In its 2017 strategy for South Asia, the Trump administration called on Pakistan to reduce support for the Taliban and encourage them to enter into peace negotiations. Yet as crucial as Pakistan will be to peace in Afghanistan, a similarly persuasive argument can be made for Afghanistan’s northern neighbors—the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In this Special Report, Humayun Hamidzada and Richard Ponzio examine the vital economic and political roles these countries can play to support a just and lasting peace in Afghanistan and the region.

Workers stand beside a gas pipe during a ceremony inaugurating construction of a section of the TAPI Pipeline project in Afghanistan. (Marat Gurt/Reuters)
Workers stand beside a gas pipe during a ceremony inaugurating construction of a section of the TAPI Pipeline project in Afghanistan. (Marat Gurt/Reuters)

Summary

  • The conflict in Afghanistan is too big and multivalent to be resolved by the United States alone. Instead, a regional approach is urgently needed, with the Central Asian states assuming a leadership role.
  • Though the Central Asian states— Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—are not at present major players, they have much to offer in reinforcing any potential openings in Afghanistan’s peace process by hosting regular diplomatic meetings, providing political support, and encouraging cross-border economic cooperation with Afghanistan.
  • Uzbekistan, in particular, could further facilitate Afghanistan’s integration into Central Asian diplomatic frameworks. The Tashkent Conference in March 2018, and subsequent activities, represented that country’s pivot from isolation to regional engagement and established it as a credible regional consensus builder.
  • Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan individually and collectively can contribute to efforts to build a more stable and prosperous Afghanistan in a more stable and prosperous Central Asia, while serving as a land bridge to the populous and economically dynamic regions of South and Southwest Asia.
  • Greater connectivity with Afghanistan through the air corridors and land-based transit routes of the Central Asian republics will help enlist Afghanistan as a partner for reaching new markets rather than as a threat and source of problems.
  • A new U.S. strategy for Central Asia that acknowledged the region’s counterbalancing potential, both economically and politically, in support of Afghanistan would advance U.S. goals and contribute to a just and lasting peace in Afghanistan and the region.

About the Report

This report assesses recent initiatives by the five Central Asian republics and the Afghan government to establish a role for Afghanistan’s northern neighbors, particularly Uzbekistan, as a mediator or host for Afghan peace process negotiations and to strengthen areas of economic and political cooperation in the region. The study was supported by USIP’s Asia Center.

About the Authors

Humayun Hamidzada is a nonresident fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, DC, and director of the Afghanistan Peace Research Project at the York University Centre for Asian Research, Toronto. Richard Ponzio is director of the Stimson Center’s Just Security 2020 Program. From 2010 to 2014, he was a senior adviser to the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in the US Department of State.

Related Publications

How to Revive an Afghan Peace Process

How to Revive an Afghan Peace Process

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

By: USIP Staff

The halt to U.S. peace talks with the Taliban, announced September 7 by President Trump, should be used as a starting point for new negotiations, according to U.S. and Afghan specialists. The United States and Afghans have a chance to shape a new phase of talks to maximize the possibilities for a peace accord that Afghans can accept, the experts said at USIP. Some urged resuming talks as quickly as possible. Others argued for focusing first on unifying non-Taliban Afghans following the planned September 28 elections, and on exploiting war fatigue among the Taliban.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: Alex Thier

While the negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban were recently thrown-off course, a peace agreement among Afghans remains an urgent priority. The U.S.-led negotiations over a phased drawdown of U.S. troops in exchange for a Taliban commitment to eschew terrorism and engage in intra-Afghan negotiations took nearly a year. Yet these talks excluded the Afghan government and other political elites and didn’t address the fundamental question of what it will take for Afghans to put a sustainable end to four decades of war: how will power be shared?

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: William Byrd

As the United States has pursued peace talks with the Taliban, international discussions continue on the economic aid that will be vital to stabilizing Afghanistan under any peace deal. Yet the Afghan government has been mostly absent from this dialogue, an exclusion exemplified this week by a meeting of the country’s main donors to strategize on aid—with Afghan officials left out. The government’s marginalization, in large part self-inflicted, is a danger to the stabilization and development of Afghanistan. In the interests of Afghans, stability in the region and U.S. hopes for a sustainable peace, this rift in the dialogue on aid needs to be repaired.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

By: USIP Staff; Andrew Wilder

President Trump’s weekend announcement of a halt to U.S. peace talks with Afghanistan’s Taliban—including a previously unannounced U.S. plan for a Camp David meeting to conclude that process—leaves the future of the Afghanistan peace process unclear. USIP’s Andrew Wilder, a longtime Afghanistan analyst, argues that, rather than declaring an end to the peace process, U.S. negotiators could use the setback as a moment to clarify the strategy, and then urgently get the peace process back on track before too much momentum is lost.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications