The China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway: The Troubling Prospects and Why Renegotiations Should be Considered

Spurred by Western sanctions on Russia following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, political and economic tensions make it difficult to take the Trans-Siberian route, inspiring the creation of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway. Photo by Kingvinvin.

On September 17, 2022, China signed an agreement with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit to create a railway system throughout all three countries. After years of discussion, this agreement finally received approval from the transportation leaders of each country to begin construction and finish in the first half of 2023. However, in this recent financial quarter, China postponed the construction due to qualms over how much each country should contribute toward the project. China and Uzbekistan met in October of this year and reiterated their continued support for one another, but the prospects of the railroad remain unknown at this present moment. 

The China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway was proposed two decades ago as an alternative to the Trans-Siberian route that passes through Russia and Kazakhstan. Due to the Western sanctions imposed on Russia following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, political and economic tensions make it difficult to take the Trans-Siberian route. The new proposed railroad would allow for a shorter trade route from China to Europe and the Middle East, which could boost the infrastructure and economy of central Asia. These factors spurred the desire to create this new route despite the uncertainty that lingers with the project. Nevertheless, as the deal currently stands, constructing this new railway would only create conflict over the distribution of financial costs, exports, and profits. Therefore, the project should remain suspended until the countries reevaluate the agreement, considering the equity between all three countries alongside the proper implementation of the railway.  

First, the financial aspect of the project continues to be a contentious topic. Project development is estimated at around 4.5 billion dollars with debates on cost distribution between the three countries and a delay to its implementation as a result. Due to loans accumulated from a series of projects, Kyrgyzstan struggles with an immense $1.7 billion debt to China. As a result, the country faces many challenges in contributing financially to the project. In the face of a shared economic goal, China would ideally forgive its debt and work to cover as much of the project as possible; however, this appears unlikely because China suspended the project and denied a request to increase its financial contribution to the railway. This debate and subsequent delay reflect a lack of communication on the project’s logistics, especially concerning the financial burdens of construction. 

Another complicating factor is that the general benefits of this railroad would not provide substantial economic changes to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. While both countries believe the railway would significantly boost their economies, China would reap most of the benefits. China trades over sixty percent of its commodities using sea routes, impacting how many Chinese exports might travel through this route. Due to China’s reliance on sea trade, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan would not receive a significant amount of exports due to China’s reliance on sea trade despite the nations being pulled closer together by the railroad. Additionally, China’s economic status might work to perpetuate an imbalance where Chinese products dominate the railways. Comparing China-Uzbekistan exports with China-Kyrgyzstan exports demonstrates how China dominates both trade relationships with billions of dollars worth of exports. As a result, the majority of the railway might be dedicated to Chinese exports rather than a more equal distribution of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan commodities.  

Finally, the ecological and human risks that could impact the railway construction could endanger the project as a whole. Environmental problems such as earthquakes and flooding from the central Asian rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya could significantly disrupt the construction and operation of the railway. Local communities have already suffered the impact of such disasters with the destruction of the Nuru village and the high risks of flooding after long winters in Uzbekistan. Furthermore, citizen displacement might be necessary to construct the railways. The potential environmental and human risks are particularly suspicious since Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan did not publicly release their technical and ecological reports as proposed in the agreement. The lack of public release of the reports would impair the project, so there was no public release to ensure the railway construction would continue.

Considering all the issues the project would have to endure in its current state, significant changes should occur before it moves to the construction phase. Kyrgyzstan cannot financially provide for the project, especially with unresolved debt owed to China. Discussions over the distribution of imports and exports must occur to ensure that Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan receive equitable benefits compared to China. The ecological and human threats should be reported, mitigated, and controlled before the construction. As such, we must have precaution and delicacy with international agreements to protect civilians, especially if they are already vulnerable to these consequences. 

Zavior Brown (CC’27) is a first-year student at Columbia University looking to study political science on a pre-law track.