Nasiba Ergashova’s article, prepared with the supervision by Dr. Ulugbek Ishankhodjaev, examines the growing importance of Central Asia in the global race for critical minerals and analyses how the C5+1 framework has become a key platform for U.S. engagement with the region. The article shows that minerals such as uranium, copper, lithium, tungsten, rare earth elements and antimony are no longer only economic resources, but strategic assets linked to clean energy, defence technologies, semiconductors and supply-chain security.
The article highlights that since 2022, U.S. policy toward Central Asia has shifted from a primarily security-oriented agenda toward resource diplomacy and supply-chain diversification. The creation of the C5+1 Critical Minerals Dialogue, the involvement of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in the Minerals Security Partnership Forum, and recent investment frameworks demonstrate Washington’s growing interest in the region’s mineral potential.
At the same time, the article stresses that U.S. engagement faces serious structural constraints. China already holds a dominant position in processing and refining critical minerals, while Central Asia’s geography, limited infrastructure, governance risks and investment barriers make large-scale Western involvement difficult. The author argues that diplomatic progress alone is not enough unless it is followed by financing, processing capacity, geological mapping, and stronger investment protection mechanisms.
Overall, the article presents Central Asia as an increasingly important arena of geoeconomic competition between the United States and China. It concludes that if Washington wants to build a durable presence in the region’s minerals sector, it must move from dialogue to implementation, transforming C5+1 initiatives into concrete projects, long-term investments and reliable supply-chain partnerships.
* 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.
