https://ojs.revistaclio.es/index.php/edicionesclio/
BY: se debe dar crédito al creador.
NC: Solo se permiten usos no comerciales de la obra.
SA: Las adaptaciones deben compartirse bajo los mismos términos.
Recibido: 2025-08-25 Aceptado: 2025-10-31
Página 2206
The United States and Central Asia in the “C5+1”
framework: scope, limits and impact metrics
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17549205
Nurtazina, Roza
1
Correo: r.nurtazina@outlook.com
Orcid: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3915-8450
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
2
Correo: aigerimabdrashitova44@gmail.com
Orcid: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9745-1151
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University
Kim, Sangcheol
3
Correo: sangcheol-kim@hotmail.com
Orcid: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8218-8355
Institute of Central Asian Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Abstract
The aim was to analyse the strategic motives of the United States in strengthening
cooperation with the Central Asian states within the “C5+1” format. The study
used a comprehensive methodological approach, which included the analysis of
political initiatives, the regulatory and legal framework, economic indicators, and
the dynamics of US-Central Asia interaction in a comparative perspective. The
research covered the evolution of the “C5+1” format since 2015, examining its
development from a consultative mechanism to a multifunctional platform aimed
at implementing joint projects in the fields of security, trade, infrastructure,
ecology, and digitalisation. Special attention was paid to the US strategy not only
1
Full Doctor, Professor at the Faculty of International Relations, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National
University, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan.
2
Master, Doctoral Student at the Department of Political Science, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National
University, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan.
3
PhD, Professor at the Institute of Central Asian Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul,
Republic of Korea.
Sección: Artículo científico 2026, enero-junio, año 6, No. 11, 2206-2261
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2207
in the area of modernising the legal environment and institutional reform but also
in the context of its broader geopolitical strategy in Central Asia. The “C5+1”
format represented a platform aimed at changing the balance of power in the
region by forming alternative political and economic guidelines.
Keywords: CA+USA, geopolitics, regionalisation, competition, diplomacy
Estados Unidos y Asia Central en el marco “C5+1”: Alcances,
límites y métricas de impacto
Resumen
El objetivo fue analizar las motivaciones estratégicas de Estados Unidos para
fortalecer la cooperación con los estados de Asia Central dentro del formato
“C5+1”. El estudio empleó un enfoque metodológico integral que incluyó el
análisis de iniciativas políticas, el marco regulatorio y legal, indicadores
económicos y la dinámica de la interacción entre Estados Unidos y Asia Central
desde una perspectiva comparativa. La investigación abarcó la evolución del
formato “C5+1” desde 2015, examinando su desarrollo desde un mecanismo
consultivo hasta una plataforma multifuncional destinada a implementar proyectos
conjuntos en los ámbitos de la seguridad, el comercio, la infraestructura, la
ecología y la digitalización. Se prestó especial atención a la estrategia
estadounidense no solo en el ámbito de la modernización del entorno legal y la
reforma institucional, sino también en el contexto de su estrategia geopolítica más
amplia en Asia Central. El formato “C5+1” representó una plataforma destinada a
cambiar el equilibrio de poder en la región mediante la formulación de directrices
políticas y económicas alternativas.
Palabras clave: CA+USA, geopolítica, regionalización, competencia, diplomacia
Introduction
The “C5+1” (Central Asia+) format, which unites the five Central Asian
countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan)
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2208
and stakeholders interested in this format, became one of the instruments of
interaction that contributed to the development of economic, political, and legal
mechanisms of cooperation. The United States was not the initiator of this format.
As early as the beginning of the 2000s, interaction within the “C5+” format had
been implemented between the Central Asian countries and Japan, and later with
South Korea. Only in 2015 did official cooperation between Central Asia and the
United States in a similar format begin. Since then, the “C5+1” has started to
transform from a consultative platform into a more structured mechanism for
implementing joint initiatives in the fields of security, trade, energy, and
digitalisation (U.S. Department of State, 2025b). The study of this format became
particularly relevant in the context of global geopolitical changes and new
challenges to international security.
As noted by Tolipov (2024), the strategic significance of Central Asia for
the United States was determined not only by its resource potential but also by its
role in ensuring regional stability and alternative logistics routes, especially in
light of competition with China. In the context of global geopolitical changes,
Washington sought to strengthen its influence in the region, considering Central
Asia a key element in the “Greater Eurasia” strategy, which envisaged an
increased American presence to contain China and Russia. In addition,
Rakhmatulin and Kushkumbayev (2022) emphasised that US policy in the region
was aimed at strengthening the sovereignty of Central Asian states, reducing the
dependence on traditional partners, and promoting economic reforms. In this
context, special attention was paid to modernising the legal environment, creating
conditions for private sector development, and institutional reform, which
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2209
contributed to sustainable development and increased the investment
attractiveness of the region.
One of the key aspects of the American strategy remained the diversification
of energy supplies and the creation of conditions for the development of
alternative hydrocarbon export routes. As noted by Farhadi (2021), energy
security was an important area of cooperation within the “C5+1”, as it allowed
Central Asian countries to reduce dependence on monopolised transport corridors.
At the same time, according to Turtugulova et al. (2024), the United States used
economic initiatives within this format as a tool of “soft power” aimed at
supporting democratic transformations and institutional resilience in the region.
In addition, an important area of cooperation remained infrastructure
development and digital transformation. The study by Zakiyeva (2024) showed
that American investments in digital technologies and cybersecurity in Central
Asian countries were aimed not only at modernising the economies but also at
forming new technological standards that served as an alternative to China’s
“Digital Silk Road” initiative. Zhang (2024) emphasised that in this aspect, it was
also important to take into account the influence of global competition between
technological platforms and standards. This concerned not only infrastructure and
cybersecurity issues but also data regulation standards, digital sovereignty, and
cross-border e-commerce rules.
Significant attention was also paid to the legal aspect of cooperation. As
noted by Kakenova (2024), legal support for reforms within the “C5+1” aimed to
create more transparent and resilient institutions, which in turn contributed to the
integration of Central Asian countries into international economic networks. An
important part of this work was the improvement of legislation in the areas of
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2210
investment activity, property rights protection, anti-corruption measures, and the
rule of law. Considerable attention was also devoted to law enforcement practices,
judicial reform, and the development of mechanisms for resolving economic
disputes, which created preconditions for long-term legal stability.
This was confirmed by the study of Usserova et al. (2024), according to
which the development of the regulatory framework in the region was one of the
US priorities for ensuring long-term partnership. The study emphasised that the
United States actively supported technical assistance programmes aimed at
improving the qualifications of local legal professionals, developing digitalisation
of the legal system, and introducing international standards into legislation.
The overall issue lay in insufficient attention to a comprehensive analysis of
the evolution of the “C5+1” format in the context of modern global
transformations. Existing research mainly focused on individual aspects of US
policy in Central Asia – economic, geopolitical, or legal – but did not consider
these aspects in the interrelation. This study applied a comprehensive approach to
analysing the US strategic motives, combining an examination of security,
economic, and legal factors in the development of Central Asia.
The aim of the study was to analyse the transformation of the “C5+1” format
as an instrument of US policy in Central Asia, to identify its strategic role in
regional dynamics, and to assess its impact on economic, geopolitical, and legal
processes in the region. The main tasks of the study were to analyse the US
strategic motives for strengthening cooperation with Central Asian states within
the “C5+1” format and to assess its influence on regional dynamics, to examine
the economic, geopolitical, and legal aspects of this cooperation, as well as to
study the evolution of the “C5+1” format and its transformation from a
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2211
consultative mechanism into a multifunctional platform. Special attention was
paid to issues of modernising the legal environment and institutional reform in
Central Asian countries.
1. Materials and methods
This study used a narrative-analytical design structured as an integrated
policy review. It employed a comprehensive methodological approach aimed at
analysing the strategic motives of the United States in strengthening cooperation
with Central Asian states within the “C5+1” format. The study followed a
reproducible methodological sequence that complied with the PRISMA 2020
statement on research scope reviews (Page et al., 2021).
1.1. Research design and sources
The research was carried out in three stages during the period from
September 2024 to January 2025, which corresponds to the full operational
lifespan of the “C5+1” format. To ensure comprehensiveness and replicability, a
detailed search protocol was applied. The study systematically reviewed academic
and official publications retrieved from international and regional databases,
including Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, and official U.S. and Central Asian
government portals. The search used key phrases such as “C5+1”, “United States
Central Asia cooperation”, “USAID Central Asia”, “C5+1 investment”, “C5+1
legal framework”, “C5+1 trade”, “C5+1 security” and “C5+1 energy”.
Publications and documents were included if they were peer-reviewed or officially
verified and published in English or Russian between 2015 and 2025. Non-verified
media materials, opinion essays, and unrelated reports were excluded. In total, 184
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2212
records were initially identified. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria,
83 sources were retained for qualitative synthesis.
1.2. Research stages and analytical framework
To enhance analytical depth, the regulatory review was supplemented by
explicit evaluative criteria to assess the regulatory force, enforcement capacity,
and verifiable effects of “C5+1”-related instruments. At the first stage, data
collection and systematisation on U.S. political initiatives in Central Asia were
carried out, as well as an analysis of the regulatory and legal framework governing
the “C5+1” format. Within this stage, official documents, agreements, and
declarations concerning Washington’s engagement with the regions were studied.
Particular attention was paid to mechanisms of economic partnership, security,
digitalisation, and sustainable development (U.S. Department of State, 2016,
2021; CAA Network, 2018; Foreign Assistance Act, 1961; Meirkhanova, 2025;
BES Media, 2025). The second stage included a comparative analysis of the
dynamics of U.S. interaction with Central Asia in the context of competition with
other external actors, primarily China. Statistical data on the dynamics of
American investments, trade turnover, reform assistance programmes, and private
sector support were also examined (National Defence Authorisation Act…, 2023;
AsiaPlus, 2024; Eurasianet, 2024; U.S. Department of State, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a;
Eurasianet, 2025; Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2025; Xinhuanet, 2025).
The third stage of the study was devoted to assessing the transformation of
the “C5+1” format since its creation in 2015, as well as forecasting possible
scenarios for its further development. In this context, U.S. strategic documents
were analysed, along with the positions of the Central Asian states regarding
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2213
American initiatives. The prospects for diversifying the region’s economic and
political vectors, potential changes in Washington’s approaches, and the degree of
U.S. involvement in long-term projects were considered (Law of the Republic…,
2005; Law of Turkmenistan…, 2010; Law of the Kyrgyz…, 2014; Law of the
Republic…, 2016; U.S. Department of State, 2015; Joint Statement by
President…, 2023; Kozybaev, 2024).
1.3. Interdisciplinary methodological basis
The methodological basis of the study included an interdisciplinary
approach, combining political, economic, and legal analysis, as well as a
comparative analysis of dynamics over the last 10 years. Political analysis made
it possible to examine the mechanisms of interaction between the United States
and Central Asia in the context of international relations, including the
competition of global actors for influence in the region. Economic analysis was
aimed at studying investment dynamics (Yangi Oʻzbekiston, 2023, 2024; U.S.
Department of State, 2024a, 2025a; Xinhuanet, 2025), foreign trade flows, and the
effectiveness of American economic initiatives (U.S. Department of State, 2015;
Joint Statement by President…, 2023; Office of the United States Trade
Representative, 2025). Legal analysis included the study of international
agreements, political and legal declarations, and regulatory acts governing the
functioning of the “C5+1” format (U.S. Embassy in Tajikistan, 2020; U.S. Mission
Kazakhstan, 2021; U.S. Department of State, 2015, 2024b).
The use of an interdisciplinary approach made it possible to
comprehensively study the strategic goals of the United States in Central Asia,
identify the main mechanisms of its interaction with the states of the region, and
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2214
assess the prospects for further development of the “C5+1” format in the context
of a changing geopolitical configuration. The integration of data from various
disciplines made it possible to gain a deeper understanding of the United States’
strategic goals in the region, identify the strengths and weaknesses of its policy,
and forecast possible scenarios for the development of interaction within the
“C5+1” format.
1.4. Limitations and causality considerations
Given the complexity of geopolitical and economic interactions in Central
Asia, causal relationships between “C5+1” initiatives and national outcomes were
interpreted as indicative rather than deterministic. To enhance the validity of
inferences, the analysis incorporated counterfactual comparisons by examining
investment and reform dynamics in Central Asian states that simultaneously
participated in alternative frameworks such as the BRI, EAEU, or SCO. This
allowed for a balanced interpretation of the effects attributable to U.S.-led
initiatives versus other international partnerships.
2. Results and discussion
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the emergence of new independent
states that sought to strengthen the sovereignty and ensure stable development.
However, the region remained vulnerable to transnational threats such as
terrorism, extremism, and drug trafficking. Economic dependence on the export
of raw materials and limited access to global markets required the diversification
of economies and the search for new cooperation partners. In response to these
challenges, in 2015 the United States proposed the “C5+1” cooperation initiative.
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2215
Over the last 10 years, the “C5+1” format evolved from a predominantly
consultative platform into a mechanism for multilevel interaction covering a wide
range of areas of cooperation. The analysis of statistical trends and implemented
initiatives demonstrated a gradual, albeit not overt, institutionalisation of the
format, which indicated the United States’ intention to strengthen its influence in
the region and adapt its engagement strategy to changing geopolitical conditions.
2.1. Security: regional stability and countering transnational threats
In the initial stage (2015-2018), interaction within the format was
predominantly political and diplomatic, focusing on issues of regional security,
combating terrorism, and extremism. This period was characterised by annual
meetings at the level of foreign ministers, during which mechanisms for
coordinating foreign policy strategies and cooperation in countering global threats
were discussed.
Since 2020, there had been an expansion of the interaction agenda, with the
inclusion of new thematic areas such as economic cooperation, trade, investment,
and energy security. A significant step in the development of the format was the
participation of the US President in the “C5+1” summit in 2023 (Joint Statement
by President…, 2023), which indicated Washington’s increased interest in
strengthening its presence in the region. During the same period, the importance
of initiatives related to diversifying economic ties, sustainable development, and
infrastructure modernisation increased.
The United States’ decision to cooperate with Central Asia was driven by
several strategic considerations. The region possessed significant reserves of
natural resources, including oil, gas, and rare earth elements, which were of great
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2216
importance to the global economy. Central Asia accounted for 38.6% of the
world’s manganese ore reserves and 30.07% of chromium, and Kazakhstan had
the potential to compete with China in the production of rare earth elements such
as scandium, yttrium, and lanthanides, which were widely used in the production
of high-tech products, including computers, turbines, and cars (Kalaganov et al.,
2018; Meirkhanova, 2025). Access to these resources was of significant interest
to the United States, which sought to diversify sources of critical materials and
reduce dependence on supplies from other regions. Another reason for US interest
was Central Asia’s strategically important geopolitical location at the intersection
of the interests of major world powers such as Russia and China. Strengthening
the US presence in the region helped counter the growing influence of these states
and promoted American interests.
The “C5+1” initiative was also aimed at supporting the sovereignty and
independence of Central Asian states by providing the states with alternative
opportunities for cooperation and development. In a situation where Russia and
China already had significant influence in the region, Central Asian countries were
interested in diversifying the foreign policy and economic ties. States in the region
could oppose the dominance of a single power and sought alternative sources of
investment and political support, which could be provided by the United States
and other Western countries (Caglar et al., 2025; Işık et al., 2025).
According to the provisions of the United States Strategy for Central Asia
2019-2025 (U.S. Embassy in Tajikistan, 2020), the “C5+1” format, comprising
the five Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
and Uzbekistan) and the United States, served as a key multilateral platform for
promoting regional stability, sustainable development, and integration into the
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2217
global economic and security architecture. Within this framework, the United
States pursued a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the resilience of Central
Asian states through technical assistance, expert consultations, and capacity-
building initiatives across several sectors, including public administration,
national security, economic governance, and social development. A particular
focus was placed on the institutional reform of the judicial system, reflecting a
recognition that a robust rule-of-law environment is essential for democratic
governance, investment attractiveness, and citizen trust. U.S.-supported reforms
aimed at enhancing judicial independence, improving law enforcement
mechanisms, and aligning local practices with international legal standards. Key
elements of these reforms included promoting judicial impartiality, guaranteeing
equality of the parties in legal proceedings, ensuring procedural rights, and
enhancing the transparency and accountability of court decisions. By fostering a
more transparent and predictable legal environment, these measures sought not
only to protect citizens’ fundamental rights but also to create favorable conditions
for domestic and foreign investment.
Countering transnational threats, such as terrorism, violent extremism,
organized crime, and illicit trafficking, remained a strategic priority for U.S.
engagement in the region (Ismayilov et al., 2025). Washington facilitated the
modernization of national counter-terrorism programs, supported interagency
coordination among law enforcement and intelligence services, and introduced
advanced analytical tools to identify, monitor, and neutralize emerging security
threats. In addition to security cooperation, U.S. initiatives extended to socio-
economic development, reflecting an integrated approach to regional stability
(Destek et al., 2025). In Kazakhstan, for example, the United States, through the
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2218
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), implemented
programs aimed at supporting economic reforms, fostering democratic
governance, strengthening civil society institutions, and improving public health
infrastructure (BES Media, 2025). In 2024 alone, these initiatives were backed by
funding exceeding USD 15 million, demonstrating a tangible commitment to
promoting long-term, sustainable development and reinforcing the capacity of
local institutions to respond to both domestic and regional challenges. These
efforts illustrate the U.S. strategy’s dual focus on security and development as
mutually reinforcing dimensions of stability in Central Asia.
2.2. Energy: diversification, sustainability and geoeconomic competition
Despite US efforts to increase its economic presence and influence market
processes, China continued to occupy a dominant position in regional economic
structures. As part of its economic expansion strategy, China consistently
implemented the “Belt and Road” initiative (BRI), investing in transport and
logistics infrastructure, extractive industries, and manufacturing. This allowed
Beijing to strengthen its role as the key trading partner and main creditor of most
countries in the region. As a result, despite Washington’s geo-economic policy
aimed at limiting China’s influence, the United States faced the need to adapt its
strategies, as regional states increasingly preferred economic cooperation with
China, which provided long-term capital investments and guaranteed markets
(Krechko & Mikhaylov, 2025; Shah et al., 2025).
An important aspect of US economic policy was supporting programmes to
improve the business climate, increase transparency in public procurement, and
stimulate innovative entrepreneurship. The “Improving the Legal Environment”
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2219
programme (Yangi Oʻzbekiston, 2024), funded by USAID, was aimed at creating
a favourable legal environment for civil society in Central Asia, thereby
contributing to a more dynamic and sustainable democratic culture in the region.
At the initial stage of interaction, meetings within the framework of the
“C5+1” were predominantly consultative, allowing Central Asian states and the
United States to agree on key areas of cooperation. In 2016, the second summit
took place in Washington, at which a package of five joint initiatives with total
US funding of up to USD 15 million was presented (Buribayev et al., 2016;
Orazgaliyeva, 2016). These included programmes to combat terrorism, support
private sector competitiveness, modernise transport logistics, promote “green”
energy, and strengthen water resource management mechanisms (Bimendiyeva et
al., 2018). These projects became the first practical steps towards institutionalising
the format and shaping its substantive agenda.
In 2020-2024, interaction within the “C5+1” acquired a more stable and
systematic basis, which was reflected in the launch of long-term initiatives aimed
at stimulating economic growth and attracting investment. In 2021, the Central
Asia Investment Initiative (U.S. Mission Kazakhstan, 2021) was presented,
providing for the mobilisation of up to USD 1 billion over five years to support
small and medium-sized businesses, develop transport corridors, and improve the
regulatory environment for investors. In addition, the first summit with the
participation of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (U.S. Department of State,
2024b) was held, where the parties discussed measures to mitigate the effects of
climate change, diversify energy supplies, and expand trade between regional
countries.
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2220
2.3. Digital transformation: innovation, connectivity and technological
sovereignty
In 2023, the dynamics of interaction within the “C5+1” framework,
comprising the five Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) and the United States, reached a new level of
strategic engagement. The participation of US President Joe Biden in the “C5+1”
summit, held on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New
York, underscored the growing importance of this format in US foreign policy
toward Central Asia. This high-level involvement signaled Washington’s
recognition of the region as a key partner in addressing both regional and global
challenges, including economic development, security cooperation, and
sustainable infrastructure initiatives. Following the summit, the New York
Declaration (Joint Statement by President…, 2023) was signed, in which the
leaders reaffirmed their commitment to deepening economic collaboration. Key
areas of focus included the strengthening of business ties, the establishment of a
dedicated business platform to facilitate private sector engagement, and the
modernization of transport and logistics infrastructure to enhance regional
connectivity and trade efficiency.
Complementing these high-level political commitments, tangible economic
cooperation advanced in October 2023 during a meeting in Samarkand between
the ministers of economy and trade of the Central Asian countries and USAID
Administrator Samantha Power (Yangi Oʻzbekiston, 2023). During this meeting,
both sides agreed to digitalize customs procedures, which would simplify cross-
border trade and reduce bureaucratic delays, thereby creating a more business-
friendly environment. Additionally, joint projects were launched to decarbonize
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2221
key industrial sectors, reflecting a shared commitment to sustainable development
and the global transition toward greener economies. These initiatives not only
foster economic integration among the Central Asian states but also align the
region more closely with international standards and investment practices,
potentially attracting further foreign investment and enhancing regional stability.
2.4. Legal-institutional aspects: regulatory convergence and governance
reform
The evolution of the “C5+1” format reflected its ability to adapt to changing
regional and global conditions and demonstrated the participating countries’
interest in institutionalising this mechanism as a sustainable platform for
interaction (Table 1). Initially, its key priority was coordination in the field of
regional security, which was driven by the need to counter transnational threats
such as terrorism, extremism, drug trafficking, and organised crime. However, as
cooperation strengthened, the scope of the agenda expanded to include issues of
economic development, energy, climate resilience, and digital transformation.
Table 1. SWOT analysis of key “C5+1” documentation
Strengths
Source
Formation of an institutional
framework for U.S.-Central
Asia interaction that formalized
dialogue mechanisms through
ministerial meetings and joint
statements
U.S. Department of
State (2015); Joint
Statement by
President Biden…
(2023)
Support for reforms, sustainable
development, and civil society
via USAID and Central Asia
Investment Partnership (CAIP)
programs
U.S. Mission
Kazakhstan (2021);
BES Media (2025)
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2222
Flexibility of the framework
allowing adaptive agendas to
new geopolitical conditions
U.S. Department of
State (2021, 2024a)
International legitimacy through
inclusion of all five regional
states and endorsement at
presidential level
Joint Statement by
President Biden…
(2023)
Weaknesses
Source
Memoranda of understanding
lack legally binding force,
limiting enforceability
U.S. Department of
State (2016)
Absence of stable financial and
implementation mechanisms in
several thematic initiatives
U.S. Department of
State (2024b); Foreign
Assistance Act (1961)
Insufficient detail of policy
commitments-many statements
remain general without
measurable benchmarks
U.S. Department of
State (2021)
Dependence on U.S. political
priorities and funding cycles
National Defense
Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2024
(2023)
Opportunities
Source
Gradual institutionalisation into
a permanent secretariat and
specialised agencies
U.S. Department of
State (2025b)
Expansion of participant base to
attract new investments and
international donors
U.S. Mission
Kazakhstan (2021)
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2223
Promotion of alternative
energy, digital, and
environmental projects
complementary to the BRI
U.S. Department of
State (2024a); Yangi
Oʻzbekiston (2023)
Strengthening of regional
security and cybersecurity
cooperation
U.S. Department of
State (2016, 2021)
Threats
Source
Competition from SCO, EAEU,
and BRI may diminish U.S.
influence
Schindler et al.
(2023); Eurasianet
(2025)
Geopolitical pressure from
Russia and China on regional
partners
U.S. Department of
State (2024b)
Political instability within
Central Asian states affecting
agreement implementation
Joint Statement by
President Biden…
(2023)
Absence of binding obligations
may reduce participant
engagement
U.S. Department of
State (2015, 2016)
The legal regulation of the “C5+1” framework demonstrates a multilevel
hierarchy combining international coordination instruments, joint statements,
memoranda, and sectoral agreements, with national legislative adaptation in each
Central Asian state. At the supranational level, the framework remains grounded
in soft-law instruments. The 2015 founding statement and 2016 Memorandum of
Understanding on combating terrorism and transboundary threats
(U.S. Department of State, 2016) established the declarative base, whereas the
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2224
2021 Tashkent statement (U.S. Department of State, 2021) and 2023 New York
Declaration (Joint Statement by President…, 2023) introduced operational
benchmarks, judicial independence, transparency, and investment-climate
improvements. These milestones illustrate a gradual transition from political
commitment to rule-based cooperation.
At the national level, regulatory adaptation followed differentiated
trajectories. In Kazakhstan cooperation was anchored within the Law of the
Republic of Kazakhstan No. 54 “On International Treaties of the Republic of
Kazakhstan” (2005), complemented by successive reforms of the investment and
sub-soil codes. By 2024, anti-corruption and investment amendments aligned
domestic provisions with U.S.-supported transparency standards. The Law of the
Republic of Uzbekistan No. LRU-518 “On International Treaties of the Republic
of Uzbekistan” (2018) formalised treaty procedures and subsequently introduced
reforms simplifying FDI registration and public-procurement oversight, mirroring
“C5+1” investment partnership goals. The Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 64
“On International Treaties of the Kyrgyz Republic” (2014) maintained full treaty
incorporation yet demonstrated fragmented enforcement; pilot SME-support
regulations under USAID’s 2022 programme reflected partial institutionalisation
of pro-entrepreneurship norms. The Law of the Republic of Tajikistan No. 1326
“On International Treaties of the Republic of Tajikistan” (2016) amended its
investment code to expand investor guarantees consistent with “C5+1” energy and
infrastructure cooperation frameworks. The Law of Turkmenistan No. 108-IV
“On International Treaties of Turkmenistan” (2010) preserved a sovereignty-
centric approach, restricting legal alignment to non-binding memoranda on
logistics and energy.
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2225
Within the US, the Foreign Assistance Act (1961) and successive National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (2023) provided the statutory
foundation for funding, technical assistance, and governance programmes. Thus,
the U.S. served as the top-tier regulator defining legal authority and compliance
requirements, while Central Asian partners enacted mid-tier legislative
transpositions and bottom-tier administrative decrees. Evidence of regulatory
evolution (2018-2024) includes amendments to investment and anti-corruption
laws, establishment of e-governance and digital-trade norms, and judiciary-reform
packages introduced under “C5+1” cooperation. Implementation mechanisms
remain heterogeneous: Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan exhibit institutionalised
adoption, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan partial procedural compliance, and
Turkmenistan minimal transposition. Despite the absence of a binding multilateral
treaty, these cumulative reforms signify incremental norm internalisation and a
tangible move from declarative coordination toward structured, law-based
convergence among the participating states.
This assessment thus moves beyond a descriptive listing of legislative acts
to demonstrate a structured hierarchy, specify enforcement mechanisms, and
provide temporal evidence of national legal transformation under the “C5+1”
framework. The prospects for further development of “C5+1” are linked to its
potential transformation into a more sustainable and structured platform, including
the creation of specialised working bodies and the expansion of its membership.
Such developments would contribute to the diversification of economic
cooperation, the reduction of regional dependence on dominant actors, and the
creation of alternative models of development. However, structural constraints,
competition from other integration initiatives and geopolitical pressure, may still
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2226
undermine effectiveness. Institutional weakness and political instability in certain
states remain key risks. Consequently, the evolution of “C5+1” will depend on
participants’ ability to strengthen coordination mechanisms and ensure long-term
sustainability amid dynamic geopolitical conditions.
2.5. Political economy: institutionalisation, power balance, and long-term
strategic outcomes
The adaptability of the “C5+1” format was also evident in changes to its
institutional structure. If in 2015-2016 interaction had been limited to annual
meetings at the level of foreign ministers, subsequently the dialogue had become
more regular and multi-level, encompassing expert consultations, business
forums, educational programmes, and bilateral initiatives between individual
states. The growing attention to this format on the part of the United States also
testified to its strategic importance, as Washington regarded Central Asia not only
as an important region for maintaining stability but also as a space of opportunities
for long-term economic and political engagement.
From 2015 to 2024, the “C5+1” format had become an important platform
for discussing and addressing pressing regional issues, contributing to the
strengthening of cooperation between the United States and the Central Asian
states. The functioning of “C5+1” was based on a set of political and legal
foundations that regulated the interaction of participants and defined the key areas
of cooperation. Its development was accompanied by the institutionalisation of
interaction, which was reflected in the development of legal mechanisms and the
formalisation of agreements between the parties. The functioning of “C5+1” was
based on a set of political and legal foundations that regulated the interaction of
participants and defined the key areas of cooperation.
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2227
Despite the absence of a separate international treaty regulating the “C5+1”
format at the level of international law, its functioning was based on a system of
political and legal instruments ensuring the coordination of interaction between
the United States and the Central Asian states (U.S. Department of State, 2025b).
The basis of this mechanism consisted of joint statements, memoranda of
understanding, sectoral agreements, and bilateral arrangements which, although
not legally binding in international law, formed the foundation for cooperation
within this format.
The fundamental documents regulating the activities of “C5+1” were the
joint statements adopted following the meetings of the foreign ministers of the
participating countries. These documents enshrined the key areas of cooperation
and contained declarative provisions on the intention to strengthen interaction in
the fields of security, economy, ecology, and sustainable development. In 2021,
during the ministerial meeting in Tashkent, a joint statement was adopted
(U.S. Department of State, 2021) emphasising the commitment of the
participating countries to deepening regional cooperation and strengthening
collective mechanisms for responding to challenges and threats.
Another important instrument was the memoranda of understanding signed
between the “C5+1” countries, which regulated certain aspects of cooperation.
These memoranda set out arrangements for holding joint events, exchanging
expert knowledge, and providing technical support. In 2016, a Memorandum of
Understanding on combating terrorism and transboundary threats was signed
(U.S. Department of State, 2016), which provided for the coordination of efforts
in the field of regional security, the exchange of information between law
enforcement agencies, and joint programmes to counter extremism.
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2228
The legal regulation of the “C5+1” format was based on a multi-level system
of legal and political documents which, despite the absence of a single
international treaty, ensured a certain degree of coordination between participants.
However, the absence of a legally binding act limited the institutional
sustainability of this format, creating the need for regular updates of agreements
and the adaptation of cooperation mechanisms to changing political and economic
conditions.
2.6. National legislative adaptations in Central Asian states
The national legislative systems of the participating countries provided the
necessary regulatory framework for the implementation of the provisions
developed within “C5+1”. The national legislative acts of the Central Asian states
regulating international cooperation within the “C5+1” framework were aimed at
creating a legal basis for effective interaction with foreign partners. Such acts
established the procedures for the conclusion, ratification, and implementation of
international treaties and agreements, thereby creating the legal conditions for
participation in multilateral initiatives such as “C5+1”. The legislation on
international treaties in these countries determined the procedure for agreeing
upon and approving agreements, ensuring the compliance with national interests
and priorities.
The “C5+1” framework did not create a single legally binding entity, but it
operated on agreed international cooperation principles incorporated in regional
legal systems. In Kazakhstan, international accords trumped national law when
allowed by the Constitution. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 54 “On
International Treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan” (2005) regulated the process
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2229
of concluding, ratifying, and implementing agreements to ensure compliance with
national interests and international obligations. Several sectoral regulatory acts
governed investment, commerce, and security cooperation. The 2018 strategic
cooperation agreements with the US included “C5+1” platforms for economic
interaction and technical support (CAA Network, 2018).
Uzbekistan also possessed a developed legislative framework regulating
international cooperation. The Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. LRU-518
“On International Treaties of the Republic of Uzbekistan” (2018) established clear
procedures for the conclusion and implementation of international agreements. In
the context of “C5+1”, legal regulation of international initiatives was carried out
through relevant normative acts concerning foreign economic activity, security,
and justice. In the latest years, Uzbekistan intensified legislative reforms in the
field of investment cooperation, which contributed to expanding opportunities for
attracting foreign capital, including American investments within the framework
of “C5+1” programmes.
In Kyrgyzstan, according to the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 64 “On
International Treaties of the Kyrgyz Republic” (2014), international agreements
signed and ratified by the country were an integral part of national legislation. In
the context of “C5+1”, cooperation with the US in the field of security and the
development of small and medium-sized enterprises was carried out through
separate agreements and memoranda signed within the framework of bilateral
relations. Legislative norms regulating humanitarian and educational cooperation
played an important role, which was reflected in technical assistance programmes
and specialist exchange schemes.
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2230
Tajikistan, having a similar legal system for regulating international
relations, based its foreign policy on the Constitution and the Law of the Republic
of Tajikistan No. 1326 “On International Treaties of the Republic of Tajikistan”
(2016). In the latest years, normative acts concerning investment legislation had
been adopted, as well as draft laws aimed at stimulating cooperation in the field
of energy and water resources. Within the framework of “C5+1”, Tajik legislation
was adapted to the requirements of international initiatives in the fields of security,
infrastructure development, and counteraction to transnational threats.
Turkmenistan, despite its neutral status, actively regulated international
cooperation through the Constitution, the Law of Turkmenistan No. 108-IV “On
International Treaties of Turkmenistan” (2010), and sectoral normative acts. The
country participated in multilateral initiatives, including issues of energy,
transport, and trade; however, it avoided participation in formats implying
commitments in the field of security. Within the framework of “C5+1”,
Turkmenistan focused mainly on economic and infrastructural interaction, which
was reflected in signed memoranda and agreements on transport and logistics
cooperation.
The legal systems of the Central Asian countries provided the basis for
interaction within the “C5+1” format, regulating the processes of concluding and
implementing international agreements. In the absence of a single regulatory and
legal mechanism for “C5+1”, interaction was built on the basis of existing bilateral
and multilateral agreements, which allowed the countries of the region to adapt
cooperation to national priorities and international obligations.
In the United States, issues of international cooperation were regulated by
the US Constitution as well as a number of legislative acts determining the
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2231
mechanisms of interaction with foreign states. In particular, the Foreign
Assistance Act (1961) provided legal grounds for the provision of financial and
technical support to foreign partners, including the countries of Central Asia,
within the “C5+1” framework. The National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal
Year 2024 (2023) also played an important role, containing provisions on the US’s
strategic interaction with various regions of the world, as well as mechanisms for
providing assistance in the field of security. In the context of economic
cooperation, legislative initiatives regulating the activities of USAID were
significant, as USAID financed projects under “C5+1”.
2.7. Institutional limitations and prospects for sustainable governance
One of the key challenges resulting from the absence of a formal treaty was
the limitation of long-term planning and the absence of commitments that could
ensure stable funding for joint initiatives and projects. Unlike integration
associations with an established treaty base, such as the Eurasian Economic Union
(EAEU) or the European Union (EU), the “C5+1” format remained predominantly
consultative, making it dependent on the political situation and strategic priorities
of the participating countries. The absence of an institutionalised governance
structure limited the effectiveness of decision-making and monitoring
mechanisms. The “C5+1” framework did not provide for the presence of a
permanent secretariat or coordinating body, which reduced the level of
organisational coherence and led to the situational nature of interaction.
Administrative functions were distributed among sectoral ministries and state
institutions, complicating the process of coordination and control over the
implementation of agreements.
Clío. Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Crítico
ISSN: 2660-9037 / Provincia de Pontevedra - España
Año 6, No. 11, enero-junio, 2026
Nurtazina, Roza
Abdrashitova, Aigerim
Kim, Sangcheol
The United States and Central Asia in the
“C5+1” framework: scope, limits and
impact metrics
Página 2232
The functioning of “C5+1” was characterised by flexibility and adaptability,
but at the same time faced a number of structural limitations associated with the
absence of international legal institutionalisation. Prospects for the further
development of the format could be linked to the creation of a permanent
coordination mechanism or the conclusion of a multilateral agreement capable of
increasing the level of legal certainty and institutional sustainability of interaction
between the United States and the Central Asian states.
Analysis of the efficiency of “C5+1” collaboration showed great success in
increasing conversation and some practical issues between the US and Central
Asian republics. The 2015 “C5+1” framework with the US attempted to increase
collaboration between the US and Central Asian countries, although quantitative
indicators were limited. Many factors contributed to this, including the fact that
the “C5+1” model was mostly consultative, giving a platform for dialogue but no
legal instruments for implementation. This minimised its direct impact on regional
economic indices. Many agreements were assertions of intent without measurable
GDP growth, trade turnover, or investment.
For a long time, the countries of the region had developed close economic
ties with China, Russia, Turkey, and the states of the Eurasian Economic Union.
China, through the “One Belt – One Road” initiative, had already invested tens of
billions of USD in the region’s infrastructure and energy sectors, while Russia
maintained economic influence through the EAEU. As a result, the US, despite
significant diplomatic efforts, lagged behind these countries in terms of the
volume of bilateral trade and foreign direct investment, which reduced its
influence in the economic space of the region.