This article by Prof. Dr. Azamat Seitov and Sofia Vakhidova focuses on regional differences in masculinity in Uzbekistan and examines this topic through Kimberly Crenshaw’s intersectional approach. The authors demonstrate that male roles in society cannot be explained solely through the category of gender: they are simultaneously influenced by region, age, type of settlement, economic opportunities, migratory mobility, and the structure of family relationships. The article uses official statistical data on marriage and divorce rates, age profiles for marriage and divorce, as well as information on women’s entrepreneurship and migration by region as its empirical basis. Based on these data, the authors conclude that Uzbekistan is not a homogeneous space in terms of family norms: expectations of men as spouses, fathers, breadwinners, and family leaders vary across different regions. Particular attention is paid to how the growth of women’s economic activity, urbanization, and migration are changing traditional family models. In urban and more economically mobile environments, the male role is gradually shifting from that of the sole breadwinner to a more partnership-based model, which includes participation in child-rearing, the sharing of responsibilities, and family dialogue. In regions where the extended family plays a strong role and economic opportunities are limited, traditional expectations remain more entrenched. The main practical conclusion of the article is the need for region-sensitive social and gender policies. The authors emphasize that a unified value framework of equal opportunities must be maintained, but specific tools should vary: in some places, preventing family conflicts and preparing young families is more important, while in others, family mediation, legal counseling, employment support, and the development of positive models of involved fatherhood take precedence. * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

In this article, Azamat Seitov and UWED PhD student Zulkhumor Makhmudova analyze the phenomenon of political consciousness, psychopolitical influence, and leadership within the framework of the Organization of Turkic States. The authors examine the political speeches and leadership styles of Shavkat Mirziyoyev, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Ilham Aliyev, and Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, as well as their role in shaping a pan-Turkic identity. In the article, the OTS is interpreted not merely as a platform for economic or diplomatic cooperation, but as a complex integrative space shaped by symbols, historical memory, cultural affinity, and political rhetoric. The main idea of the study is that the processes of Turkic integration have a deeper psychological and anthropological dimension than mere institutional interaction. Concepts such as the “Turkic world,” “brotherhood,” and “shared destiny” can influence political consciousness and strengthen cooperation between states on an emotional and symbolic basis. At the same time, the authors note that if such discourse is accepted uncritically, in some cases it may give rise to the risk of symbolic dependence or foreign policy alignment in the political decision-making process. The article also analyzes the approaches of Russia, China, and the European Union to the CSTO. While Russia views this process primarily through the lens of “Pan-Turkism” and the limitation of its regional influence, China links it to issues of identity and internal stability. The European Union, on the other hand, views the CST as an alternative integration model in Central Asia. According to the authors, much of this criticism stems from the geopolitical interests of the external actors themselves, rather than from the actual substance of the CST’s activities. In conclusion, the article emphasizes that it is incorrect for Uzbekistan to either idealize the OTC or treat it as an absolute threat. The most appropriate approach is the pragmatic use of the OTC as a tool for a multi-vector foreign policy, the promotion of economic interests, the development of transportation infrastructure, and the strengthening of its international position. In this sense, the OTG should remain a platform for Uzbekistan that serves its sovereign interests, and its future depends on the country’s ability to avoid prioritizing symbolic closeness over rational national interests. * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

This article by Prof. Dr. Azamat Seitov and UWED student Fayziddin Kutbidinov examines the role of religious institutions in shaping public opinion on foreign policy. The authors view religion not only as a spiritual realm but also as an important social institution that influences values, norms of behavior, collective identity, and social stability. Theoretically, the article draws on the approaches of Émile Durkheim and Pierre Bourdieu, which allow for viewing religion both as a mechanism of social solidarity and as a distinct social field with its own authorities, resources, and symbolic capital. The article focuses particularly on Uzbekistan, where Islam—primarily within the framework of the traditional Sunni and Maturidi schools—occupies a significant place in public life. The authors emphasize that mosques and religious institutions fulfill not only a religious function but also a social and communicative one: they strengthen a sense of community, convey moral guidelines, and can serve as a channel for explaining socially significant issues. In this context, the state seeks to maintain a model of interaction with the religious sphere that promotes stability, counteracts radicalization, and preserves the secular nature of the political system. The article also examines the connection between religious discourse and the foreign policy agenda. The authors note that religious authorities who enjoy the trust of the population can play an important role in preventing emotional and radical interpretations of international events, especially regarding sensitive issues related to conflicts in the Muslim world. At the same time, it is emphasized that religious institutions in Uzbekistan generally avoid independently politicizing the international agenda, focusing instead on a coordinated and responsible interpretation of the state’s official position. Overall, the article demonstrates that religious institutions can serve as an important element of social stability and communication between the state and society. The authors conclude that, while maintaining the principle of secular governance, religious institutions are capable of contributing to the strengthening of social cohesion, countering extremist ideas, and fostering a balanced public attitude toward key events in international politics. * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

Nargiza Umarova’s  article  offers a timely and nuanced assessment of the Wakhan Corridor as an increasingly significant element in the evolving interaction between Central Asia, Afghanistan, and China. The author presents the corridor not merely as a remote geographical strip, but as a potentially strategic trade and transport route whose importance has grown in the context of Afghanistan’s post-2021 regional re-engagement, China’s infrastructural ambitions, and intensifying competition over Eurasian connectivity. The article places the Wakhan initiative within a wider geopolitical framework, showing how shifts in regional trade patterns, transport dependencies, and security calculations are giving new relevance to a route that for years remained largely peripheral. A central strength of the article lies in its comparative perspective. Umarova carefully explains why the Wakhan Corridor is attracting renewed attention as an alternative or complement to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). She highlights Afghanistan’s growing desire to reduce reliance on Pakistani transit, especially amid repeated disruptions and political tensions between Kabul and Islamabad. In this context, the Wakhan route appears as an attractive strategic option that could provide Afghanistan with more direct access to China while also potentially reshaping the broader architecture of regional transport. At the same time, the author does not romanticize the project: she makes clear that the corridor’s appeal is balanced by serious infrastructural, political, and security obstacles. Overall, the article is valuable because it combines geopolitical analysis with practical transport and economic considerations. Umarova concludes that while the full launch of the Wakhan Corridor remains unlikely in the immediate future, it should not be dismissed as unrealistic. Rather, it is a strategic possibility that may gain momentum if regional conditions become more favorable. Importantly, the article also draws policy-relevant conclusions for Central Asia, arguing that regional states should prepare for multiple scenarios, strengthen intraregional connectivity, and accelerate their own major railway and transit projects in order to preserve and expand their role in the emerging Eurasian transport landscape. In this sense, the piece is not only an analysis of one corridor, but also a broader reflection on the future balance of connectivity and influence across the region. * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

In his comprehensive study, Yida Jiao examines the evolving model of China’s Agricultural Technology Demonstration Centres (ATDCs) in Africa, established to facilitate the transfer of Chinese agricultural know-how to developing countries. Since their inception in 2006 under the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), ATDCs have been promoted to blend technological assistance with commercial viability. Jiao critically analyses this dual-purpose structure, arguing that while ATDCs are an improvement on past aid efforts, moving away from purely grant-based models, they still embody inherent tensions between development objectives and profit motives. He underscores that although the centres are presented as instruments to boost food security and agricultural productivity, their operation is often shaped by the commercial interests of Chinese firms.   Jiao provides a detailed breakdown of the ATDC’s three-stage operational model: infrastructure development, technical cooperation, and business transition. He explains that while the Chinese state funds the initial stages, the ultimate goal is for Chinese enterprises to embed themselves commercially in local agricultural markets. However, Jiao notes that these centres often struggle to effectively adapt Chinese agricultural technologies to local contexts. There are frequent mismatches between Chinese expertise and local needs, such as the push to introduce high-yield Chinese seed varieties over locally preferred crops, and the lack of adequate infrastructure (like irrigation and electricity) further hinders the success of technology transfer.   Importantly, Jiao situates the ATDCs within the broader ideological framework of China’s own development path. He explains how Chinese development philosophy characterised by experimentalism and technocratic pragmatism shapes both the design and execution of these centres. Drawing on domestic models of agricultural extension, the ATDCs mirror Chinese governance practices, including the blending of public and private functions under a single institutional umbrella. This fusion, while potentially efficient, also generates confusion on the ground, particularly among African partners who may struggle to distinguish between aid activities and commercial ventures. Jiao notes that these blurred roles can lead to mistrust and diverging expectations between stakeholders.   The ATDCs are also sites of geopolitical signalling, as Jiao points out. While they serve to promote Chinese soft power by showcasing agricultural modernisation and capacity-building, their practical impact on African farming systems remains contested. Some evaluations highlight tangible benefits in yield improvements and skill development, while others question the sustainability of these outcomes once Chinese teams depart. Furthermore, Jiao highlights internal tensions within Chinese teams themselves, where young professionals seeking to contribute to development find their efforts sidelined by commercial imperatives.   Ultimately, Jiao’s analysis presents the ATDC model as an ambitious but conflicted experiment in South-South cooperation. He acknowledges its potential to support agricultural transformation in Africa, particularly by aligning with local development needs and leveraging Chinese expertise. However, he also warns that without greater sensitivity to local conditions, clearer boundaries between aid and commerce, and a sustained commitment beyond short-term training, ATDCs risk becoming more symbolic than transformational. His research offers a timely and critical contribution to understanding China’s role as a rising actor in global agricultural development.   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

The recent article coauthored by Prof. Timur Dadabaev and his colleagues for Central Asian Affairs (Brill, 2025) offers a fresh and critical examination of an emerging migratory trend that upends longstanding regional patterns. The authors analyze the unexpected yet significant influx of Russian migrants into Central Asia following the military conflict Ukraine, positing that this movement represents a reversal of the traditional post-Soviet migratory flow, which for decades had seen Central Asians moving northward to Russia in search of economic opportunities.   Drawing on empirical data and theoretical insights, the authors argue that existing migration theories fall short of explaining this complex phenomenon. Central Asia, they assert, is no longer merely a space of departure or transit, but is transforming into a viable destination in its own right. This shift is underpinned not only by the region’s relative economic accessibility but also by its political neutrality — a factor that has become increasingly attractive to Russian citizens seeking to leave their country due to disillusionment with the war, political repression, and deteriorating economic conditions.   One of the article’s key conceptual contributions is its engagement with the notion of “exit as voice”. The authors suggest that for many Russians, particularly the educated urban middle class, migration to Central Asia serves as a form of political expression — a way to withdraw from and silently protest against the direction of the Russian state. In this sense, mobility becomes a medium of dissent, a phenomenon not adequately captured by traditional economic or conflict-driven migration models.   Furthermore, the article underscores the evolution of migration infrastructure within Central Asian states. Governments and institutions in the region are increasingly adapting to accommodate incoming populations, reshaping not only labor markets but also education, housing, and social services. This infrastructural transformation signals a broader regional recalibration in response to shifting geopolitical and demographic realities. As the authors persuasively argue, understanding these new dynamics is crucial for rethinking regional integration, mobility regimes, and the future of post-Soviet space.   Access the article: https://doi.org/10.30965/22142290-bja10066   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.