Before considering Central Asia as a geopolitical and cultural-religious intermediary between the Islamic world and Europe, one must know the potential Central Asian states have, collectively and individually, to carry out this very difficult mission.              

It should be recognized that today, the opportunities facing the Central Asian states are limited to their capability to function as independent states. Another factor also limiting the opportunities facing these states is the elite’s ability to fully understand the region’s significance as a real international political player in the global dimension. Obviously, it will have a great impact on the elaboration and implementation of political, economical, cultural and humanitarian "actions of influence" towards the outer world. It will also influence the subsequent formation and development of a positive image for Central Asia, and of its potential as an international actor in the eyes of regional leaders and nations outside the Central Asian region.  

Of course, Central Asian countries, in their turn, are experiencing the influence of major powers and interstate organizations. The actions of major powers and interstate organizations greatly affect the functioning and development of political systems in the region, the socio-economic situation, public relations, foreign policy strategies and many other areas.  

However, it seems that the influence of strong powers on institutional development of the Central Asian countries remains fragmentary. For example, the Western attempts to "democratize" Central Asia did not have a comprehensive and programmatic approach. For instance, law and morality, being the values and “limiting points”, without which democracy is nothing more than anarchy and ochlocracy, were represented in the process of democratic "training" only in some areas or absent altogether. Noting this, I share the view of a number of local and foreign experts that the above-mentioned problems belong more to the category of project decisions of the elites and nations of the region, provided that they not only have an interest, but are also ready to implement them.  

On the other hand, how strong is the influence of Islam in the Central Asian states? Should we seriously talk about “Islamization” in the countries of the region? In doing so, it is better to fully understand what kind of local and foreign institutions and missions are involved in this process. Is this a return and restoration of Islam, or is this something new? Can we accept this process as a movement of the Islamic world and the Central Asian states towards each other, or is it a unilateral movement? And, in general, we should understand who and what the politicians, scientists and public figures refer to when talking about "Islamization" of the Central Asian region? It seems that serious research on this issue has just begun.  

And finally, can the Central Asian states use their fragmentary incorporation into Europe, and the influence of Islam to become real modern subjects of international life on one hand, and the formation of dialogue between Europe and Islam on the other hand? To what extent are the values of the West and the Islamic world contradictory or antagonistic? How strong is the influence and dominance of selfish interests of both worlds, on the basis of which they arrange their positions?      

In principle, it seems to me that historical, cultural and other necessary conditions are present. For example, Central Asia has always been a place of convergence of cultural flows and the world religions. At the same time, Central Asia played a role as the inland linking corridor although without vividly shown progress, as it was understood in Europe; but with the function of integrative force and extensive mechanics of development. The latter has greater relation to the culture of nomadic mobility in the context of political, economic and other needs reflecting the worldview of Eurasian nomads. Their historical mission, in my opinion, was to move certain values from one cultural civilization to another, although they did not accept those values themselves.  

Geopolitics, understanding geography as a political-spatial tool, also contributed to the formation of Central Asia as a "intermediary" region. However, what destroyed this “intermediary” hypostasis – which was a geopolitical characteristic of the region – was the 19^th century influence of Russian and Qing military and political-social institutions in Central Asia. This influence was embodied in the Russian-Chinese border demarcation. Later the integrative-intermediary component, which had always been present in the life of both nomadic and sedentary states and other communities in this geographical space, was also dismantled.  

Currently, the new states in Central Asia are seeking to build their own models of national statehood. At the same time, they tried to revive and reconstruct the meanings (still in outlines) of integrative and intermediary traditions that existed earlier. Although it should be acknowledged that very few of those traditions were passed on, the actual meanings were erased from memory.  

But today, at least some interesting initiatives of Central Asia, which can be categorically associated with such traditions, are understood and supported by other nations.  For example, the Kazakh CICA, the Uzbek denuclearization zone, the Kyrgyz "Silk Road", etc. Even Turkmen "neutrality," in a sense, could be seen as a spontaneous renewed internal call for the revival of these political structures. However, most politicians and experts are inclined to consider the neutral status of Ashgabat as an action imitating someone else. I would like to reinstate that, discussion of neutrality took place also in other Central Asian countries at the dawn of their independence.  

Those initiatives were supported by many European and Islamic states. However, their development should not be directed at organizational trends and short-term improvement of the image; instead it should be directed at their steady and positive growth, and acceptance by other countries.  

In particular, in my view, establishment of a nuclear-free zone in Central Asia could be used to enforce the ideas of non-proliferation and non-use of the atom for military purposes. In this context, for example, the decision of the Eurasian and Muslim Kazakhstan, which voluntarily renounced the status of nuclear power, should be more ambitiously and fully used. I think the joint actions by the countries of the Central Asian region, with the support of the UN and other global and regional organizations, and individual states, such as Germany and Japan, would attract many Islamic and European countries, including, under certain conditions, Iran. Why not think about the accession of Afghanistan to the Central Asian "nuclear-free" zone?  

In this context, it would be very useful for the countries of Central Asia to add a non-proliferation issue in its more intensified, dynamic and constructive way into the agenda. The states should not stop only with the signing of a treaty on nuclear-free zone. Imposing a regional "denuclearization" policy and its instruments is required. I will only add that Central Asia, surrounded by nuclear powers, as well as by the countries intending to become such, should be more active in strengthening and developing these ideas.  

Oil and gas issues have always had a political dimension. Today, they are part of big international politics. Some Central Asian states have become important players in this arena. "Pipeline" diplomacy is becoming a critical area in foreign policies of these countries.  It has become clear that the formation of “multi-dimensional” policies often depend on the branched system of oil and gas pipelines. I envision criticism, but nevertheless, I believe that the existing approach to understanding and using energy in foreign policy efforts seems to be a very passive form of developing relations with other countries and regions. Natural competition between states and their selfish interests should not dominate the universal values. "Energy" relationships should bear not only business and trade characteristics, but also humanitarian ones.  

Another solid resource for formation of integrative international structures in the Central Asian states is water.  Water, for many years has been spoken and written about in alarming tones by many scholars, leading officials and diplomats. But the often senselessly discussed topic of water, has turned into something like a trend in political science. There are no serious regional and global projects that can solve this problem – even in preventive manner. It is obvious that water, having huge economic and social significance, also has its international political dimension. Water must not become the subject and cause of conflicts and wars; moreover it should be, in my mind, an instrument of integration and joint development. I am convinced that the time to form "water" policies and diplomacies has come for the countries of Central Asia. The EU Support for water initiatives among the states of the region should be a signal for us to develop common positions. The states should take into account countries outside the region and attract cooperation from other countries; including Islamic ones. Understanding that water can be seen as a universal property and unsurpassed value, and that reasonable and common use of water benefits all living on Earth, may give Central Asian countries the opportunity to become "intermediaries” and not just  express political and other solidarity.  

Obviously, the most important component of the dialogue must be security problems. Cross-border crime, expressed in perpetual escalation of terrorism, drug, weapons and human trafficking and others, require greater activity and effectiveness of global and regional international organizations, NGOs, public associations and individual states.  

We cannot say that no efforts have been made. But, strangely enough, it seems all our efforts have brought the opposite result: alienation – unless such an outcome was intended. Perhaps, a fundamentally different framework and concept for dialogue is needed.

In this regard, I think it would be useful to study the idea of creating a conference channel of contacts, where the countries that are members of both the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), might assume the “linking” role. Among such countries are Central Asian states, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and others. In early 2000, this idea was proposed by Kyrgyzstan. But, unfortunately, it was not elaborated on. The main task of this permanently working conference is not to bring the countries within the OSCE and the OIC to the negotiating table, but to bilaterally retransmit value orientations and their subsequent possible compatibility. This case could set precedent in many areas, such as economic, inter-religious and intercultural relations as well as in the area of security. Operation of such a conference, perhaps suggests a certain autonomy but not isolation. An important component is "second and third echelons" of preliminary internal dialogue, i.e. people of science, culture, religious, public and non-governmental organizations, and hopefully, representatives of European and Muslim countries.  

It is hard to imagine that Central Asia and other participating countries of such a conference would be strong enough to influence a specific Islamic or European region.  However, in the future, general political and inter-religious dialogues aimed at finding solutions to common problems are very much possible.