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.

By Dr. Mahfuz Parvez Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Chittagong and the Executive Director of the Chittagong Center for Regional Studies, Bangladesh (CCRSBD)   Since reclaiming power in 2021, the Taliban have defied predictions of total diplomatic isolation by gradually embedding themselves within the fabric of regional geopolitics. Dr. Mahfuz Parvez, in his examination of Afghanistan’s evolving foreign relations, demonstrates how the Taliban have shifted from pariah status to pragmatic interlocutors. Countries across South, Central, and West Asia are increasingly engaging with the Taliban not out of ideological alignment, but to serve pressing strategic and security interests. The result is an emergent pattern of selective, transactional diplomacy focused on border control, trade connectivity, and counterterrorism.   At the core of this recalibration is a growing recognition that Afghanistan, rich in minerals and geographically pivotal, cannot be sidelined if the region is to achieve long-term stability. Dr. Parvez highlights how regional actors such as Uzbekistan, Iran, and India have adopted differentiated strategies: Tashkent sees Kabul as a vital partner for economic corridors, while Tehran cautiously balances ideological differences with practical cooperation to contain border threats. India, for its part, has moved from a position of staunch opposition to cautious engagement, driven by the desire to counterbalance Pakistan’s influence and protect long-term infrastructure investments.   What emerges is a landscape where geopolitical necessity often overrides normative discomfort. Central Asian states, facing the ripple effects of war in Ukraine and regional insecurity, have embraced Afghanistan’s reintegration as a stabilizing force. Similarly, in South Asia, the Taliban’s engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi underscores Kabul’s position as a buffer and potential pivot in one of the world’s most volatile dyads. Dr. Parvez also draws attention to the Taliban’s attempts at multilateral diplomacy, such as participating in SCO discussions and engaging in trilateral talks with China and Pakistan, a clear indicator of their intent to formalize their regional status.   Yet challenges remain acute. Afghanistan still grapples with economic collapse, internal repression, and the absence of international recognition. As Dr. Parvez argues, engagement must not legitimize authoritarianism. The international and regional community must pursue a dual strategy — balancing functional cooperation with principled diplomacy. Multilateral frameworks such as the SCO, SAARC, and the UN system can facilitate this balance by embedding the Taliban’s regional integration within norms of inclusive governance, humanitarian concern, and long-term development.   In conclusion, Dr. Mahfuz Parvez’s research underscores that Afghanistan’s trajectory is no longer solely determined within its borders. Its future hinges on the convergence of regional strategies — whether shaped by competition, cooperation, or ambivalence. As Kabul seeks a place within the evolving order of South and West Asia, the burden is shared: both the Taliban and their neighbors must decide whether the country remains a source of instability or becomes a cornerstone of regional resilience.   * 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 article published in the journal Economic Diplomacy examines the evolution of foreign policy strategies among the five Central Asian states in the context of shifting global power dynamics. The authors argue that the traditional Multi-Vector Foreign Policy (MVFP) framework, which centers on balancing relations with Russia, China, and the West, is no longer sufficient to explain Central Asia’s contemporary foreign engagements. In light of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, war in Ukraine, and China’s deepening economic footprint through the Belt and Road Initiative, the region has begun seeking new partnerships. The paper introduces the concept of a “fourth vector”, composed of emerging regional powers such as Türkiye, Iran, Azerbaijan, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, India, and Pakistan. These states, the authors contend, are becoming significant players in Central Asia by offering economic cooperation, particularly in energy and transport, without imposing great power politics.   The article provides a detailed comparative analysis of the four foreign policy vectors. The Western vector, although diminished in influence, remains symbolically relevant. Russia retains deep security, cultural, and migration links with the region, while China has solidified its position as the leading economic force, primarily through infrastructure investment and trade. The newly emerging fourth vector is described as a “marriage of convenience” for Central Asian states seeking to diversify their external ties without antagonizing the dominant great powers. Through forums like the Organization of Turkic States and bilateral deals in renewable energy and logistics, these emerging actors are being integrated into the region’s strategic calculus.   Crucially, the authors suggest that this fourth vector might serve Western interests indirectly by helping Central Asian states resist overreliance on Russia or China. They raise the possibility — cautiously and based on insider interviews — that the U.S. could be quietly facilitating these partnerships to circumvent the geopolitical sensitivities that hinder direct American engagement. The article concludes by calling for further research on the sustainability and geopolitical consequences of these new alignments, especially in a world moving towards multipolarity. It is a timely and nuanced contribution to debates on Central Asia’s evolving place in global affairs.   * 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 their latest article, published in Oxford University Press’s International Affairs  Journal, Dr. Akram Umarov and Prof. Timur Dadabaev examine the underlying logic and features of the newly emerging central Asian regional security complex (RSC). They explore how the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) relates to shifting security dynamics in central Asia. Their study identifies a gap in existing conceptual debates, which often overlook how regional engagements and initiatives reshape regional security beyond the post-Soviet context.   Using a constructivist framework, this research reconceptualizes the relationship between the BRI and the formation of an independent central Asian RSC, focusing on the notion of mutual constitution to explain the interplay between regional structures and state behaviours. Methodologically, the article combines constructivist analysis with consideration of the influences of BRI-related projects, emphasizing their impact on regional security norms and practices.   The authors’ key findings suggest that the BRI influences norm formation and fosters new security linkages in shaping the emerging central Asian RSC. Shaped by these linkages, it represents an alternative to Russian security guarantees and stands in contrast to the ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ (FOIP) strategy. This study highlights the need to view the BRI’s influence as central to understanding contemporary regional security in central Asia.   Read the article in International Affairs   * 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.

As Nargiza Umarova notes, cooperation between Central Asian countries in the field of transport and transit has become one of the key areas of regional integration since 2018, when the mechanism of Consultative Meetings of the Leaders of the Region was launched. Despite political will and common goals, in practice there is a lack of coordination: Central Asian states are focused primarily on developing international routes rather than strengthening intra-regional connectivity. This leads to competition between countries and hinders the formation of a single transport space.   The author emphasises that, despite some progress in modernising infrastructure and launching new routes — such as the TITR, CKU and Trans-Afghan railway corridor — the countries of the region act more as rivals than allies. In particular, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are developing parallel alternative routes to the west, which could lead to duplication of efforts. Umarova emphasises the need to coordinate and harmonise transport policy in order to avoid fragmentation of the regional space and achieve mutual benefits.   As the researcher points out, serious obstacles to effective integration remain, including varying levels of infrastructure development, low institutional coordination, lack of investment, and the existence of tariff and non-tariff barriers. These factors require a systematic approach and the formation of a common coordinating body with legal entity status, capable of developing a coordinated strategy and ensuring the stable implementation of transport initiatives.   Umarova concludes that only through the synchronised development of intra-regional and international transport connectivity will Central Asia be able to realise its transit potential. She insists on the need to intensify joint efforts to harmonise the regulatory framework, digitise logistics and institutionalise integration processes. Without this, the author warns, the region may miss a unique opportunity to establish itself in the global transport architecture.   * 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.