Could this initiative prove to be a will-of-the-wisp, a noble statement of intent that cannot be realized in practice? History provides some grounds for optimism. The five countries managed in 2009 to sign a treaty declaring that Central Asia would henceforth be a nuclear-free zone. Although the United States objected, both Russia and China accepted this move. And between 1994 and 2006 the same states organized a Central Asia Union or Central Asia Economic Union, which covered both economic and security issues. So successful was this common venture that Putin himself asked to be admitted as an observer. Then he demanded to join as a member. In neither case were the Central Asians in a position to object. Finally, after a pause of two more years, Putin dissolved the grouping, and insisted that it be merged into his new Eurasian Economic Union.

Now that Russia is mired in a calamitous war in Ukraine, it is questionable whether Moscow is in a position to make good on a similar demand today. True, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan, in his opening statement at Issyk-Kul, suggested that at some future time Russia might be invited to join. But knowledgeable insiders interpret this general statement as a tactic to gain time, and not as a serious proposal. Matching Tokayev’s speculation was Kyrgyz president Sadyr Japarov’s suggestion that at some future time Azerbaijan might be invited to join.

THE ISSYK-KUL Protocols formed the context in which the Tashkent conference took place only five days later. The immediate focus of this much larger conclave was to mobilize regional and international support for the Afghan economy so as to relieve human suffering there. The organizers also wanted to encourage countries worldwide to expand contacts with the Taliban rulers so as to reduce Afghanistan’s isolation and foster regional stability and development. Beyond this, the Uzbeks hoped to enlist both the Taliban and international partners in opening routes across Afghanistan for the transport of electrical energy, gas, electronic information, and goods of all sort to South and Southeast Asia.

More than a hundred officials from thirty-three countries in Central Asia, Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Asia presented their governments’ positions on these matters. The largest delegation, however, came from various offices of the United Nations. As a prelude to their presentations, most national representatives enumerated their countries’ generous gifts of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. Russia’s representative, however, all but apologized for having provided only two plane loads of aid, while the Chinese representative blandly reported that China now buys carpets, figs, and almonds from Afghanistan. America’s special representative for Afghanistan noted that U.S. assistance far surpassed that of any other country.

The Taliban delegation numbered nineteen, including the ministers of foreign affairs and finance, head of counterintelligence, the head of Afghan railroads, and several officials of the Central Bank. Even though many speakers from other countries referred to the Taliban as Afghanistan’s “temporary government,” nearly three dozen of their governments had already exchanged charges d’affaires with Kabul and seemed only to be awaiting the removal of existing impediments in order to elevate their contact to the ambassadorial level. First among these impediments were the Taliban’s laws and practices affecting the lives of Afghan women and girls.

Nearly all speakers raised this issue, including representatives from across the Middle East, Europe, India, Japan, and China. The United States signaled the overriding importance of this concern by including a report from its special envoy for Afghan women, girls, and human rights, Afghan-born Rina Amiri. China’s representative, too, expressed concern over the fate of Afghan women but averred that the only way to improve their lot was to engage with Kabul, not shun it.

The European Union’s Thomas Niklasson offered the most comprehensive list of additional concerns, including eliminating terrorist groups, lifting censorship, and establishing the rule of law. The Iranian spokesman demanded that Kabul cease terrorist acts and extend equal rights to all ethnic and religious minorities, e.g., the Shiite Hazara.

Amir Khan Muttaqi Mawlawi, Afghanistan’s acting minister of foreign affairs, listened to all this in stony silence. He began his response by asking if anyone present was willing to acknowledge Taliban achievements, among them the reopening of universities, employment of women in health and education, the reintegration of 500,000 former civil servants into the new administration, and the burning of stocks of narcotics. “Is this not progress?” he asked.

Mawlawi then insisted that “We believe in political reform” and that the Taliban “has entered a new phase of engagement with former enemies.” The Taliban government, he affirmed, is fully prepared to discuss all outstanding issues and to work out practical solutions that all parties could live with. However, he insisted that development and human rights must be treated separately: “Let us not link one issue with all others,” he pleaded.

Even though opening a “window to South Asia” through Afghanistan was not the main focus of the conference, more than half the speakers championed the prospect nonetheless, including all the Central Asians, Pakistan, India, China, and the Afghans themselves. However, it was noted that the Russians’ route south avoids Central Asia and skirts Afghanistan to the west, while the Chinese version skirts Afghanistan to the east. The Uzbeks and Afghans, by contrast, argued that the shortest and most efficient route is from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan on the east and Iran to the West.

In light of this, China’s representative made a telling concession, announcing Beijing’s willingness to participate in the construction of a spur from Peshawar in Pakistan to Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan, namely, the same 760-kilometer rail line that is the main focus of Uzbekistan’s and Pakistan’s campaign. In a private meeting, the Taliban’s director of railroads, Bakht-ur Rehman Sharafat, told me that he strongly supports this project, noting that this railroad was shorter and more cost-effective than the north-south routes under development by Russia and China, both of which skirt Afghanistan. 

A striking feature of the conference was that, on the “window to the South” and most other issues, the five Central Asian countries spoke emphatically and with one voice. In doing so they reflected the common stand on regional policy that had led to the signing of the Issyk-Kul Protocol only five days earlier. Indeed, in a notable presentation, Kazakhstan’s Special Representative for Afghanistan Talgat Kaliev praised the Central Asians’ “concerted regional policy,” thanked Uzbekistan for its role in bringing it about, and concluded that Tashkent “can always depend on [Kazakhstan].”

WHO WERE the main drivers of these two landmark events? The Issyk-Kul meeting was organized jointly by the five presidents, with Uzbekistan’s Mirziyoyev taking a prominent role. The Tashkent conference on Afghanistan was also initiated by Mirziyoyev. The meeting was opened by Abdulaziz Komilov, special representative of the president of Uzbekistan for foreign affairs, who reminded attendees that the purpose of the conclave was to reduce and eliminate Afghanistan’s isolation from its neighbors and from the regional and world economies. To this end, he called for new links with Afghan society, “including its women.”

For their part, a prime goal of the Taliban team was to get Washington to return the reserves of their country’s central bank. Western speakers made clear that they needed evidence that the new Afghan government could handle the funds responsibly, that the bank’s operations would be transparent, and that the funds would be used for national development. Beyond this, however, the voices of finance and business were scarcely audible at the conference. Given the many other urgent issues before the assembly, this was probably inevitable. However, the obvious follow-on to this convocation would be to determine how a more open and practical-minded Afghanistan would be financed. Talk of funding from the Gulf states, Islamic Development Bank, and other entities was heard on the sidelines, but for now, this remained just talk.

In spite of the many upbeat moments of the Tashkent conference, there remained the conviction in many quarters that the Taliban had not really changed at all. A speaker from Kuwait stated bluntly that the real authority in Kabul was the Islamic State, or Daesh, while a UN speaker asserted that the Taliban remained in close contact with Al Qaeda. Only five days after the conference, U.S. president Joe Biden announced that a drone attack had killed the Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri at his Kabul residence, next door to the home of Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Taliban’s minister of internal affairs. Haqqani promptly fled the country and Taliban officials denied all knowledge of Zawahiri’s presence in Kabul.

At the same time, more positive notes were also audible. Thomas West, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan, acknowledged several areas of progress in Kabul before enumerating his government’s list of problems. Many other speakers did likewise. Reports on a number of other developments seemed to confirm such progress. Typical was an update on the construction of the Surkhan-Pul-e-Khumri Power Line from Uzbekistan, which will exponentially increase Afghanistan’s supply of electric power by 2025.

SUMMING UP, what can we conclude from the meeting of Central Asian presidents at Issyk-Kul and of the Tashkent conference on Afghanistan? First, both exhibited a degree of regional comity and practical collaboration that has rarely been seen in post-Soviet Central Asia. Prompted by the American pullout from Afghanistan; by Putin’s villainous attack on Ukraine and his stated intention to reclaim former Soviet territories; and by the readiness of Uzbekistan and its president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, to exercise leadership; the regional states identified their own shared interests and goals and took concrete steps to advance them.