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.

By Sanat Kushkumbayev

Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program
Silk Road Paper
June 2025

Click Here to Download

Executive Summary

The post-Soviet landscape of Central Asia, characterized by an intricate web of cultural ties, shared histories, and political ambitions, presents a unique case of regional integration that has both fascinated and perplexed international observers. From 1991 to 2005, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan worked assiduously to develop regional cooperation, an effort that had to contend with conflicting national interests and external geopolitical pressures.

The early years following the Soviet dissolution ushered in a moment of hope for a “Golden Age” of integration. Between 1992 and 1998, regional leaders embarked on ambitious initiatives aimed at constructing a new order that would facilitate collaboration and mutual development. However, as idealism gave way to pragmatism, the stark realities of internal and external challenges emerged.

From 1998 to 2002, the dynamics within Central Asia became increasingly contentious, with external powers asserting their influence and regional leaders jockeying for position. Despite the opportunities for collaboration, the interplay between national ambitions and external interests led to a dilution of collective efforts and a hesitation to fully commit to regional integration paths.

Still, the accomplishments of Central Asian regionalism were significant, especially coming at a time when the states of the region were focused primarily on the building of national sovereignty. In other words, they always saw the strengthening of sovereignty as entirely compatible with the development of regional cooperation.

The later phase, from 2002 to 2005, witnessed a significant decline in the momentum for regional initiatives against the backdrop of geopolitical shifts and mounting internal crises. The influence of larger powers, particularly Russia, shifted the focus of regional cooperation away from original Central Asian projects, culminating in key initiatives like the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO) being subsumed into broader Eurasian frameworks.

This comprehensive analysis underscores the complexity of Central Asia's road to regional integration, highlighting the intricate balance between national aspirations and the overarching influence of external geopolitical factors. It serves as a crucial reflection for policymakers, analysts, and scholars interested in the intersection of regional dynamics and global geopolitics. In particular, as Central Asian states are once again embarked on a quest to deepen and institutionalize their regional cooperation, the lessons of the past attempts to build regional institutions will be valuable to the region’s leaders as well as external supporters of this process.

.