By Zulkhumor Makhmudova, PhD student at UWED
Since the second decade of the twenty-first century, regional cooperation and integration processes in Central Asia have entered a new stage of development. In particular, the transformation of Uzbekistan’s foreign policy has intensified political dialogue among the regional states and contributed to the emergence of a new model of Central Asian integration. Simultaneously, the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) has evolved from a predominantly cultural and humanitarian platform into an important institution for political, economic, and geostrategic cooperation. The parallel development of these two integration processes raises an important academic question: are the OTS and Central Asian integration competing projects, or do they represent complementary forms of political integration operating at different levels?
Many scholars characterize Central Asian integration as a model of regional integration based on geographical proximity. Indeed, cooperation among the states of the region is rooted in common historical experiences, shared security challenges, environmental concerns, water resource management, and economic interdependence. Since 2018, the Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State of Central Asia have become the principal platform for regional political dialogue. In particular, the adoption of the “Central Asia–2040” Development Concept at the Sixth Consultative Meeting held in Astana in 2024 demonstrated that political rapprochement among the regional states has entered a qualitatively new stage. This document outlines the long-term strategic directions of regional cooperation and aims to establish common approaches in political dialogue, economic cooperation, and security issues.
However, a distinctive feature of Central Asian integration is that it remains only partially institutionalized. Unlike the European Union, ASEAN, or even the OTS, the region does not possess a permanent secretariat, parliament, or specialized integration bodies. Decision-making is largely based on political consultations among heads of state and consensus-building mechanisms. While this flexibility facilitates pragmatic cooperation, it simultaneously limits the institutional sustainability of the integration process. Therefore, at its current stage, Central Asian integration can be described primarily as a model of political consolidation and confidence-building among regional states.
The Organization of Turkic States, by contrast, represents a different model of political integration. Whereas Central Asian integration is founded on geographical proximity, the OTS is based on shared history, language, culture, and Turkic identity. In this respect, the OTS constitutes a transregional rather than a purely regional integration model. The inclusion of Türkiye and Azerbaijan alongside the Central Asian member states significantly expands its geographical scope. Consequently, the OTS should be viewed not merely as a regional organization but as a broader political cooperation platform encompassing the Turkic world.
An important question arises at this point: does the growing influence of the OTS pose a challenge to Central Asian integration? Russian, European, and American expert communities offer differing interpretations of the relationship between the OTS and Central Asian integration. Russian scholars such as V. Avatkov, A. Lukin, and others regard the strengthening of the OTS as one of the emerging regional cooperation formats in Eurasia. In their view, although the organization contributes to the institutionalization of cooperation among Turkic states, it is unlikely to become an alternative geopolitical center comparable to the Eurasian Economic Union or the Commonwealth of Independent States in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, some Russian analysts emphasize that the increasing political and economic activism of the OTS may enhance Türkiye’s influence in Central Asia.
Western experts tend to adopt a different perspective. Research centers in the United States and Europe generally view the OTS as a platform that promotes regional cooperation and connectivity. According to this interpretation, the development of the organization strengthens the international political subjectivity of Central Asian states and reduces the risk of excessive dependence on any single geopolitical center. European scholars, in particular, often analyze the OTS within the context of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route and the Middle Corridor, considering it an important component of emerging geoeconomic linkages between Europe and Asia.
At the same time, several American strategic research institutions regard Central Asian integration itself as an important factor in strengthening the political agency of regional states. From this perspective, the Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State of Central Asia contribute to the formation of an independent regional political agenda. The OTS, in turn, is seen as an additional mechanism that supports and extends this process within the broader Turkic space. Consequently, most Western experts do not perceive the OTS and Central Asian integration as competing initiatives but rather as integration mechanisms operating at different levels.
A comparative analysis of these approaches demonstrates that Russian experts tend to focus on the geopolitical implications of the OTS, whereas European and American scholars emphasize issues such as connectivity, economic diversification, and regional stability. Nevertheless, all three expert communities increasingly acknowledge that the relationship between the OTS and Central Asian integration cannot be adequately explained through a simple competition framework.
First, the Central Asian member states of the OTS simultaneously remain active participants in regional consultative formats. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan play key roles both in Central Asian integration and in the OTS. If these two projects were genuinely competing with one another, states would eventually be compelled to prioritize one framework over the other. In practice, however, no such tendency has emerged.
Second, the OTS and Central Asian integration perform distinct political functions. Central Asian integration is primarily aimed at ensuring regional stability, strengthening good-neighborly relations, and addressing common regional challenges. The OTS, by contrast, extends this cooperation into a broader geopolitical space. In other words, while Central Asian integration serves as a mechanism of internal political consolidation, the OTS functions as a platform for external political projection.
This dynamic is particularly evident in Uzbekistan’s foreign policy. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev has consistently identified Central Asian cooperation as a strategic priority of Uzbekistan’s foreign policy. At the same time, he has actively promoted initiatives within the framework of the OTS aimed at expanding the organization’s political and economic potential. This demonstrates that Uzbekistan does not perceive these two integration platforms as contradictory but rather as interconnected mechanisms serving complementary objectives.
From the perspective of neoliberal institutionalism, the OTS and Central Asian integration represent institutions operating at different levels for coordinating state interests. While the Central Asian framework contributes to confidence-building and cooperation within the region, the OTS strengthens this cooperation through institutional mechanisms and enhances its international visibility and influence. From a constructivist perspective, Central Asian integration reinforces a regional identity, whereas the OTS promotes the formation of a broader political community based on Turkic identity and shared historical memory.
In conclusion, it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain the relationship between the Organization of Turkic States and Central Asian integration through the concept of competition. Contemporary political developments indicate that these two integration frameworks perform distinct but complementary functions. While Central Asian integration contributes to regional political solidarity and stability, the OTS transforms this solidarity into broader forms of political cooperation and international influence within the Turkic world. Therefore, rather than viewing them as alternative projects, it is more appropriate to regard them as interconnected and mutually reinforcing elements of a multi-level integration process. Such an interpretation most accurately reflects Uzbekistan’s national interests, its multi-vector foreign policy, and the broader dynamics of regional diplomacy.
* 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.
