In the small Italian town of Cadenabbia on the shores of Lake Como, a meeting organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation's regional program for Central Asia brought together experts, parliamentarians, and scholars from Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. They discussed security, foreign policy, water and climate issues, transport, economy, and regional identity.
The venue was symbolic: Villa La Collina served for many years as the summer residence of Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of West Germany. It was there that he prepared for his first meeting with Charles de Gaulle, an event that helped reconcile Germany and France after World War II and laid the groundwork for European cooperation. Now, decades later, another region—Central Asia—is seeking its own formula for the future in the same place.
The perception of Central Asia is gradually changing. Until recently, it was easier to view the region from the outside—through directions, borders, and the interests of major powers. Now, more and more, there is a desire to look from within: what binds us, what can we do together, and how do we want to see our future? Perhaps this is one of the most significant changes.
Economic indicators show that regional interconnectedness is beginning to create economic value. The combined GDP of the five Central Asian states has reached approximately $520 billion, growing nearly 2.5 times over the past eight years. Mutual trade volume has approached $11 billion, and mutual investments have increased 5.6 times. For Central Asia, being just a transport hub is no longer enough. It is important not only to transit goods through the region but also to produce them here, creating added value and developing technological and financial potential.
The meeting discussed the need to develop unified legal standards to protect the economic space, especially joint projects, from sanctions pressure. External cooperation is often seen as a choice: one direction instead of another, one partner instead of another. But for Central Asia, a different logic may be more effective: not alternative, but additional opportunity. A new transport corridor does not have to replace an existing route; it can become an alternative. This leads to regional autonomy and subjectivity.
The countries of the region are increasingly taking responsibility for solving their own problems. Water is linked to energy, transport to the infrastructure of neighboring countries, and climate and environmental issues know no borders. Cyber threats are also pressing. If a problem becomes regional, responsibility for solving it should also gradually become regional. A clear example is the trilateral border agreements and the Khujand Declaration.
The meeting also addressed the role of parliaments and civil society, platforms for women and youth, student exchanges, and cultural projects. People often come together faster than official institutions. Family members frequently live on both sides of a border, students seek education in neighboring countries, and during the World Cup, many Central Asians cheered for the Uzbekistan national team. Such moments shape a sense of neighborliness. Therefore, regional rapprochement needs what one participant called "beacons guiding the path to good neighborliness": common cultural orientations, convenient travel, and regional media platforms.
The formation of a regional identity was also discussed. Are we ready to ask: what unites us as a region? At the same time, it is understood that regional identity cannot be enforced by decree. Perhaps more importantly, such ideas are increasingly emerging among a generation less bound by old stereotypes and more inclined to accept neighborliness as part of their lives. These are the people who will gradually take responsibility for what the region will look like in the near future.
Another subtle but important issue for the region's future is history. Central Asia has a shared, very complex, and closely intertwined history. But today, each country interprets it largely from its own national perspective. Each has its own heroes, dates, events, and painful pages. However, regional identity is impossible without attempting to view the past from a perspective broader than today's borders. Perhaps, as was said at the meeting, scholars from the five countries should write a history of Central Asia together—not to create a new "correct" version of the past, but to see in it not only our differences but also what binds us. Central Asia has a common memory; we just haven't yet managed to read it together. Here, too, there is no need to seek a single identity instead of national ones. A person can feel part of a broader space at the same time.
Another idea voiced during the discussions was the need to move regional commonality from declarations to daily practice. After the discussions in Cadenabbia, the impression is that Central Asia is gradually moving in precisely this direction. Not toward creating a rigid supranational structure or opposing itself to the outside world, but toward creating a networked space of cooperation where different countries are connected by different interests and projects. Trade connects one country with another. Transport adds a third. Energy—a fourth. Water, security, education, culture, and interpersonal ties strengthen new connections. They do not have to pass through all five countries at once. But the more such intersections, the denser the region becomes. The advantage of the network model is that it does not require creating a single common structure yet. Countries can cooperate on one issue, compete on another, and involve another neighbor in cooperation on a third. Some connections may strengthen, others weaken, but the network or multi-level community itself will continue to develop regardless.
Such connections are gradually beginning to influence national rules and standards: the more countries work together, the more they have to harmonize their systems. In this case, the region is formed not only through political decisions from above but also through numerous practical ties between states and people. In Adenauer's time, Europe learned to turn complex neighborliness into a system of cooperation. Central Asia will follow its own path and, of course, should not copy others' models. But the idea itself seems universal: stability emerges where states stop perceiving neighborliness only as a source of potential threats and begin to see it as a source of benefit and development. Perhaps today, precisely this process is slowly taking place in Central Asia. Neighbors are learning not only not to conflict but also to create something together. Not only to seek partners outside the region but also to find them nearby. Not only to talk about their own interests but also to take responsibility for what happens in neighboring countries. And perhaps the main question now is not which center of power Central Asia is closer to, but how much Central Asia itself can expand the scope of its own choice. Perhaps this is the next step—moving from the multi-vector nature of states to regional autonomy and subjectivity. To become a region strong and interconnected enough to continue integrating with the outside world while cooperating on open and equal terms.
Source: www.gazeta.uz