• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Paul Stronski"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [
    "Changing Geopolitics of Eurasia"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Central Asia",
    "Kazakhstan",
    "Kyrgyz Republic",
    "Tajikistan",
    "Turkmenistan",
    "Uzbekistan",
    "Caucasus"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Integration Without Liberation in Central Asia

Brighter prospects for Central Asian integration come amid political and economic liberalization in Uzbekistan, hardening authoritarianism elsewhere in the region, widespread economic distress, and China’s growing influence—the five major trends that marked Central Asia in 2018.

Link Copied
By Paul Stronski
Published on Dec 29, 2018
Program mobile hero image

Program

Russia and Eurasia

The Russia and Eurasia Program continues Carnegie’s long tradition of independent research on major political, societal, and security trends in and U.S. policy toward a region that has been upended by Russia’s war against Ukraine.  Leaders regularly turn to our work for clear-eyed, relevant analyses on the region to inform their policy decisions.

Learn More
Changing Geopolitics of Eurasia

Project

Changing Geopolitics of Eurasia

Twenty-five years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Carnegie’s Changing Geopolitics of Eurasia project will assess the trajectories of the countries of Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. It will examine their foreign policies, evolving geopolitical environments, and implications for U.S. interests. The Changing Geopolitics of Eurasia project is supported, in part, by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Learn More

Source: East Asia Forum

Twenty-seven years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the prospects for Central Asian integration finally look brighter. This development comes amid political and economic liberalisation in Uzbekistan, hardening authoritarianism elsewhere in the region, widespread economic distress and China’s growing influence — the five major trends that marked Central Asia in 2018.

Renewed prospects for regional cooperation are most evident in Uzbekistan. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev continues to liberalise Uzbekistan’s foreign and domestic politics. Mirziyoyev spent much of 2018 trying to resolve regional tensions, often in lock step with Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Unlike his prickly predecessor, Islam Karimov, Mirziyoyev is pushing Uzbekistan towards a de facto policy of ‘zero problems’ with its neighbours.

This new approach is creating momentum to address some of the region’s most vexing problems. Cross-border trade jumped by over 52 per cent between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in the first half of 2018. The two countries are now considering creating an international trade zone along their impoverished common border. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan opened 10 border crossings, ending years of hostile relations due to long-standing border and natural resource disputes. Uzbekistan likewise mended long-strained ties with Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan’s decision to open the Dostuk border post in 2017 and liberalise the border-crossing regime led to a burst of economic and people-to-people activity in 2018.

Mirziyoyev also continues his top-down efforts to transform political and economic life in Uzbekistan. He pushed through changes to the justice, security service and law enforcement sectors in 2018, which helped consolidate his power. Mirziyoyev seems to realise that the country’s economic model is unsustainable and reform is needed to improve Uzbekistan’s image and entice foreign investors.

Mirziyoyev’s liberalisation has not led to democratic progress. Uzbekistan remains one of the region’s most repressive countries and the government’s commitment to liberalisation has not yet been tested by internal or external instability. Still, Mirziyoyev’s urging of government officials to be more accountable to the population and his willingness to allow more candid public discussion of corruption and socio-economic problems are important steps. Even if they fail to advance democracy in Uzbekistan, these reforms should improve the standard of living and empower local citizens to take greater ownership of their surroundings.

The remainder of the region appears to be going the opposite way to Uzbekistan. Limited NGO and social media space still exists in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but those countries are in the midst of political transitions and show less willingness to tolerate dissent.

With presidential elections scheduled for 2020, the Kazakh government is clearing the field of regime critics, stoking rumours that Astana will move the vote up to early 2019. At age 78, President Nazarbayev is the only leader that most Kazakhstani citizens remember and questions over the stability of the post-Nazarbayev transition will linger whether or not he runs for office again. The country faces staggering wealth inequality and with economic opportunity largely available only in the cities, rural to urban migration is depopulating regional areas and straining urban infrastructure.

Ethnic Kazakh nationalism is on the rise in the multi-ethnic country, as is nationalism throughout Central Asia. These factors may explain why Astana has clamped down on government critics in recent months. Kazakhstan’s soft authoritarian approach appears to be hardening across the board, with increasing numbers of people detained or put on trial for relatively minor opposition-oriented activities.

Central Asia’s smaller states face similar issues. Turkmenistan is on the brink of economic collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of its governing model. Ashgabat’s wasteful megaprojects have wiped out the country’s foreign currency reserves at a time when low hydrocarbon prices prevent it from replenishing its coffers. As inflation rises, the population has been forced into greater poverty. The government plans to stop subsidies for basic goods (electricity, gas, water and salt) on 1 January 2019, breaking the social contract that has been in place since 1992.

Neither the Tajik nor Kyrgyz governments seem able to address deep economic problems that create conditions for potential instability. Countless young people continue to leave both countries as migrant labourers. Tajikistan was also rocked by an Islamic State attack in July 2018. Instead of addressing the causes of radicalisation, the Tajik government used the attack to justify further clampdowns on the remnants of the Islamic opposition party.

The political situation is better in Kyrgyzstan, the region’s nominal democracy. But a growing dispute between the President and his predecessor and massive corruption scandals highlight the country’s political dysfunction.

Economic difficulties have forced both countries to assume greater debt burdens, particularly to China. Central Asian leaders welcome China’s Belt and Road Initiative as an economic lifeline. But the large influx of Chinese money and projects pose risks related to environmental degradation, the fuelling of corruption, the failure to create sustainable jobs and an influx of Chinese workers. These problems are evident in the newly revived — with Chinese money — cement industry in Tajikistan.

China’s growing footprint in the region risks a popular backlash. Moving forward, Central Asian leaders will have to balance the threat of anti-China sentiment among their populations against the need for greater Chinese investment and support.

This article was originally published by the East Asia Forum.

About the Author

Paul Stronski

Former Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program

Paul Stronski was a senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program, where his research focuses on the relationship between Russia and neighboring countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Russia’s Growing Footprint in Africa’s Sahel Region

      Paul Stronski

  • Commentary
    Russia in the Balkans After Ukraine: A Troubling Actor

      Paul Stronski

Paul Stronski
Former Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Paul Stronski
Political ReformForeign PolicyCentral AsiaKazakhstanKyrgyz RepublicTajikistanTurkmenistanUzbekistanCaucasus

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Shipping port at dawn from above
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.

    Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.

      • Afren Akhter

      Afreen Akhter

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Man speaking into two mics
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran War

    One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber, Sam Worby

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Fog of AI War

    In Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, AI warfare has come to dominate, with barely any oversight or accountability. Europe must lead the charge on the responsible use of new military technologies.

      Raluca Csernatoni

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?

    It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.

      Mikayel Zolyan

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.