On October 8, Turkmenistan hosted a flurry of region meetings in Avaza, including the 8th Consultative Meeting of the Heads of State of Central Asia and Azerbaijan, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Council of Heads of State, as well as related foreign minister-level meetings. 

According to Turkmen state media, Turkmen President Serdar Berdimuhamedov laid out “five key objectives,” which included “building the potential of the six-party format,” ensuring lasting peace and stability in the region, joint efforts “to transform Central Asia and Azerbaijan into key transport, logistics, energy, and industrial hubs on the continent in the East-West and North-South directions,” creating the conditions for “accelerated technological growth and the active implementation of artificial intelligence,” and finally, expanding “cultural, humanitarian, educational, and civilizational ties.”

These were all vaguely, and inoffensively, stated, as per Turkmen diplomatic style.

Remarks from Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev were more ambitious and concrete – or at least more readily accessible. Mirziyoyev remarked on the atmospheric change in Central Asian regional diplomacy. He pointed to the completion of the Treaty on Friendship, Good-Neighborliness and Cooperation for the Development of Central Asia in the 21st Century. The treaty was signed during the fourth Consultative Meeting of Central Asian Leaders in 2022 by the presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. It took until 2025 for Tajikistan to sign on, and Turkmenistan only did so earlier this year, in July during a visit by Kazakh Foreign Minister Yermek Kosherbayev to Ashgabat.

Mirziyoyev did not remark on the gap between 2022 and 2026 for all five countries to sign onto the treaty; he also didn’t address the fact that while Azerbaijan has joined the grouping – and is taking over as chair – it isn’t a party to the treaty. 

This is, perhaps, by design. Mirziyoyev did remark that “we do not seek to create cumbersome structures.”

The friendship treaty codifies this position, baking in possibilities while committing to little beyond words and consultation. The treaty lays out commitments to cooperate across a wide range of areas and build relations “on the basis of mutual respect, equality, understanding and comprehensive consideration of each other’s interests.” 

But it contains hints of possible future pathways. For example, its Article 5 states that the parties “shall provide each other with comprehensive support and mutual assistance in matters of preventing threats to their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.” It goes on to stipulate that should a situation arise that “poses a threat to the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity” of one of the parties, “appropriate consultations” may be held bilaterally or within the consultative format “in order to determine measures that will contribute to the effective prevention of the threat that has arisen.” That’s a long-winded diplomatic way of saying that should a crisis develop, the Central Asian states may act together to confront it. 

Of course, history – and the track records of other regional groupings such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – suggest that defaulting to inaction is the most likely outcome, even amid a crisis. 

It’s hard to divorce the friendship treaty, which was signed by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan in July 2022, from the Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier that year. Similarly, Tajikistan only joined after its long-standing border disputes with Kyrgyzstan were settled. Turkmenistan, which maintains a foreign policy of “positive neutrality,” is the most surprising signatory by far – but that it did sign on may reflect less a change of heart in Ashgabat than the low commitments demanded by the treaty.

Grand outcomes aren’t necessary at every meeting to prove the value of a format. But at a certain point, the lowest hanging fruit – the ability to sit around a table together and discuss priorities amicably – has been picked. Mirziyoyev – and Kazakh president Kassym-Jomart Tokayev – have made clear that they have grander ambitions for what Central Asia can accomplish collectively. The economic sphere – particularly trade, transit, and investment – got special attention from both presidents and represents the next lowest hanging fruit. Who can argue with expanding trade?

In his remarks, Tokayev noted that intraregional trade amounted to approximately $13 billion, representing 8 percent of total trade turnover between the countries. He set the aim of reaching $20 billion. Tokayev suggested deepening regional trade cooperation, linking across borders the logistics centers most of the countries in the region are building. “In the near future,” he said, “we can link them together to build regional value chains. We have all the conditions for expanding cooperation in investment, energy, industry, and other strategic areas.” Tokayev referenced the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, or the Middle Corridor, while also noting that “North-South route, in cooperation with Russia, remains particularly important for Kazakhstan.”

Mirziyoyev argued that “economic cooperation must be elevated to a new level.” He noted the importance of continuing to address trade barriers, but looked to the future: “We have already reached a point where standard mutual trade is no longer sufficient; we need to create finished products together.”

Mirziyoyev closed with a focus on the youth and cooperation, saying that “it is important that students, young professionals, scientists, researchers and representatives of creative professions have more opportunities to communicate, learn from one another and work together.”

That’s a great sentiment, but delivered in light of virtual silence on the matter of Dr. Ikboljon Qoraboyev it rings hollow. Qoraboyev was a well-known Uzbek international relations professor at a top Kazakh university. He was was detained this summer in Kazakhstan, apparently on espionage charges, and there has been very little said officially about the case – either by Astana or Tashkent – since. It serves to highlight the distance between remarks delivered at a round table and the reality of what it takes to inspire and support cooperation and collaboration. 

There is much hard work ahead for Central Asia.