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.
