International Diplomacy - The Times Of Central Asia

Viewing results 1 - 6 of 37

Recognition of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: Between Law, Diplomacy, and Pragmatism

After the Taliban returned to power in August 2021, the question of recognizing the new Afghan regime became one of the key issues in regional and global politics. Although no country has granted de jure recognition to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA), international engagement with the de facto authorities is becoming increasingly institutionalized. This article attempts to systematize and provisionally classify countries based on their stance toward the IEA. This is not a formal legal typology but rather an analytical tool meant to identify "stable patterns of behavior" in the context of interactions with the de facto authorities in Kabul. This approach does not aim for exhaustive academic precision but provides a basis for further discussion and analysis. To begin, we must clarify some basic principles, first and foremost, the institution of recognition. In international legal doctrine, the recognition of a new state or government is a unilateral act by a state and does not require the approval of international organizations. The UN, including the Security Council, does not formally conduct acts of recognition, but its approval is required for admitting authorities to the UN General Assembly, which constitutes formal recognition of international legitimacy and a willingness by the global community to work with them. The key mechanism here is the UN Credentials Committee. This is a special committee of the UN General Assembly consisting of nine member states, which change on a rotating basis. It annually reviews the lists of delegations accredited to participate in UN General Assembly sessions. Between 2021 and 2024, the committee decided to reject the recognition of seats for the Taliban government. In effect, this constitutes a denial of international recognition at the UN level. While the decision of the Credentials Committee has no formal legal significance as an act of recognition or non-recognition, politically it sends a strong signal to other states: the UN still does not regard the IEA as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. In other words, the Credentials Committee acts as a kind of beacon: until it is "lit," a wave of de jure recognition from other states is highly unlikely. Many countries, especially those following a policy of collective decision-making, will take their cue from the UN. For now, the signal remains unchanged: the international community maintains a cautious distance from legitimizing the Taliban regime. As is well known, there are two types of recognition: de jure recognition, which is complete and official and involves the establishment of diplomatic relations, and de facto recognition, which is limited and does not imply full legitimization of the regime. Removing the Taliban from national terrorist lists (as Kazakhstan and Russia have done) does not constitute legal recognition, even though some may portray it as such. The UN itself uses the term "de facto authorities" to describe the Taliban. At the same time, the UN Security Council sanctions regime on Afghanistan (under Resolution 2255) provides for the application of sanctions on an individual basis, without qualifying the regime as a terrorist regime. The...

Global South International Diplomacy Middle Powers Astana International Forum

Astana International Forum: Not Just Another Davos

Kazakhstan’s Astana International Forum (AIF) has quietly entered a new phase in its development. Set to convene again this month, it began in 2008 as a targeted economic forum. Over time it has gradually evolved into a broader diplomatic platform aspiring to serve the so-called “Global South” as a whole. The AIF seeks to offer a deliberately open space for structured yet flexible dialogue across economic, political, and security domains, in a world full of international gatherings either overdetermined by legacy institutions or narrowly focused on crisis response. The AIF does not model itself on any existing institution. It is meant neither to replicate global summits nor to impose consensus, nor to replace regional blocs or legacy mechanisms. Rather, it reflects Kazakhstan’s own diplomatic philosophy — what President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev calls “multi-vector foreign policy” — seeking to extend this philosophy outward through a forum that prioritizes engagement over alignment and dialogue over doctrine. The AIF’s early period, from 2008 through roughly 2015, was defined by foundational work. Then called the Astana Economic Forum, it brought together central bankers, financial policymakers, and development agencies. The scope was technocratic, focusing on macroeconomic modernization and public-sector reform. Even in this limited format, however, the initiative revealed Kazakhstan's national aspiration to connect with wider global trends in institutional development and governance. Those formative years correspond to what, in terms of complex-systems theory, might be called the Forum’s phase of “emergence”: a period of assembling functions, testing formats, and learning the rhythms of international convening. These years were not marked by geopolitical ambition, but they did set in motion a process of institutional self-recognition. Kazakhstan was not just hosting events; it was experimenting with a type of global presence that would grow more distinct in later years. From 2015 to 2022, the Forum entered a more self-defining stage. It retained its core economic focus, but it increasingly attracted participants from beyond financial and development sectors. This broadened its scope to include questions of connectivity, regional stability, and sustainable development. The shift was not an accident. It accompanied Kazakhstan’s growing involvement in regional diplomacy and its active participation in a range of other multilateral structures. During this second period, the Forum took on the character of an institution with internal momentum. (This is what complex-systems theorists might term “autopoiesis,” i.e., the ability of a system to reproduce and maintain itself.) By adapting to a wider field of participants and issues, the AIF began to articulate a mission no longer limited to showcasing Kazakhstan’s domestic reforms but extending toward the creation of new transnational linkages. The rebranding of the old Astana Economic Forum as the Astana International Forum affirmed this shift in mandate, scope, and ambition. That rebranding marked the beginning of what now appears to be a critical inflection point. The cancellation of the 2024 edition due to catastrophic flooding created a rupture; but the organizers, rather than rush a replacement, deferred the Forum and used the intervening time to clarify its structure and message. The...

Economic Impact International Diplomacy India-Pakistan Conflict Challenges Diplomatic issue

Despite Ceasefire India-Pakistan Conflict Sends Ripples Through Central Asia

Despite a recent ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan, renewed hostilities remain a looming threat. The latest clashes between the two nuclear-armed neighbors have direct and potentially lasting repercussions for Central Asia’s political stability and economic development. Ceasefire Amid Escalation Armed conflict erupted on May 7, when New Delhi launched “Operation Sindoor,” targeting what it described as terrorist infrastructure within Pakistan. The move followed a deadly terrorist attack on April 22 in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 people. India accused Pakistan of complicity, a charge Islamabad rejected, condemning the airstrikes as an “act of war.” Full-scale hostilities ensued for several days, raising alarms across the broader region. By May 11, a ceasefire was brokered, though both sides warned that fighting could resume if provoked. Given the eight-decade-long volatility along their shared border, the risk of future escalations remains significant. Whilst Pakistan credited the U.S. for facilitating the ceasefire, specifically highlighting Senator Rubio and what it described as direct intervention by President Trump, India maintained that the agreement was a result of direct communication between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs). In a formal televised address, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri emphasized that the ceasefire was a "bilateral" decision reached via military hotlines, omitting any mention of Trump or Rubio. “Both sides agreed to cease all firing and military actions on land,” Misri stated firmly, reiterating India’s stance that no third party played a role in its interactions with Pakistan. Disruption to Tourism Flows One immediate economic impact of the conflict has been felt in Central Asia’s tourism sector. In recent years, Kazakhstan, especially Almaty, has become an increasingly popular destination for Indian travelers, aided by a visa-free regime that permits 14-day stays. The country also hosts large numbers of Indian and Pakistani students, along with medical tourists and business travelers. Many Indian visitors rely on budget carriers such as IndiGo, which previously operated routes from Delhi to Almaty and Tashkent using airspace over Pakistan. The closure of this airspace led to increased costs and logistical complications. IndiGo suspended flights to both cities on April 27 and 28, respectively. Should hostilities resume, these suspensions could be extended, potentially setting back Central Asia’s still-fragile tourism recovery. Infrastructure and Trade at Risk The geopolitical instability also jeopardizes key infrastructure projects and trade routes. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have both enhanced connectivity with Pakistan through distinct strategies, with Kazakhstan integrating into multilateral frameworks like the Middle Corridor and QTTA, and Uzbekistan focusing on tactical bilateral projects such as the Termez–Karachi transport corridor and Trans-Afghan Railway. Both countries aim to reduce their reliance on Russian-controlled routes while leveraging Pakistan’s ports to boost regional trade. Political analyst Zhanat Momynkulov warns that the conflict could disrupt supply chains and raise the cost of goods across South and Central Asia. The rerouting of flights due to Pakistani airspace closures is already affecting logistics and regional connectivity. Kazakhstan, a central player in both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is particularly vulnerable. Projects...

Russia China Victory day Middle Powers International Diplomacy

Victory Day Diplomacy: Central Asia’s Balancing Act and Putin’s Diminished Spotlight

Every year, Moscow’s Red Square transforms into a stage for one of Russia's most celebrated traditions: Victory Day, an event which marks the Soviet Union’s triumph over Nazi Germany in World War II. Yet, as tanks roll through the cobblestone streets and military bands echo under the Kremlin walls, the occasion feels more heavily laden with geopolitical undertones than historical reminiscence these days. Against the backdrop of ongoing conflicts and shifting alliances, the presence of Central Asian leaders at this year’s event speaks to the region’s delicate relationship with the Russian Federation. But the question remains: amidst the pomp and circumstance, is there much for Vladimir Putin to celebrate? Central Asia’s Careful Balancing Act The attendance of Central Asian leaders at the Victory Day parade is a striking show of diplomatic choreography. On the surface, their presence will underscore the shared historical legacy of the Soviet era, when the sacrifices of the Central Asian republics contributed to the Allied victory in the Second World War. However, a more pragmatic lens reveals a balancing act that defines the region’s foreign policy. The region finds itself at the crossroads of global powers vying for influence in Central Asia. While Moscow leans on historical ties and cultural commonalities to retain its sway, Beijing’s economic clout continues to reshape the region’s trade networks and infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, as the inaugural EU-Central Asia Summit attests to, the European Union is eager to expand its reach, whilst hungry for Rare Earth Elements in which the region is rich, the U.S. is waiting in the wings. For Central Asian leaders, participating in Victory Day celebrations signals a nod to Russia’s historic role but also keeps the door open for economic and security cooperation. Amidst the shifting architecture of global politics, their diplomatic strategy remains one of pragmatism, seeking benefits from multiple partners while avoiding any over-alignment. What Does Russia Gain from the Optics? The presence of 29 leaders from across the globe – including Chinese President Xi Jinping - offers Moscow valuable optics at a time when its international relationships face significant strain. Last year, only nine attended. Isolated by Western sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine and with much of the world’s media painting Russia as cut off from the global stage, the impression of a united front with Central Asia helps the Kremlin portray the opposite. Victory Day, therefore, becomes a geopolitical tool, with the attendance of Central Asian leaders enabling Putin to send a message of shared unity within Russia’s historical sphere of influence. It tells both domestic and international audiences that Moscow retains significant allies, reinforcing the image of resilience despite ongoing challenges. How Much Does Moscow Truly Celebrate? The Victory Day parade is an event that is watched by an estimated three-quarters of the Russian public, drumming up patriotism as the state seeks to become the custodian of collective memory. Behind the spectacle, however, signs of disquiet are proving hard to ignore. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has disrupted trade and migration flows...

Multi-vector Foreign Policy Astana International Forum International Diplomacy Global South

Kazakhstan’s Astana Forum Offers Global South a New Multi-Vector Platform

Kazakhstan will convene the Astana International Forum (AIF) later this month, on May 29–30, emphasizing its profile as an active mediator in the evolving architecture of global diplomacy. The AIF began in 2008 as the Astana Economic Forum, originally conceived as a technocratic venue focused on macroeconomic development, fiscal strategy, and public-sector reform. In its early iterations, it drew regional economists, central bankers, and international development agencies together to discuss Kazakhstan’s integration into global financial institutions. While modest in its geopolitical profile, the Forum reflected Astana’s broader ambitions to participate in the global rules-based order without overt alignment. In 2023, the AIF was reconstituted with its new, broader mandate in response to international demands for such forums, given the evident erosion of consensus in multilateral governance structures. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has invoked Kazakhstan’s unique geopolitical position to advocate for the AIF as a new platform of balanced engagement, to serve as a “bridge between East and West,” reflecting Astana’s accumulated experience in dialogue facilitation and its ambition to ameliorate the deepening fragmentation of the international system. The rebranding of the Forum was more than cosmetic. It marked a deliberate effort by Kazakhstan to reach out beyond its customary Eurasian frame of reference. The Forum aspires to be a diplomatic innovation, seeking to complement existing institutions like the UN or OSCE without replacing them: a more flexible platform that would be more responsive to emergent global dynamics. This aspiration is of a piece with Kazakhstan’s growing participation in multilateral forums, serving different geopolitical functions, such as the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and its engagements within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Organization of Turkic States (OTS). The AIF is envisioned as a complementary structure that transcends bloc affiliations, facilitating fluid dialogue among ideologically diverse actors. The 2024 edition of the Forum was intended to be larger-scale than the 2023 version, but it was abruptly canceled after catastrophic flooding struck several regions, an event President Tokayev described as the most devastating natural disaster in the country in eight decades. The state redirected its attention and resources toward recovery, and the Forum was deferred. The 2025 iteration, now reactivated, has adopted the banner message, “Connecting Minds, Shaping the Future.” This reflects an underlying logic in Kazakhstan’s foreign policy that privileges "multi-vectorialism" as a structure for autonomy. Within that structure, the AIF is seeking to create space for engagement among actors that often find themselves excluded from the inner circles of traditional diplomacy: the so-called "Global South," mid-sized Western powers, and immediate regional stakeholders. The agenda of the 2025 AIF consolidates four previous thematic streams into three: Foreign Policy and International Security, Energy and Climate Change, and Economy and Finance. This thematic restructuring signals an intention to deepen the Forum’s analytical focus while retaining general breadth across domains characterizing Kazakhstan’s long-term strategic interests. These interests are conditioned by the continuing development of Kazakhstan's economy. Domestic economic growth is projected to reach 4.5 to 5.0% in 2025, driven by...

Multi-vector Foreign Policy Geopolitics International Diplomacy Central Asian politics

Breaking Old Ties: Central Asia’s Delicate Dance Between Russia and the West

Central Asian countries are increasingly asserting their independence in foreign policy, distancing themselves from traditional centers of global influence. Recent developments highlight a nuanced balancing act as states in the region navigate growing tensions between Russia and the West. Kyrgyzstan Pushes Back In Kyrgyzstan, the recent arrest of Natalya Sekerina, an employee of the Russian House in Osh, marked a notable assertion of sovereignty. Sekerina was detained under Part 1 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, which pertains to the recruitment, financing, and training of mercenaries for armed conflict or attempts to overthrow state authority. Earlier, Sergei Lapushkin, an employee of Osh city hall, and two others were also detained in connection with the case. All suspects were later placed under house arrest. Nevertheless, the arrests are seen by observers as a clear signal that Kyrgyzstan is not simply aligning with Russian policy, despite its economic dependence on Moscow, particularly due to labor migration. The move was reportedly a response to the April 17 detention of over 50 Kyrgyz nationals in a Moscow bathhouse, where Russian security forces allegedly used excessive force. The Kyrgyz Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal note of protest. Russia later stated that the detainees were in the country illegally and some were suspected of links to radical groups. At the same time, Kyrgyzstan is scrutinizing Western influence as well. In February, U.S. President Donald Trump announced funding cuts and a wind-down of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The announcement triggered debate in Kyrgyzstan, where some voices argued that while USAID had supported civil society, it also fostered instability and economic dependency. Critics claim the agency promoted Western values and helped establish a network of NGOs that played outsized roles in the country’s politics. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Seek Equilibrium In Kazakhstan, USAID also came under fire. Parliamentary Deputy Magherram Magherramov criticized the agency for promoting what he described as values alien to Kazakh society, referencing controversial events such as women’s rights marches and LGBTQ+ parades in Almaty. He called for a formal review of foreign-funded NGOs. Meanwhile, Uzbekistan witnessed a diplomatic rift during an April visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the “Grieving Mother” memorial in Samarkand. Lavrov commented on the absence of a Russian-language inscription, provoking widespread backlash on Uzbek social media. Sherzodkhon Kudratkhodzha, rector of the University of Journalism and Mass Communications, responded sharply: “We are not their colony.” He also cited ongoing discrimination against Uzbek migrants in Russia, which, he argued, has been met with silence from Russian officials. A More Independent Foreign Policy Central Asian nations are increasingly holding intra-regional and international meetings, often excluding Russia. On April 25, intelligence chiefs from the region gathered in Tashkent to coordinate on regional security threats. The following day, a meeting of foreign ministers from Central Asia and China took place in Almaty. It was attended by Kazakh Foreign Minister Murat Nurtleu, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and counterparts from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and a...