Negotiations in narrow and expanded formats, a joint briefing, a course to increase trade turnover from the current more than 130 million dollars to 500 million, a discussion of direct road links, new air routes, educational and scientific initiatives, as well as the exchange of 13 bilateral documents show: this is no longer just about political declarations, but about an attempt to put together a more integral architecture of cooperation.
For Mongolia, Kazakhstan remains the first Central Asian state with which a strategic partnership has been established. For Kazakhstan, the Mongolian direction is gradually turning into an important part of the broader logic of regional connectivity, which combines trade, transit, resources, technology and humanitarian exchange. We talked about how the very logic of Kazakh-Mongolian relations is changing with Sumya Chuluunbaatar, an independent researcher specializing in issues of public administration in Mongolia, international investment in natural resources and the country’s foreign policy.
— If Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s visit to Ulaanbaatar in 2024 set the political framework for the strategic partnership, can we say that the current negotiations in Astana are already moving it to the stage of institutional and practical filling? What does this change in Kazakh-Mongolian relations?
— Until recently, in the relations between Kazakhstan and Mongolia there was a lot of historical sympathy, civilizational closeness and correct political dialogue, but all this did not always turn into a dense system of practical solutions. Now the picture is different. When trade, logistics, industry projects, science, education, interregional relations are discussed in parallel during one visit and a large package of documents is signed at the same time, this means that the strategic partnership begins to work as a mechanism, and not as a formula. In my opinion, the strength of the Kazakhstani approach is especially noticeable here. Tokayev’s team acts sequentially: first the political framework, then institutional consolidation, then economic and infrastructural content. This style does not produce an immediate effect, but it is the one that usually gives more lasting results. Therefore, the current stage is changing the very logic of relationships: they are becoming less declarative and much more substantive.
— Mongolia calls Kazakhstan the first state in Central Asia with which a strategic partnership has been established. What, in your opinion, does this choice of Ulaanbaatar indicate: about geography, about economic calculation, or about the growing political weight of Kazakhstan in regional architecture?
— All three factors come together here, but the decisive factor is the political weight of Kazakhstan. Geography in itself is important, but it does not explain why Ulaanbaatar decided to formalize relations in this status with Astana. Economic calculation is also important, but it does not work without trust in the partner’s political line. Kazakhstan today is perceived as a state that knows how to combine internal institutional stability with foreign policy flexibility. This is especially important for Mongolia because it has traditionally been very careful about balance in foreign policy. In this sense, Kazakhstan is convenient as a partner who does not impose excessive ideology, but offers clear and pragmatic formats of interaction. In addition, the very nature of today’s negotiations shows that Astana thinks of itself not only in bilateral categories, but also in a broader regional context. This makes cooperation with Kazakhstan strategically more valuable for Mongolia.
— Against the backdrop of the relatively moderate current trade turnover, how indicative is the very setting of the goal to reach $500 million: is it, first of all, an economic benchmark or a signal that Astana and Ulaanbaatar are beginning to comprehend relations in a longer and structural perspective?
— In my opinion, this is precisely a structural signal. When two countries with a current trade volume of over $130 million immediately set a target of $500 million, they are talking not so much about the coming year as about the future structure of relations. What is important here is not only the number itself, but also the context in which it was heard. It is connected with a road map, with a business forum, with a trade mission, with a discussion of new areas of cooperation and with the task of removing barriers that hinder cooperation. That is, we are talking about an attempt to change the very economic basis of bilateral relations. And here Kazakhstan’s policy looks quite mature. Rather than limiting itself to a general phrase about the growth of trade, Astana proposes a broader economic framework in which trade is linked to logistics, investment, industrial projects and financial instruments. It is in this logic that large numbers become realistic over time.
— Why is the transport and transit agenda at the center of bilateral dialogue today? Can we say that the discussion of the highway, air travel and new logistics routes is actually forming a new model of regional connectivity for Kazakhstan and Mongolia?
— Yes, and perhaps this is one of the most meaningful results of this visit. Any economic rapprochement sooner or later comes up against the issue of physical connectivity. As long as there are no sustainable routes, trade ambitions remain limited. That is why the topic of the highway, restoration and launch of air traffic, as well as the creation of a working group do not look like technical details, but as an attempt to lay a new foundation for relations. Another thing is also indicative for me: Tokayev interprets this topic not in a narrowly bilateral manner, but as part of a broader regional structure. When the “Transaltai Dialogue” appears in the conversation, it is no longer just about the road between the two countries, but about the formation of a new exchange space that combines transit, trade, tourism and interregional contacts. This approach speaks of strategic thinking. Kazakhstan here acts not only as a participant in the route, but also as one of the architects of future connectivity.
— Topics such as the mining industry, agro-industrial complex, digitalization, remote sensing of the Earth and energy significantly increased in the negotiations. Does this mean that bilateral relations are gradually moving away from the traditional neighborhood formula to the formula of a new type of technological and industry partnership?
— Traditional neighborhoods are usually based on political politeness, humanitarian proximity and limited trade. Technological partnership requires a different level of trust and a different depth of contact. Today we see just such a transition. The resource agenda, agricultural modernization, veterinary safety issues, cooperation in the energy sector, peaceful atom, digital solutions and training of specialists are forming a completely different model of relations. It is much more complicated, but also much more promising. What is especially interesting is that Kazakhstan in this configuration offers not only a market or a transit outlet, but also its own competencies. The display of the Alem.AI international center and smart city solutions has a symbolic meaning in this sense. This is a signal that Kazakhstan wants to be for Mongolia not only a partner in the exchange of goods, but also a supplier of experience in those areas that will determine the competitiveness of states in the coming years.
— The humanities block is usually perceived as accompanying, but this agenda concerns grants, science, cultural projects, interregional ties and even the possible opening of a branch of a Kazakh university in Ulaanbaatar. Can we consider that it is through such instruments that Kazakhstan and Mongolia are laying the most stable, long-term foundation for strategic rapprochement?
– Undoubtedly. Political agreements can change, as can economic conditions, but human and institutional ties, as a rule, last the longest. Therefore, it is the humanitarian circuit that often turns out to be not an application to politics, but its most reliable support. When one country offers another educational path, joint academic platforms, scientific exchange, cultural projects and direct contacts between regions and cities, it means that it is thinking about the next generation of relations. It seems to me that Kazakhstan is trying to act in this logic. What is important here is not a single measure, but the entire set of steps. Grants, Study in Kazakhstan, the idea of a university branch, scientific cooperation, the work of sister cities form an environment in which strategic partnership ceases to be only a matter of capitals. And when it becomes the work of universities, researchers, youth, cultural institutions and regions, it becomes much more sustainable.
