From energy resources to economic growth, the region holds key assets for US foreign policy, trade, and security interests
When President-elect Donald Trump starts his second term January 20, he will face a full foreign policy agenda, with wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, Taiwan tensions, and looming trade disputes with China, Mexico, and Canada.
At some point, he will hit the road on his “I’m back!” tour. Hopefully, he will consider stops in Central Asia in the not-too-distant future.
The “United States Strategy for Central Asia 2019-2025: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity,” says all the right things like supporting regional sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity; promoting the rule of law; and encouraging U.S. investment. But it was released when U.S. forces still occupied neighboring Afghanistan. Eighteen months later, those forces were gone.
So, what should President Trump do about Central Asia?
First, show up!
No sitting U.S. president has ever visited Central Asia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made 73 visits to the five republics, while China’s Xi Jinping has made 13 visits to four of the republics since he ascended to the presidency in 2012.
President Joe Biden met the presidents of the five former Soviet republics – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan — during last year’s “C5+1” meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. The unprecedented summit, while described by the president as “historic,” actually lasted less than one hour, making the gathering more of a photo-op. By the time everyone gave their remarks, it was on to the next event.
No matter how good your diplomats, nothing greases the wheels like a face-to-face meeting of the bosses.
Second, understand that the republics think multipolarity is a good thing.
The republics are finally free of the Russian Empire (1721-1917), Soviet empire (1917-1991), and the American empire (2001-2021) and are not interested in any arrangement that limits their ability to balance between the major powers, or play them off one against the other. And getting directions from faraway Washington and Brussels will remind them of the Soviet era.
The republics have language and business ties with Russia, have received significant investment from China, see Iran as a beckoning market and the host of needed transport routes, and are investing in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The republics soberly understand they are all “neighbors forever” and have no interest in serving as launchpads for attacks on Iran or Afghanistan.
Third, hands off the culture.
The republics are old cultures, but young nations. They are still engaged in state formation and are open to technical support on various issues such as World Trade Organization accession, but they are not interested in changing their culture to accommodate foreigners. And if the West can’t restrain its tendency for social engineering, they can always deal with China, which is run by a Communist Party but isn’t exporting Communism.
Their concern with defending cultural sovereignty isn’t a reaction to Western culture and pushy NGOs. During the Soviet era, Moscow took a keen interest in Islam in Central Asia and made a concerted effort to control Islamic education and appoint imams in the interest of revolutionary Socialism in recognition of the religion’s continuing influence in the officially atheistic Soviet Union.
Fourth, Afghanistan is part of Central Asia.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
The Central Asian countries are interested in reducing tensions and instability in the region, and that requires developing common approaches to maintaining peace in neighboring Afghanistan.
For example, the Trans-Afghan Railway, a 357-mile connection from Central Asia to the Pakistani seaports of Karachi, Gwadar, and Qasim, is a long-term contribution to stabilizing Afghanistan. In addition to contributing to the development of a sustainable Afghan economy, the project will hopefully create thousands of jobs and reduce the social base of support for extremist groups in the region.
The construction and operation of the corridor will provide opportunities for American contractors, equipment manufacturers, engineers, and logistics companies. Direct or indirect U.S. participation in the project will support job creation and income for American business, which should find favor with Trump.
And, as an alternative to China’s “One Belt, One Road” projects, the Trans-Afghan Railway will also serve to diversify Central Asian trade in world markets and reduce the region’s dependence on Beijing, which also serves long-term U.S. interests.
Andrew Korybko, an American political analyst at the Peoples’ Friendship University in Moscow, notes that even partial completion (due to security challenges in Pakistan) of the railway may still benefit the republics if they can backhaul Afghanistan’s minerals for processing in Russia or China. (The republics themselves aren’t able to process the minerals due to water shortages.) Completion of the railway could also bring Afghan minerals to the Western markets via Pakistani ports, but that would require a relaxation of banking and financial sanctions against the Taliban.
In addition to Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, valued at over $1 trillion, the five Central Asian republics hold a significant share of the world’s critical minerals, including manganese, chromium, lead, zinc, and titanium. Some of the republics “sit among the world’s top 20 producers for critical minerals which are most essential to the development of green technology,” according to British solicitors Herbert Smith Freehills.
Mostly-landlocked Central Asia has been “out of sight, out of mind” in assessments of supply chain opportunities and vulnerabilities as the world plans for the energy transition. China has recently banned the export to the U.S. of the critical minerals antimony, gallium and germanium, which are used in semiconductors, infrared technologies, and electric vehicle batteries, so Washington may need to use the C5+1 Critical Minerals Dialogue as a way to return to the region in order to secure long-term access to its mineral wealth.
Last, think about economics.
The U.S. does little trade with Central Asia, but the region is key to East-West trade between Europe and China, as it has been since before Marco Polo’s famous adventures.
The Middle Corridor, also known as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, is a trade route that links China and East Asia with Europe via Central Asia. This route has seen a substantial volume. It aims to reduce transit time between East Asia and Europe to as little as 12 days.
The China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan (CKU) railway finally started construction in October and will help isolated Kyrgyzstan “go out into the world.” China is also working with Kazakhstan to upgrade existing rail infrastructure and, in 2022, “the railway freight volume between China and Kazakhstan reached 23 million tons, marking a 20 percent year-on-year increase.”
Should the Trump administration be so inclined, there are also two major opportunities to link Washington’s crusading impulse to significant environmental efforts in Central Asia: the drying up of the Aral Sea and methane emissions in Turkmenistan.
The desertification of the Aral Sea, now known as the Aralkum Desert, has had profound economic effects on the region: fishing industry collapse and resulting widespread unemployment, and agricultural decline and increased salinization of the soil, not to mention adverse health effects, including increased infant mortality, growth retardation and anemia in children, respiratory disease, and elevated occurrences of cancers. The environmental and economic hardships have forced people to migrate in search of better living conditions, leading to depopulation of the region, further economic decline, and pressure for jobs and housing in urban centers.
Turkmenistan is a significant emitter of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Methane leaks from Turkmenistan’s gas fields are substantial: over 2.9 million tons of methane, equivalent to more than 403 million tons of carbon dioxide, more than the annual carbon emissions of the United Kingdom. Given Washington’s own experience with reducing methane emissions, the U.S. could offer meaningful technical assistance.
While Trump has regularly bashed the United Nations, he might now consider partnership with the Central Asian governments through the UN Multi-Partner Human Security Trust Fund for the Aral Sea Region, the Global Methane Pledge, and UN Water to flow the money, technology, and political support needed to help the region repair the adverse effects of these environmental catastrophes.
