Time for a US pivot to Central Asia

Washington aims to absorb strategically vital Central Asia into its sphere of influence, according to a US State Department 2020 strategy document entitled “US Strategy for Central Asia 2019 – 2025: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity.” To date, its efforts have come up notably and woefully short.

With a new US administration to take office next year, it’s not too soon for Washington foreign policy mavens to begin considering a new strategic approach to this vast region steeped in natural resources and historical significance for transcontinental connectivity. 

What would a fresh US start in Central Asia entail? For starters, it would prioritize diplomatic engagement, de-emphasize geopolitical adventurism and moderate ideological pronouncements.

Diplomacy, which generally presupposes dialogue and compromise, is the smartest, most cost-effective way to resolve conflicts in an increasingly unstable and dangerous world. 

The US State Department and the rest of the DC foreign policy establishment would thus be well-advised to stop equating peace with weakness and pointless “forever wars” with strength as if the recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were not enough to engender new thinking.

Moreover, a new emphasis on diplomacy should not be construed as isolationism, which is unachievable even if it were diplomatically desirable, which it is not. Rather, it would represent a revival of the great American foreign policy traditions of John Quincy Adams, William Henry Seward, Dean Acheson, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz.

Smart diplomacy does not mean appeasement, as some disingenuously contend in a bid to block any alternative to America’s current foreign policy. It should retire the tendency of so many US foreign policy elites to think in terms of a simplistic dialectic of good versus evil. The US needs a foreign policy based on morality, not moralism.

US-Central Asian relations will gain new strategic momentum once Washington convinces regional states that it sees them as sovereign nations rather than pawns on a geopolitical chessboard and recognizes that peace and stability are best served by pursuing mutually beneficial rather than “snatch and grab” economic policies, which are often disingenuously cloaked in the language of progress and prosperity.

The US State Department must work harder to convince Central Asians that Washington’s outreach and foreign aid programs are not aimed at regime change, the imposition of culturally insensitive ideological agendas or making the states of the region financially dependent on the US. Unfortunately, these perceptions are pervasive in the region today.

Washington would do well to temper its enthusiasm for the “winner-take-all” school of geo-economics, which is inconsistent with Central Asia’s goal of achieving sustainable development through the proper and fair allocation, use and management of limited natural resources in the service of regional unity and economic integration.

Presidential treatment

In the competition for influence in the Eurasian heartland, it will not be easy for the United States to catch up with China, Russia and Turkey.

This owes to its rivals’ head start in trade and transport connectivity as well as the deep historical, cultural and geographic disconnect between Eastern and Western customs and ways of thinking.

The single metric of US versus China exports to Azerbaijan over the past several years sheds light on Washington vs Beijing’s economic engagement across the region.

Since year-end 2018 through the second quarter of 2024, Chinese exports to Azerbaijan, located on the western rim of the Caspian Sea, have ballooned four times from approximately US$40 million to over $160 million/per month.

In contrast and starting from a much lower base of just some $20 million, US exports to Azerbaijan doubled over the same period to $40 million, representing the level of Chinese exports five years earlier. Growth rates in Chinese exports to other Central Asian republics show similar trends.

If Washington really wants to deepen its Central Asia relations, the next US president should visit the region. No US president has ever set foot in Central Asia (defined as excluding Afghanistan, which Donald Trump visited in 2019) – a matter of considerable frustration for the region’s leaders. Such a visit could help to reshape the relationship dramatically.

In lieu of a state visit to the region, President Joe Biden has contented himself with repeated references to its strategic importance and with a one-time, highly scripted, 45-minute ceremonial pow-wow with Central Asian heads of state on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in 2023.

That may be better than nothing but it is insufficient in light of Central Asia’s strategic importance and its desire to maintain sovereign autonomy against external power meddling.

In sharp contrast, the heads of state of China, Russia and Turkey, as well as India, South Korea and other Eurasian countries, have traveled to Central Asia some 40 times since 2019. Likewise, the presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have met face-to-face with their counterparts or traveled to foreign capitals over 100 times.

Central Asian officials want the United States to go beyond “Zoom call diplomacy” and get down to real business, i.e., quit saying. “we care so deeply about your independence,” drop the sermons on democracy and the inadequacy of their social policies (the latter often deeply inimical to Central Asian traditional values), and recognize that multipolarity (witness BRICS), like it or not, is gathering force and won’t fade away.

To successfully pursue American interests in the region, the US must accept and confront the reality of Central Asia as it is today. The 2023 New York “C5+1” meeting between Biden and regional heads of state, despite all the publicity and ballyhooed launch of a rare earth metals initiative, did not make up for decades of lost diplomatic time.  

Various US policies, including the financing of major infrastructure, have stalled across the region as if bogged down in a Karakum desert sandstorm. Tellingly, most Central Asian leaders skipped this year’s UN General Assembly confab, while the upcoming 16^th BRICS Summit (October 22-24) is expected to attract over 23 heads of state.

While Central Asians will surely continue to engage with the United States, if Washington doesn’t deliver soon on substance, they will undoubtedly go elsewhere to get the best infrastructure, logistics and mining deals that China and others have to offer. This is only logical when the US de facto removes itself from the equation.

The message from Central Asia is clear – stick to what the “US Strategy for Central Asia 2019 – 2025: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity” document has already put in black and white and mean it, namely: “The United States’ primary strategic interest in the region is to build a more stable and prosperous Central Asia that is free to pursue political, economic and security interests with a variety of partners on its own terms.”

Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and other regional heads of state clearly hope the US means it. The Kazakh leader has characterized the objectives of Central Asian diplomacy as follows: “Kazakhstan’s [diplomacy] is very simple and clear – we do not believe in zero-sum games. We wish to replace the ‘Great Game’ with ‘Great Gain’ for all in the heart of Eurasia. We are interested in maintaining and strengthening trust, friendship and strategic partnership with our neighbors and with all countries that are really interested in developing cooperation with Kazakhstan.”

In other words, Central Asians have no desire to passively look on as external powers, in thrall to the superannuated theories of British geopolitical thinker Halford Mackinder, continue to seek to divide and conquer the Eurasian landmass.

A Trump pivot

Presidential aspirant Trump should send a clear signal that Washington’s Central Asian policy would proceed in a more business-like manner, i.e., strive to create political and economic synergies that result in mutually beneficial outcomes, if he wins the November election.

If Trump’s policy vis-à-vis Central Asia were to be grounded in confident, smart diplomacy and no-nonsense realism, Central Asians would welcome the change in American leadership, just as they would applaud the cessation of US lectures on internal governance matters. Such moralizing has proven self-defeating for US strategic interests.

A Trump 2.0 administration should redraft the “US Strategy for Central Asia 2019 – 2025: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity” with a view to shifting the momentum of US-Central Asian relations and compete more effectively with China, Russia and others in the region.

At the same time, State Department policymakers should remember that Central Asia is serious about protecting its sovereignty, spiritual and cultural heritage, civilizational unity and traditional family values.

Should Trump win, he would be wise to send personalized notes to the presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, saying to all: “I’ll see you in Central Asia in 2025.” The personal touch would go a long way toward deepening US-Central Asian relations and advancing US strategic and national interests in the region.

Javier M Piedra is former acting assistant administrator, Bureau for Asia, United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Alexander B Gray is former deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff, White House National Security Council (2019-21).