Why Should Central Asian Countries Unite?
Author: Davlat Usmon, Senior Regional Affairs Expert (Tajikistan), especially for "Sangar"
In recent years, in the media of the Turkic-speaking republics of Central Asia and Azerbaijan, the terms "Turan" and "Turkestan" have been heard more frequently compared to the name "Central Asia." At the same time, some Afghan media also often mention the word "Khorasan."
The use of the term "Turkestan" instead of "Central Asia" is increasingly observed in speeches and publications of analysts and political scientists from Turkey and Azerbaijan. According to the American publication The Diplomat, Turkey has officially decided that from now on, the term "Turkestan" will be used in school textbooks instead of "Central Asia."
Azerbaijan is also affected by this trend. A striking example is the online program Caucasus News, where Azerbaijani analyst Rizvan Huseynov used the term "Turkestan" instead of "Central Asia." Even when the program's host, Georgian journalist Gela Vasadze, corrected him, saying "Central Asia, not Turkestan," Huseynov insisted that this name has become official for the region.
Turkey nurtures the idea of a "Greater Turkestan" in line with the new British policies, and given the difficult situation Azerbaijan faces both internally and externally, it seems that Baku wants to draw others into the pit it has dug for itself. "Greater Turkestan" is not even a Turkish project; its usage is deliberate.
The names "Turan," "Turkestan," as well as "Maverannahr" and "Khorasan," have been used in the myths and history of Central Asia. The name "Turan" has no relation to Turkic peoples and existed long before they arrived in the region, while "Turkestan" was introduced by the Russians, not the Turkic-speaking peoples, when the Russian Empire conquered modern Central Asia. Historians attribute this naming to Tatar influence.
The name "Khorasan" is also very ancient and covered a large part of Turan’s territory. The term "Maverannahr" emerged after the arrival of Arabs and the spread of Islam in Central Asia.
The Russian Empire, except for the territory of the Bukhara Emirate and present-day Turkmenistan, called the remaining lands of the region the "General-Governorship of Turkestan." After the administrative-territorial division of the 1920s and the transformation of the region into Soviet republics, the name changed to "Central Asia." After the collapse of the USSR and the acquisition of independence in 1991–1992, the first President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, officially referred to the region as "Central Asia" for the first time at a meeting of Central Asian leaders. Some Russian analysts viewed this as an attempt to strengthen independence and distance the region from Russian influence.
More than three decades after gaining independence, with the intensification of geopolitical games and the global powers’ attempts to redraw the world map, Central Asia has become one of the key regions. This is evidenced by meetings of world powers in the "5+1" format with the leaders of the regional countries.
It is clear that the foreign policy of Central Asian countries, based on multivector strategies and open-door policies, is very appropriate for strengthening independence and protecting national interests. However, the rivalry between the United States and its Western allies with the Eastern powers — Russia and China — and their drive to create a multipolar world should not lead to the loss of independence and territorial integrity of countries, including Central Asian states. Clear examples of this can be seen in the crises in Russia and Ukraine, as well as in Israel’s aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Therefore, under the current circumstances, the only and best option for Central Asian countries to preserve their independence and territorial integrity is to unite under the name "Union of Central Asian Countries." Even relatively large regional countries — Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan — would not be able to protect their independence and territorial integrity alone in the face of a serious threat.
If the region is divided and falls under the influence of global powers, the risk of interstate conflicts between these countries on various issues, instigated by these powers, will arise. A clear example is the crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus.
At this stage, this union should include only these five countries, and no other states should be included. The union should be established in three areas — economic, political, and defense — and the five official languages of the region, alongside Russian, should be used equally. Initially, the leaders of the five countries should clearly state that, to preserve independence, territorial integrity, and to develop equal relations with all countries of the world, especially the global powers, they have chosen this policy. They should also declare that they reject any intelligence projects such as "Greater Turkestan" or "Greater Khorasan," which could lead to new crises.
It should be noted that the first step in this direction has already been taken within the framework of informal meetings of regional leaders, the seventh round of which is scheduled to take place this fall in the capital of Uzbekistan, Tashkent. Now, only courage and political will are needed to officially announce the creation of the union. Otherwise, both time and opportunity may be lost.
