The policy brief by Islomkhon Gafarov, Hamza Boltaev, and Bobur Mingyasharov, published on The Diplomat, provides an incisive analysis of Uzbekistan’s evolving policy towards Afghanistan under Taliban rule, characterized by pragmatic engagement despite the absence of formal diplomatic recognition. The authors argue that Uzbekistan’s recent bilateral agreement on the joint management of the Amu Darya River with Afghan provincial authorities signifies a deepening of institutional ties, driven by a strategic imperative to secure transboundary water resources. This development reflects a calculated shift in Tashkent’s foreign policy — from cautious observation to selective, interest-based cooperation, underscoring the need to address pressing regional challenges through direct dialogue and functional arrangements.
The brief underscores that Uzbekistan's stance on the Taliban government embodies a form of de facto recognition, exemplified not only by the acceptance of a Taliban-appointed ambassador but also by sustained intergovernmental cooperation. While such steps raise questions under international law, the Uzbek government’s priority remains practical problem-solving over ideological posturing. In this context, the authors stress the centrality of water diplomacy, especially as Afghanistan’s controversial Qosh-Tepa Canal project threatens to divert significant volumes from the Amu Darya, jeopardizing downstream water availability in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Given the canal’s potential environmental and geopolitical consequences, Uzbekistan’s strategy signals a proactive commitment to defending vital interests, regardless of the international community’s indecisiveness regarding Taliban legitimacy.
Security concerns remain a critical factor in Tashkent’s calculus. The persistent threat from extremist groups operating in Afghanistan compels Uzbekistan to extend its security and developmental engagement across the border. This includes soft-power tools like funding religious educational institutions in Afghan provinces, designed to foster stability and counteract radical influences. At the same time, the authors point to the absence of a collective regional approach toward managing water disputes with Afghanistan. While Iran and Afghanistan have recently made progress over the Helmand River, countries like Pakistan remain locked in unresolved negotiations, further highlighting Uzbekistan’s preference for bilateralism over multilateral dependency.
Importantly, the brief reveals that Uzbekistan is developing a nuanced model of “limited recognition” anchored in economic interdependence, cross-border trade, and municipal cooperation. The authors cite examples such as the establishment of Afghan trade infrastructure in Termez and plans for Uzbek commercial representation in Mazar-i-Sharif. These moves suggest that official recognition is not the only pathway to effective engagement, especially when national interests demand urgent and adaptive diplomacy. Uzbekistan’s approach offers a blueprint for other regional actors seeking stability without conferring political legitimacy on a controversial regime.
In conclusion, the authors argue that Uzbekistan’s Afghanistan policy is less a break from tradition than a continuation of a strategic doctrine that balances principle with pragmatism. As the international community stalls, Uzbekistan’s actions may eventually catalyze a broader regional realignment, prompting others to pursue similar policies of conditional engagement. Thus, Tashkent’s carefully managed cooperation with the Taliban may well redefine the contours of Central Asian diplomacy, illustrating how mid-sized powers can take initiative in shaping regional security and development agendas.
* 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.
