For many years, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan were seen as regional rivals, with many analysts believing this long-standing competition impeded the realization of sustainable regional strategies. However, leadership changes and expanded cooperation frameworks in Central Asia have significantly shifted these dynamics. Today, countries in Central Asia are shaping policies at the intersection of Western, Chinese, and Russian interests, whilst looking even further afield. As Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan assert themselves more on the global stage, they are increasingly finding common ground.
In part because of their geographic size and numbers, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are seen as the leading states in Central Asia. Kazakhstan has the largest territory by far, while Uzbekistan boasts the largest population, which stands in excess of 37 million. Both nations possess significant resources and development potential. While their current leadership has dismissed notions of rivalry, its roots stretched back for decades.
Historical Competition
Tensions between the two republics date to the Soviet era, when the rivalry was evident even to ordinary citizens. The influence of Dinmukhamed Kunaev, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, often clashed with that of his Uzbek counterpart, Sharaf Rashidov.
Beyond personal rivalries between republican leaders, Soviet-era administrative borders were often drawn without regard for demographic realities or resource flows. Competition for Moscow’s attention and investment funding pushed union republics to emphasize different sectors – Kazakhstan’s development of virgin lands turned it into a major grain hub, while Uzbekistan long benefited from its cotton industry – creating distinct economic identities that later persisted into independence.
These divergent economic structures shaped early regional competition and informed differing policy priorities in the 1990s and 2000s. Both republics had substantial industrial capacity, though analysts argue that Kazakhstan maintained an edge in economic growth. The Baikonur Cosmodrome, still operational today, was also a long-standing strategic asset within Kazakhstan’s borders.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, this rivalry only intensified. Nursultan Nazarbayev and Islam Karimov, then presidents of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, were widely viewed as competing for regional leadership. While their economies were initially on par, Uzbekistan gradually turned inward, while Kazakhstan opened to foreign investment, particularly in the extractive sector.
In the 2000s, despite successful border delimitation, disputes flared over boundaries, water, and natural resources. Some analysts contend that it was this lingering friction that hindered efforts to preserve the Aral Sea, once the world’s fourth-largest lake, which has now largely disappeared, at least in its southern section, causing dust storms so vast they are visible from space.
In 2002, the border villages of Bagys and Khiyobon, inhabited by ethnic Kazakhs but situated in Uzbekistan, demanded to be recognized as part of Kazakhstan. These territories had been transferred to Uzbekistan in 1956. They were officially reincorporated into Kazakhstan only in 2021.
Presidents Reject Rivalry Narrative
Kazakh political scientist Gaziz Abishev maintains that there is no leadership struggle today between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. “An important point that was made is that there is no unhealthy rivalry between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, or between Kazakhs and Uzbeks,” he has stated.
This position is echoed by the presidents of both republics.
“I would like to emphasize that, contrary to all kinds of speculation by so-called ‘experts,’ Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are by no means rivals or even competitors, but strategic partners, reliable allies, walking together on the path of progress and development. Our peoples are true brothers, close friends who show sincere respect for each other,” Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said following the second meeting of the Supreme Interstate Council.
“As close friends and neighbors, we sincerely rejoice in Kazakhstan’s successes,” added Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev.
Both leaders have strong incentives to publicly disavow any notion of rivalry. Kazakhstan is seeking to uphold its multi-vector foreign policy and maintain regional stability, while Uzbekistan views regional cooperation as vital to attracting investment and reducing dependence on any single external power. Their shared messaging also helps counter external narratives that frame Central Asia primarily as a battleground for larger geopolitical interests.
Abishev further commented: “I have noticed more than once that foreign politicians, diplomats, and experts often speak with a sly wink about the competition between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Allegedly, Astana and Tashkent are jealous of each other and are fighting for leadership in the region.”
He warned that such thinking is detrimental. “It’s the kind of narrative that ill-wishers hope becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It underestimates both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Petty, quarrelsome rivalry is the mindset of the short-sighted. Kazakhs and Uzbeks have set themselves higher goals, to develop Central Asia into a region of prosperity and global relevance in economics, science, culture, and sports.”
State Visit and Regional Integration
On November 14, Tokayev arrived in Tashkent on a state visit at the invitation of Mirziyoyev. The two leaders held closed-door talks, participated in the Supreme Intergovernmental Council of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and launched seven joint projects worth $1.2 billion.
Two days later, on November 16, Tashkent hosted the VII Consultative Meeting of the Heads of State of Central Asia, with leaders of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan in attendance. Azerbaijan also officially joined the Consultative Meeting as an equal member.
The deepening cooperation between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan reflects a broader trend toward institutionalizing regionalism in Central Asia. The Consultative Meetings have evolved into a central platform through which regional leaders coordinate policy, harmonize regulations, and address shared challenges. The growing use of multi-year roadmaps, sectoral agreements, and joint investment mechanisms suggests that regional cooperation is becoming more structured and predictable.
Economically, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are increasingly described as complementary rather than competing systems. Kazakhstan’s strength in energy resources, logistics, and mineral wealth aligns with Uzbekistan’s large labor force, expanding manufacturing base, and industrial capacity. Coordinated development of transport corridors and supply chains could significantly enhance regional connectivity and reduce both countries’ reliance on external transit routes.
A Transformative Era
The region is undergoing a transformative era. The time of closed borders and isolationism appears to be over. Newly achieved internal cohesion is opening up significant opportunities for development and global partnerships. The increasing interest in the “Central Asia Plus” format, exemplified by Azerbaijan’s participation, reflects growing attention from foreign partners, and with it, a new wave of investment.
Societal ties have also strengthened in recent years. Cross-border trade has increased, and simplified travel arrangements have enabled greater movement of workers, students, and tourists between the two countries. Expanding cultural exchanges and people-to-people contacts contribute to diminishing old perceptions of rivalry and reinforce the growing sense of cooperation promoted at the official level.
Despite the positive momentum, some structural challenges persist. Water management, energy coordination, and differences in regulatory frameworks can still produce friction, particularly in the context of climate stress and rising demand for shared resources. Security concerns linked to regional instability also require sustained attention. However, these issues now increasingly serve as opportunities for collaboration rather than sources of division.
