• KGS/USD = 0.01144 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00200 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.09156 -0.11%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28530 -0.14%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01144 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00200 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.09156 -0.11%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28530 -0.14%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01144 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00200 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.09156 -0.11%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28530 -0.14%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01144 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00200 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.09156 -0.11%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28530 -0.14%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01144 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00200 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.09156 -0.11%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28530 -0.14%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01144 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00200 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.09156 -0.11%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28530 -0.14%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01144 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00200 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.09156 -0.11%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28530 -0.14%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01144 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00200 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.09156 -0.11%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28530 -0.14%
19 February 2025

Viewing results 1 - 6 of 9

Middle Power Policy in Global Confrontation Environment

The current polycrisis fundamentally damaged the whole architecture of the Modern World Order, in particular, the Economics and Global Governance. Global tensions peaked during the 2019 pandemic crisis, and the 2022 war in Ukraine not only reduced the post-Cold War dynamics of international cooperation but changed its very nature. The Global Risks Report, issued by the 2023 Davos World Economic Forum, explains that a polycrisis dominated by the cost-of-living crisis, climate crisis, and political instability threatens to reverse hard-fought gains in development and growth, “The biggest turmoil is geopolitical... We have already entered a multipolar world in which each region has its own issues and role in global politics” (Jeffrey Sachs, The New World Economy, January 10, 2023). The era of a favorable climate for international trade, investment promotion in emerging markets, and the liberalization of international cooperation—beginning with the breakdown of the socialist bloc—is likely coming to an end.  We have now entered a polycrisis in which multiple risks exert force equally. The increasing number and dynamics of these crises are of deep concern for global governance actors, as unresolved old threats are now compounded by new ones, creating additional difficulties. What is essential is the widening imbalance between crisis management and development in global governance. Global management today focuses primarily on crisis regulation while playing a diminishing role in development programs. This is evident in the financial resource allocation for the Ukrainian crisis and UN funds for sustainable development: total bilateral aid from the US and EU for Ukraine between January 24, 2022, and June 30, 2024, amounts to $75.1 billion and $39.38 billion, respectively. In contrast, as of January 2017, only 22 joint UN programs had been approved with a total budget of $69.36 million. Global governance priorities are increasingly skewed toward security, while the socio-economic component steadily declines due to rising global conflicts. We have entered a fragmented, polarized world that lacks consensus on many critical international issues. Globalization is taking on features of deglobalization. The war in Ukraine has divided the world into two camps—the Global North (Western nations) and the Global South (Eastern nations)—each with differing visions for the contemporary world order. This division now permeates nearly all aspects of international and national life. The return of President Trump’s Administration in January 2025 raises several new questions and expectations regarding the future status of global partnerships. The updated American strategy urgently requires a deep and comprehensive political and academic analysis. This includes recent US actions such as withdrawing from certain UN institutions (e.g., the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization, with UNESCO possibly following), imposing trade tariffs among major global trading partners, and introducing other new initiatives. These changes have already become a reality. At the same time, we observe a decline of the United Nations' effectiveness in resolving the acute problems of Global Security and Sustainable Development. Consequently, new global development initiatives have emerged, spearheaded by the United States and the European Union (PGII), as well as China (GDI, GSI,...

Kazakhstan’s High-Stakes Balancing Act in the Aktau Crash Investigation

The Aktau crash of the Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer 190 aircraft, which killed 38 people on 25 December, was a tragic event with significant international repercussions. This devastating accident not only claimed lives but also raised critical questions about aviation safety and the handling of sensitive investigations. As investigators sought to determine its cause, Kazakhstan faced an important decision regarding the handling of the flight recorder. Ultimately, the country chose to transfer the recorder to Brazil, the manufacturer of the aircraft, rather than to the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), as Russia had proposed. This decision reflected both technical and diplomatic considerations, marking a crucial moment in the unfolding investigation. By taking this decision, Kazakhstan adhered to established industry procedures for aviation safety investigations. Such a step highlights the country's commitment to transparency and global norms in aviation. The move is typical of the country's foreign policy under President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, whose long diplomatic experience leads him to emphasize a rules-based approach over political considerations and to act in accord with established procedural norms. This choice ensured that the investigation would follow established international practices, thereby lending credibility to the process and reassuring global aviation stakeholders. This behavior is also in line with Kazakhstan's broader commitment to international law and a rules-based global order. Another notable example of this approach was its endorsement of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity through its refusal to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea or the independence of the Donbas regions. These decisions were not necessarily easy ones, given Kazakhstan’s economic and security ties with Russia, but they reinforced its commitment to global standards. While some observers might frame decisions like the Aktau recorder transfer as a “snub” to Russia, such characterizations would miss the point. Like Kazakhstan’s refusal to recognize Donbas as independent and its efforts to prevent the flow of military components in violation of Western sanctions, its actions are not meant to be about rejecting one partner in favor of another. Rather, acting in its own autonomous interests, Kazakhstan seeks to "do the right thing," because this maintains a consistent international profile with a steady foreign-policy course grounded in international law and practice. Kazakhstan’s mediation efforts extend beyond formal multilateral forums, showcasing its active engagement in regional and global diplomacy. The country provided a neutral platform for discussions between opposing factions in the conflict over Syria; and it has also worked to ease tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, hosting purely bilateral consultations and thus demonstrating its capacity to engage constructively in regional conflicts without taking sides. These efforts are in line with Kazakhstan’s larger foreign-policy strategy to act as a principled and impartial intermediary on the global stage, fostering dialogue and reducing hostilities. Similarly, Kazakhstan’s leadership in the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) reflects its dedication to multilateralism and peaceful conflict resolution. Kazakhstan exemplifies the rising middle-power archetype also through its significant contributions to global nuclear non-proliferation. Its foreign policy operates on...

How Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Anchor a Strategic Middle-Power Hub in Central Asia

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are driving Central Asia’s global significance. Together, they are turning Central Asia into a strategic middle-power hub. The two countries increasingly act as central nodes in a region key to global supply chains and, inevitably, geopolitical competition. However, they are not merely reactive to changes around them, but are highly dynamic. What does it mean to say that the region is emerging as a strategic middle-power "hub"? The notion of a hub extends beyond the national profiles of the two principals, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, to include the aggregation of collective influence. Central Asia is recognized as a cohesive entity in global forums. Kazakhstan’s energy wealth combines with Uzbekistan’s demographic strength, creating an influential synergy beneficial to the entire region. The interplay between their respective strengths allows them to amplify Central Asia’s voice in international institutions and negotiations collectively. By integrating their regional strategies within global frameworks — such as the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) — Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan enhance the region’s geopolitical relevance. Kazakhstan, for example, has successfully advocated for the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR, also called the "Middle Corridor"). This transcontinental trade route is emerging as a lynchpin in Eurasian logistics, connecting China to Europe via the Caspian Sea. Uzbekistan, for its part, has emphasized the integration of transport and energy infrastructure. These initiatives align with the broader vision of a unified Central Asia. The leadership of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan has reinforced the region's collective identity as the "C5" group, also including Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. This regional bloc has become a diplomatic focal point for major powers like the United States, China, Germany, and Japan. All of them engage with Central Asia through structured consultations within the C5 framework. These meetings have given the region traction in international diplomacy. The elevation of the C5 group reflects the region's new prominence. The United States engages with the C5 on issues ranging from regional security to sustainable development, emphasizing its commitment to a secure and prosperous Central Asia. China’s cooperation under the C5+1 mechanism complements its transcontinental infrastructure initiatives. Germany focuses on sustainable energy and governance, while Japan prioritizes infrastructure and technology transfers. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan together have over two-thirds of the region's gross domestic product and two-thirds of its population. Kazakhstan's vast natural resources undergird its economic influence, while its geographic expanse (as the ninth-largest country in the world) makes it central to major connectivity initiatives. Through President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev's nuanced foreign policy, Kazakhstan has adeptly balanced relationships with major powers, ensuring that it remains a key partner for Russia, China, and the European Union. Uzbekistan has surged to prominence through its ambitious domestic reforms and proactive engagement for regional cooperation under the leadership of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, who has implemented market liberalization measures attracting foreign investment and reinvigorating its economy. As the most populous country in Central Asia, Uzbekistan is an indispensable actor in regional affairs....

British Think Tank: Kazakhstan is a Key Strategic Partner for the UK

On December 10, the British think tank the Henry Jackson Society presented its research report, “Understanding Kazakhstan’s Strategic Importance: A Middle Power Partner for the UK in Central Asia,” in the UK Parliament. The event was attended by members of both houses of the British Parliament and featured speeches by prominent figures, including Nusrat Ghani MP, Principal Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons; Magzhan Ilyassov, Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the United Kingdom; Darren Spinck, the report’s author and associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society; Ekaterina Miroshnik, Director for Eurasia Infrastructure at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD); and Enzo Satkuru-Granzella, business analyst at the UK Critical Minerals Association. Exploring Kazakhstan’s Strategic Role Darren Spinck emphasized that the report examines Kazakhstan’s evolving role as a middle power on the international stage, highlighting its advancements in political reforms and sustainable economic development. It also explores opportunities for enhancing trade and investment between the UK and Kazakhstan, particularly in critical minerals and transit-transport routes. The report includes recommendations for the British Government and Parliament to strengthen this partnership. Nusrat Ghani MP shared her personal efforts to deepen UK-Kazakh relations during her time as Business and Trade Minister (2022–2024) and Minister of State at the Foreign Office (2024). She expressed confidence that the report would provide members of Parliament with valuable insights into Kazakhstan’s importance as a global actor and as a key partner for the UK in Central Asia. Kazakhstan’s Global Diplomacy and Strategic Partnerships Ambassador Magzhan Ilyassov highlighted Kazakhstan’s balanced, multi-vector foreign policy, which aims to safeguard national interests while promoting global security and dialogue. He provided updates on Kazakhstan’s international initiatives, including efforts on nuclear non-proliferation, the proposal to establish an International Agency for Biological Safety (IABS), and the creation of a UN Regional Hub for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Ekaterina Miroshnik from the EBRD underscored Kazakhstan’s role in the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), also known as the Middle Corridor. This trade route connects China with Europe and strengthens economic ties between Europe, Central Asia, and China. She highlighted the EBRD’s involvement in Middle Corridor projects, which are key to improving regional trade infrastructure. Enzo Satkuru-Granzella of the UK Critical Minerals Association noted Kazakhstan’s vast potential to contribute to the global supply chain of critical minerals. With its rich resource base, well-developed infrastructure, and skilled workforce, Kazakhstan is poised for long-term collaboration. He pointed to the Roadmap on critical minerals, signed between Kazakhstan and the UK in March 2024, as a solid foundation for mutual cooperation. Strengthening Bilateral Relations Participants at the event acknowledged Kazakhstan’s increasing geostrategic importance as a middle power and explored new avenues for strengthening ties between the two nations. A significant milestone in the bilateral relationship was the Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, signed by Kazakhstan’s Foreign Minister Murat Nurtleu and the UK’s David Cameron in Astana on April 24, 2024. Great Britain remains one of Kazakhstan’s top foreign investors. Since 2005, the UK has invested...

Kazakhstan’s Middle Power Strategy Captures U.S. Focus in Trump-Tokayev Talks

On December 5, a telephone conversation took place between Kazakhstan's President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. According to Akorda, the official residence of the Kazakh president, Tokayev congratulated Trump on his election and both leaders expressed a commitment to strengthening their strategic partnership in trade, investment, and nuclear non-proliferation. They also agreed to maintain regular contact to sustain the momentum of bilateral cooperation. Kazakhstan as a Mediator This brief but significant interaction has fueled speculation that Trump may view Kazakhstan as a potential mediator in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. International expert Arkady Dubnov has suggested that Astana could become a platform for dialogue involving Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Volodymyr Zelensky, or other high level representatives. This aligns with Kazakhstan’s diplomatic efforts to promote mediation and its firm belief that the ongoing conflict can only be resolved at the negotiating table. Tokayev and the Role of Middle Powers Under Tokayev’s leadership, Kazakhstan has consolidated its status as a “Middle Power.” The term gained prominence in May during Tokayev’s Singapore Lecture, part of a prestigious series organized by the Yusof Ishak Institute (ISEAS). In his speech, “Kazakhstan and the Role of Middle Powers: Promoting Security, Stability, and Sustainable Development,” Tokayev emphasized the risks of global polarization and the need for middle powers to act against a new Cold War. Tokayev revisited this concept in an article for the French newspaper Figaro, highlighting the growing influence of middle powers amidst the deadlock faced by global superpowers, such as the United States and China. Tokayev wrote, “The economic and political importance of these countries is growing, and their balanced and constructive position is becoming an advantage in the face of global uncertainty.” At the Astana Think Tank Forum in October, Tokayev reiterated this idea, calling for the reform of the UN Security Council to amplify the voices of regional and middle powers. “The Security Council is in a deadlock, and we need to find a way out,” Tokayev stated. Trump's Strategy Trump’s outreach to Tokayev appears to validate these concepts. Following his election, Trump has engaged with the leaders of regional and middle powers, including India, Israel, Canada, and South Korea, signaling a possible strategy to build a coalition of such nations for his proposed reforms to the global security architecture. Kazakhstan's balanced and constructive foreign policy, combined with its emphasis on multilateralism, positions it as an effective interlocutor in global conflicts. Tokayev’s vision of middle powers as mediators may prove instrumental in shaping a more inclusive and cooperative international order.

Middle Powers Rising: Shaping a Balanced Global Order at the Astana Think Tank Forum

On October 16-17, the capital of Kazakhstan hosted the Astana Think Tank International Forum. The theme of the two-day meeting was “Middle Powers in the Changing Global Order: Strengthening Security, Stability and Sustainable Development.” Experts from 22 countries — heads of leading think tanks, politicians and diplomats — participated and spoke at the event. Kazakhstan's President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev addressed the forum. The two-day event focused on geopolitical, economic and strategic issues, including the role of mediating countries in resolving global conflicts. One of the main topics was determining the potential of intermediate states in forming a new world system under conditions of geopolitical tension. The experts tried to define the term "middle power" and what countries can be classified as middle powers. The moderator of the key session, Charles McLean, Managing Director of Borderless Consulting Group, invited the participants to answer several questions about the criteria, characteristics, and influence of middle powers in the modern geopolitical context. Dino Patti Djalal, Chair of the Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia (FPCI), suggested categorizing all the of the world's states using analogies to boxing weight classes: heavyweights, middleweights, and lightweights. According to Djalal, middle powers have great potential to create a new world order. “There are several dimensions of middle powers. The first is potential, encompassing territorial and demographic size factors, political and economic weight, and a state's foreign policy ambitions. The second dimension is a moderate stance on major global issues,” Djalal said. Citing Kazakhstan as an example of a middle power, Djalal stated that Kazakhstan has achieved this status due to its balanced position, which allows it to exert some influence on the formation of the world order. Djalal emphasized that, even today, middle states (the bulk of which are concentrated in the Global South) can solve regional issues without the participation of so-called 'world powers'. “Look at Southeast Asia. Indonesia and Singapore solve their issues directly, without external influence. Naturally, this situation is developing in the conditions of weakening U.S. influence. Middle powers are dictating new rules,” Djalal noted, and should voice their positions on the global agenda, so their “voice” will be heard and become more “powerful.” Michel Duclos, Special Advisor on Geopolitics, suggested that regional powers whose activities have a global impact should be considered middle powers. “The great challenge for middle powers is establishing peace and stabilizing the situation. However, a common platform for all middle powers must be formed. This applies to the Global South and the Global North. France and others are reforming the UN Security Council,” Duclos stated. Joshua Lincoln from the Center for International Law and Governance at the Fletcher School (Tufts University), meanwhile, believes that increasing competition between great powers opens a “window of opportunity” for medium-sized states. “Geopolitical rivalries, the fragmentation of the world order, and the disillusionment of many with existing international institutions offer middle powers an opportunity to bring order to today's chaos. Their stance can enormously contribute to the world's security, stability, and sustainability. However, no country, even...