The trilateral summit of the leaders of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan held on March 31, 2025, in the city of Khujand in Tajikistan, following the end of the Kyrgyz-Tajik border dispute, is remarkable in terms of sending a message of reconciliation and peace at a time when instabilities in regional politics have become chronic. The signed "agreement on the junction of state borders" and the "declaration of eternal friendship" were not limited to technical border demarcations but laid the foundation for a deeper regional cooperation between the parties on political, economic and energy grounds.
However, the question of whether this development means "lasting peace" can be assessed by looking not only at the content of the signed documents, but also at regional reality, social dynamics and the nature of external influences.
On the surface, this agreement between Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan seems to focus only on the clarification of borders, but when analyzed in depth, it reflects the desire of the three countries to move toward a closer integration on the political, economic and social levels. In this respect, the agreement is not a technical border agreement, but rather a legal framework for a common vision of the future of Central Asia.
Above all, the elimination of border uncertainties is of vital importance for the people of the region. Previous armed conflicts along the Tajikistan-Kyrgyzstan border were fuelled by security gaps caused by such ambiguities. Minimizing the risks of such conflicts with the agreement will strengthen not only inter-state trust but also the sense of peace of mind of the people at the local level. While this development means the reconstruction of the security architecture for Central Asia in general, it may also pave the way for the establishment of common border management structures in the future.
Secondly, the agreement is of great importance in terms of increasing the security of regional infrastructure projects. In particular, energy projects such as CASA-1000 require the three countries to coordinate not only production but also transmission and exports. The resolution of border disputes could remove security threats to these projects, making them more attractive to investors and international financial institutions. In this context, the agreement serves as a strategic catalyst directly affecting the security of energy supply and Central Asia's energy export capacity.
Third, the removal of barriers to cross-border trade is a development that will have a direct impact on local economies. Facilitation of customs crossings will diversify the livelihoods and facilitate the daily lives of the people living in the border regions. This will also contribute to building an "economic safety net" that reduces the risks of instability by increasing economic interdependence between the three countries. The institutionalization of political stability through economic cooperation will make the region more predictable and investment-friendly in the medium term.
Finally, the agreement's visa waiver schemes, joint cultural projects and cooperation in the field of education are noteworthy for their potential to bring regional cooperation to the grassroots level. Re-strengthening social ties between these countries with a common historical background, linguistic base and cultural affinity will allow peace to take root not only between governments but also between peoples. The engagement of such soft power elements is one of the key factors that will support the sustainability of the long-term effects of the agreement.
Although the agreement signed in Khujand has shown a promising will for peace and co-operation among the three countries in Central Asia, there are still serious steps to be taken to achieve lasting peace, given the regional realities. First of all, agreements reached at the diplomatic level cannot be expected to automatically eliminate the ethnic tensions prevailing on the ground and the traumas of conflict experienced at the local level. In particular, the effects of past armed conflicts between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan keep alive a sense of mutual distrust among the people living in border villages, which weakens the social foundations of peace. Therefore, it is crucial to implement cross-border social cohesion projects, joint cultural events, youth exchange programs and inter-municipal cooperation to strengthen people-to-people diplomacy. Without social reconciliation, political agreements cannot be realized on the ground.
Adding to the region's vulnerabilities are the administratively complex border areas, such as the Fergana Valley, which are full of enclaves. The intermingling of ethnic structures in these areas creates the risk that practical problems such as misunderstandings, border violations or water and land use issues may persist despite the clarification of borders. In this context, the establishment of joint monitoring and mediation commissions between the three countries to prevent crises at the local level will ensure that the issues resolved at the technical level can be sustained at the social level with stability. Otherwise, any minor tension on the ground could damage the political prestige of the agreement and create mistrust in public opinion.
On the other hand, the fact that Central Asia is a geography that attracts the attention of many global and regional actors due to its geopolitical structure makes the applicability of the Khujand Agreement fragile in the context of external dynamics. China's Belt and Road Initiative, Russia's Eurasian Economic Union strategy, the U.S. and the European Union's positioning efforts in Central Asia, and Türkiye's diplomatic opening centered on the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) continue to shape the foreign policy manoeuvres of the three countries. The projects of these external actors may at times have conflicting priorities and undermine the internal cohesion of regional alliances. Therefore, it becomes a critical necessity for Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to produce a balance in their foreign policies based on coordination rather than competition and to strengthen their own regional ownership capacities to build lasting peace.
When all these dynamics are evaluated, the historical significance of the steps taken in Khujand cannot be denied; however, lasting peace will be possible not only with the signing of the documents, but also with the dissemination of these documents to the social base, confidence building at the local level and the establishment of institutional mechanisms that are resistant to external influences. The current circumstances show that the peace process is on a promising but still fragile ground. Therefore, it would be more realistic to consider the Hujand Agreement as the first step of a multi-actor and multi-level peace architecture rather than the last.
