On November 14, 2023, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting’s Representative Office in Central Asia hosted an important expert panel with a focus on exploring ways to strengthen ties between Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe. The event brought together experts from both regions, who shared insights on practical strategies for boosting economic cooperation, diplomatic relations, and soft power. This discussion aimed to identify actionable steps towards closer collaboration between these significant global regions, offering a platform for analytical yet accessible debate on international relations.
At the heart of the expert meeting on Central Asian and Central and Eastern European cooperation, Anthony Borden, the head and executive director of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, set the tone. Borden, with his extensive field experience in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Ukraine, underscored the panel’s critical theme: the importance of fostering multi-layered connections between these diverse regions. He highlighted the Institute’s longstanding commitment to building horizontal links, not just within Central Asia, but also in bridging it with other areas. More than just institutional or civic ties, Borden stressed the crucial role of shared values as the foundation for effective interregional cooperation, offering an insightful perspective on how deeper, value-driven engagement can pave the way for more meaningful and sustainable collaboration.
Mr Borden introduced the opening speaker and moderator of the meeting, Mr Eldaniz Gusseinov, who also authored an analytical paper with the same title as the panel.
In his introduction to the expert panel, Mr. Gusseinov set forth a compelling argument: Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) serves as a vital conduit linking Central Asia to the European Union. Utilizing the R programming language, he conducted a meticulous content analysis of news mentions from the official Telegram channel of Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This analysis, covering 2021 and 2022, unearthed an interesting trend: post the onset of the Ukraine crisis, there was a marked uptick in references to CEE nations, notably Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Lithuania. These findings not only highlight a shift in Kazakhstan’s foreign policy focus but also underscore the increasing geopolitical relevance of these CEE countries in the context of Central Asia-EU relations.
In his analysis, Mr. Gusseinov identified key elements fostering closer ties between Central Asia (CA) and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). He pointed out that a shared historical background and strategic geopolitical positioning are central to this relationship. CEE’s proximity to major economic hubs like Germany and CA’s closeness to influential powers like China and Russia enhance their global significance.
Gusseinov further emphasized the role of CEE-region nationals working within EU structures as potential advocates for Central Asian interests in the European Union. This human connection could serve as a vital link in strengthening diplomatic and economic ties. Additionally, he highlighted the opportunity for CEE nations to establish logistics hubs in Central Asia. This move could pave the way for non-resource exports from CA to the EU, diversifying economic interactions and deepening the integration of these regions into global trade networks.
In his research, the author outlined three recommendations, drawing from Hungary’s successful “Open to the East” initiative as a model for collaboration between Central Asia (CA) and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Firstly, he advocated for the adoption of a “Bridging Horizons” foreign policy concept, aimed at forging closer ties and understanding between these regions. Secondly, he proposed the organization of a “Year of Central Asia” within CEE nations, a cultural and diplomatic venture to enhance mutual awareness and cooperation. Lastly, he suggested the creation of a framework for strategic dialogue, engaging think tanks from both regions in a sustained intellectual exchange.
In his concluding remarks, Gusseinov emphasized the critical role of analytical groundwork in developing these interregional relationships. He underscored the necessity of identifying strategic areas of mutual interest, establishing effective channels for information sharing, and devising a robust system for monitoring and evaluating the interactions between CA and CEE countries. This approach, Gusseinov argued, would lay a solid foundation for building meaningful and productive horizontal ties between these geopolitically significant regions.
In his presentation, the next speaker – Mr. Maciej Adam Madalinski, Head of Policy, Press and Information at the EU Delegation in Kazakhstan, underscored the diversity and unique contexts of each country in the Central Asia (CA) region, a characteristic shared with the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region. Madalinski highlighted the strategic geographical position of Central Asia at the crossroads of major power interests, pointing out the associated risks and challenges this brings.
Delving into the topic of China’s growing influence, Madalinski labeled it a “global power” whose expanding footprint in both regions presents complex challenges. He specifically pointed out the unregulated economic activities of China in CEE and the Balkans as a matter of concern. For Central Asia, he drew attention to the issue of increasing external debt dependence on China, often referred to as the “debt trap”, illustrating the complex nature of China’s engagement in these regions. Madalinski’s analysis brings to light the intricate geopolitical dynamics at play, underscoring the need for a nuanced understanding of each region’s unique situation within the broader international context.
Addressing the topic of interregional transport and energy communication, the expert highlighted the current lack of collaboration, particularly noting Central and Eastern Europe’s (CEE) interest in Kazakhstan’s oil. However, he cautioned that forging such ties is a long-term endeavor. Presently, countries like Germany and some in CEE rely on Russian energy infrastructure, a dependency that shapes their strategic choices.
Madalinski then shifted focus to the preferred use of European Union (EU) communication infrastructure by CEE in their interactions with Central Asia. He underscored the potential in strengthening cultural, trade, and investment cooperation through existing EU institutions and channels. Additionally, Madalinski emphasized the critical role of media and journalists, alongside analytical centers, in building bridges between these regions.
In his conclusive remarks, Madalinski characterized Russia’s influence in Central Asia as “divisive”. He articulated the EU’s vision for the future of Central Asia as one of genuine regional cohesion among all five states, suggesting a strategic pivot towards more integrated and cooperative regional dynamics. This perspective aligns with the EU’s broader approach to fostering stability and collaboration in its neighboring regions.
In her presentation, Dr. Mara Gubaidullina, a professor at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, began with a historical overview, emphasizing the longstanding nature of the relationship between the European Union and Central Asia. She analyzed EU-Kazakhstan relations through the lens of the European Union’s strategy in Central Asia, providing a deeper context to this geopolitical dynamic.
Dr. Gubaidullina highlighted that since 2004, with the accession of 10 states into the EU, the Union and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have become pivotal actors for Central Asia. She reflected on the evolution of this relationship, particularly after the adoption of the first EU strategy for Central Asia in 2007. Initially, Central Asian states were described as “neighbours of neighbours” in EU discourse, a characterization that at first seemed acceptable but later came to signify a more distanced and controlling relationship.
In concluding her presentation, Professor Gubaidullina pointed out a critical shortfall in the EU’s engagement with Central Asia: the lack of adequate funding to implement its strategy in the region. She drew a stark comparison with the substantial assistance provided by the EU to Ukraine, suggesting a disparity in the Union’s strategic priorities and resource allocation. This observation raises important questions about the depth and effectiveness of the EU’s commitment to fostering stronger, more meaningful ties with Central Asia.
Dr. Māris Andžāns, Director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies Riga, offered a Baltic perspective on the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine and its implications for Central Asia. He began by tracing the historical and contemporary connections between the two regions, from their shared Soviet past to the ongoing diplomatic, cultural, and economic ties. Andžāns highlighted the active involvement of the Baltic States in shaping the European Union’s foreign policy towards Central Asia. This was exemplified by the joint roadmap adopted in October 2023 to deepen EU-Central Asia relations, a project in which the Baltic States played a significant role.
Discussing the fallout of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, Andžāns identified troubling trends in Baltic-Central Asian relations. He pointed out the increased support for Russia by Central Asian countries, manifested through heightened interactions, state-level visits, and assistance in circumventing international sanctions. A particularly contentious issue he raised was the attempted arrest of a former Latvian politician and scientist in Kyrgyzstan at Russia’s behest. These developments, Andžāns noted, are viewed critically in the Baltic States and have adversely affected the current state of interregional interaction, signaling a complex and evolving geopolitical landscape.
In his discourse on the future of regional cooperation, Dr. Andžāns highlighted two principal destabilizing factors: Russia’s growing influence and the trend of “democratic backsliding” in Central Asian countries. These elements, he argued, pose significant challenges to the stability and integration of the region.
Yet, in contrast to these concerns, Dr. Andžāns pointed to a significant development with the potential to reshape regional dynamics: the European Union’s “Global Gateway” initiative, also known as the New Silk Road program. This ambitious EU-led project aims to develop comprehensive intermodal transport networks, digital infrastructure, and energy connections between Europe and Central Asia, deliberately circumventing Russia. This initiative, he suggested, is not just about building physical infrastructure but also about strengthening the geopolitical ties between the EU, its eastern states and candidate countries, and partners in the Caucasus and Central Asia. This approach presents a strategic shift, promising to enhance connectivity and cooperation, while countering the influence of regional power players.
Concluding the series of presentations, Mr. Alouddin Komilov, a researcher at the Centre for Progressive Reforms in Uzbekistan, focused his report on the critical intersection of water management and climate change between Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Komilov began by delineating the primary challenges and issues within this sphere, underscoring the significance of water resources in the context of regional environmental and socio-economic stability.
Delving into actionable initiatives, Komilov highlighted the European Union’s significant investment in Central Asia, specifically mentioning infrastructure projects worth 700 million euros. These projects are concentrated on enhancing water supply systems and improving waste management practices in the region. This substantial financial commitment from the EU underscores the strategic importance of Central Asia in terms of environmental and resource management and represents a tangible step towards addressing some of the pressing challenges posed by climate change and resource scarcity in the region.
The presentations were followed by an engaging question and answer session, where the audience delved into issues such as Russia’s influence and the potential risks of its interference in Central Asia (CA) and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The panelists offered varied insights on Russia’s possible perception of the growing cooperation between these regions, with a particular focus on CA’s reliance on the Russian Federation.
A significant contribution from the audience proposed an alternative perspective for understanding CA-CEE relations, emphasizing the shared socialist/communist histories of these regions over the conventional geopolitical narratives dominated by major powers. In response, Mr. Madalinski highlighted the parallel struggles of Kazakhstan and Poland for independence during their time under the Russian Empire, pointing to a common legacy of resistance. Dr. Andžāns underscored the value of personal connections and the historical ties established through educational and cultural exchanges during the Soviet era, which continue to be relevant. Mr. Komilov addressed the theme of Russia’s Orientalism and its role in shaping historical narratives about the peoples of its empire, including those in Central Asia. These discussions revealed a tapestry of perspectives, weaving together historical, cultural, and geopolitical strands to better understand the intricate relationship between these regions.
The full version of the expert meeting is available below: