IWPR experts believe that the first summit of the Central Asian and US presidents held in New York is mainly symbolic in nature. They believe that the most important decisions for these countries will continue to be taken at the bilateral level. For the US, however, it is important for the Central Asian countries to comply with sanctions against Russia in order to prevent the export of dual-use goods to Russia.
The first summit of Central Asian and US leaders in the C5+1 format was held in New York. According to media reports, the talks focused on strengthening the fight against terrorism, strengthening regional economic ties and energy security.
US President Joseph Biden spoke at the meeting, in favour of further support for civil societies, among other issues. According to the White House press service, Biden spoke about continuing cooperation in fighting terrorism and ensuring border security in the region, as well as creating a more favourable business environment for trade and investment by creating a business platform for the private sector. The American president also suggested that the forum participants start working on attracting investments to open the Trans-Caspian International Transport Corridor, a route bypassing Russia and linking China with European countries via Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
At the end of the summit, all five leaders of the region refrained from speaking to the press, Voice of America reported.
On the eve of the summit, the human rights organisation Human Rights Watch urged Biden to make the issue of human rights in Central Asian countries a key topic of the summit. The events of recent years, including the war in Ukraine and the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, have also raised questions over the ability of Russia to continue to play its role in Central Asian security and who could replace it in this regard.
The CABAR.asia analytical platform asked experts from the region to answer several questions related to the C5+1 summit.
Kazakhstan
Rustam Burnashev, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Kazakh-German University
The first meeting of the presidents of Central Asian countries and the United States took place in Washington. How important is this summit for the region?
In my opinion, this meeting is of a purely symbolic nature, as it allows all the countries of the region to demonstrate once again, on the one hand, the multi-vectorness (or multi-levelness) nature of their foreign policy and, on the other hand, to declare Central Asia as a “region”.
As the summit itself showed, no decisions were made at the summit, and everything was limited to articulating the issues traditionally for discussing the situation in and around Central Asia.
Moreover, it is obvious that the C5+1 format (with the participation of any extra-regional power in the +1 position) is purely diplomatic and consultative since all decisions in this framework are taken exclusively at the bilateral level. This was also demonstrated by the summits in the Central Asia and Russia, Central Asia and China, Central Asia and the European Union formats.
How do you assess the agreement of the region’s presidents to meet, given the heightened contradictions between Moscow and Washington? Is this an important sign? Or should we not attach great importance to this event?
I repeat this summit is yet another demonstration of the multi-vector nature of the foreign policies of the Central Asian countries. The fact that the United States is designated as a strategic partner in the foreign policy doctrines (concepts) of our countries is a well-known fact, as is the strategic partnership with Russia, China or the European Union. Therefore, I would not attach any additional significance to this meeting.
By initiating this meeting of Central Asian presidents, President Biden is trying to weaken Russia’s influence in the region or at least maintain the current status quo. To what extent will he succeed?
I do not agree that a summit can change Russia’s influence on Central Asian countries. It is not meetings that matter, but practices. I am sure that the US understands this very well.
What does President Biden have to offer to the region? Especially since he faces a very difficult election in the near future and his possible successor may radically revise foreign policy in terms of more isolationism.
It has nothing new to offer. This can be clearly seen from the information published by the American side after the meeting. Everything that the U.S. can and wants to do in Central Asian countries it is already doing to a certain extent. Moreover, the situation in Central Asia is an issue that can in no way affect the outcome of the US presidential election.
We see that the human rights situation in the region is deteriorating. Following Russia’s example, repression against civil activists, journalists and dissenters in general is intensifying, and discriminatory legislation on foreigners is expanding. Human rights activists on the eve of the meeting urged Biden to pay attention to this. Will the possible rapprochement between the authorities of Central Asian countries and the United States lead to liberalisation and weakening of the pressure on civil society?
There is no rapprochement between the countries of Central Asia and the United States. I repeat once again – a summit meeting, especially a one-off one, cannot affect interstate relations. It requires a transformation of practices.
Moreover, it is obvious that even a change in practices (which we could observe, for example, in the early 2000s, when the US and its partners launched an operation in Afghanistan and, accordingly, increased their presence in Central Asian countries) does not guarantee a transformation of the domestic politics of Central Asian states. The sustainability of political regimes here has always been seen by the regimes themselves as a far greater value than any other issue.
For many years, Moscow has been the guarantor of security for the region, primarily from a possible threat from the south. Especially since the level of combat capability of the region’s armies raises big questions. For this purpose, the three states of the region joined the CSTO, an organisation created by Moscow. But we see that in Armenia, Russia’s CSTO ally, there is growing disappointment. They believe that Russian peacekeepers stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh have failed to protect the people of the region from Azerbaijani aggression and are unhappy with Putin’s mediation. The embassy in Yerevan has been blockaded, and Prime Minister Pashinyan has announced that Armenia will ratify the Rome Statute on joining the International Criminal Court, which demands Putin’s arrest. Do you think all these events are affecting the mood of the elites in CA? Are they not thinking about the fact that they need to look for new security guarantors?
You are raising a very complex issue and, at the same time, mixing two different issues – the situation in Central Asia and the conflict in the South Caucasus – which are of a different nature and, therefore, cannot be compared.
I will first dwell on the first issue. We are now well aware that Russia has never been a “guarantor of security” for the countries of Central Asia, no matter how we understand the term “security” (especially if we talk about its expanded interpretation and include economic, environmental and societal issues in “security”). Russia has not been a guarantor “against a possible threat from the south” either, as the scale of this threat has been seriously exaggerated over the past 30 years.
Only Tajikistan can be considered an indisputable exception, where Russia has indeed ensured the security of at least the political regime from both external influences and internal opponents. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that, although Russia has not been a “security guarantor”, it is one of the key factors in maintaining a number of areas in ensuring the security of the countries of the region, in particular in the area of military-political and military-technical co-operation.
Returning to the issue as a whole, I would like to note the following. Firstly, since the events in the South Caucasus and the events in Central Asia are completely different processes, the position of the Armenian leadership is unlikely to influence the position of the governments of the Central Asian countries. Secondly, the security of the Central Asian countries is guaranteed only by the countries themselves, and it is ensured by the policies pursued in them, including the building of bilateral relations at the regional level and a multi-vector policy.
China, the other most important partner of the region’s ruling elites, has also worsened relations with the US. What is China’s position on a possible rapprochement between Central Asia and Washington?
Obviously, I can’t answer that question as I am not a representative of China.
Relations between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have once again escalated. Moscow once again urged to avoid escalation of the conflict. Could President Biden be a more effective mediator in resolving the border dispute between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan?
No, he cannot. The format of the conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, its multidimensional and multilevel nature, the involvement of not only state structures but also informal, including criminal ones, allows us to assert that the conflict can be resolved only by the conflicting countries themselves if the political, social and economic reality in these countries changes and their leaders have the appropriate political will, as was done in relations, for example, between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan or Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Kyrgyzstan
Chinara Esengul, political and security expert
How do you assess the agreement of the region’s presidents to meet, given the heightened contradictions between Moscow and Washington? Is this an important sign? Or should we not attach great importance to this event?
I think there is a direct impact on the geopolitical situation in the region, of course because there is a geopolitical struggle and the grouping of countries in the world system into those who are neutral, those who are in favour of Russia and China, and those who are with the West and Ukraine. So, of course, the results of the summit have an impact on Central Asia in that Russia and China will behave more cautiously in their dialogue with Central Asia. But as far as the world political system is concerned, I think the outcome of the summit is not characterised by anything extraordinary and will not affect world politics much.
I believe that this is a significant event for our region because for the first time, the US President himself is participating in this format “Central Asia + USA”. And the fact that he invited and our presidents went, it’s like they say: when you are invited, you should not refuse. I don’t think there was a great desire on the part of Central Asian countries. Our leaders went wherever they were invited. Moreover, they went to America to participate in the UN General Assembly and had a meeting with Biden there. Therefore, I do not see any big, serious background in this.
By initiating this meeting of Central Asian presidents, President Biden is trying to weaken Russia’s influence in the region or at least maintain the current status quo. To what extent will he succeed?
The US is trying to ensure that the Central Asian countries comply with the anti-Russian sanctions regime. Also, by organising this meeting, the U.S. wants to show that strategically it wants to return to the region. Particularly in the economic sense, because after leaving Afghanistan in 2021, the U.S. has very much narrowed all interactions with the region.
But initially American companies, if we talk about economy and business, were represented only in the mining sector, especially in Kazakhstan. So in an economic sense, the fact that it is proposed to create a platform for business, alternative energy, and minerals – all these platforms that the U.S. has proposed, shows that America wants to be economically more active. Here they are trying to balance the growing influence of China in the region rather than Russia.
What does President Biden have to offer to the region? Especially since he faces a very difficult election in the near future and his possible successor may radically revise foreign policy in terms of more isolationism.
This is primarily trade and investment agreements and the development of business. It is also a question of resolving the situation and crisis in Afghanistan. That is, the fate of Afghanistan is directly linked to Central Asia and the security of our region. Also in general, cooperation in education, democratic programmes – this will all remain and this is what America has to offer.
For many years, Moscow has been the guarantor of security for the region, primarily from a possible threat from the south. Especially since the level of combat capability of the region’s armies raises big questions. For this purpose, the three states of the region joined the CSTO, an organisation created by Moscow.
But we see growing frustration in Armenia, Russia’s CSTO ally. There, they believe Russian peacekeepers stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh have failed to protect the region’s residents from Azerbaijani aggression and are unhappy with Putin’s mediation. The embassy in Yerevan has been blockaded and Prime Minister Pashinyan has said Armenia will ratify the Rome Statute to join the International Criminal Court, which demands Putin’s arrest.
Do you think all these events affect the mood of the elites in Central Asia? Do they not think that they need to look for new guarantors of security?
I believe that Russia has been and will remain a guarantor of security for the countries of Central Asia. Since there is a military conflict between Ukraine and Russia, there are military operations and, as they say, you don’t change horses at the crossroads. The strategic security of Central Asia is ensured by Russia’s nuclear umbrella. And this is a given that we cannot change if we want to, especially when there is a current conflict.
Therefore, it seems to me that Central Asia should focus on solving its internal security issues – these are issues of borders, water, etc. That is, we need to solve all internal issues ourselves and there is no need to look for a new guarantor of security, especially now. Therefore, in my opinion, the unity of Central Asian countries is the key guarantor of our regional security.
But regional security has several levels and the highest level is strategic security when it comes to nuclear weapons, and in this sense, as I said, we are under the umbrella of Russia. So it seems to me that in the strategic order, we will always remain with Russia until there are some changes at the high geopolitical level.
All the official nuclear powers that are permanent members of the UN Security Council are very serious players and what will happen to them will affect Central Asia. But not in such a way that Central Asia could decide something on this issue on its own.
China, another crucial partner of the region’s ruling elites, has also worsened relations with the US. What is China’s position on a possible rapprochement between Central Asia and Washington?
Yes, China has gotten more strained after the visit of Central Asian presidents to New York and the summit with the U.S. president. But in my opinion, you have to understand that Central Asia wants more investment, stronger trade and economic relations with rich countries.
But nevertheless, Central Asian countries want more equality between the global south and north. For example, the President of the Kyrgyz Republic made it clear in his speech at the General Assembly that the international community needs to seek greater social and economic justice.
Why I say this is because China is also a potentially big investor. The Chinese are implementing their Belt and Road project. And in this sense, there are projects where the interests of the West, including the United States, and China coincide. For example, this is the trans-Caspian corridor. Both the U.S. and China are interested in rebuilding this trade infrastructure between East and West. On this issue, I don’t think their interests will be very different and Central Asia will suffer because their partners are demanding different things.
But of course, there are issues where there is competition, first of all, competition for minerals, for resources.
So China, it seems to me, is not too concerned, but in terms of the economy, they will, of course, look at how effective these platforms that the U.S. has proposed will be.
Relations between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have again escalated. Moscow urged once again to avoid escalation of the conflict. Could President Biden be a more effective mediator in resolving the border dispute between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan?
I think we generally don’t need mediators in solving border issues. We need to somehow solve it ourselves. This is very important. Or, at least, turn to the mediation of such structures as the UN.
Uzbekistan
Temur Umarov, Research Fellow at the Carnegie Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies in Berlin.
The first meeting between the presidents of Central Asian countries and the United States took place in Washington. How significant is this summit for the region?
The first meeting between the presidents of the Central Asian countries and the US is an important event, first of all symbolically. In the political field, symbols are very important and from this point of view it should be understood that against the background of all these talks the US is no longer relevant in the region, that after leaving Afghanistan the US has lost contact with Central Asia, this meeting of the presidents proves that this is not true and the US has interests in the region and is not ready to be cut out of Central Asia.
How can we assess the agreement of the region’s presidents to meet, given the heightened contradictions between Moscow and Washington? Is this an important sign? Or should we not attach much importance to this event?
It is clear that if there had been no war and if there had been no growing disagreement between the U.S. and China, most likely there would not have been this summit. But the U.S. is trying in every possible way to prove to the region that this is not really the case, that the main thing for the U.S. in Central Asia is the region itself, that Central Asia for the U.S. is a strategic partner, so its interests are not related to what is going on around it, but to strategic, long-term partnerships.
By initiating this meeting of Central Asian presidents, President Biden is trying to weaken Russia’s influence in the region or at least maintain the current status quo. To what extent will he succeed? What can he offer the region? Especially since he faces a very difficult election in the near future and his possible successor may radically revise his foreign policy in terms of more isolationism.
I don’t think President Biden is trying to weaken Russia’s influence. In part that’s true, but I think Washington realises that Russia has enough instruments of influence in Central Asia that even if it wanted to, the U.S. would not be able to achieve the same level of trust that Russia enjoys now. Therefore, the U.S. is firstly giving a symbolic signal to Moscow and Beijing that the region is not forgotten. Secondly, it gives Central Asian countries the opportunity to diversify their ties with the world.
We see that the human rights situation in the region is deteriorating. Following Russia’s example, repression against civil activists, journalists and dissenters in general is intensifying, and discriminatory legislation on foreigners is expanding. Human rights activists on the eve of the meeting urged Biden to pay attention to this. Will the possible rapprochement between the authorities of the Central Asian countries and the United States lead to liberalisation and weakening of pressure on civil society?
No rapprochement with the US will not lead to liberalisation because political reforms in every country happen for internal reasons, not external ones. It is impossible to force democracy from the outside, just as it is impossible to impose autocracy from the outside. This is the problem of modern international relations and, in general, the essence of modern states and political regimes. The rapprochement with the US means that the Central Asian countries will have more opportunities to conduct foreign policy and nothing more.
For many years, Moscow has been the guarantor of security for the region, primarily from a possible threat from the south. Especially since the level of combat capability of the region’s armies raises big questions. For this purpose, the three states of the region joined the CSTO, an organisation created by Moscow. But we see that in Armenia, Russia’s CSTO ally, disappointment is growing. They believe that Russian peacekeepers stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh have failed to protect the people of the region from Azerbaijani aggression and are unhappy with Putin’s mediation. The embassy in Yerevan has been blockaded, and Prime Minister Pashinyan has announced that Armenia will ratify the Rome Statute on joining the International Criminal Court, which demands Putin’s arrest. Do you think all these events are affecting the sentiment of the elites in CA? Don’t they think about the fact that they need to look for new security guarantors?
The new guarantors of security in Central Asia will be the CA countries themselves. All the recent events that have taken place both with Russia and Afghanistan prove that one cannot rely on anyone completely in the matter of national security. You have to rely on your own strength.
I would not call what has happened a rapprochement between Central Asia and the U.S., it is too early to talk about it. It is a continuation of work in the existing format. There are no new agreements that would raise the status of these relations. Nothing has fundamentally changed. Therefore, I do not think it will affect relations with China.
China, the other most important partner of the region’s ruling elites, has also worsened relations with the US. What is China’s position on a possible rapprochement between Central Asia and Washington?
Yes, I think that the partial activation of the US in the region and in the world is due to the fact that Washington fears the results of the upcoming elections and therefore is trying to secure influence where it is possible and where it cannot be achieved in case of a possible change of power. The Central Asian region will certainly not be a priority if the Republicans come to power.
The US administration’s press releases about the summit spoke often of the US helping to maintain stability and self-sufficiency in this turbulent environment. There was also talk of economic partnership, investment, education and development in the broadest sense.
Relations between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have again escalated. Moscow once again urged to avoid escalation of the conflict. Could President Biden be a more effective mediator in resolving the border dispute between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan?
No. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan will stop arguing over their territories only when both sides are willing to solve the problem. As long as there is no such desire, no third country, be it Russia, the United States or China, will be able to achieve any result as long as these two countries do not reach a consensus.