Pannier and Hillard’s Spotlight on Central Asia: New Episode Coming Sunday
As Managing Editor of The Times of Central Asia, I’m delighted that, in partnership with the Oxus Society for Central Asian Affairs, from October 19, we are the home of the Spotlight on Central Asia podcast. Chaired by seasoned broadcasters Bruce Pannier of RFE/RL’s long-running Majlis podcast and Michael Hillard of The Red Line, each fortnightly instalment will take you on a deep dive into the latest news, developments, security issues, and social trends across an increasingly pivotal region. This week, the team will be speaking with former Kyrgyz Ambassador to the U.S. Kadyr Toktogul about what it means for Kyrgyzstan to get a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
UNDP Opinion: Central Asia – Shared Wildlife, Shared Landscapes, Shared Responsibility
As global leaders gather for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Assembly in Samarkand, Central Asia has an opportunity to send a clear message to the world: protecting biodiversity is not only about saving species — it is about securing water, livelihoods, resilience and long-term stability for millions of people across our region.
From the glaciers of the Tien Shan and Pamir mountains to the deserts, steppes and river basins downstream, Central Asia’s ecosystems are deeply interconnected across borders. Rivers flow between countries. Wildlife migrates through shared landscapes. Mountain ecosystems regulate water systems that sustain agriculture, energy production and communities far beyond the highlands themselves.
Among the most powerful symbols of this shared natural heritage is the snow leopard — the silent guardian of Central Asia’s mountains.
The snow leopard represents far more than a rare and iconic species. Its survival reflects the health of entire ecosystems that millions of people depend upon every day. Healthy mountain landscapes help secure freshwater resources, reduce disaster risks, sustain pastures and agriculture, preserve biodiversity, and strengthen resilience to climate change across the region.
But today, these ecosystems are under growing pressure.
Climate change is accelerating glacier melting and intensifying water stress. Land degradation, unsustainable grazing, habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on fragile mountain environments and rural livelihoods. Communities living closest to nature are often the first to feel the consequences — through declining water availability, degraded pastures, reduced agricultural productivity and increasing climate-related risks.
These challenges do not stop at national borders. And neither can the solutions. Only a coordinated regional response can match the scale of the challenge.
Protecting Central Asia’s mountain ecosystems requires countries to work together to conserve ecological corridors, strengthen transboundary protected areas, improve water and land governance, and invest in climate-resilient livelihoods for communities whose futures are closely tied to nature.
There are already successful examples of regional agreements. For example, a highly successful transboundary nature conservation agreement in Central Asia protects the Ustyurt Plateau and the Turan Temperate Deserts. Spanning across Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, this initiative has successfully safeguarded vulnerable ecosystems and migratory species like the saiga antelope and snow leopard.
[caption id="attachment_50004" align="aligncenter" width="1774"]
Photo: Saiga calf. Kazakhstan/UNDP Kazakhstan[/caption]
It is encouraging that transboundary cooperation has already taken shape across the region.
Across Central Asia, governments, communities and development partners are already demonstrating that conservation and development can advance together. While each country's experience is unique, the lessons are remarkably similar: when communities benefit from healthy ecosystems, nature and people both thrive.
In Kazakhstan, the snow leopard has become one of the clearest examples of how coordinated conservation efforts can help restore fragile ecosystems across borders. The species inhabits mountain systems that extend beyond national boundaries into China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Uzbekistan, making its protection inseparable from regional cooperation.
Over the past decade, habitat countries have strengthened efforts to protect the species through national conservation strategies, expanded protected areas, and improved ecosystem monitoring. Supported by cooperation between the Government, UNDP, the Global Environment Facility, and the scientific community, large-scale monitoring and habitat conservation initiatives have generated new data on snow leopard populations and migration routes across the Tien Shan and Altai Mountain systems.
In Kazakhstan, the snow leopard population had declined to an estimated 80–100 animals by the mid-1990s, as habitat degradation, human pressure, and ecosystem fragmentation intensified across mountain landscapes. Over the years, systemic interventions, including digital monitoring, the establishment of a genetic bank, and studies of behavior and migration routes, helped support the creation of the Merke Regional Nature Park in 2026, strengthening the protection of critical habitats and ecological corridors shared across borders.
Today, the population is estimated at 152–189 snow leopards, with around 70 percent of the species’ range in Kazakhstan now falling within protected areas.
The growing snow leopard population, a symbol of the “health” of mountain ecosystems, shows that countries can create the conditions needed to conserve this rare and majestic species. It also demonstrates how biodiversity conservation in Central Asia increasingly depends on long-term regional cooperation, scientific collaboration, and shared responsibility for ecosystems that connect communities across borders.
For Kyrgyzstan, the snow leopard has become far more than a symbol of a rare species. It represents a broader commitment to safeguarding the mountain ecosystems that underpin water security, biodiversity, climate resilience, and the well-being of millions across Central Asia.
A longstanding symbol of strength, freedom, and harmony with nature, the snow leopard was officially designated a national symbol of the Kyrgyz Republic, reflecting the country’s deep connection to its mountain heritage.
As one of the world’s most mountainous countries, Kyrgyzstan views the conservation of snow leopard landscapes as both a national and regional priority. Protecting these habitats also means safeguarding forests, pastures, glaciers, snowfields, and watersheds that sustain communities and economies far beyond national borders. Recognizing their critical role in maintaining biodiversity and freshwater resources, Kyrgyzstan has established a legal basis for the protection of glaciers and snowfields and is developing mechanisms for their long-term conservation.
[caption id="attachment_50005" align="aligncenter" width="1774"]
Photo: UNDP Kyrgyzstan/Vlad Ushakov[/caption]
Kyrgyzstan has also used snow leopard conservation as a platform for advancing mountain resilience and regional cooperation. The country championed the UN Five Years of Action for the Development of Mountain Regions (2023–2027), supported the establishment of International Snow Leopard Day, and promotes transboundary cooperation through GSLEP, regional agreements, and joint conservation efforts among range countries.
Kyrgyzstan’s experience demonstrates how conserving one iconic species can unite countries around a shared agenda for mountain resilience, biodiversity conservation, water security, and sustainable development.
[caption id="attachment_50006" align="aligncenter" width="1774"]
Photo: Snow leopard’s habitat/UNDP Tajikistan[/caption]
High in the mountains of Tajikistan, people have lived alongside snow leopards for generations. But for many years, life was becoming harder for both. Shrinking pastures and disappearing wildlife pushed communities and predators into conflict. When snow leopards attacked livestock, families suffered. And when wild prey disappeared, the future of the snow leopard became uncertain.
Today, there is hope.
According to the 2025 edition of Tajikistan’s national Red Book, the country’s snow leopard population has grown to around 500 individuals — nearly double the estimated 250 recorded in 2017. Behind these numbers is a powerful lesson: protecting nature only works when local people are part of the solution.
A conservation project led by UNDP and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) helped mountain communities enhance their livelihoods while protecting wildlife. Women in remote villages were trained in wildlife monitoring and ecotourism, gaining new opportunities while helping monitor and protect nature.
Altogether, 450 people from remote mountain areas, including protected area rangers and community members, strengthened their skills in smart patrolling and wildlife monitoring through project-supported trainings. These enhanced capacities improved wildlife tracking and threat detection, contributing to reduced illegal hunting and tree cutting.
The project also introduced a simple but effective solution to reduce conflict between people and snow leopards. Communities received hay to feed livestock for just 20 extra days in spring, allowing mountain pastures to recover and wild prey to return. With more food in the wild, snow leopards were less likely to attack farm animals.
Most importantly, communities were trusted to lead. Through small grants and local initiatives, they supported restoration of degraded pastures and forests, adoption of sustainable livestock practices, and reduced pressure on fragile mountain ecosystems, helping conserve iconic species while strengthening local livelihoods.
The story of the snow leopard in Tajikistan shows that when communities are empowered, nature can recover too.
Importantly, conservation success was not driven by communities alone. It was also enabled by stronger institutions, enhanced protected area management, expanded wildlife monitoring, and closer cooperation among scientists and conservation agencies. At the same time, while biodiversity frameworks are in place, their implementation depends on the capacities of staff at national and subnational levels. Continued education, skills development, awareness raising and, overall, investment in people remain essential to sustaining conservation efforts.
The return of the snow leopard reflects the recovery of entire mountain ecosystems.
[caption id="attachment_50007" align="aligncenter" width="1774"]
Photo: UNDP Turkmenistan / Dovlet Rejepov[/caption]
In Turkmenistan, in the Aral Sea Basin, communities are restoring degraded pastures and adopting more sustainable land management practices to improve productivity while reducing pressure on fragile ecosystems. These efforts are helping rural households strengthen resilience to climate change while supporting biodiversity conservation.
Environmental degradation has had significant social and economic consequences, particularly for women and vulnerable households that depend heavily on natural resources for livelihoods and food security. As climate-related pressures such as declining agricultural productivity, degraded grazing lands and increasing water stress intensify, strengthening women’s participation in sustainable resource management and local decision-making is becoming increasingly important.
Across affected landscapes, practical efforts are helping reduce pressure on natural resources while supporting livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. Communities are increasingly engaged in identifying solutions that strengthen resilience, improve resource management, and promote inclusive participation in sustainable local development.
[caption id="attachment_50008" align="aligncenter" width="1774"]
Photo: UNDP Uzbekistan[/caption]
In Uzbekistan, community-led solutions in biodiversity-rich landscapes are demonstrating how ecosystem protection can go hand in hand with improving everyday life. Among many locally driven initiatives, families like Gulnoza Nuriddinova’s benefited from practical measures such as fencing, which helped protect household gardens and crops from wildlife intrusion and uncontrolled grazing, improving food security and reducing economic losses. For families like Sharofat Fayziddinova’s, access to piped water within the village transformed daily life by eliminating the need for frequent journeys to remote water sources, saving time and effort while improving living conditions.
While these were individual solutions tailored to local needs, together they helped reduce pressure on sensitive natural areas, lower the risk of human-wildlife encounters, and strengthen the relationship between communities and the ecosystems on which they depend. They reflect an important lesson: conservation efforts are most effective when communities benefit directly from environmental protection and become active partners in safeguarding nature.
For people living in mountain and rural areas, biodiversity is not an abstract concept. It is directly connected to water access, food security, incomes, health and resilience. The experiences of communities across Central Asia show that conservation is most effective when it improves people's lives while protecting the ecosystems on which they depend.
Healthy mountain ecosystems help regulate river systems that sustain economies and populations across borders. Degraded forests, pastures and watersheds increase erosion, water insecurity and disaster risks for entire regions downstream. Protecting nature is therefore also an investment in regional stability, economic resilience and human security.
The region has already demonstrated growing cooperation on climate action, biodiversity protection and sustainable natural resource management. Countries are expanding protected areas, strengthening environmental governance and investing in ecosystem restoration. Regional dialogue and collaboration are increasing.
But much more is needed to match the scale of today’s environmental challenges.
If Central Asia is to safeguard its shared natural heritage, three priorities deserve greater attention: investment in transboundary ecological corridors; stronger cooperation on water, land and biodiversity governance; and expanded support for communities whose livelihoods depend directly on healthy ecosystems.
The GEF Assembly provides an important opportunity to strengthen this momentum.
As Resident Representatives of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Central Asia, we believe that with the leadership of the five Central Asian countries, the region can become a global example of how biodiversity conservation, climate resilience and sustainable development can advance together across borders.
The future of the snow leopard, like the future of Central Asia’s shared mountain ecosystems, depends on continued cooperation across borders.
At this moment, we call for stronger partnerships and greater investment in transboundary biodiversity conservation across Central Asia — investment that protects ecosystems while creating opportunity, resilience and hope for the people who call these mountains home.
The snow leopard does not recognize national borders. Neither do rivers, droughts, dust storms or climate impacts. Our response cannot stop at borders either. By investing together in nature, Central Asia can strengthen resilience, create opportunity and protect the ecosystems that sustain future generations.
Washington Links TRIPP and Jackson-Vanik Repeal in Push Toward Central Asia
A notable strategic shift is taking place in U.S. foreign policy, one that could have a long-term impact on the economic architecture of Eurasia. After decades in which Central Asia and the South Caucasus were viewed largely through the lens of security, counterterrorism, and competition with Russia and China, Washington is increasingly emphasizing trade, investment, transport routes, and access to critical minerals. One of the clearest signs of this shift came during a recent hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Senator Steve Daines and Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed the implementation of the U.S.-backed Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) framework, as well as the need to remove the outdated Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions. At first glance, these may appear to be separate issues: the peace process in the South Caucasus and Cold War-era trade legislation. In reality, however, they are closely connected. Together, they point to a broader U.S. effort to link Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and Western markets through trade, transport, and investment. In recent years, Republican Senator Steve Daines of Montana has emerged as one of the most active advocates of expanding America’s presence in Central Asia. As co-chair of the Senate Central Asia Caucus and one of the leading proponents of legislative efforts to repeal Jackson-Vanik restrictions, Daines has consistently argued for stronger trade and investment ties between the United States and the countries of the region. During the hearing, Daines placed particular emphasis on the importance of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process, describing it as one of the most underappreciated diplomatic efforts of recent years. According to the senator, resolving the conflict could open the door to a large-scale economic transformation of the wider region. Particularly noteworthy was his reference to a geopolitical concept associated with former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. In Daines’ formulation, Central Asia represents the “bottle,” while Azerbaijan serves as its “cork.” Opening transport routes through the South Caucasus, he argued, would allow flows of oil, gas, critical minerals, and other resources to move toward Western markets rather than toward Russia, China, or Iran. Daines said this approach helped address some of the most difficult issues in the Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement process and laid the foundation for what he called a “landmark agreement” after nearly four decades of conflict. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described TRIPP as an initiative capable of fundamentally transforming Armenia’s economic role in the region. According to Rubio, the framework not only addresses the issue of transport access, which had long been a source of disagreement between Baku and Yerevan, but also creates an opportunity for Armenia to become a major trade and logistics hub connecting Europe and Asia. Rubio described TRIPP as central to the Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement framework, emphasizing that the project could generate substantial investment flows and attract U.S. companies to infrastructure and transport projects across the region. Washington’s argument is that trade, transit, investment, and infrastructure can give the political settlement a stronger economic base. Unlike many previous peace initiatives, TRIPP is built around tangible economic incentives: trade, transit, investment, and infrastructure development. It is within this broader strategy that the question of repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment acquires new significance. The amendment was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1974 as a means of pressuring the Soviet Union and other non-market economies that restricted freedom of emigration. The law denied such countries most-favored-nation trade status and imposed additional trade restrictions. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago, the amendment formally remains in effect for several post-Soviet states, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan. Although most of these countries receive annual waivers and effectively enjoy normal trade relations with the United States, the legislation itself remains on the books. At the hearing, Daines described Jackson-Vanik as one of the principal irritants in U.S. relations with both Azerbaijan and the countries of Central Asia. The senator argued that the restrictions have long since lost their original relevance and continue to impede the development of economic ties. Rubio’s response when asked about the Jackson-Vanik amendment was unequivocal. “It's a detriment. We'd like to see it removed,” the Secretary of State said. Kazakhstan’s ambassador to the United States, Magzhan Ilyassov, welcomed the exchange. “U.S.-Kazakhstan relations are at new heights and your engagement with Central Asia has played a pivotal role in that progress,” Magzhan Ilyassov said on X. He said that removing the “relic” of the Jackson-Vanik amendment would support “the new chapter in the partnership.” For many American policymakers, the issue has long ceased to be merely a trade matter. Today, Jackson-Vanik is increasingly viewed as a symbolic reminder that U.S. policy toward Central Asia still relies in part on instruments inherited from the Cold War era. For business, the issue is certainty. Major investment projects in mining, energy, transport infrastructure, and manufacturing are planned over decades. If normal trade relations depend on annual waivers, companies face an added layer of political and regulatory risk. This is why Congress regularly sees initiatives aimed at granting Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and other Central Asian states permanent normal trade relations status. In recent years, such initiatives have attracted support from both Republicans and Democrats. That leaves Washington with a policy contradiction: it is encouraging American companies to invest billions of dollars in the region while maintaining legislative restrictions adopted more than half a century ago for an entirely different geopolitical era. The principal driver of growing U.S. interest in the region remains the desire to diversify global supply chains and reduce dependence on China. Today, Beijing occupies a dominant position in the production and processing of rare earth elements that are essential for batteries, semiconductors, defense products, and technologies associated with the energy transition. According to available estimates, approximately 170 rare earth deposits have been identified across the region. Kazakhstan possesses substantial reserves of tungsten, uranium, and other strategic metals, while Uzbekistan is actively attracting foreign investors to projects involving the extraction and processing of mineral resources. At the C5+1 Summit in Washington in November 2025, Kazakhstan signed agreements with American companies worth approximately $17 billion in aviation, digital technologies, and critical minerals. Uzbekistan also concluded major commercial agreements in the aviation and energy sectors. These projects suggest that Washington increasingly views Central Asia not as a temporary foreign policy priority, but as a long-term component of its economic security strategy. Despite growing U.S. engagement, competition in the region remains intense. China remains Central Asia’s largest single-country trading partner, while the EU is also one of the region’s main trade and investment partners. In 2025, trade between China and the countries of the region reached $106.3 billion. By comparison, trade between the United States and Kazakhstan, Washington’s largest partner in Central Asia, stands at approximately $5.5 billion. Moreover, governments in the region have increasingly pursued multi-vector foreign policies and have shown little interest in choosing openly between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. This means that attitudes in Central Asia and the South Caucasus depend far less on high-profile political statements than on the ability to offer real investment, technology, financing, and infrastructure solutions. The hearing featuring Daines and Rubio was therefore a revealing moment in understanding how Washington’s view of Eurasia is evolving. In that sense, TRIPP and Jackson-Vanik repeal now sit in the same policy frame. One is meant to open new trade and logistics routes. The other would remove a Cold War-era barrier that still complicates American business engagement across the region.
Why the Caspian Is Becoming Eurasia’s New Energy Crossroads
Russia’s war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East are accelerating the emergence of a new Eurasian energy architecture, with the Caspian region increasingly at its center. In international politics, moments when several global crises simultaneously create opportunities for new centers of influence are rare. Today, a vast area stretching from Central Asia to the South Caucasus is experiencing just such a moment. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally reshaped Europe’s approach to energy security. Tensions in the Middle East have also raised questions about the reliability of traditional energy supply routes. Meanwhile, the global energy transition is driving demand for both clean-energy sources and alternative transport corridors. Against this backdrop, the Caspian region is no longer viewed as a peripheral economic space. It is increasingly emerging as a critical hub in Eurasia’s evolving energy system. Baku Energy Week 2026 shows how far this shift has come, highlighting Azerbaijan’s transformation from a traditional oil and gas producer into a strategic connector linking Central Asia, Türkiye, Europe, the United States, and the Middle East. One of the forum’s most significant political signals came in the form of a message from U.S. President Donald Trump to participants. His remarks went beyond a routine diplomatic greeting and reflected a broader shift toward a more pragmatic view of global energy policy. Trump described the United States as a strong supporter of Azerbaijan’s oil and gas industry and said the U.S.-Azerbaijan energy partnership would become more important in the years ahead. For much of the past decade, Western energy strategies appeared increasingly focused on rapid decarbonization and climate objectives. However, rising energy prices, Europe’s energy crisis, and growing global electricity demand have prompted policymakers to reassess those priorities. Trump openly reaffirmed support for the oil and gas sector and emphasized that the United States remains a long-standing energy partner of Azerbaijan. More importantly, Washington appears to recognize Baku’s strategic role in global energy security. The Trump administration increasingly views energy security as an element of geopolitical competition and is prepared to support projects that diversify supplies of hydrocarbons and critical raw materials. Speaking at the opening of Baku Energy Week, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said Trump’s policies had helped return energy policy to “normality.” Aliyev also noted that the oil and gas industry had faced sustained pressure from advocates of a rapid energy transition. It was therefore no coincidence that Azerbaijan signed a series of agreements during the forum with major American companies, including Chevron, JPMorgan, Oracle, and Comstock Resources. Particularly noteworthy was a cooperation agreement covering critical minerals and rare earth elements. For Washington, access to these resources is increasingly a matter not only of energy policy but also of technological and national security amid intensifying competition with China. In effect, Washington is beginning to view Azerbaijan as an important platform in a changing Eurasian energy map. While Washington is signaling renewed political backing, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan remains one of the principal architects of the region’s practical integration. Over the past two decades, Türkiye and Azerbaijan have built one of the world’s most successful energy partnerships. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline, TANAP, and the Southern Gas Corridor have collectively reshaped Eurasia’s energy geography. At Baku Energy Week, Turkish officials highlighted plans for an “electricity version of TANAP,” involving Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Bulgaria, and other Southeast European countries. The concept reflects Ankara’s ambition to expand its energy role beyond oil and gas into electricity transmission and green-energy corridors. For Ankara, this vision extends beyond energy. Türkiye is steadily developing a broader geoeconomic strategy in which Azerbaijan serves as a gateway to Central Asian resources. What is emerging is a new economic axis stretching from Ankara to Baku, Astana, and Tashkent. For Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, these developments could prove transformative. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, much of the region’s export infrastructure has remained oriented toward Russia. The new geopolitical environment is encouraging governments to pursue alternative routes and partnerships. Particular attention is now focused on the Trans-Caspian Green Energy Corridor. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan are working on a subsea electricity cable across the Caspian Sea that would enable exports of Central Asian electricity to Europe via the South Caucasus. The first phase of the feasibility study, backed by the Asian Development Bank and led by CESI, was launched in January 2026. It is assessing the technical, economic, regulatory, and environmental viability of the proposed interconnection. The project is still at the feasibility-study stage, with capacity, routing, financing, and regulatory issues yet to be finalized. For Kazakhstan, the project would also complement growing oil exports via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan route and help reduce dependence on traditional export channels. The most complex element of the emerging regional architecture remains Armenia. Following the 2020 war over Nagorno-Karabakh and the subsequent decline of Russian influence in the South Caucasus, Yerevan faces a difficult strategic choice. Armenia is seeking deeper ties with the European Union and the United States, but many of the region’s major infrastructure and energy projects are increasingly developing around the Azerbaijan-Türkiye-Central Asia axis. The question of transport integration through Armenia’s Syunik Province has become particularly significant. For Azerbaijan and Türkiye, a route through Syunik is viewed as a logical extension of the Middle Corridor connecting China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Europe. For Armenia, the issue remains highly sensitive and closely tied to sovereignty and national security concerns. Participation could give Armenia access to one of the region’s most important economic initiatives. Domestic sensitivities over the route have contributed to friction between Yerevan and its partners in both the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union. Armenia’s westward tilt has also sharpened tensions with Moscow. For Russia, these developments present both challenges and opportunities. The Kremlin recognizes that the war in Ukraine has reduced its ability to control regional transport and energy flows. As the Russian economy adapts to sanctions and new trade realities, Central Asian countries are increasingly diversifying their external economic relationships. In the 19th century, the great powers competed for influence in Central Asia in what became known as the “Great Game.” Today, a new version appears to be emerging, but this time, the competition is not primarily over territory. Instead, it revolves around energy corridors, digital infrastructure, rare earth minerals, green-energy projects, and transport networks. The United States is seeking to strengthen alternative energy routes beyond the influence of Russia and China. Türkiye is building a geoeconomic axis linking the Mediterranean to Central Asia. Europe is searching for new guarantees of energy security. China depends on reliable overland routes to keep the Belt and Road Initiative moving across Eurasia. At the center of this evolving geopolitical landscape stands the Caspian region. Its role is no longer limited to oil and gas. As energy exports, electricity transmission, critical minerals, and overland trade routes converge, the Caspian is becoming one of Eurasia’s most important strategic crossroads.
Turkmenistan Showcases Textile Industry as Labor Concerns Linger
Textile executives from Asia and Europe will gather this week at an event in Turkmenistan, which says it is aligning its textile industry with international standards despite continuing concerns about labor conditions during the annual cotton harvest. More than 30 Turkmen firms are registered to participate in the TurkmenTextile Expo in Ashgabat on June 4-6, according to event organizers. More than 40 companies from China, Turkey, and Italy are also listed as Turkmenistan seeks to upgrade an industry that is critical to the national economy. Discussion topics include brand strategies, the new textile technology for deriving fibers from algae, and the role of traditional textiles in contemporary art and fashion in Central Asia. There will be a fashion show and a presentation about the Eurasian Council for Craft & Design, a platform that was launched this year to promote regional designers and artisans. Katharina Schaus, the German founder of a consultancy called it fits – Organic Textile Partner, will speak about international trends in sustainable cotton production and textile certification. Another speaker, Carola Deiners, will address “responsible sourcing and the expectations of international buyers.” There have long been international concerns and calls for boycotts because of the reported mobilization of public employees and the use of forced labor, including children, in the annual cotton harvest in Turkmenistan. While the government has promised to improve working conditions and has collaborated with international inspectors, critics point to periodic state denials of the problem and an alleged gap between labor rules and their implementation. This year, the International Labour Organization, or ILO, said in a report on the 2025 harvest in Turkmenistan that there had been some progress on working conditions, particularly remuneration, but that some contractual protections and safety and health measures were still lacking. The report said there was still public employee involvement in the harvest and reported recruitment through workplace or administrative channels, as well as the perception of negative consequences for refusal to work in cotton. There was “a clear increase in children’s presence in cotton fields compared to 2024, despite strengthened legal prohibitions,” according to the report. Turkmenistan, meanwhile, has said it is increasing investment in spinning, weaving, knitwear, sewing production, and other aspects of its textile industry. Part of that effort has included the introduction of new production technologies from top textile companies in Japan and Europe. While there is a strong focus on exports, Turkmenistan’s Ministry of Textile Industry launched an online store called Dokma as part of a plan to digitalize the domestic economy. Through Dokma, state media reported last year, “customers can order hundreds of types of textile and leather footwear products — from enterprises within the ministry’s system as well as from private producers.”
Rights Groups Urge EU to Tie Turkmenistan Relations to Human Rights Progress
Rights groups have urged the European Union to take a tougher line on Turkmenistan, warning that closer ties with Ashgabat should be tied to measurable progress on human rights. The call came in a briefing by the International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) and the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (TIHR) ahead of the EU-Turkmenistan Human Rights Dialogue, scheduled for June 22, 2026, in Ashgabat. The organizations called on European institutions to press Turkmen authorities to take concrete steps to improve civil liberties, freedom of expression, and human rights protections. Turkmenistan remains one of the world’s most closed and repressive states, according to the briefing. It highlights severe restrictions on independent media, expanding internet censorship, the absence of independent civic space, persecution of government critics, transnational repression, impunity for torture and enforced disappearances, and continuing violations of women’s rights. The groups urged the EU to link any further development of relations with Turkmenistan, including ratification of the pending Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, to measurable progress on human rights. They also called on European officials to demand regular reporting from Turkmen authorities on the implementation of international recommendations and to share this information with independent civil society representatives. Media freedom is a central focus of the briefing. According to the 2026 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, Turkmenistan ranked 173rd out of 180 countries. The authors state that state-controlled media continue to function primarily as propaganda outlets, promoting an official image of prosperity despite economic hardship and systemic human rights violations. Access to alternative sources of information remains heavily restricted because of extensive internet censorship. The briefing also references cases involving the blocking of circumvention tools and raids targeting owners of Starlink satellite equipment. Rights advocates further argue that civic space in Turkmenistan is effectively closed to independent activity. Much of the public sector is controlled by government-linked structures, while many public-sector employees and students are pressured into financially supporting pro-government organizations. The briefing also highlights the continued practice of forced mobilization for mass state events. According to the organizations, civil servants, university students, and even children are regularly compelled to participate in large-scale public campaigns and rehearsals that can last for extended periods, raising concerns about health and safety. Despite official pledges to cooperate with international institutions, Turkmen authorities continue to restrict access to the country for independent observers and UN experts, the briefing says. It also lists cases of pressure and intimidation targeting journalists, activists, and human rights defenders. The organizations also expressed concern over discrimination against women, entrenched patriarchal practices, and the effects of the country’s prolonged socioeconomic crisis, which they say disproportionately affects women, labor migrants.
Opinion: Eurasia’s New Corridors Are More Than a Transit Race
Across Eurasia, new transport corridors are usually described as instruments of rivalry: routes to bypass Russia, ports to outflank competitors, or rail links to shift influence between regions. The conflict around Iran, the rivalry between India and Pakistan, instability in the Afghanistan-Pakistan zone, crises in the Middle East, sanctions, competition over transport routes, and growing struggles for transit influence all reinforce the image of a continent divided by political contradictions. Increasingly, this is the lens through which Eurasia is viewed. The development of transport routes and connectivity is now often explained through the logic of rivalry. Some corridors are described as alternatives to others. Certain ports are positioned against competing ports. Routes are increasingly perceived as tools of competition, circumvention, or geopolitical influence. The continent can also be viewed differently. Alongside political crises, another reality is visible: the continent continues to connect itself through new routes and networks. Railways, ports, energy grids, dry ports, container corridors, digital cables, and trade chains are gradually linking spaces that only recently were seen as separate regions. In many ways, Eurasia has always been a space of movement, exchange, and connectivity. The Silk Road Was a Network, Not a Single Route A recent article by News Central Asia made a simple but important observation: the Silk Road functioned because it belonged to everyone. This idea contains one of the central lessons of Eurasian history. The Silk Road was never a single road. It was not one unified highway built according to a master plan or controlled by a single center. For centuries, the continent was connected by a vast network of caravan routes, maritime pathways, mountain passes, cities, and trade hubs through which goods, people, knowledge, and ideas circulated. Some routes gained importance while others temporarily declined. States, empires, and commercial centers changed. New pathways emerged. Yet the network itself endured. The strength of the Silk Road lay not in one route, but in the multiplicity of connections. When one corridor became unsafe, trade shifted elsewhere. When political conditions changed, commerce adapted to a new geography. The continental network remained flexible and multilayered. This offers an important lesson for today’s Eurasian space as well. Many modern transport corridors did not emerge from nothing. In many respects, they follow historical logic. Railways have replaced caravan paths, dry ports have succeeded old trade hubs, and container routes continue along directions in which goods moved for centuries. Corridors and the Logic of Rivalry Today, most transport and economic corridors are interpreted as competing projects. Nearly every new route is framed through confrontation, alternatives, or attempts to bypass another direction. The Middle Corridor is often described as an alternative to northern routes. The International North-South Transport Corridor is presented as a separate geo-economic axis. Trans-Afghan projects are portrayed as competitors to other links between Central and South Asia. Chabahar and Gwadar are depicted as rival ports. Even the South Caucasus transport hub is increasingly viewed through the prism of struggles over control of routes and flows. Yet historically, Eurasia never developed through a single line of communication. For centuries, the continent evolved as a system of intersecting pathways. Some directions strengthened, others weakened, and new trade centers and routes emerged. But the network itself survived. For this reason, many modern corridors may be better understood not as mutually exclusive projects, but as elements of an emerging continental network. The Eurasian space is simply too vast and diverse to rely sustainably on only one direction. Two Maps of Eurasia It is time to look differently at the map of the continent itself. If one mentally overlays two separate maps of Eurasia, an interesting contrast appears. The first map is political. It shows conflicts, sanctions, fault lines, competing blocs, struggles for influence, and attempts to reroute trade. This is the map through which Eurasia and its subregions are often perceived today. But there is another map. On it appear railways, ports, energy systems, dry terminals, container routes, digital cables, trade chains, and cities gradually transforming into nodes of movement across a vast interconnected space. On this second map, the continent looks different, not as a space of division, but as a space of routes and interaction. Politics may divide territory, but infrastructure almost always seeks to connect it. This is one of the defining characteristics of the modern continent. Both maps exist simultaneously. States continue to compete, argue, and construct new spheres of influence. Yet the logic of geography itself continues pushing the continent toward connectivity, exchange, and interaction. The Heartland of the 21st Century This second map also offers a different way of understanding Central Asia. More than a century ago, British geographer Halford John Mackinder proposed the concept of the Heartland, the “pivot area” whose control, in his view, opened the way to domination over the vast continental interior. The theory later became one of the foundations of classical Western geopolitics and geostrategy. But in the 21st century, the region is increasingly acquiring a different meaning, not as a territory of control, but as a space of interaction. Historically, Central Asia mattered not because it controlled the continent, but because it connected it. For centuries, trade routes, caravan roads, and networks of exchange linked China, the Middle East, South Asia, Russia, and Europe through the region. Central Asia was never the periphery of Eurasian routes. It was their intersection point where roads, goods, people, languages, ideas and technologies met. In many ways, this geographic logic remains relevant today. Modern transport projects are gradually restoring the region’s historical role as a connective space. A Continental Network of Routes When examining contemporary transport and economic initiatives, it becomes clear that many projects no longer exist in isolation. Gradually, they are beginning to form a broader continental system of routes. The Middle Corridor links China, Central Asia, the Caspian region, the South Caucasus, and Europe. The International North-South Transport Corridor connects the continental interior to the Indian Ocean. Trans-Afghan projects create additional links between Central and South Asia. Caspian routes connect inland Eurasia with the Caucasus, Türkiye, and the Mediterranean. Ports in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea are becoming parts of wider continental logistics systems. Viewed without habitual geopolitical assumptions or political preferences, many of these routes do not cancel one another out. Rather, they form a complementary network. Some routes provide access to the sea. Others create overland links between regions. Some focus on container transport, while others are oriented toward energy, raw materials, food supplies, or industrial cooperation. This multiplicity of routes is precisely what makes the system resilient. Eurasia appears to be moving not toward one dominant corridor, but toward the creation of a more flexible and diversified network. Conflicts, rivalry, and political contradictions are not disappearing. Many projects face sanctions pressure, security concerns, infrastructure imbalances, and conflicting national interests. Yet even under these conditions, the geography of the continent itself continues pushing Eurasia toward the development of new routes, connections, and forms of interaction. Afghanistan as a Space of Connection Afghanistan occupies an important place within this emerging system. For decades, the country has been viewed primarily through the lens of conflict, instability, and security concerns. That context remains significant. Nearly half a century of war effectively removed Afghanistan from the normal logic of transit and regional connectivity. Only in recent years has the possibility re-emerged of viewing Afghanistan as a bridge between Central and South Asia. Historically, Afghanistan was never an isolated space. For centuries, trade routes linking Central Asia, India, Iran, and the Middle East crossed the territory of present-day Afghanistan. Cities in the region formed part of a larger network of exchange, caravan trade, and cultural interaction. Today, Afghanistan’s geography pushes it toward becoming a connecting space between regions. This is why major transport and economic integration projects in Central and South Asia continue to return to the Afghan direction, despite political risk. Trans-Afghan railways, energy projects and trade routes linking Central Asia with Indian Ocean ports are gradually creating a spatial logic in which Afghanistan is viewed not only as a zone of risk, but also as a potential junction between Central and South Asia. A vast distance remains between potential and realization. Yet the geography of the continent continues pushing routes toward connection. This is why the idea of connectivity through Afghanistan continues to return to the regional agenda despite political crises and shifting international circumstances. Eurasia as a Space of Movement Certainly, Eurasia remains a space of competing interests, crises, and rivalry. States will continue competing for influence, routes, and economic advantages. But perhaps the modern continent can no longer be explained solely through that prism. Alongside conflicts, another process is unfolding: the expansion of routes, trade, and interregional connections. Railways, energy projects, ports, dry terminals, digital cables, and supply chains are gradually linking spaces that only recently seemed separate from one another. In many ways, the continent is once again revealing its historical nature, not as a space of isolation, but as a space of movement. This is why it is becoming increasingly important to look at Eurasia not only through a political map, but also through a map of routes, connections, and interaction. Behind the complexity of modern geopolitics lies a simple geographic truth: sustainable routes emerge where there is room for coexistence, not only competition. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publication, its affiliates, or any other organizations mentioned.
Top U.S. State Department Official Travels to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Sarah B. Rogers, a senior official at the United States Department of State whose job includes engaging foreign publics through educational, cultural, and other means, will visit Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan as part of a trip to Central Asia and South Asia. Rogers, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, will also visit India and Nepal during the May 27-June 10 tour, according to the State Department. President Donald Trump nominated Rogers, a lawyer, to the post early last year and she was sworn in on October 10, 2025. The president has since nominated her to head the U.S Agency for Global Media, a federal agency tasked with disseminating information to international audiences that has been in turmoil since early in Trump’s second term. If confirmed, Rogers would keep her current job while also running the agency. The Trump administration sharply scaled back the operations of the global media agency, which oversees Voice of America and other U.S.-funded outlets, as part of a broader reduction in funding for U.S. aid projects around the world. Central Asia was among the affected regions where some U.S. funding was withdrawn, even as Washington ramped up economic and diplomatic initiatives with governments in that region. U.S. administration officials have alleged that the global media agency was vulnerable to political bias and management, though supporters said it played a valuable role in disseminating information in countries led by authoritarian governments. Lawsuits and court rulings have slowed the push to dismantle the agency. In her role as under secretary, Rogers has criticized what she calls censorship in Europe, saying speech regulation there is placing unfair restrictions on U.S. tech companies and undermining democracy. Opponents say she is seeking common cause with ideological allies of the Trump administration in Europe. “Truth-telling and censorship circumvention, including in closed societies, are critical causes for me,” Rogers said after her March nomination to lead the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
Sunkar Podcast
Kazakhstan to Host 2027 Table Tennis World Championships
