«Данное сообщение (материал) создано и (или) распространено иностранным средством массовой информации, выполняющим функции иностранного агента, и (или) российским юридическим лицом, выполняющим функции иностранного агента»
Topic: Diplomacy, and Trade Blog Brand: Silk Road Rivalries Region: Eurasia Tags: Afghanistan, Belt and Road Initiative, Central Asia, China, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and United States Why Central Asia’s Future Will Be Built from Within April 22, 2026 By: Azeem Ibrahim, and Dania Arayssi
Share
The region needs a new multilateral framework to promote economic integration and limit dependence on external powers.
The geopolitical map of Eurasia is being redrawn in real time, but not in a way that serves the long-term interests of the region or of the United States. Fragmentation, external dependencies, and underdeveloped regional integration have left Central and South Asia vulnerable to coercion, economic shocks, and great-power competition. It is precisely this structural weakness that a Silk Seven Plus (S7+) grouping seeks to address.
The S7+ is not simply another regional forum or aspirational framework. It is a practical, phased blueprint for integration among a core group of countries: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan. Drawing lessons from the early formation of the European Union, the project is grounded in the idea that shared economic interests can serve as the foundation for long-term stability, cooperation, and political alignment.
The motivations behind S7+ are both regional and global. For the countries involved, the logic is straightforward. Despite vast natural resources, strategic geography, and a young and growing population, the region remains one of the least economically integrated in the world. Trade between neighboring states is limited. Infrastructure connections are underdeveloped. Energy and water disputes persist. As a result, countries are forced to rely on external powers to fill the gaps, whether through financing, security guarantees, or market access.
This dependency has consequences. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has provided critical infrastructure, but often on terms that create long-term financial and political leverage. Russia continues to exert influence through security and historical ties. Meanwhile, the United States, despite its enduring economic and political appeal, has too often taken its eye off the region, ceding space to competitors at a time when many countries are actively seeking a more balanced set of partnerships.
S7+ responds to this moment with a different model. It is built on the principle of equal partnership, in which no single country dominates, and all participants have a stake in shaping outcomes. Rather than imposing a rigid structure, the initiative focuses on building functional cooperation in key areas: water management, energy integration, transport connectivity, critical minerals, and digital infrastructure. These are not abstract ambitions. They are the building blocks of economic sovereignty and resilience.
The approach is deliberately phased. Initial efforts focus on achievable, high-impact mechanisms, such as a joint water commission among Central Asian states and Afghanistan, where shared resources have long been a source of tension. From there, the framework expands to include institutions such as a regional development bank, an energy coordination mechanism, and a transport authority, designed to unlock trade corridors linking Central Asia to global markets via Pakistan and the Arabian Sea.
Afghanistan, often viewed solely through the lens of security, is central to this vision. Its inclusion is not only a recognition of geographic reality but also a strategic choice. Integrating Afghanistan into a regional economic framework offers one of the few viable pathways to long-term stability, shifting incentives away from conflict and toward connectivity and growth. At the same time, it provides landlocked Central Asian states with direct access to maritime trade routes, fundamentally altering the region’s economic geography.
For the United States, the rationale for engaging with S7+ is equally compelling. At a time when Washington is reassessing its global posture, the initiative offers a way to re-engage in Eurasia that is aligned with both strategic and economic interests. American companies remain globally competitive and trusted, particularly in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, and technology. With appropriate support, they can play a leading role in shaping the region’s development in ways that promote transparency, sustainability, and shared prosperity.
Crucially, S7+ is not about creating blocs or forcing countries to choose sides. It is about expanding options. Strengthening regional cooperation reduces the need for any one external actor to dominate. It also aligns with a broader recognition among policymakers that the future of global stability will depend less on unilateral action and more on regions’ ability to organize around shared interests.
This is not theoretical. Over the past year, conversations with governments across the S7+ countries have revealed a clear and growing appetite for precisely this kind of framework. Officials have expressed interest in deeper cooperation on water, energy, and trade. There is recognition that no single country can address these challenges alone. What has been missing is a coherent, credible pathway forward.
As that gap is filled, the United States cannot afford to remain on the sidelines as new regional architectures take shape. Of course, the challenges are significant. Historical tensions, governance constraints, and external pressures will all shape the trajectory of S7+. Success is not guaranteed. But the alternative—continued fragmentation and deepening dependency—is far less appealing.
What S7+ offers is a pragmatic path forward with the United States as a key facilitator. It recognizes that the countries of Eurasia are not passive arenas for great power competition but active agents capable of shaping their own future. By supporting their efforts to cooperate, align interests, and build shared economic resilience, the initiative has the potential to transform one of the world’s most strategically important regions.
In doing so, it also provides a model for how the United States and its partners can engage in the 21st century: not by imposing solutions from the outside, but by enabling regions to realize their own potential.
About the Authors: Azeem Ibrahim and Dania Arayssi
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim, OBE, is the chief strategy officer at the New Lines Institute. He is also an adjunct research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, and a columnist at Foreign Policy magazine. He completed his PhD from the University of Cambridge and served as an International Security Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a World Fellow at Yale. Over the years, he has met and advised numerous world leaders on policy development and was ranked as a Top 100 Global Thinker by the European Social Think Tank in 2010 and a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.
Dania Arayssi is a senior analyst at the Central Asia Center of the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy. Dr. Arayssi also serves as an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and teaches at George Washington University, where she teaches Comparative Political Economy. Before joining New Lines, Arayssi held analytical and research roles with the World Bank, USAID, Oxfam America, and the US Army War College. Her work has been published in Foreign Policy and The Digest of Middle East Studies as well as regional and international media outlets.
The post Why Central Asia’s Future Will Be Built from Within appeared first on The National Interest.
Источник: nationalinterest.org