"The implementation of specific projects will show whether Washington's interest will grow into a long-term presence in Central Asia," — Javlons Vakhabov

“Implementation of concrete projects will show whether Washington's interest will grow into a long-term presence in Central Asia” — Javlon Vakhabov

On October 19, a meeting of foreign ministers of Central Asian countries and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will take place in Samarkand.

On the eve of this event, Gazeta spoke with Javlon Vakhabov, Director of the International Institute for Central Asia (IICA), about how serious the current US economic interest in the region is, what projects are capable of attracting American investment, how cooperation in the sphere of critical minerals might develop, and what prevents the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.

— The four areas of greatest applied interest for the region are energy, transport connectivity, critical minerals, and modern manufacturing. But I would view them not as separate industries, but as sequential links in a single economic task: to attract investment, create production, and secure access to foreign markets. At the same time, American technologies, financial instruments, and market access are no less important than the volumes of capital themselves.

For Uzbekistan, particularly promising areas include the modernization of the energy system, deep processing of raw materials, industrial cooperation, digital solutions, and agrotechnologies.

Practical mechanisms have already been created — a joint investment platform with the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), interaction with the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), and the US-Uzbekistan Business and Investment Council.

Today, the main task is to move from the agreements reached to concrete investment projects with the participation of American businesses and financial institutions.

— It is important to take into account here that cooperation with the US already has an institutional foundation.

C5+1 on critical minerals, and Uzbekistan and the US signed the first bilateral memorandum in this area.

In February 2026, the parties concluded a new memorandum of cooperation in the field of extraction and processing of critical minerals and rare earth elements.

A regional alliance could complement existing mechanisms, primarily by forming a common regional agenda.

One of the first stages could be the implementation of the initiative proposed by Uzbekistan at the eighth Consultative Meeting in Avaza to create a Unified Digital Map of Critical Minerals Reserves. It would allow systematizing information on the region's resources, identifying promising areas for industrial cooperation, and infrastructure needs.

Along with this, an important advantage of the alliance is the opportunity to unite the efforts of the region's countries in preparing projects and negotiating with investors. Coordinating issues of processing, energy supply, and transportation will increase the attractiveness of such projects and allow economic benefits to be distributed among the participants.

The next step could be the formation, jointly with American partners, of a list of flagship projects with defined sources of financing, off-takers of products, and implementation timelines.

— It is important to distinguish between political interest, commercial agreements, and actual invested capital. The first two directions have intensified noticeably: a joint investment platform has been launched, agreements on financing industrial and infrastructure projects have been reached, the Business and Investment Council is developing, and a delegation of more than 200 representatives of American business is expected to arrive in Samarkand.

The scale of such participation points to serious interest, but it does not yet mean that decisions on long-term investments have already been made.

American companies primarily evaluate return on investment, predictability of rules, and commercial risks. Therefore, the main indicator will be the number of projects that have received funding, moved to construction, and started operating.

It is precisely the implementation of concrete projects that will show whether Washington's current interest will grow into a long-term economic presence in the region.

— Interest in a more meaningful political dialogue with the US certainly exists. For the states of Central Asia, issues of regional security, countering terrorism, drug trafficking, and other transborder threats are of particular importance.

(Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity), which envisages the development of transport connections through the territory of Armenia. Its implementation can contribute to strengthening peace and stability in the South Caucasus, developing the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor, and expanding Central Asia's transport and trade ties with European markets.

No less important are educational, scientific, and humanitarian ties, which form the long-term basis of relations and strengthen mutual understanding between our societies.

Central Asia is interested in a regular and pragmatic dialogue with Washington that takes into account the interests and priorities of the states of the region themselves. In this regard, the C5+1 format is capable of providing the necessary continuity of political interaction, complementing and strengthening bilateral relations.

— In my view, the main reason is the persisting gap between political support for repealing the amendment and the adoption of a specific legislative decision. US administrations of both parties have advocated for its revision; however, a final decision requires the consent of both houses of Congress. To achieve this, it is necessary to unite a sufficiently broad coalition of lawmakers and ensure the issue is prioritized on the parliamentary agenda. Therefore, I would not view the retention of the amendment as evidence of Washington's reluctance to develop relations with Central Asia.

At the same time, the amendment does not block our trade: Uzbekistan already enjoys normal trade relations status with the US, but it remains conditional and subject to annual review.

Establishing it on a permanent basis would eliminate unnecessary administrative procedures, increase the predictability of trade conditions, and strengthen business confidence when planning long-term investments.

As for coordination, the countries of the region share a common interest, although practical work with Washington is conducted primarily through bilateral channels. At the same time, initiatives covering several Central Asian states are being advanced in Congress.

Coordinated promotion of a common position, backed by the support of interested American companies, could give these efforts additional weight.

— In my view, in recent years, relations with the US have acquired a more meaningful and mutually beneficial character. It is telling that in November 2025, the heads of all five Central Asian states participated in the C5+1 summit, held for the first time at the White House.

The willingness of the leaders to jointly discuss a long-term agenda with the American administration demonstrates the importance that the countries of the region attach to this partnership. Political dialogue is also receiving concrete economic content: agreements have been reached in aviation, critical minerals, and other industries, and direct business interaction is developing through the B5+1 platform.

An important foundation of trust is also the fact that the US was among the first states to recognize the independence of Central Asian countries and consistently declares support for their sovereignty and territorial integrity. This aligns with the multi-vector foreign policy of the Central Asian states. Our countries seek to expand the circle of partners, markets, and sources of investment, thereby strengthening regional agency.

The US possesses significant advantages as a partner — advanced technologies, financial resources, strong universities, and a large consumer market. For the region, cooperation with it opens additional opportunities for industrial modernization, human resources training, and entry into international markets.

Therefore, we see a strengthening of the practical foundation of mutual trust. American business sees new commercial opportunities in Central Asia, while the countries of the region see a partner capable of making a significant contribution to their development.

Further development of the partnership will depend on the implementation of the agreements reached and the consistency of the American course regarding Central Asia. For the states of the region, it is important that cooperation with Washington yields concrete results, takes into account their national interests, and respects their independent choice of foreign policy partners.

— Competition for investment exists worldwide, and Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are no exception here. This is a natural and healthy process that prompts countries to improve their investment climate, develop infrastructure, and enhance the efficiency of project implementation.

At the same time, the economies of our states largely complement each other: Kazakhstan possesses a large resource base and access to the Caspian Sea, while Uzbekistan has a significant domestic market, industrial potential, and close economic ties with neighboring countries. Both countries are interested in both extraction and processing, so reducing their relations to competing for the very same capital would be a simplification.

It is important to consider that for large foreign investors, Central Asia, with a population of over 80 million people, represents far greater interest as an interconnected regional market than as five separate economies. The development of transport corridors, industrial cooperation, and joint production chains can increase the investment attractiveness of all states in the region.

Therefore, regional coordination and healthy competition are entirely compatible. Moreover, competition for the successful implementation of investment projects can serve as an additional stimulus for the economic development of all of Central Asia.

— Multi-vector policy remains one of the key principles of the foreign policy course of Central Asian states. Its main challenge lies in the need to take into account the interests of various partners while maintaining independence in decision-making. The US, China, Russia, and the EU offer different terms of financing, technological cooperation, and implementation of joint projects. Therefore, it is important for the countries of the region to evaluate such proposals primarily from the standpoint of their own economic interests and long-term development priorities.

In certain cases, the interests of external partners may indeed diverge, creating additional complexities for the states of Central Asia. However, this does not change their interest in maintaining an independent foreign policy course and developing relations with all key partners.

By expanding international ties and diversifying trade routes, sources of investment, and technology, the region's countries seek not to set certain areas of cooperation against others.

Maintaining such a balance requires not only diplomatic flexibility, but also precise calculation of the economic and legal consequences of the decisions taken.

— The main difference of the current stage is a significantly broader basis of mutual interest. In the early 2000s, relations were largely determined by security tasks and the situation in Afghanistan. Today, the interests of the parties intersect across several long-term directions at once: industrial modernization, energy, critical minerals, technology, and transport connectivity. The broader the circle of shared interests, the less relations depend on a single issue or a change in an individual foreign policy task.

Uzbekistan itself has also changed. Economic reforms, openness to investment, and the development of good-neighborly relations in Central Asia have expanded opportunities for cooperation. American companies are gaining access to new projects and a growing regional market. For us, partnership with the US is an opportunity to attract technology, capital, and expertise necessary for the next stage of economic development.

An important indicator of stability is the continuity of relations across different American administrations. The momentum given by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev's visit to Washington in 2018 was continued within the Strategic Partnership Dialogue, and later in new high-level agreements and the creation of the US-Uzbekistan Business and Investment Council. The circle of participants interested in continuing cooperation is expanding: government agencies, companies, financial institutions, and universities.

Therefore, there are grounds to consider the current stage more sustainable. But sustainability must be confirmed by the implementation of projects: launching production facilities, fulfilling contracts, and training specialists.

— Uzbekistan is already conducting consistent work to promote its interests in Washington, using both diplomatic channels and interaction with Congress, American business, and professional consulting structures.

But I would draw attention to an important change: the initiative no longer comes solely from the countries of the region. Lawmakers from both parties have introduced bills in the Senate and the House of Representatives providing for the termination of the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the establishment of permanent normal trade relations.

Against the backdrop of expanding trade and investment cooperation and Uzbekistan's progress toward WTO accession, the retention of these restrictions no longer corresponds to the current nature of relations.

Similar work is being conducted by other Central Asian states. I believe there are currently all grounds to step up joint work, including through coordinated appeals and petitions, as well as interaction with relevant committees and caucuses operating in Congress. At the same time, regional coordination should complement the independent work of each country with American lawmakers, companies, and industry associations interested in expanding trade and economic ties.

It is important that the repeal of the amendment be perceived in Washington not as a concession to an external partner, but as a decision that meets the interests of the American economy itself.

— A common regional agenda is already taking shape, but its task is not to replace national interests. In transport, energy, water resources, and critical minerals, the result often depends on the decisions of several states simultaneously. It is precisely here that a coordinated position increases the negotiating leverage of the entire region.

The meeting in Avaza demonstrated a convergence of approaches to the next stage of regional interaction — joint production, coordinated infrastructure development, and entry into foreign markets.

The "Six Economies — One Product" formula proposed by Uzbekistan well reflects this logic. The countries of Central Asia and Azerbaijan can combine raw materials, energy, technologies, and logistical capabilities to create competitive products. This allows offering external partners projects of regional scale while retaining more added value within the region.

At the same time, taxation, the terms of specific investments, and the choice of external partners will remain primarily the competence of national states. I would focus not on an abstract "unified position on all issues," but on several joint proposals ready for discussion with the US, the EU, China, Russia, and other partners.

A strong Central Asia is not five countries with identical policies, but five countries capable of acting together where the shared result is more beneficial than an individual one.