INTEGRATION: CENTRAL ASIA

Over the past year, soon after the outbreak of war in Ukraine, political processes in the post-Soviet space have changed dramatically.

This is most noticeable in Central Asia, with the growing intra-regional integration tendencies. They often refer to two levels of integration most prominent in this region: the establishment of solid foundation for cooperation in Central Asia based on the idea of consultative meetings of heads of state proposed by the Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, and the Turkic axis of integration, with the active involvement of the leaders of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Central Asian states are Azerbaijan's leading political and economic partners. Therefore, the processes taking place there is of particular interest to Baku.

Balance of external and internal interests

Remarkably, Uzbekistan has been noticeably proactive in this process. Over the past year, the President of Uzbekistan paid official visits to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan. At the same time, leaders of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan paid state visits to Tashkent this year. The SCO summit in Samarkand (Septemebr 15-16) was attended by all leaders of the neighbouring states. Moreover, over the past two years, Uzbekistan has noticeably renewed and upgraded the basis of bilateral relations with all the states of the region.

Kazakhstan has also intensified the degree of regional cooperation as a platform for cooperation between the states of the region and external actors. The CICA (Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia) summit held in Astana on October 12-13, 2022 was a good opportunity to intensify the dialogue both between the Central Asian states and with the leading actors in Asian politics. A striking example of this can be the summit facilitated by Kazakhstan and including Russia and Central Asian countries.

The event was held in a very sincere atmosphere, while most observers reported the increased level of confidence and autonomy of actions in the keynote speeches of the Central Asian leaders. Presidents of Kazakhstan and Tajikistan underlined that the states pursuing their far-reaching plans in the region could not ignore the interests of other actors of regional politics. Some of the participants argued that Central Asia would never be the same again.

In fact, this statement is also true for more objective reasons. Ongoing changes in international politics have a real impact on regional politics as well. The growing presence of China, Turkey, the Arab monarchies and even India and Pakistan in the region, along with the traditional interests of Western states, contributes to the consolidation of the emerging new balance of interests.

Integration parameters

Consultative meetings between the heads of the Central Asian states are the backbone of the regional integration process.

On July 21, Cholpan-Ata, Kyrgyzstan, hosted the 4th Consultative Meeting mainly focused on issues concerning water resources, security and economy. Following the meeting, the Presidents of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan signed a Treaty of Friendship, Good-Neighbourliness and Cooperation for the Development of Central Asia in the 21st Century.

Remarkably, the presidents met separately the day before the summit, which may hint at the establishment of a Turkic group of states within the region as a driver of regional cooperation. All three states are active participants in another association, the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS), and have a significant impact on shaping the agenda of this body. These issues will undoubtedly be discussed at the OTS summit in Samarkand on November 11, 2022.

Interestingly, on the eve of the July summit, the three presidents had an informal dialogue and participated in a concert programme. It included songs and melodies of the peoples of these countries, which, according to the press service of the head of Kyrgyzstan, was "further evidence of the commonality and cultural proximity" of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

We can assume that the above document is a product of interaction between the three presidents and can be a basis for more concrete agreements on rapproachment.

Under the document, the signatories agreed to:

- provide each other with full support and mutual assistance in preventing threats to their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity;

- refrain from the threat or use of force in their inter-State relations, not to join any military alliance, bloc or other association of states against the interests of the parties, and not to take part in actions directed against any of the parties;

- resolve disputes in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding exclusively through peaceful diplomatic dialogue, including through the establishment of appropriate liaison mechanisms, if necessary, etc.

The leaders of Turkmenistan and Tajikistan refrained from signing the document but promised to do so "after the completion of internal state procedures in their countries".

Turkmen leader Serdar Berdymuhamedov may have been influenced by the overly explicit wording of the document, which could have been interpreted as a departure from the policy of permanent neutrality pursued by Turkmenistan since 1990s. As for the Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon, amid the border conflict with Kyrgyzstan, the wording of the document would have significantly constrained the actions of the Tajik side, which could be perceived as a sign of weakness.

Commenting on the document, spokesman of the Kyrgyz Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Avazbek Atakhanov, noted that the agreement can be used as a basis for negotiations on integration.

Threats of disintegration

However, it is still too early to talk about full-fledged integration amid serious contradictions between individual players, in particular between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan over the problems of enclave territories. Moreover, the Kyrgyz Minister of Defence recently urged for the presence of an ‘arbiter’, for example from the CSTO, to solve the border disputes with neighbouring countries. It is considered that Bishkek is more exposed to external influences than any other regional capitals. In particular, there is a much stronger influence of the Russian factor in the region. This may explain Bishkek's appeal to CSTO mechanisms. Earlier in January, the CSTO ensured domestic political stability in Kazakhstan.

It is known that a US military delegation also visited the Batken region of Kyrgyzstan, which is situated on the border with Tajikistan. Members of the delegation accompanied by the Kyrgyz Deputy Minister of Defence was briefed on recent incidents.

According to the Kyrgyz side, the visit was necessary to obtain technical assistance, including for the needs of the Ministry of Emergency Situations. But apparently it was also directly linked to recent events and Bishkek's intention to obtain the necessary military and technical assistance from Washington to implement its military plans.

The unresolved border issues were one of the main topics at both the October CIS summit and the Russia-Central Asia summit organised with the direct involvement of Kazakhstan.

It is possible that the Kazakh side, which organised these summits, may have planned the agenda to make the border instability one of the key issues of discussions.

In particular, the Kazakh president raised the issue at the Russia-Central Asia summit and noted that it should be resolved only peacefully, as well as under the principles of international law and the UN Charter. In recent years, a number of Russian politicians have openly declared their disagreement with the territorial division of the region inherited from the Soviet Union, claiming that Northern Kazakhstan belonged to Russia historically.

The Kazakh side has thus made it very clear that any attempts to revise borders in Central Asia are absolutely unacceptable to Astana and can be met with opposition.

Certainly, it is necessary to use consolidated approaches to deal with common risks and challenges. Since some states are inclined to resort to external assistance in solving their intra-regional contradictions, it is a bit early to talk about the solution of purely internal regional problems through one’s own mechanisms of interaction. Most likely, the parties understand this and expect to form a more stable security system based on their own potentials.

It won't be soon and it won't be easy, but it seems the process have already started.