The Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Studies (ANKASAM) presents its interview with Joseph Shumunov, Non-Resident Research Fellow at the Topchubashov Center and Nightingale Intelligence, on Azerbaijan’s accession to the expanding C6 format, the regional economic cooperation initiatives highlighted at the Avaza Summit, and the potential contribution of this process to long-term regional integration.
1. On October 8, 2026, the Avaza Summit brought together the five Central Asian states and Azerbaijan, with the six leaders signing a Joint Statement and a Decision on the Regulatory Documents of the Consultative Meeting. In your opinion, what significance could these outcomes have for the development of the expanded consultative format and regional cooperation?
First and foremost was, of course, Azerbaijan’s formal accession and participation as a full member of the C5, now C6, format-something many analysts knew was impending but were waiting to see made official. And this accession is truly a two-way street: on one hand, Azerbaijan formalizes what President Ilham Aliyev has been saying for over a decade. Baku’s need and desire to turn toward Central Asia, especially as its European aspirations remain complicated. On the other hand, the C5, previously a firmly intraregional consultative body, must now begin to call itself transregional, as its newest member extends the format across the Caspian and into the Caucasus. Whether Azerbaijan should be considered a Central Asian state alongside the other members is less important than what its accession officially means: in practice, this organization is now transregional. President Serdar Berdimuhamedov’s reference to the “Central Asia-Caspian Sea-South Caucasus-Europe corridor” captures this shift.
The Joint Statement and the decision on regulatory documents are significant in this context because they give the expanded format a more defined basis for cooperation. Azerbaijan’s accession broadens its geography; these documents can help establish how that broader grouping operates.
Another momentous aspect of the summit was Turkmenistan’s role, not only as host but also in introducing a new face of Turkmenistan under President Serdar Berdimuhamedov. He affirmed Ashgabat’s readiness to break out of its historically isolationist shell and join neighboring states in building the infrastructure needed to expand trade and promote the digitalization of regional economies.
Given Turkmenistan’s traditional policy of neutrality, Berdimuhamedov’s welcoming address was unusually jargon-free and contained an extraordinary call, by Ashgabat’s standards, for a unified approach to addressing key issues.
2. During the summit, Uzbekistan proposed a “six economies, one product” approach, alongside mechanisms to support joint investment projects. How do you think these initiatives could contribute to the development of regional value chains and deeper economic integration?
Nearly a year ago, the C5, along with Azerbaijan, put forward a new regional branding strategy: “Made in Central Asia,” coupled with a $20 billion target for mutual trade. Since then, they have moved closer to that benchmark, while the “Made in Central Asia” slogan was given more concrete expression during the recent CAMCA Regional Forum in Baku.
I see President Mirziyoyev’s “six economies, one product” approach as an extension of these steps. As partners such as the United States, the European Union, and China look toward Central Asia for investment, they want to see both trade “productivity”-reflected in the $12.3 billion in intraregional trade in 2025—and a recognizable “product.” That is, what quality, identity, and appeal does Central Asia offer the rest of the world? When you see “Made in Korea,” “Made in Italy,” or “Made in Germany,” you have a sense of what you are getting. The Central Asian states likewise want an open market with a strong, recognizable reputation for natural resources and intercontinental trade. That is their niche, and it requires a memorable product or identity that can be associated with the region.
But what Mirziyoyev is promoting also goes beyond branding to increased productivity. He and the other heads of state seek to consistently eliminate trade barriers, expand industrial cooperation, and launch major joint projects, making regional value and supply chains function as though they were part of one entity, one corporation: Central Asia. Joint investment mechanisms could give this approach substance by pooling resources and sharing the costs and risks of projects that connect several economies.
Like a joint venture, each member brings particular strengths and seeks particular advantages. This was reflected in what each head of state emphasized. Tajik President Rahmon prioritized industrial cooperation for a country that trails others in industrial capacity. Kazakhstan’s President Tokayev emphasized expanding cross-border trade as his country seeks to diversify its supply chains. Kyrgyzstan’s President Japarov emphasized mutual respect—a priority for one of the smaller, gradually industrializing states. The challenge is to make these different priorities complementary enough to sustain a common regional product.
3. Looking beyond the Avaza Summit, what mechanisms could help translate the participating countries’ economic priorities into sustainable and long-term cooperation?
Cooperation between Azerbaijan and several Central Asian states already exists through the Organization of Turkic States. This provides a foundation for Baku to deepen its integration with Central Asia and for Central Asian states to capitalize on Azerbaijan’s trade and connectivity networks.
I believe the most critical mechanism for turning these priorities into lasting cooperation is long-term Western investment, particularly from the United States. The C5 has become closely associated with the C5+1 format through the volume of engagement and ventures pursued by the Trump administration in Central Asia. Azerbaijan’s inclusion in the expanded regional grouping could also be welcomed by the administration, given Trump’s strengthening of ties with Baku.
But the significance of Western investment goes beyond the money itself. Both vocal commitments and actual investment could induce Central Asian states to take regionalization more seriously by giving them a tangible stake in one another’s success. If outside investment is directed toward shared infrastructure, industrial projects, and connected supply chains, cooperation becomes something each state has an economic interest in maintaining.
That is why sustained investment matters more than a single summit announcement. A broader Western turn toward Eurasia and its connectivity networks could give these states an additional reason to follow through on their regional commitments. The opportunity is to turn external interest into an internal incentive for long-term cooperation.
