Dr. Begench Karaev
Recently, the creative team of the famous European television company “Euronews” visited Turkmenistan. The National Leader of the Turkmen people, Chairman of the Halk Maslahaty of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov received the correspondent of this authoritative television company Loro Bacvelli and during the interview he outlined the main directions of the country’s domestic and foreign policy and Turkmenistan’s position on current issues of modern world politics.
Of course, the interview began with a question about a very topical issue that affects the fate of peace and security, both in Europe and in much larger geopolitical spaces of the Earth. Indeed, the attention of the entire world is now focused on the “situation between Ukraine and Russia”, which is fraught with a global threat to our entire civilization.
The leader of the nation, in a very measured but clear manner, outlined his answer in three points, the steadfastness of which is like the peaks of the most stable figure of Euclidean geometry, which served as the basis for the immortal Pythagorean theorem.
The leader of the nation literally said the following:
“Neutrality is the basis of our foreign policy, which clearly defines the principles of interaction between Turkmenistan and the world community, including in difficult conditions. At the same time, Turkmenistan highlights three main positions, which include the following:
In the political aspect, our country is a neutral state, which is recognized by the United Nations. Our country does not accept participation and involvement in international conflicts. This position is enshrined in the Constitution and the Constitutional Law of Turkmenistan “On the Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan”, as well as in other basic documents related to the foreign policy of our state.
From a legal point of view, our country is a supporter of the resolution of all interstate disputes solely on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and generally recognized norms of international law.
From a global position, Turkmenistan does not support the use of force in international relations, since war is not a solution to emerging situations, which has been repeatedly confirmed by practice. There is a wonderful Turkmen proverb: “There are no winners in war.” It is this saying, fundamentally true, that drives and will drive us.
Everything said above fully applies to your question.”
Philosophy of Neutrality
Turkmenistan’s neutrality as an active diplomatic phenomenon demonstrates the wisdom of a nation that created large empires in the Middle Ages and at the same time subsequently failed to have a revived and independent statehood for almost eight centuries. The people, who endured endless battles for survival and were tempered by the boiling Karakum ocean of sands, stood firm and preserved their name, dignity and authority. Turkmenistan is now an active and influential subject of the modern system of international relations and world politics. The national flag of Turkmenistan rises near the building of the United Nations, is raised high in honor of representatives of our country in major international forums, sports competitions, festivals and other events. Millions of spectators admire magnificent carpets and Akhal-Teke horses, applaud the performances of cultural and artistic figures.
National Leader of the Turkmen people Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov during a meeting with members of the National Equestrian Games Group “Galkynyş”, who successfully performed at the International Festival of Circus Arts in Monte Carlo, emphasized: – “Heavenly” horses, which have always been faithful companions of our people, have become the personification of the rapid development of the Fatherland. The veneration of the “heavenly” horses by the Turkmens is reflected in the wise sayings of the ancestors “A horse is a goal” and “If I have a horse, I have wings.”
Turkmenistan’s neutrality is a unique model for implementing foreign policy and diplomacy in the world, which was recognized by the adoption of special resolutions of the UN General Assembly on December 12, 1995 and June 3, 2015.
As is known, on March 21, 2024, at the 63rd plenary meeting of the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly, the Resolution “2025 – International Year of Peace and Trust” was adopted at the initiative of Turkmenistan. Eighty-six states acted as co-authors of this Resolution. This document logically continues and practically embodies the new philosophy of international relations “Dialogue – a guarantee of peace” put forward by the National Leader of the Turkmen people, Chairman of the Halk Maslakhaty Hero-Arkadag Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov.
The National Leader of the Turkmen people, during a meeting with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who visited Ashgabat in July 2024, emphasized that our country’s initiative was a direct appeal to all countries of the world to realize their responsibility for the fate of the planet. Joint efforts under the auspices of the UN are designed to stop the growing escalation and intolerance, objectively analyze the current situation, and rethink it from a historical point of view and perspective. “Our call must be heard!” Hero-Arkadag emphasized. First of all, because the philosophy of peace and trust has universal significance. It is always in demand and constructive, meets genuine, not momentary needs of general development and progress.
As the Leader of the Nation emphasized in an interview with Euronews: “Neutrality is the basis of our foreign policy, which clearly defines the principles of interaction between Turkmenistan and the world community, including in difficult conditions.” Turkmen neutrality as a doctrine preaches a philosophy of a new quality. Its essence lies in the idea of a civilizational dialogue of countries and peoples based on mutual understanding and trust, which can serve as a guarantee for the preservation of peace and security.
The first quarter of this century became a period of serious testing for the entire system of international relations, where the institution of neutrality not only survived, but also served as a platform for uniting the efforts of a large group of UN member states interested in peace, security and sustainable development. In addition, the world community now celebrates International Neutrality Day annually on December 12 – the day of the corresponding national holiday of Turkmenistan.
Historical experience and the current potential of neutrality are finding increasing support, which is significant in the current International Year of Peace and Trust declared by the UN. The current difficult situation in international relations today suggests the possibility of using the instruments and methods of neutrality in the interests of ensuring national interests, peacekeeping and establishing normal relations between states.
“Odyssey” Trump
The National Leader of the Turkmen people conducted his interview with Euronews on March 6, 2025, that is, at a time when the top lines of the world’s news channels were filled with reports of sensational statements by US President Donald Trump, the consequences of which could have a decisive impact on the future of both America and all of humanity.
On March 4, 2025, US President Trump began his address to members of Congress and Senators by proclaiming the victory cry, “America is back!”
It is also symbolic in this context that all this took place against the backdrop of widespread advertising for the trailer of the epic film The Odyssey, the world premiere of which is scheduled for July 17, 2026. Filming of the film began in late February 2025, when an unequal discussion was underway in the White House with the visiting Ukrainian leader.
It is noteworthy that on the eve of the upcoming premiere of the film “Odyssey” – on July 4, 2026, the American people will widely celebrate the historical 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.
The plot of the film describes the story of the long wanderings of King Odysseus, returning home after the Trojan War. On the way, the hero will meet with cyclops and sirens, giants-cannibals and monsters Scylla and Charybdis. Having gone through incredible trials, having survived in the kingdom of the dead and on cruel islands, Odysseus finally finds himself on his native shores, where all this time Queen Penelope, fighting off numerous suitors, believed that her husband was still alive.
It is no coincidence that the great Homer sang the wisdom of Odysseus, who overcame many dangers, including when he found himself between Scylla and Charybdis. This is an example of cold calculation and courageous action to pass the tests of history. It is not difficult to translate the plot of the film as Trump’s return to his people after a four-year “Odyssey”.
It would be appropriate to say that geopolitical processes are interpreted by analysts or the expert community not only to inform politicians. “Subtext” signals are also distributed to focus the attention of the general public, through literature, music, feature films or cinema. For information, we can analyze the film production of Hollywood, which released at least two major epic films about Alexander the Great – in 1968 and 2004. If we compare them in time, these periods, or more precisely the 60-70s, are known for major wars and military actions in the Near and Middle East, in Vietnam and Indochina as a whole. In all these conflicts, one of the opponents was the United States and (or) its allies. The beginning of this century is known for the invasion of the same, but broader alliance into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and a number of other regions of the world. The last decade and a half of serious armed conflicts have also engulfed parts of the European continent.
America’s ‘Concentration’: Which Way Are Ithaca’s Winds Blowing?
As Homer tells it, when Odysseus returned to Ithaca, he did not recognize his native land, covered in thick fog. He entered his palace as an old man, dressed in rags, who was mocked by the suitors who were vying for the hand of Penelope, the mother of Odysseus’s children. As the legend goes: “Odysseus finally returned and cruelly avenged his enemies for the riot in his house and for the plundering of his property.” According to Homer’s scenario, all the suitors who attacked Odysseus were killed by the hero’s well-aimed arrow, and he revealed himself to his wife. The soul of the legendary Agamemnon in the other world rejoiced at the return and victory of Odysseus over Penelope’s offenders. Odysseus’ friend and comrade exclaimed from the other world: “Oh, how happy you are, beloved Odysseus! Great will be the glory of your faithful wife Penelope, she will be sung in songs, and her memory will live forever! My fate was different. My wife betrayed me. The terrible memory of her will remain forever among people.”
However, Ithaca is engulfed in civil war between Odysseus’ supporters and opponents. The goddess Pallas Athena comes to the rescue, calling: “Stop the battle, citizens of Ithaca! Disperse quickly, without shedding blood!” Homer’s epic story ends with the words: “Odysseus rejoiced and stopped, he did not pursue the fleeing citizens of Ithaca. Soon Pallas Athena, taking the form of Mentor, established a lasting peace between the people and King Odysseus, sealed by their mutual oath.”
In this context, it is worth considering that the Democrats in the US were very critical of the proclaimed new course of the returned Trump. Of course, in the place of Odysseus, he should have destroyed all his opponents. I wonder how the Hollywood script for the film “Odysseus” will end and will the mythical Athena-Pallas help restore the unity of citizens?
Here it is worth considering the foreign policy platform and diplomatic instruments for the implementation of America’s “return and new start”, which borders on the declaration of isolation – a kind of neutrality, but of a qualitatively new type and with elements of the well-known Monroe Doctrine. The new US administration has declared a refusal to support the conflicting and actually warring parties in Europe, with simultaneous territorial claims to its neighbors, and unilateral financial excises against countries – trading partners.
Here it is time to recall the famous phrase of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire, Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Gorchakov, in his circular letter of August 21, 1856, which was quoted at the time by all of Europe: “Russia is concentrating!” Thus, the new tasks of the foreign policy of the Russian state after the end of the Crimean War were outlined.
In this context, it is worth considering how much “America is concentrating” and could this mean a new doctrine of President Donald Trump about launching the final phase of “Cold War 2.0”? Moreover, the head of the White House declared the approach of the era of prosperity for the New World. Explaining the logic of the transition to the future era, President Donald Trump said: “My fellow Americans, get ready for an incredible future, because America’s golden age has just begun. It will be like nothing you have ever seen!”
The beginning of the “golden age,” which Trump announced in his speech at Congress Hall, really does seem to mean a return to the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the foundations of the future powerful state were laid, which dazzled the next century with its power, becoming for the whole world, in the words of Kissinger, both a “beacon” and a “crusader,” simultaneously or successively.
Thus, based on the logic of the proclamation of the “Return of America,” many experts imagined the revival of a kind of Monroe Doctrine, but with a 2.0 mark.
The Trump administration, for its part, has not shied away from the comparison. In an interview with Fox News shortly before Trump took office, National Security Adviser Mike Walz said that part of the administration’s “America First!” agenda would be “reintroducing America to the Western Hemisphere.” This also echoes the idea associated with the “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.”
Trump openly embraced the concept during his first term. In a speech to the United Nations in September 2018, he told the world, “Since the time of President Monroe, it has been the stated policy of our country that we reject interference by foreign powers in this hemisphere and in our own affairs.” His then-national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also made mention of the doctrine.
As we know from the history after the Napoleonic Wars, so long as the Holy Alliance operated within the borders of Europe, it did not cause concern to the United States. But when its intention to restore Spanish rule over its former colonies became known, the Americans became very alarmed. President Monroe took the opportunity to proclaim in his annual message to Congress in December 1823 a new and historic principle: opposition to any attempt by the European powers to extend their influence on the American continent. This became the core of what became known as the Monroe Doctrine. It proclaimed that America should be free from future European colonization and free from European interference in the affairs of sovereign countries. It also declared the intention of the United States to remain neutral in European wars and in wars between European powers and their colonies. Monroe also regarded interference in the policies of independent countries in North and South America as hostile acts against the United States.
“The citizens of the United States have the most friendly feelings for their fellow-men across the Atlantic, for their liberty and happiness,” declared Monroe. “We have never taken part in the wars of the European powers, so far as they are concerned, and it is consistent with our policy to do so.” The Monroe Doctrine held that there were two distinct and incompatible political systems in the world. Therefore, the United States promised to refrain from interfering in European affairs and demanded that Europe refrain from interfering in American affairs.
In essence, the Monroe Doctrine served as a precursor to an entire era in US history, where the strategy of neutrality formed the basis of the state’s foreign policy. In fact, the US adhered to this course until the last months of 1941, until the tragedy of Pearl Harbor occurred.
If all this is true, then the question arises related to doubts about the extent to which such isolation of the United States from European affairs, and perhaps even rejection of NATO, can correspond to traditionally established notions of neutrality.
The first time, one can immediately answer that the US will never isolate itself from global politics, which means not accepting the traditional concept of neutrality. At the same time, Trump’s declared “equal distance” from Europe, Ukraine and Russia, and at the same time taking a potentially conflicting position in relation to China, Mexico, Canada, and perhaps also on the issue of Greenland and Panama, resembles the situation with the famous “Schrödinger’s cat”, which is “either alive or dead” until it is openly observed by an experimenter.
“American Neutrality 2.0”: Pragmatism for the Quantum Age
To test the “neutral identity of the United States” we should compare it with other models of similar policies. Then we will find that neutrality in the traditional sense is mostly a foreign policy line or a method of diplomacy to avoid being involved in conflicts. If we take into account the change of course after the latest presidential elections, then perhaps it is not yet worth talking about the stable nature of the isolation or neutrality of the United States in relation to Europe.
From this perspective, it is possible that Trump’s announced new course primarily reflects the need for the US to “group together” for the internal mobilization of the nation, in order to then regain its freshness and power. In short, this could be a kind of “pragmatic neutrality” for the coming era, which could be useful not only for the American nation, but also for the entire world community. In the end, according to such logic, one can assume a change of course in the future in the EU as well.
In order to forecast the future, it would be necessary to consider the retrospective paradigm, and we will be able to notice that the modern leadership of the United States of America has historical roots. In this context, the beginning of the existence of the United States as an independent state was marked by the proclamation of a policy of neutrality and non-intervention. The first president George Washington signed the Proclamation of Neutrality on April 22, 1793, which was the United States’ response to the war in Europe. It broke out first in 1792 between France with Prussia and Austria. In February 1793, it became clear that the conflict would escalate and involve Great Britain, Spain and the Netherlands.
The Proclamation of Neutrality of the United States proclaimed a policy of non-intervention in European affairs and impartiality towards the warring parties.
At the same time, it would not be superfluous to recall American history in the second half of the 19th century, when a certain part of the political and intellectual elite came to the conclusion that the growing expansionist tendencies of the significantly enriched United States would be destructive both for domestic political stability and for the balance in international affairs.
One of the spokesmen for this view was the then Minister of the Interior Carl Schurz, who declared the need to abandon the expansion of US influence and concentrate on domestic affairs. He, like no one else, knew that there were a great many unresolved problems within the US, and believed that an aggressive policy outside the country would not help solve them. His works contain a profound and extremely useful analysis of the American political course of that time, its origins and negative consequences for the US itself and the rest of the world.
He based his reasoning on the thesis that the national interest of the United States is not identical to the acquisition of new territories and the expansion of influence. American expansion, according to Schurz, is “the desire to acquire certain commercial advantages: to obtain the resources of another country and, by exploiting them, to increase one’s wealth; to occupy certain strategic positions that may prove important in the event of war.”
However, the politician called for an understanding of America’s real capabilities and problems: “It is better to use our wealth rationally than to direct our energy to the implementation of fantastic foreign adventures.” Territorial conquests, he wrote, quickly become uncontrollable, they degenerate into expansion for its own sake, since “there will always be additional commercial benefits that can be obtained, there will always be a desire to appropriate the wealth of an ever-increasing number of countries, there will always be an expanding list of strategic positions that we will want to occupy in order to protect those positions that we already have… not only the desire to possess more, but interest, the logic of the situation itself will push us further and further…”.
The essence of Schurz’s appeal lies in its extreme pragmatism, and this pragmatism, in his view, dictates the need to refrain from any imperialistic aspirations. Schurz makes no exceptions even in cases where a people clearly expresses a voluntary desire to join the Americans: “The decision whether to allow a stranger to become a member of our family is our right and duty, and we must decide this question in accordance with our own conception of the family interest.”
In Schurz’s understanding, national power and neutrality are compatible. It is not necessary to pursue an aggressive policy toward other players in the international arena in order to guarantee one’s own security. Schurz’s conclusions, as well as his predictions and insights, are astonishing and deserve the closest attention today. “The destiny of the American people,” he wrote, “lies in their wisdom and will. If they will direct their energies to the development of what they possess within their present limits…then it will be the ‘manifest destiny’ of the American people to preserve the exceptional and inestimable advantages they now possess and to cultivate, on that fertile soil, our active citizenship, based on freedom, prosperity, and strength.”
Now, a century and a half later, it is becoming clear that Americans have begun to realize the futility of armed confrontation and wars, when the rails of global leadership are being moved to digital platforms rather than remaining on a gun carriage. One of the first signs in this process is that traditional “binary” processors are gradually giving way to quantum developments, artificial intelligence and neural networks. It is also possible that soon the life of all mankind will be predetermined by “smart technologies”, at least previously unseen gadgets and robots. Therefore, Trump has announced the attraction of investments in the amount of more than two trillion US dollars to lay the foundation of a chip manufacturing complex in Arizona and other large capacities in various regions of the country. In a word, the US is starting to invest money in creating new models of “quantum brains” and “artificial intelligence” rather than wasting money on the outdated hardware of today’s computers, even if they control armies and their weapons today.
Thus, it can be assumed that the new course of the USA is based on strategic pragmatism, which is calculated for the coming historical period – until the necessary flight altitude for the “New America 2.0” is reached. At least, the expert community does not expect the USA to abandon its aspirations for global influence, especially with regard to European affairs. But, the fact that the instruments and means of such influence will not always be of a forceful nature may become a geopolitical invention. This is quite acceptable when it is possible to capture the minds of millions with the help of all-encompassing “cloud technologies” of the virtual world, which in turn is becoming the reality of our lives today.
After all, “soft power”, thanks to the advantage of the United States of America in information technology, has played a key role in cultivating liberal values, in particular the image of the American dream through the Internet and media technologies, television, music and film industries, as well as other means of shaping mass consciousness. As a result, today the United States actually controls and directs the ideological and propaganda content of world information, including news flows.
According to a number of scientists, there has never been a period in the history of the world political system when the influence of a leader was so tangible and unconditional as the period of the United States of America. This happened because the elite of the United States of America provided itself with direct access to the levers of control of the world community. It created a solid economic, financial and material base for this both in its own country and abroad. Representatives of the United States of America and its closest allies occupy key positions in the UN, in the economic, financial and legal structures of supranational organizations from the International Monetary Fund, WTO, International Court to many other international bodies and organizations.
The existential experience of permanent neutrality
In the context of the above, those models of neutrality that are not connected with a certain tactic of pragmatism, but are conditioned by the protection of the sovereignty and independence of the country, can truly be permanent. Neutrality of this type is conditioned by ensuring the prospects of the existence of the state while maintaining full subjectivity in international politics.
In this regard, the history of Austria’s neutrality can serve as a good example for study. As is well known, the so-called “Austrian question” was almost the entire first half of the 20th century. After World War II, the country, which had survived the pre-war Anschluss, was occupied by the great powers that defeated fascism. Instead of enjoying freedom, Austria seemed to find itself between the same Scylla and Charybdis that Homer’s Odysseus experienced. In the process of forming post-war Europe, the Western powers sought to involve the occupied, that is, semi-free Austria in their military-political orbit. But the Austrian leaders were able to realize that the price for such patronage could be the role of a kind of bargaining chip in the big game of the geopolitical triangle “West – Austria – USSR”. As sources testify: “as a result of intense domestic political debates and difficult negotiations with interested parties, the Austrians made a choice in favor of permanent neutrality.” To consolidate this historical foreign policy choice, the Federal Constitutional Law on the Neutrality of Austria was adopted in the country on October 26, 1955. The first article of the law states:
“Article 1.
In order to long-term and permanently assert its external independence and the inviolability of its territory, Austria voluntarily declares its permanent neutrality.
Austria will support and protect it with all the means at its disposal.
In order to ensure these goals, Austria will not in the future enter into any military alliances and will not allow the creation of military strongholds of foreign states on its territory.”
Austria’s neutrality was particularly relevant during the Cold War and the state capital Vienna became a renowned diplomatic centre, hosting the headquarters of major international organisations and their agencies, including the UN, EU, OSCE, OPEC and others.
By the way, it should be said that Turkmenistan and Austria have established close cooperation relations and support foreign policy initiatives requested by the international community. Thus, our states are celebrating the anniversary of neutrality this year: Turkmenistan – the 30th anniversary, and Austria – the 70th anniversary of glorious dates.
The Phenomenon of Turkmenistan’s Permanent Neutrality
We can turn to the experience of the permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan, the origin of which, unlike that of Austria or Switzerland, is the result of a voluntary choice by the nation and recognition through the adoption of two special UN resolutions.
The rise of the authority of the institution of neutrality on the example of the Turkmen model is not accidental, because its foundations are forged by the centuries-old experience of our people, and find understanding and support from all UN member states. It should also be noted that the Turkmen have preserved and retained their unifying national identity for centuries despite the stability of tribal traditions. The basis for this was the synergetics of the whole and the part in the national consciousness, which was preached by our great ancestors, first of all, wise elders, philosophers, poets and rulers. One of the factors of self-preservation was the fact that during the most difficult periods of its history, even being internally disunited and not having a single statehood on its own land, the Turkmen people never succumbed to the temptations of the “carrot” from the powers that be. This was obvious from the time of the early Seljuks, and was especially clearly evident in the age of the “Great Game” between the major powers of the 19th century.
Archives show that when the European theatre of the Holy Alliance was filled with wars of empires, the Central Asian khans and emirs – the heads of the decrepit state formations of the region, groveled before the all-powerful sultans and kings, begging for their patronage and offering their obedience in return. At the same time, to paraphrase the lines of Makhtumkuli, the vast geopolitical space from the “Khazar swells to the smooth surface of the Jeyhun”, fanned by the winds of Turkmenistan, did not become a subject of bargaining either with the leading actors of the “Great Game” or in relations with neighboring rulers.
The natural reason for this was, in many ways, that the Turkmens, passing through historical eras, waged an exhausting confrontation with external forces. Like tigers in their hunting grounds, the tribes of a single people scattered in space looked after their territories, settled and guarded them, not allowing strangers into their borders. Not a single foreign army could boldly enter the Karakum steppes, where they would have faced certain defeat. It is known that even in ancient times, even Alexander the Great preferred to conclude an alliance with the Massagetae rather than fight with them – the victors of another great ruler of the East – Cyrus. At the same time, the Turkmens honored the original traditions of hospitality towards friends and those who came with good.
At the same time, while creating strong states in the Middle and Near East, South Asia, and the Caucasus in the post-Seljuk periods, a significant portion of the Turkmen remained on their historical land. They wielded significant influence in the region, especially through the use of armed neutrality and soft power. This strategy helped to curb the ambitions and pretensions of fairly large players in the political and military confrontation. This is supported by documentary evidence from English and Russian agents who constantly monitored events in the vast territories of India, Afghanistan, Persia, and the Central Asian khanates. One of the results of such research was the fundamental collection of travel notes and reports by the Royal Geographical Society, The Country of Turcomans, published in London in 1879, based on the results of a secret discussion of the situation with the advance of the Russian army in the southern direction. This was not accidental, because the diplomatic and intelligence community of Great Britain made the most reliable forecasts for its time regarding future major changes in the Turkmen territories.
It is also interesting that this collection was republished a century later, for the second time, in London in 1977 – on the eve of radical changes in the region that had global consequences. It is known that then, in a very short period of time, events related to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Islamic revolution in Iran took place.
As Z. Brzezinski stated, all the cells of the geopolitical chessboard are under pressure. This is also true in relation to the real state of geographic spaces. In these conditions, Turkmenistan and its people have never allowed geopolitical deals to the detriment of either their own national interests or the interests of neighboring states. At the same time, the generally recognized neutrality of Turkmenistan continues to be a guarantee of peace, security and good neighborly relations in the region and beyond.
Formula of neutrality: “Dialogue is a guarantee of peace”
On February 14, 2025, the National Leader of the Turkmen people held a telephone conversation with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. During the dialogue, Hero-Arkadag informed the UN Secretary-General about Turkmenistan’s plans to be implemented in partnership with the Organization in 2025. As noted, the Concept of Turkmenistan’s activities and priorities within the framework of the International Year of Peace and Trust was developed. The document reflects our country’s positions on the main issues of the modern global agenda, as well as on the consolidation of states’ efforts based on mutual trust, joint dialogue and responsibility. The leader of the nation especially emphasized that 2025 can and should become a year of change, expressing hope for UN support for Turkmenistan’s goals set out in the Concept.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized the Organization’s special attention to interaction with neutral Turkmenistan, which advocates for strengthening peace in the regional and global dimensions. The UN Secretary-General also highly appreciated the foreign policy of the Turkmen state and its initiatives for universal peace, prosperity and sustainable development.
The basic principles of neutrality, including peacefulness, good neighborliness, mutual respect and equal cooperation, the settlement of disputes exclusively by political and diplomatic means and methods – this is, in essence, a reflection of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, which today are becoming a genuine imperative of the modern world order, an indispensable and main condition for progressive and creative development, a peaceful future for the planet.
All this is reflected in the Concept of Activities and Priorities of Turkmenistan within the framework of the International Year of Peace and Trust. Our country views the decision to hold it as an event of global scale, as a real opportunity for a qualitative transition to a new stage in international relations.
As noted in the Concept, in essence, this initiative of Turkmenistan is an invitation and call to all states to begin joint work, including political, ideological and practical aspects of the implementation of the idea of peace and trust as a fundamental principle of the world order. /// nCa, 12 March 2025
Dr. Begench Karaev – deals with the problems of philosophy of law and politics. He is the author of a number of textbooks and monographs, including “Political Analysis and Strategic Planning”, “Political Analysis: Problems of Theory and Methodology: (Experience of Studying Modern Central Asian Society)” and “Traditional and Modern in the Political Life of Central Asian Society (Experience of Political Analysis)”.
Leave a Reply