Silk Seven or the OTS? Central Asia may not have to choose

A new proposal circulating in Washington – the Silk Seven Plus (S7+) initiative – aims to reshape Central Asia by linking its five post-Soviet states with Afghanistan and Pakistan into an integrated economic region. Azerbaijan is also seen as a potential addition.

The idea, put forward by the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, is simple: connect landlocked Central Asia to the Black Sea and the Arabian Sea via new trade corridors.

On paper, the block looks convincing. The seven countries form a contiguous zone in the heart of Eurasia, potentially transforming geography from a constraint to an advantage.

“Central Asia needs an organization built by Central Asian states and for Central Asian states,” Justin Burke, a senior fellow at the New Lines Institute, said at a recent event in Washington. “If Central Asia can speak with one voice rather than five different voices, it will make it a more reliable investment destination. »

There are signs of momentum. The President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and the President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoev made back-to-back visits to Pakistan earlier this year, highlighting regional connectivity. Proponents argue that if Afghanistan stabilizes, the Silk Seven could become a formidable cluster.

But that’s a big “if.” It also raises a deeper question: why build a new geographically convenient bloc when an existing organization – the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) – already offers something deeper: a shared language, history and identity?

Although the Silk Seven covers predominantly Muslim countries, they are linguistically and culturally diverse. The group covers Turkic-speaking Central Asia, Persian Tajikistan and Indo-Aryan Pakistan.

ASEAN offers an edifying example. Despite decades of cooperation, its religious, linguistic and geopolitical diversity – combined with consensus-based decision-making – has often prevented it from speaking with one voice, particularly on China. In The clash of civilizationsSamuel Huntington wrote that when ASEAN was established in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, it was an organization consisting of “one Sinic member state, one Buddhist, one Christian and two Muslims.” Such multi-civilizational regional organizations have limits, he said.

The Silk Seven risks similar limitations.

The OTS, on the other hand, rests on a narrower but deeper foundation: its main membersAzerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and Uzbekistan share closely related languages ​​and overlapping historical experiences.

Nestled in the eight-page document released after the informal OTS summit earlier this month was a telling signal of intent: clauses dedicated to cataloging Turkish cultural heritage, promoting youth engagement through the designation of Khiva as Youth Capital 2026, and launching a digital “Turkish Heritage” platform. Together, they show that the OTS actively constructs a shared cultural space.

Yet even as members emphasize common heritage, differences remain over the extent to which the organization should evolve politically. Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, host of the summit, underlined in his remarks that “the Organization of Turkish States is neither a geopolitical project nor a military organization”, but rather “a unique platform” for cooperation in the fields of trade, technology, culture and humanitarian ties.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev hit a more ambitious noteasserting that “the Turkish world must become one of the influential geopolitical centers of the 21st century”, and promising that Baku would spare no effort to strengthen the organization.

The issue of OTS surfaced at a recent New Lines Institute seminar in Washington.

When asked why the OTS could not be enough, Kamran Bokhari of New Lines argued that it was shaped by Turkey’s leaders, reflected Ankara’s aspirations and, as a Turkey-focused organization, would struggle to integrate Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. The Silk Seven, in contrast, is designed to define a “central core of Asia” while remaining flexible enough to grow.

Azeem Ibrahim warned that the global system was weakening, leaving small states more vulnerable. “The assumption that major powers will champion open trade and security can no longer be taken for granted,” he said, arguing that regional cooperation becomes essential for resilience.

Bokhari said now is the time for Central Asian countries to engage with the United States and the US-proposed Silk Seven program could serve as a road map. “The Russian footprint is shrinking. The Chinese are occupying this space as much as they can,” but Central Asian countries do not want to move away from an authoritarian Russia to be dominated by China. “Who are you talking to? Well, you’re talking to the United States,” Bokhari said.

These competing visions – one rooted in connectivity, the other in shared identity – highlight the central dilemma facing the region.

The appeal of the Silk Seven lies in geography and connectivity. But the strength of the OTS lies in a shared civilizational identity. In an era of geopolitical fragmentation, Central Asia may find that infrastructure drives growth, but identity anchors political cohesion.

For centuries, the nomadic societies of Central Asia thrived not by choosing fixed alignments, but by remaining fluid, adapting to changes in trade routes, political currents, and outside powers. Mobility and flexibility are not weaknesses but survival strategies.

In this sense, the Silk Seven and the Organization of Turkic States need not be competing visions. Central Asia’s strength may lie precisely in its ability to combine the two, establishing multiple connections without being bound by a single framework.

Read in the London Central Times.