The Central Asia Caucasus Institute recently convened a timely forum on the future of regional cooperation in Central Asia. The discussion featured Dr. Sanat Kushkumbayev, Ambassador Javlon Vakhabov, and Professor S. Frederick Starr, moderated by Dr. Svante Cornell. The session built on new CACI publications and looked ahead to the upcoming Central Asia Summit in Tashkent, with an emphasis on lessons from the past, the progress of recent years, and the path forward for integration.

Both Dr. Kushkumbayev and Amd. Vakhabov have recently published within CACI. To read Dr. Kushkumbayev’s work on the failed Central Asian Union of 1990-2005, click here. To read Amd. Vakhabov’s work on opportunities and challenges for Central Asia, please click here. 

Watch the full discussion below or on YouTube.

Lessons from Earlier Attempts

Dr. Kushkumbayev highlighted the limitations of past integration projects in the 1990s and early 2000s. Efforts such as the Central Asian Union were hampered by divergent economic models, lack of political will, unresolved border disputes, and external pressures. Many initiatives remained confined to declarations without implementation. He emphasized that while early attempts faltered, they provide critical lessons for today, including the importance of practical outcomes over symbolism and the risks of rivalry between national leaders.

A Pragmatic Turn in Regionalism

According to Dr. Kushkumbayev, Central Asia is now entering what some call “integration 2.0.” Unlike earlier experiments, the new phase is rooted in pragmatism rather than ideology. Cooperation is being pursued through flexible consultative meetings and concrete projects in trade, transport, and energy. This shift marks a more cautious but sustainable approach, focused on building trust and delivering tangible benefits for citizens rather than constructing supranational bodies.

Progress and New Institutions

Ambassador Vakhabov underscored how recent years have brought real breakthroughs, including the settlement of sensitive border issues and advances in water and energy cooperation. Initiatives like the Treaty of Friendship and the adoption of a long-term regional cooperation concept signal deeper institutionalization. Under Uzbekistan’s chairmanship, priorities include connectivity, tourism development, energy collaboration, and people-to-people ties. While challenges remain—such as water scarcity, uneven infrastructure, and differing external alignments—the region is moving from problem-solving to collective action.

Reactions and Next Steps

Professor Starr praised the shift from coordination to consolidation, calling it a “dramatic change” after three decades of independence. He urged Central Asia to strengthen its institutions further, warning that without them the region risks “driving with the handbrake on.” He also raised strategic questions about expanding the group to a C6 by formally including Azerbaijan and about leading careful engagement with Afghanistan. Dr. Cornell added that while ad hoc cooperation has been effective so far, lasting progress will require stronger institutions that can shield regional initiatives from domestic politics and external pressures.

The American Foreign Policy Council’s Central Asian-Caucasus Institute recently hosted a webinar covering the development of intra-regional cooperation in Central Asia. The event featured two experts: retired Ambassador George Krol, former ambassador to three Central Asian countries and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central Asian Affairs, and Dr. Svante Cornell, the institute's director and a regional integration expert. Their discussion examined how regional cooperation has evolved in Central Asia, the current state of integration efforts, and future obstacles and opportunities for US engagement.

Watch the full discussion on YouTube. 

Historical Overview of Regional Cooperation 

Ambassador Krol opened the discussion by reflecting on U.S.–Central Asian relations since the republics gained independence after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. He noted that Washington's foreign policy circles had an early instinct to encourage regional cooperation, but despite cordial rhetoric from Central Asian partners, real progress failed to materialize. The new governments prioritized building domestic institutions and asserting their newly won sovereignty. Dr. Cornell emphasized that despite this focus on sovereignty and the failure of the short-lived Central Asian Union, there remained recognition of the need for cooperation. This was evident in initiatives such as the Aral Sea Fund and the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. Together, Krol and Cornell's discussion provided a nuanced understanding of the context that led to the creation of the C5+1 format under the Obama administration and the first C5 summit in Astana—notably held without outside powers present.

The Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan Partnership

Cornell and Krol suggested that no relationship within the region is more important for Central Asian integration than the one between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Their relative size and international standing mean these states drive the pace of integration: when aligned, progress advances quickly; when divided, momentum stalls. Yet, shaped by the legacy of forced cooperation under the Soviet Union, both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have generally shown restraint in interfering in their neighbors' domestic affairs. Cornell highlighted two key episodes that illustrate their evolving role in regional conflict management. In 2010, amid unrest in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan evacuated the Kyrgyz president, preventing further destabilization, while Uzbekistan notably refrained from intervening despite ethnic ties to the persecuted Uzbek minority. More recently, during clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in the Ferghana Valley, both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan acted as mediators in trilateral talks, helping to ease tensions. Together, these cases demonstrate how regional leaders are increasingly capable of addressing security crises through their own conflict resolution efforts.

The Changing Geopolitical Landscape 

The discussion shifted to C5 and C5+1 relations amid Russia's war in Ukraine and China's growing influence. Cornell noted that the war in Ukraine has heightened Central Asia's awareness of sovereignty and territorial integrity, reinforcing the value of regional cooperation. He also observed that China's expanding economic presence adds both opportunities and dependencies, complicating integration efforts. Krol emphasized that Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan continue to play pivotal roles, mediating disputes and advancing coordination, while smaller states exercise caution to protect their sovereignty. In this new geopolitical context, even Turkmenistan has moved away from its historic isolationism, redefining its neutrality to participate more actively in regional initiatives.

Impediments and the Future of External Engagement 

Finally, the speakers considered potential limits of integration and opportunities for U.S. engagement. Both Cornell and Krol highlighted that limited people-to-people exchanges, weak educational ties, and varying historical perspectives constrain deeper integration. These factors illustrate both the progress made and the challenges that remain in fostering a shared Central Asian identity. They agreed that practical issues such as location, budget, staffing, and bureaucratic capacity must be considered for regionalism to endure. While presidential-level commitments are important, long-term success depends on cooperation among government ministries and agencies at lower levels. Both speakers stressed that a more integrated region will ultimately be more prosperous and resilient. Even if sometimes more resistant to U.S. influence, it will ultimately be in American interests to promote a more stable Eurasia.