The Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Studies (ANKASAM) presents the views of Timur Dadabayev, Professor of International Relations at the University of Tsukuba, on the development of Japan-Central Asia relations, the most promising areas of cooperation, and the role of artificial intelligence and digital governance in this process.
1. How has Japan’s approach toward Central Asia evolved beyond traditional development assistance and infrastructure development?
Japan’s engagement with Central Asia has undergone a profound transformation over the past two decades. It was the first country in the world to apply C5+1 approach to its developmental assistance in Central Asia. While development assistance and infrastructure remain important components of the relationship, they no longer adequately describe either its substance or its strategic logic.
The relationship increasingly reflects what I would describe as a transition from development diplomacy toward knowledge diplomacy. Universities, research institutions, innovation ecosystems, digital technologies, regulatory dialogue, and human capital development have become as important as roads, energy projects, or technical assistance. This reflects a broader transformation in international relations, where influence is increasingly exercised through the production, exchange, and co-creation of knowledge alongside material resources.
Understanding this evolution also requires moving beyond conventional geopolitical narratives. Discussions of Central Asia are still frequently framed through the lens of great-power competition, portraying the region primarily as an arena where external actors pursue strategic interests. Such perspectives underestimate the agency of Central Asian states themselves.
A decolonial approach to international relations encourages us to see Central Asia not as an object of international politics but as an active participant in shaping regional and global governance. Countries of the region increasingly define the priorities, institutions, and forms of cooperation according to their own development strategies rather than simply responding to external initiatives.
Japan’s engagement has gradually adapted to this changing reality. Rather than emphasizing geopolitical rivalry, Japan has consistently invested in long-term institutional partnerships, higher education, scientific cooperation, governance, and innovation. These relationships are built upon trust, mutual learning, and shared problem-solving rather than short-term strategic calculations.
In this sense, Japan’s engagement with Central Asia is not merely a regional policy. It illustrates a broader evolution in international cooperation, where middle powers increasingly exercise influence through institutional credibility, normative entrepreneurship, and sustained knowledge partnerships.
2. How do you assess Japan’s growing diplomatic engagement with Central Asia, and which areas of cooperation are the most promising?
Japan’s engagement with Central Asia has become considerably more sophisticated than during the early years of the “Central Asia plus Japan” dialogue. Rather than relying predominantly on official development assistance, Japan has diversified its diplomatic toolkit to include higher education, scientific collaboration, innovation, governance, digital transformation, and people-to-people exchanges.
This evolution also reflects broader changes in diplomacy itself. Traditional diplomacy often associates influence with visibility—high-level summits, strategic declarations, or geopolitical competition. My work on strategic silence suggests a different perspective. Diplomatic influence frequently emerges through consistency, institutional reliability, carefully calibrated restraint, and the gradual accumulation of trust. These quieter forms of diplomacy may receive less public attention, yet they often generate more durable partnerships.
Japan’s engagement in Central Asia illustrates this dynamic particularly well. Rather than relying on overt geopolitical signalling, Japan has steadily invested in educational cooperation, administrative reform, research collaboration, healthcare, disaster management, innovation, and institutional development. Such initiatives rarely dominate international headlines, yet they have substantially strengthened Japan’s credibility across the region.
Looking ahead, I see several particularly promising areas of cooperation. The first is higher education and scientific collaboration through joint universities, collaborative research, academic mobility, and innovation networks. The second is the development of innovation ecosystems linking governments, universities, industry, and entrepreneurs in areas such as advanced technologies and research commercialization. Third, regional connectivity should increasingly encompass digital connectivity. Cybersecurity, trusted digital infrastructure, digital public services, and regulatory interoperability are becoming as important as physical infrastructure. Finally, governance itself is emerging as a central field of cooperation. Public administration, regulatory capacity, digital governance, and international norm-building will likely become defining characteristics of Japan’s future engagement with Central Asia.
More broadly, Japan–Central Asia relations offer an important empirical example of how international cooperation is evolving in the twenty-first century. They demonstrate that durable influence increasingly derives from institutional quality, knowledge production, and trusted partnerships rather than geopolitical competition alone.
3. Do you think cooperation in AI and digital governance can become a new pillar of Japan-Central Asia relations?
I believe artificial intelligence and digital governance are likely to become one of the defining pillars of Japan–Central Asia relations during the coming decade, not simply because AI represents a technological revolution, but because it is rapidly becoming a new arena of international governance. Artificial intelligence increasingly shapes economic competitiveness, education, public administration, healthcare, national security, and diplomacy itself. Consequently, questions concerning transparency, accountability, ethics, trust, interoperability, and regulation are becoming central questions of international politics.
Japan has emerged as one of the leading advocates of international AI governance, particularly through initiatives such as the Hiroshima AI Process. By promoting governance frameworks that seek to balance innovation with responsibility, Japan has demonstrated that AI governance is not merely a technological issue but also a diplomatic one. This creates valuable opportunities for cooperation with Central Asian countries that are simultaneously pursuing ambitious digital transformation strategies.
However, meaningful cooperation should extend well beyond technology transfer. Sustainable AI partnerships require joint research, educational exchanges, institutional learning, regulatory dialogue, and collaborative capacity-building. In this sense, AI cooperation represents another important dimension of knowledge diplomacy, where countries jointly create knowledge rather than merely exchange technologies.
At the same time, AI governance increasingly raises questions of AI sovereignty. As governments, universities, businesses, and citizens become more dependent on AI systems, countries must consider where critical datasets are stored, who controls access to them, under which legal jurisdictions they operate, and how their security, integrity, and long-term preservation are ensured.
AI sovereignty should not be interpreted as technological isolation or digital protectionism. Rather, it is the capacity of societies to make informed sovereign choices regarding their data, digital infrastructure, governance frameworks, and trusted international partnerships.
Equally important is the development of culturally fluent AI systems. Artificial intelligence is never entirely culturally neutral. Large language models inevitably reflect the languages, historical experiences, social norms, and cultural assumptions contained within the data on which they are trained. If AI is to genuinely serve diverse societies, it must be capable not only of processing local languages but also of understanding cultural context, historical memory, legal traditions, educational practices, and social values. Cultural fluency enables AI to interpret meaning rather than merely translate words. It also contributes to preserving linguistic diversity and cultural heritage in an increasingly digital world.
From a decolonial international relations perspective, this raises an even broader question of epistemic inclusion. Who contributes the knowledge that shapes future AI systems? Whose languages, historical experiences, and normative preferences become embedded within global digital infrastructures?
AI governance should therefore seek not only to regulate technology after it has been created but also to broaden participation in the production of the knowledge on which these technologies are built.
Japan and Central Asia possess complementary strengths in addressing these challenges. Japan contributes technological expertise, trusted governance, and extensive experience in international norm entrepreneurship. Central Asian countries contribute rich linguistic diversity, distinctive historical experiences, and rapidly evolving digital ecosystems. Collaborative efforts to develop multilingual, culturally fluent, and trustworthy AI systems would strengthen bilateral cooperation while contributing to a more inclusive global digital order.
Ultimately, I believe AI governance illustrates a broader transformation occurring within international relations. The central question is no longer simply who develops the most advanced technologies, but who participates in shaping the institutional, ethical, cultural, and normative architecture through which those technologies are governed. Japan–Central Asia cooperation therefore has significance far beyond the region itself. It demonstrates how middle powers and emerging regions can jointly contribute to a more pluralistic, trusted, human-centered, and culturally inclusive international order.
