign-policy services will be routinized through their training institutions rather than on an ad hoc basis. The memorandum on public diplomacy set a framework for coordinated outreach, providing an agreed approach to presenting their cooperation. Taken together, these instruments are the administrative layer that will operationalize joint political intent. The visa initiative was narrowly framed as a statement of intent to conclude a visa-exemption agreement for holders of ordinary passports, not as an agreement already in force. In practice, such a regime would lead to higher tourism flows and denser business travel. The latter development would widen the base of commercial contacts, which could in turn be carried into ministerial-level economic follow-up. The visa track is thus an enabling measure for the economic agenda. At the leadership level, Sa’ar publicly invited President Tokayev to visit Israel. This move signals an intent to sustain momentum beyond merely ministerial channels. The visit coincided with International Holocaust Remembrance Day in Kazakhstan, and Sa’ar participated in a state ceremony in Astana connected to the commemoration. The ceremony included senior officials and diplomatic representatives, with official messaging from Tokayev to Israel’s president on the occasion. The civic and humanitarian nature of this event complemented a visit that otherwise concentrated on governance mechanisms, economic priorities, and institutionalizing diplomatic follow-through. First Steps Toward Joint Projects Beyond merely listing priority sectors, the business forum also surfaced first-step commercial and quasi-commercial documents providing a basis for follow-through. Kazakhstan’s investment agency reported three signed items:...

4 months ago

Central Asia-U.S. Relations

Astana and Tashkent Engage Washington’s Central Asia Vector

On January 22 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed President Donald Trump’s new Board of Peace charter. The document matters less than what their participation signifies: recognized access to the White House and a willingness to be publicly associated with a U.S.-led initiative. This is all the more significant as Washington’s relations with several long-standing partners have recently become more fraught and publicly contested. The Central Asian response is part of that story. Their participation indicates that the Trump White House regards them as interlocutors of consequence, and that both Central Asian capitals are embracing that status. On December 1, Washington assumed the G20 presidency for 2026 and set three priorities: limiting regulatory burdens, strengthening affordable and secure energy supply chains, and advancing technology and innovation. It has also scheduled the leaders’ summit for December 14–15, 2026, in the Miami area. On December 23, Trump said that he was inviting Tokayev and Mirziyoyev to attend as guests. That invitation places Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan inside a host-defined agenda whose working tracks overlap with their strongest external bargaining assets, including energy, critical minerals potential, and transport connectivity. Trump publicly tied the invitations to discussions of peace, trade, and cooperation, which is in line with his subsequent Board of Peace invitations. Diplomatic Logic and Multi-Vectorism It is worthwhile situating these developments in the context of Central Asian cooperation, which Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have driven as the regional core. At the August 2024 Consultative Meeting in Astana, all five leaders signed a Roadmap for the development of regional cooperation for 2025–2027, and adopted a “Central Asia 2040” conceptual framework. Tokayev and Mirziyoyev referenced their 2022 allied-relations agreement and announced plans to adopt a strategic partnership program through 2034, including large-scale joint economic and energy projects. Moscow’s preoccupation with the war in Ukraine has widened the room for maneuver by other external actors, and Central Asian capitals have pursued these opportunities selectively. For example, the EU’s then foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell visited Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in early August 2024, Japan has pursued its “Central Asia plus Japan” line as a counterweight to China’s influence, and Azerbaijan has been building an energy bridge between Central Asia and Europe via the South Caucasus with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Washington’s main channel into this complex is the C5+1, and the current U.S. emphasis is to create routines that survive individual summits. The U.S. Special Envoy for South and Central Asian Affairs Sergio Gor and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau travelled to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in October 2025 ahead of the Washington summit that Trump hosted the following month for the five leaders. Such formats can concentrate attention on the implementation of standardized procurement procedures and regularized dispute resolution that new supply-chain corridors require for interoperable paperwork and predictable customs treatment. Kyrgyzstan is scheduled to host the second B5+1 forum (the business counterpart to C5+1) on February 4–5, 2026. This has already been prepared by a joint briefing...

4 months ago

Parliamentary Reform

Tokayev Proposes a New Constitutional Architecture

In mid-January 2026, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev moved Kazakhstan’s parliamentary reform agenda onto a deeper constitutional track. He framed the emerging package as comparable, in substance, to adopting a new constitution rather than making a bounded set of amendments. He also presented it as a further move away from the institutional logic of the 1995 framework and as the logical next step after the 2022 referendum changes, with the legislative branch identified as the main site of redesign. Tokayev laid out a two-stage pathway. First, a Constitutional Commission of more than 100 members is to consolidate proposals and draft a coherent text. The work is organized through the Constitutional Court leadership, and the participant pool is expected to include representatives of the National Kurultai, legal experts, media figures, maslikhat chairs, and regional public councils. The commission was established by decree shortly after Tokayev’s public rollout of the initiative, with early reporting identifying its chair and senior officers as part of the process’ initial institutionalization. Second, the resulting draft is to be submitted to a nationwide referendum, with timing to be set once the commission produces an implementable package. This is an architecture exercise before it is a policy program. The direction is clear enough to describe, but the operative meaning will depend on still-undetermined details, including how headline concepts are translated into constitutional language and how the referendum track shapes that drafting process. The Kurultai Plan and the Lawmaking Design Tokayev’s central institutional move is to abolish the current bicameral parliament and replace it with a single chamber, the Kurultai, combining functions now divided between the Mazhilis and the Senate. The change is publicly presented as consolidation, with unicameralism framed as a simplification of legislative structure that still keeps parliament as the focal representative institution within a presidential system. The package also sketches a streamlined internal design. Tokayev stated that the new chamber should comprise 145 deputies, with up to three deputy speakers and no more than eight committees. Public reports on the working-group discussions remark that earlier concepts ranged more widely before converging on 145; the current Mazhilis and Senate total 148 members. Tokayev indicated that deputies would be elected by proportional representation at the national level, while majoritarian rules would be retained at the regional level. He also signaled the removal of quota and appointment mechanisms associated with the existing system, including the elimination of a small number of presidentially appointed seats. A unicameral legislature raises a predictable design problem. Consolidation can increase legislative throughput unless procedures are structured to preserve deliberation. Allies of the reform have therefore emphasized a shift to a three-reading format, presented as a way to make lawmaking more deliberative. In practice, the decisive criteria here are implementation choices that are not yet public. These include final electoral rules, the internal allocation of committee jurisdiction, and procedural requirements governing readings, hearings, and amendments. Those choices will determine whether the Kurultai becomes a stronger site of relatively autonomous bargaining and scrutiny or a more efficient transmission...

4 months ago