Last week’s conference in Tashkent, Uzbekistan was originally supposed to focus on regional connectivity in South and Central Asia. But the Taliban’s surge in recent weeks consumed the regional conference and has many in the region wary of what’s next. As U.S. and NATO forces draw down their military presence in Afghanistan, the country’s northern neighbors have witnessed Taliban fighters swiftly overrun most of the rural parts of northern Afghanistan, establishing control over nearly all of the 1,500-mile border between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. By all indications, Central Asian states are preparing for a new reality in Afghanistan, one where the Taliban control most, if not all, of the country.

An Afghan policeman in Mazar-i-Sharif, a northern city in Afghanistan, on Jan. 17, 2021. The Taliban’s rapid seizure of rural parts of northern Afghanistan has countries in the region preparing for the militiant group to control Afghanistan. (Jim Huylebroek/The New York Times)
An Afghan policeman in Mazar-i-Sharif on Jan. 17, 2021. The Taliban’s rapid seizure of rural parts of northern Afghanistan has countries in the region preparing for the militiant group to control Afghanistan. (Jim Huylebroek/The New York Times)

This all happened in a matter of weeks — along with the Taliban’s capture of key border posts with Iran and Pakistan — but already represents a major shift in the geostrategic context for Central Asia. The reactions of the great powers, the Taliban and the Central Asians themselves to these developments have come equally swift. How might these shifts change the calculus for conflict and cooperation between Central Asian states and between the great powers with an interest in the region?

The Taliban Surge

The pace of military developments and the rapid collapse of northern districts took many, including military planners in Afghanistan and Central Asia, off guard. In some bordering districts, Afghan military personnel and civilians were forced to cross the border and seek safety in Tajikistan or Uzbekistan under immediate Taliban military pressure. The effort appeared coordinated, and some have speculated that it is part of an attempt to preemptively seize northern districts that were a primary source of armed resistance during the Taliban’s rule.

The Taliban did not fire on or threaten Central Asian forces on the border. On the contrary, they appear to have simultaneously launched a diplomatic charm offensive aimed at reassuring their neighbors. Delegations from the Taliban’s political office visited Moscow, Tehran and Ashgabat in recent weeks in a bid to reassure these countries of their respect for their territorial integrity with a commitment to keep the war within the borders of Afghanistan. They even appeared to reassure China that they would ignore the suppression of Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang in exchange for China’s support in rebuilding Afghanistan. 

Reactions from Central Asia

The frontline states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan all reacted with a demonstrative flexing of military muscle, shoring up border security. The Taliban’s relationship with Central Asia, particularly Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, goes back many years. In fact, Turkmenistan kept its consulate in Herat open during the Taliban’s rule in the late 1990s. While Uzbekistan has been very active in support of the U.S.-led Afghan peace process, Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Kamilov in a June interview reminded everyone that “Uzbekistan was the first country to establish direct contacts with the leaders of Taliban,” which many observers viewed as the country adopting a more conciliatory approach to the insurgent group. Despite Tajikistan’s harsh stance on politicized Islam at home, the Tajik government appears to have softened its stance on the Taliban in recent weeks.

Tajikistan has already accepted Afghan refugees and reportedly set up tent camps for hundreds of fleeing Afghans. They have also requested support for dealing with refugees from the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in anticipation of more refugee flows across their border. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, on the other hand, have been very cautious in opening up their borders for refugees with the Uzbek authorities even turning back Afghan military personnel who escaped to Uzbekistan after their bases were overrun by Taliban fighters.

All of these countries will be reluctant to allow refugees in on a large scale. State capacity has been stretched thin because of COVID, which is now resurgent as the delta variant continues to spread across South and Central Asia, adding further stress on a region dealing with high levels of poverty and unemployment. At least on the surface, the Central Asian response is to watch the walls, limit the exposure and keep the lines of communication open.

The Powers That Be

Beyond the problems on the border, however, a major shift is underway in the roles of the United States, China and Russia in the region. The United States continues to actively pursue a diplomatic solution, but given the Taliban momentum on the ground, the group’s openness to a negotiated settlement seems unlikely. With U.S. and NATO forces withdrawing, the United States has left a power vacuum others will seek to fill or be drawn into. 

Russia has reasserted its hard military commitment to protect its CSTO treaty allies in Central Asia from any military threat coming from Afghanistan while actively opposing U.S. efforts to place troops “over the horizon” in Central Asia. Moscow has also publicly engaged with the Taliban, seeking and receiving assurance that they will not allow Afghanistan to become a security problem for Russia and Central Asia.  In essence, Moscow is asserting its own over-the-horizon role on security issues without an explicit position on the resolution of Afghanistan’s internal problems. It is also explicitly encouraging the United States to leave the neighborhood.

China has also stepped up its engagement with frontline states. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi launched a high-profile tour of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan this month on the way to a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The Taliban effort to sing Beijing’s song on the plight of the Uyghurs suggests that they want to leverage China’s and the SCO’s long-standing commitment to non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states to allow the militant group to consolidate their gains in Afghanistan.

What to Watch

As the withdraw of international forces nears completion, here are three issues that will shape the trajectory of the Afghan conflict and Central Asian states response to it:

  • Northern militias: One open question is how involved Central Asian states will be in ethnic dynamics across the border, given the rise of local militia groups across the country to resist the Taliban, many of which were active during war with the Soviet Union and fought against the Taliban in the 1990s. All three frontline states have ethnic Afghan brethren. In the past, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan provided financial and even military support to local Tajik and Uzbek leaders in northern Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. This includes factions loyal to Abdul Rashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek, and the militias aligned with the son of late mujahedeen and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, an ethnic Tajik. Central Asian states will likely take their lead from Russia on this but most likely would be reluctant to be drawn into an Afghan civil war.
  • The poppy trade: The last time the Taliban took power they declared and successfully enforced a ban on poppy cultivation. In the joint statement of the Taliban’s political office and the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow after their recent meeting the Taliban agreed to “eradicate drug production in the country.” While this will not have an immediate impact on the drug trade and Taliban finances since there should be enough stockpiles of opium and other products, it will boost the Taliban’s legitimacy, ease Western apprehension and help warm up relations with northern neighbors, including Russia. It could, however, have a significant long-term impact on organized crime and corruption in Central Asia, which has been a source of toxic political interference and conflict in the region.
  • Regional dynamics: An important open question is how this will impact relations between Central Asian states. Over the past few years as the older generation of leadership passes in Central Asia there has been a tendency for the countries to work together as a bloc and to balance great power influence. A strong countervailing trend, however, is the simultaneous increase in nationalist and nativist political rhetoric in the region. The latter demonstratively broke out into the first organized military clash between Central Asian states last April in a social-media-fueled conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Tajikistan has turned to the CSTO for help on its border with Afghanistan and the on-going trouble on the border with Kyrgyzstan has been put on the back burner, it seems. It remains to be seen how the reconfiguration of great power influence and the common threat of the Taliban will play into these regional dynamics.

Living with the Taliban Again

One Uzbek acquaintance of one of these authors noted: “We lived with the Taliban as neighbors before, we can adjust again.” While a politically negotiated settlement between the Taliban and Afghan government would be a desirable endgame for Afghanistan, the autocratic statesmen of Central Asia may be content to live with a contained Taliban-led theocracy in Kabul, especially if it behaves itself outside its own borders.

Central Asian leaders have no particular interest in maintaining the status quo in Afghanistan and have no motivation for supporting the weak, fragmented and corrupt government in Kabul that is neither in peace with itself nor able to provide peace and security in the country. An Afghanistan engulfed in civil war would pose serious security and economic challenges to Central Asia. A descent into chaos could return Afghanistan to a hub for jihadist and criminal organizations that would greatly destabilize the entire region and impede any progress on South-Central Asia economic connectivity, trade and transit.

The Taliban, on the other hand, have tried to position themselves to be for a centralized and strong government in Afghanistan — something that the Central Asian leaders are very familiar with. As long the Taliban are willing and able to fight the Islamic State group and eliminate or contain other transnational violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida and the remnants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan; secure their borders; and provide for safe passage of goods and trade between Central and South Asia, Central Asian states are likely to adjust to working with them again. Time will tell.

Related Publications

U.S., Pakistan at ‘Convergence’ on Afghanistan, Says Pakistani Envoy

U.S., Pakistan at ‘Convergence’ on Afghanistan, Says Pakistani Envoy

Thursday, July 8, 2021

By: Adam Gallagher

For the last two decades, U.S.-Pakistan relations have been defined by the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism concerns. With the United States military withdrawal almost complete, the relationship should broaden to focus on other issues important to both countries and the broader South Asia region. The Afghan peace process, however, will continue to be an important component of U.S.-Pakistan relations, said Pakistan’s envoy to the United States on Wednesday. “Afghanistan, for some time, did become [a point of] contention in our relationship. But today, clearly, Afghanistan is a [point of] convergence between Pakistan and United States” as both want to see peace and stability, said Ambassador Asad Majeed Khan. 

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy; Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Democracy in Afghanistan: Amid and Beyond Conflict

Democracy in Afghanistan: Amid and Beyond Conflict

Thursday, July 8, 2021

By: Anna Larson

Stable democracy may be an elusive prospect in Afghanistan, but that in itself is no reason to stop talking about it. Although many Afghans might well prioritize security from violence over elections in the short term, voting rights are still widely valued across Afghanistan. This report examines the country’s recent history with elections, democracy, and democratic institutions, and argues that because democracy has a past in Afghanistan, there is good reason to continue to support it.

Type: Special Report

Democracy & Governance

As U.S. Troops Leave Afghanistan, Can Aid Help in Pursuing Peace?

As U.S. Troops Leave Afghanistan, Can Aid Help in Pursuing Peace?

Wednesday, July 7, 2021

By: William Byrd

As American troops leave Afghanistan, U.S. policymakers are trying to find other tools to advance peace between the Taliban and the Afghan government. One possible instrument is financial aid, which poured into Afghanistan during the 20-year international military presence in the country. There is, however, no guarantee that aid can help shape events. Certainly, a sudden cutoff of security and civilian support would trigger state collapse. Otherwise, though, expectations should be modest: Experience — in Afghanistan and elsewhere — shows aid has limited impacts, especially amid heavy fighting. The best course for now is to keep assistance at least at its current level, particularly for the Afghan budget, retain flexibility and keep funding available to facilitate moves toward peace and address humanitarian emergencies.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Peace Processes

After Afghanistan Withdrawal: A Return to ‘Warlordism?’

After Afghanistan Withdrawal: A Return to ‘Warlordism?’

Friday, June 25, 2021

By: Barmak Pazhwak; Asma Ebadi; Belquis Ahmadi

As the United States withdraws from Afghanistan, Washington is considering options to ensure its intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism capabilities are maintained. Recent reporting suggests that United States is looking to use bases in Pakistan and in the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia — although without success so far. Washington is also mulling over engaging with Afghan warlords as part of this effort, a strategy it relied on in the 1980s and 90s and to a lesser extent over the last two decades. If history is any guide, this strategy will pose significant risks that could have deadly and destabilizing consequences for Afghanistan and the region. 

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Fragility & Resilience; Peace Processes

View All Publications