Day: August 11, 2025

This past weekend, discussion of the “historic joint declaration for peace” was nearly impossible to avoid. Optimism ran high, with many expressing hope that peace and cooperation might finally take hold in the South Caucasus. But how realistic is that vision?

What was signed in Washington on August 8, 2025, was not a binding treaty but a declaration of intent. That is a meaningful step, but for now it remains a symbolic document. Turning it into lasting peace will require a full treaty with specific commitments. One major hurdle is Armenia’s constitution, which still contains territorial claims to land recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Amending this will be politically difficult.

The day after the signing, the opposition Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) issued a sharply critical statement. It accused the declaration of harming Armenia’s sovereignty, legitimizing an Azerbaijani-favored corridor, and violating Armenia’s territory. The ARF demanded the withdrawal of Azerbaijani forces, the release of Artsakh’s political prisoners, and guarantees for the safe return of displaced Armenians. Of the 69 seats in Armenia’s parliament, 28 belong to the “Armenia” faction, 15 of them held by ARF members, giving the party significant influence over this debate.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has also said that the wording of Armenia’s constitution blocked the signing of a treaty in Washington.

Alongside the declaration, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan signed economic agreements with the United States to boost trade, transit, energy, infrastructure, and technology in the South Caucasus. Yet these too face obstacles. Iranian official Ali Akbar Velayati vowed to prevent the creation of an “American corridor” in the region and rejected reports of a US-Armenian lease deal for land along Iran’s border, warning it would become “a graveyard for the mercenaries of Donald Trump.”

Proponents argue that if such a corridor opens, it could strengthen the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route. However, no study has yet confirmed whether the 43-kilometer stretch in question could handle a major traffic increase.

After a weekend of high expectations, political realities have brought a more cautious mood.

The week ahead promises further developments. President Trump has  announced a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Some reports claim Putin has proposed a Ukraine ceasefire in exchange for significant territorial concessions and recognition of Russia’s claims.

In response, European leaders issued a joint statement affirming Ukraine’s right to decide its own future, calling for robust security guarantees, and insisting that any peace process must begin with a ceasefire or reduced hostilities. Ukrainian President Zelensky reiterated that the constitution already answers the territorial question and that no land will be surrendered.

Diplomatic exchanges have been intense. Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev spoke with both Zelensky and Aliyev, urging a balanced approach and recalling the saying that “a bad peace is better than a good war.” Putin called the president of Tajikistan, and Zelensky spoke again with Aliyev. Behind the brief official readouts lies a broader search for ways forward.

International politics is a delicate process, and disputes built over decades or centuries are not solved quickly. Time will tell whether this declaration marks the start of true peace or just another step in a long and difficult journey.

Like it or not, the world is moving away from unipolar dominance and entering an era of multipolarity where national interests increasingly counter the globalist ambitions of some major powers. In this evolving landscape, as the major powers adjust to new geopolitical realities, an increasing number of states are becoming more comfortable operating autonomously as sovereign nations. Against this backdrop, Kazakhstan is emerging as a middle power, conscious all the same of the risks associated with remaining neutral in the oft-times bitter rivalries between major powers.

Over the past twenty years, Kazakhstan has consistently signaled that it will not be drawn into the strategic maneuverings of foreign powers, instead pursuing its own national interests in a measured fashion – rather like the other Central Asian states – so as not to undermine regional stability.  Accordingly, Astana offers good offices to foster dialogue and reconciliation among countries and blocs affected by conflict and/or heightened strategic competition.

Murat Nurtleu, Kazakhstan’s Foreign Minister, underscores just that point: “In this era of geopolitical competition, Kazakhstan’s role as a bridge between East and West is more vital than ever.” These words not only highlight Kazakhstan’s confidence and expanding role as a rising middle power but aim to mitigate the potential consequences of great power overreach, whether in Central Asia or elsewhere.

In a recent interview in Washington DC with this writer, Ambassador Yerzhan Ashikbayev of Kazakhstan to the United States elaborated: “Kazakhstan is a middle power, which means, broadly speaking, a country that holds an influential position in the international system, especially in Eurasia. Maintaining peaceful relations with our neighbors – major, middle, and minor powers – is a top priority for us. We work to shape outcomes beyond our own borders, keeping in mind our national interests, always fostering friendly and mutually beneficial ties – a modus vivendi – with our neighbors.”

It is well-known that Astana’s global diplomatic strategy prioritizes fair trade and aims to strengthen inter-regional economic ties – especially in transport, logistics, finance, and communications. It views economic development – with an emphasis on building an economically stable middle class across ethnicities – as key to national unity and regional stability. It is less known that Kazakhstan, in its diplomatic pragmatism, winces at unequal power relations, preferring to focus on long-term equity outcomes over short-term efficiency in matters of economic development.

Ambassador Ashikbayev emphasizes that “Kazakhstan’s foreign policy opens space where dialogue can flourish. Guided by pragmatism, we will concentrate on practical matters like communication, quality investment flows, fair commerce, energy, and critical minerals.” He insists that “for the international system to flourish, it should function well for all, promoting peace and the common good for the majority. That is what we export – peace.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marcio Rubio also emphasizes the need to keep peace front and center: “President [Trump] wants to end wars.  He’s not a fan of wars.  He thinks wars are a waste of time and a waste of lives.  And we’re going to continue to do everything we can and engage in every productive way possible to bring an end to [the Russo-Ukrainian] war.”

Ashikbayev agrees: “On the issue of peace, President Tokayev prioritizes peace. Kazakhstan believes that peace is possible, when grounded in the principles of equality of nations, national sovereignty, non-interference, mutual respect, and a non-zero-sum vision of geoeconomics.”

Reform of the United Nations

Kazakhstan is not alone in calling for reform of the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council.  Various middle powers share Astana’s concern about the lopsided representation of the major powers in international institutions and global decision-making. 

That said, Kazakhstan has made it clear at the U.S. Department of State and on Capitol Hill and in other world capitals that while it speaks and acts only for itself, it stands in solidarity with other landlocked and resource-dependent countries seeking fairer access to markets and technology.  In this context, the current international trade architecture must enable states to better protect core domestic industries while pursuing fair trade – in contrast to distorted trade and unchecked capital flows. This speaks to a broader ambition — to build not simply connections but regional innovation hubs that can flourish without relying solely on great power patronage.

Ashikbayev emphasizes that “constructive diplomacy is not some rhetorical gimmick; it is a call for a more rational and secure operating space. Current global norms for conflict resolution – even in geoeconomics – have left a dangerous vacuum in diplomatic initiatives, one where confrontation seems to be the preferred method of conflict resolution rather than rationality, tolerance, and compromise.”

Recent developments highlight the mounting international focus on Central Asia, with a push for a strengthened global orientation, including the UN. This past week, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, for example, dropped in on Kazakhstan to inaugurate the new U.N. Regional Center for Sustainable Development Goals, which will serve Central Asia and Afghanistan.  Guterres then travelled to Turkmenistan, a sign that Ashgabat is increasingly open for business but that’s the subject for another story.  

While the great powers will continue to maintain a leading position in the international order, it is highly likely that middle powers will assume a more prominent role in shaping innovation, mitigating rivalries, and pushing forward a more cooperative global framework in the future. Through a focus on compromise and pragmatic dialogue bereft of ideological sermonizing, Kazakhstan wants to project measured diplomatic optimism – its variant of the Central Asian school of diplomacy – that emphasizes constructive business-like teamwork in a world in transition.