In his article, Timur Dadabaev analyzes the evolution of Japan’s policy toward Central Asia, noting that in 2025 Tokyo placed particular emphasis on cooperation in the field of artificial intelligence within the Central Asia + Japan format. Unlike infrastructure- and technology-driven models, Japan promotes AI primarily as a tool for institutional development, governance, and human capital formation.
The author emphasizes that Japan’s approach differs markedly from the strategies of other Asian actors. While China and the Republic of Korea focus on digital infrastructure and corporate-led technological projects, Japan prioritizes the integration of AI into existing administrative processes—particularly in public administration, customs, and logistics. In this context, artificial intelligence is not treated as an autonomous technology, but rather as a means of enhancing the efficiency of state institutions.
According to Prof. Dadabaev, this model helps reduce the political and administrative risks associated with AI adoption. At the same time, it may contribute to the entrenchment of external governance standards. Since algorithms and analytical frameworks are often developed outside the region, Central Asian states risk reproducing external conceptions of efficiency, risk, and good governance without sufficient local adaptation.
Special attention is given to the application of AI in transport and logistics connectivity, including along the Trans-Caspian route. While the digitalization of procedures can reduce costs and improve the predictability of trade, the author stresses the importance of developing domestic analytical capacities in order to avoid dependence on external data and regulatory standards.
In conclusion, Prof. Dadabaev argues that participation in AI diplomacy requires Central Asian states not only to adapt technologically, but also to build institutional readiness to shape and govern their own AI systems. Without this, the benefits of cooperation may remain asymmetric and could ultimately constrain the region’s strategic autonomy.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
