Human Gene Editing And The CRISPR Revolution – Analysis

November 14, 2025 
By John P. Ruehl


CRISPR-based technology is advancing rapidly, driving international competition. Its promise to transform medicine is colliding with political and social realities, even as applications expand.

A major medical milestone took place in May 2025, when doctors at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia used CRISPR-based gene editing to treat a child with a rare genetic disorder. Unlike earlier CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) treatments that targeted well-known genetic mutations, this marked a new level of personalized medicine tailored to a patient’s unique DNA. For advocates of biomedical innovation for human enhancement, it was another sign of gene editing’s vast potential, even as ethical, political, and safety concerns remain.

Efforts to alter human genes really began in the 1970s, when scientists first learned to cut a piece of DNA from one organism and attach it to another. The process was slow, imprecise, and expensive. Later tools like meganucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, and zinc-finger nucleases improved accuracy but remained technically complex and time-consuming.

The real revolution came in 2012, when researchers Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier harnessed CRISPR, a natural bacterial defense system. In bacteria, CRISPR cuts out invading viruses’ DNA and inserts fragments into its own genome, allowing it to recognize and defend against future infections. Doudna and Charpentier showed that this process could be adapted to any DNA, including human, creating a precise and programmable system to target genetic mutations. Together with a protein called CRISPR-associated protein (Cas9), which acts like molecular scissors, it made cutting, modifying, and replacing DNA faster, easier, and cheaper.

Attempts to push the technology forward clashed with regulatory caution and ethical debate, but more than 200 people had undergone experimental CRISPR therapies, according to a 2023 MIT Technology Review article. The first major legal breakthrough came that November, when the UK approvedVertex Pharmaceuticals’ CASGEVY for the treatment of transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia and sickle cell disease. Enabled by advances in CRISPR technology, CASGEVY works by making “an edit (or ‘cut’)… in a particular gene to reactivate the production of fetal hemoglobin, which dilutes the faulty red blood cells caused by sickle cell disease,” explained Yale Medicine. Bahrain and the U.S. granted regulatory approval weeks later, and by mid-2025, the EU and several other countries followed.

CRISPR technology continues to advance, with researchers at the University of Texas at Austin recently unveiling a CRISPR therapy that can replace large defective DNA segments and fix multiple mutations simultaneously, overcoming the limits of traditional one-site editing. “Epigenetic editing,” meanwhile, uses modified Cas9 proteins to turn genes on or off without cutting the DNA, and new CRISPR systems can even insert entirely new DNAdirectly into cells, bypassing the cell’s natural repair process for larger precision edits.



Alongside academic researchers, major companies are emerging in the gene-editing field. By early 2025, the U.S. had 217 gene-editing companies, compared with a few dozen in Europe (mainly in the UK and Germany) and 30 in China, according to the startup company BiopharmaIQ.

CRISPR Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, and Beam Therapeutics are among the industry’s leaders. A growing network of companies and research teams attended the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing held in London in 2023, following the first in Washington, D.C., in 2015, and the second in Hong Kong in 2018.

Smaller companies are also innovating. Xenotransplantation—transplanting nonhuman organs to humans—has a long history, but CRISPR technology is giving it new momentum. In 2024, Massachusetts General Hospital transplanted a pig kidney edited with CRISPR-Cas9 technology to remove harmful pig genes and add human ones. The pig kidney was provided by the American pharmaceutical company eGenesis.

The patient survived for two months before dying of unrelated causes, and the company completed another transplant in 2025. Other companies, including United Therapeutics through its subsidiary Revivicor, have begun their own trials in a potential bid to transform the organ donor industry.

CRISPR’s rapid spread has also fueled a DIY biotech movement among transhumanists and biohackers interested in using biotechnology for human enhancement. Nonconventional genetic experimentation, or “garage research,” often outside standard regulation, has become common. CRISPR kits can be ordered online for less than $100, and their small size, relative simplicity, and open-source nature make experimentation and collaboration possible.

“[N]ew technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 give nonconventional experimenters more extensive gene editing abilities and are raising questions about whether the current largely laissez-faire governance approach is adequate,” pointed out a 2023 article in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences.

One of the best-known figures in this movement is former NASA biochemist Josiah Zayner, who founded The ODIN in 2013 to sell CRISPR kits “to help humans genetically modify themselves.” Early efforts to showcase the scope and potential of this technology proved popular online, and in 2017, Zayner livestreamed injecting CRISPR-edited DNA to knock out his myostatin gene to promote muscle growth.

CRISPR has quickly expanded beyond human experimentation. Mississippi dog breeder David Ishee attempted to get regulatory approval for CRISPR technology to prevent Dalmatians’ tendency to develop bladder stones in 2017, but faced immediate regulatory pushback. The agriculture sector has seen more luck: U.S. startup Pairwise has developed a CRISPR-edited salad mix for American consumers, and in 2024, a multinational biotech consortium began pilot trials of drought-resistant maize in Africa.

China has been a leading force in CRISPR innovation since its inception. In 2014, Chinese researchers were among the first to use CRISPR-Cas9 in monkey embryos, and became the first to edit human embryos in 2015, drawing concern from international observers. In 2018, Chinese researcher He Jiankui altered the DNA of two human embryos to make them immune to HIV. Although the babies were born healthy, the announcement caused international outcry, leading to He’s three-year prison sentence in 2019 and stricter Chinese regulations on human gene editing.

Chinese companies and institutions are actively pursuing international collaboration to solidify their position. In August 2025, ClonOrgan was part of a pig-to-human organ transplant, while other Chinese entities established an early lead in CRISPR-based cancer therapies.

The U.S. and China remain clear leaders in CRISPR research, and certain European countries are also active, but others are also rapidly building capacity. In April 2025, Brazil began the first patient trial of CRISPR gene editing for inherited heart disease, while growth has also been strong in Russia, India, and the Gulf States.
Concerns and Inevitability

The rapid adoption of CRISPR technology by private companies, institutions, ideologists, and hobbyists globally has drawn scrutiny. Despite the relatively low cost of developing CRISPR therapies, the actual treatments remain expensive. Social concerns have grown over the idea of “designer babies,” where wealthier families could immunize their children against diseases or select genetic traits, exacerbating inequality.

The He Jiankui case, for example, involved deleting the CCR5 gene in embryos to prevent HIV, but may have also improved their intelligence and memory due to the link between CCR5 and cognition.

Safety concerns also abound. Unintended downstream mutations, or “off-target effects,” can cause genetic defects or chromosomal damage, and in 2024, Swiss scientists documented such issues, highlighting the risks of heritable changes. Even DNA sequences once thought nonessential may have important functions, and edits could have unforeseen consequences for human evolution.

In 2015, a group of leading scientists and researchers proposed a global moratorium on heritable genome edits, yet research has pressed on. Sterilized, genetically modified mosquitoes were released in Africa to test population control in 2019, and in 2020, Imperial College London demonstrated that a “modification that creates more male offspring was able to eliminate populations of malaria mosquitoes in lab experiments.”

As with all emerging technologies, CRISPR-based therapies are resulting in major legal disputes. The Broad Institute, for example, holds patents for using CRISPR in human and animal cells, while UC Berkeley owns the original test-tube version, resulting in a patent battle settled in 2022. “The tribunal of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that the rights for CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing in human and plant cells belong to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, not to Berkeley,” stated an article on the Cal Alumni Association website.

Biosecurity and weaponization concerns also constrain greater CRISPR adoption. Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeatedly warned that genome editing, including CRISPR, could be used as weapons of mass destruction. Its ease of use has continued to raise fears of manipulating pathogens or making populations resistant to vaccines and treatments, as well as the potential to enhance cognitive or physical abilities in soldiers.

Still, the technology’s promise is too significant to be overlooked, as reflected by the attention it has received from Trump administration officials. Vice President J.D. Vance spoke positively about the CRISPR sickle cell treatmentshortly after being elected. Other administration figures have financial ties to the industry, with disclosures showing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plans to divest holdings in CRISPR Therapeutics AG and Dragonfly Therapeutics to avoid conflicts of interest before taking office.

New CRISPR tools, like base editing and prime editing, highlight the technology’s ongoing potential, and in 2025, Stanford researchers and collaborators linked these tools with AI to further augment their capabilities. While consolidation among companies and institutions grows, open-source labs may help drive a new frontier of innovation that heavily regulated business and bureaucratic organizations struggle to achieve.

CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna wrote in her 2017 book A Crack in Creation, “Someday we may consider it unethical not to use germline editing to alleviate human suffering.” With the potential to cure more diseases, some argue there is a moral obligation to reduce avoidable suffering even amid ethical objections. While companies have enormous financial incentives to bring these therapies to market, government oversight, private competition, and the eventual expiration of CRISPR patents, which allow for wider access and lead to lower costs, will be needed to ensure benefits are widely sharedas they unfold.

Author Bio: John P. Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas’, was published in December 2022.

Credit Line: This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Russian Wildberries makes a move in Africa with Ethiopian partnership

Russian Wildberries makes a move in Africa with Ethiopian partnership / bne IntelliNews

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bne IntelliNews November 13, 2025

Russia’s largest e-commerce major Wildberries announced a partnership with Ethiopian Investment Holdings (EIH), one of Ethiopia’s premier investment groups, according to the company’s press-release.

As a reminder, in 2024 Wildberries was rocked by controversy surrounding a merger deal with Russ Group, an outdoor advertising operator reportedly controlled by billionaire Dagestan senator Suleiman Kerimov that is a tenth of the size of Wildberries. 

In 2025, as the case seems to have settled down, Wildberries starts to venture into new verticals. Recent reports suggested it could launch its own MVNO, an advertising data platform, as well as expand in foodtech. bne IntelliNews followed the mysterious M&A spree in detail.

Now, in near future, Wildberries said it plans to enter the markets of Ethiopia and of other African countries, according to the press-release.

A memorandum of understanding was signed in Moscow by Robert Mirzoyan, Chief Executive Officer of the united company Wildberries & Russ, and EIH Chief Executive Officer Brook Taye.

The agreement provides for joint work on adapting Wildberries’ products to the Ethiopian market, as well as collaboration and mutual support in investment and technological initiatives aimed at fostering the growth of Ethiopia’s e-commerce sector and related infrastructure. 

Ethiopian Investment Holdings, the largest sovereign wealth fund in Africa, manages assets exceeding $150bn and plays a key role in advancing Ethiopia’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

A Brief History Of Sustainable Development In Myanmar – Analysis

November 14, 

Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre
By Thuta Aung



Grappling with polycrisis, Myanmar is falling behind in its efforts to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the targets set under its own Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan (MSDP).
Key Takeaways:Emergence and Evolution of Sustainability: The concept of “sustainability” emerged around the 17th century during the Enlightenment era, when a choice arose between profit-oriented industrialisation and a sustainable community
Historical Factors from the precolonial era to recent years, Influencing Myanmar’s Sustainability Context: from dependencies of agriculture during the monarchy to long-lasting civil war after independence.
Although efforts were made along with the democratisation of the country but the progress faced severe setbacks after the 2021 coup, and implementing the SDGs is struggling in Myanmar due to polycrisis, calling for action for the next generation.
A brief history of Sustainable Development

The world has transformed from the very beginning and is still changing. But with the emergence of humankind 2,000,000 years ago, the dynamics of change in the world were shifted. Although the very first man depended on nature for their survival, later man tried to shape the world. In the 17th century, the Enlightenment era, a man had to choose whether to go for profit-oriented industrialisation or a sustainable community with less material development. Since that time, the term “sustainability” has emerged. But due to colonialism, competition among countries, and technological advancement, it led to industrialisation and excessive resource extraction. But in the 18th century, society became aware of the effect of it and started thinking that human society should live within its limits. A concept that the growth of the global economy should not continue indefinitely, but should be maintained at a point where people are satisfied and happy. This concept led to the development of 3E: environment, economy, and equity. But the exploitation still goes on, entering the 20th century, and the people became aware of environmental degradation after World War II. In the 1950s, environmental groups started warning of the consequences of plastics, chemicals, synthetics, pesticides, and fossil fuels.

The remarkable release of “Silent Spring” in 1962 made people aware of the effects of pesticides, called for action and public movement, followed by the first “Earth Day” in 1970. The policy level considerations were foundational in this era, like the enactment of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act in the United States. The international effort was through the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in 1972 in Stockholm. In 1992, the Rio De Janeiro Earth Summit participants discussed environmental degradation, strategies for sustainable development, and set Agenda 21, the comprehensive action plan, followed by the 1997 Kyoto protocol through relentless effort. The introduction of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to be met by 2015, then the setting of 17 Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) in 2015, which come with targets set to be met by 2030.
Understanding of sustainability

To meet those 17 sustainable development goals is not that simple; the practice and understanding of those goals is critical. Although there are good examples of implementing SDGs in lower-income countries, developed countries have more chances of achieving these goals. Indeed, in 1996, Dobson said there were over 300 definitions of sustainable development. And these two words, “sustainable development,” became the policy slogan of today’s era. These terms cover a broad definition, and this phenomenon became problematic in the effort to be understood by the general public. In 1987, the Brundtland Report, the origin of the widely cited definition of sustainability, defined the words as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” But it is still missing an important qualifying test, which leads to a broader definition, understanding, and practice of it.
The Context of Myanmar

In the context of Myanmar, the current effort of implementing sustainability is heavily influenced by the past, since the precolonial era. While the Western world was extensively practicing industrialisation, Myanmar, under a monarchy, was largely dependent on agriculture and had never seen industrialisation on a full scale. After the exile of the last monarchy, the country was administered as part of British India. The British bought systemic forest management, infrastructure development, but the social issues were largely neglected, and the economy was mainly foreign profit-oriented, as the country became part of an export-oriented enterprise of Western colonialism. During the post-colonial era, started long-lasting civil war started, followed by the 1962 coup led by General Ne Win. The country was ruled by socialism. During this era, the Western world experienced rapid economic development, known as “The Golden Age of Capitalism,” and the concept of sustainable development. But in Myanmar, the Ne Win dictatorship dove into an endless war, while the education system was centralised, and education resources were strictly controlled by the government. The economy was run under socialism, along with nationalisation of the consumer industry, although the compensation board was established. But due to their verdict, the amount compensated was minimal. And followed by the demonetisation of high-value currency notes, the economy had fallen. the un According to this context, it was unimaginable for sustainable development as the people are struggling in poor living conditions. The policy setting and management are highly centralised and were considered under the theme of nationalism. Following the 1988 uprising that caused atrocities by the Myanmar Military, power was handed to Than Shwe in 1992, whose board started a market economy, allowing foreign investment, but the people of Myanmar are still thriving under a military regime. The education system is still highly centralised and just runs as part of military propaganda. Apart from it, as the military was continuing the civil war with many ethnic armed groups, there were a lot of human rights violations and war crimes.



In 2010, the democratisation movement brought the concept of sustainability, as stated by H.E. Dr Sai Mauk Kham in 2012 at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, “Myanmar believes in Green Economy and Green Growth as a new development policy.” But the government of Myanmar at that time was heavily shadowed by the military, and still, the exploitation of human rights is going on. The economic index was seen as a significant increase, along with reentering the global economy after reducing sanctions. The education sector also initiated reform, supported by many civic organizations. The concept of environmental management has been considered at the policy-making level. After the first democratisation era, followed by the NLD government, when was a lot of effort in sustainability, especially in the environmental sector, setting the Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan(2018-2030), together with master plans for achieving those goals. The transformation of the business sector has also been boosted. But the government is still unaware of social well-being, and the most remarkable is the genocide against the Rohingya. Impacting the country’s effort on sustainability goals. After the 2021 coup, the country had fallen into a full-blown polycrisis, with severe environmental degradation due to increased resource exploitation to feed the war.
Challenges in building Sustainable Myanmar

Recognizing the historical context, the movement of sustainability in Myanmar is very young. Educating people about sustainability is critical for implementing the SDGs, but in a country facing an unstable economy, centralised education, and human rights issues, the concept of sustainability is not even within in policy-making level and thus hinders reaching the concept to the general public. Also, practicing sustainability at the community level is an objection. The country with an electricity coverage of around 40% of its population can’t convince its people not to use biomass as an energy source. The decade-long degraded education system cannot provide enough information for the rising generation about the sustainability of the future. While the daily income is less than 2 dollars, people cannot be optimistic about a sustainable approach like EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility). The industrial sector of Myanmar is still practicing CSR(Corporate Social Responsibility) programs as philanthropic work rather than a pathway to responsible business, which could also be linked with the public attitude toward CSR works. In combination with those situations, from a lack of basic education to poverty, the country hosts locally to regionally threatening actions, most obviously, of rare-earth mining, although Myanmar is the third largest exporter of REE, while most of the mines are in war-torn areas with no regulation to follow, along with other resource extraction, fuel the risk of country’s sustainability. Myanmar is also located in a disaster-prone region, which makes most of its area vulnerable, severely affected by climate change. Last but crucially, the country urgently desires to find an equal and inclusive peace, while representing that every voice, to eliminate the ongoing world’s longest civil war. Without peace, the above-mentioned sector will simply cannot be implemented.
Conclusion

Overall, the situation in Myanmar is still in polycrisis for achieving sustainable development. Although the nation is in crisis, the pathway to sustainability can still be fulfilled, and also should not be forgotten. Even if we, the people, can surpass this political crisis, the last thing our posterity will inherit will be a chaotic land.

About the author: Thuta Aung is a Research Assistant at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc), holds a B.Sc. in Geology, and is currently pursuing Environmental Science at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

Source: This article was published by The Sabai Times


Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre

The Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) is a hybrid think tank (non-partisan) and consultancy firm that advances sustainable governance, policy innovation, and sustainability literacy in Myanmar. Through its Sustainability Lab, SRIc conducts in-depth public policy research and analysis to promote sustainable development and guide Myanmar toward a more resilient, equitable, and environmentally conscious future. SRIc provides strategic policy advocacy, CSR consultation, and the development of sustainability roadmaps grounded in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. These services support public institutions and private sector actors in aligning their operations with the Sustainable Development Goals. By integrating rigorous research with actionable consultancy, SRIc supports responsible business practices, fosters innovative CSR strategies, and designs impactful sustainability pathways. SRIc contributes to local transformation & global sustainability efforts through this dual approach.

Trump Revives US–Central Asia Ties With $25 Billion In New Deals – Analysis

November 14, 2025 
By James Durso


On 6 November, U.S. President Donald Trump hosted the C5 + 1, the diplomatic platform that brings together the U.S. and the five Central Asia republics, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Trump hosted the leaders at the White House, the first time he met any of them except for Uzbek president Shavkat Mirziyoyev who he met at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session in September 2025, and at the White House in May 2018. (Then-president Joe Biden met the Central Asian leaders at the UNGA session in 2023.)

True to form, Trump declared, “Sadly, previous American presidents neglected this region completely.”

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan understood the importance of the “pre-game” and the day before the meeting announced joining the Trump’s signature project, the Abraham Accords, (Kazakhstan), and visa-free entry for American citizens (Uzbekistan).

According to the U.S. International Trade Administration, the deals between U.S. and Central Asian firms totaled $25 billion and included:All American Rail Group Global: rail construction and engineering in the Kyrgyz Republic
Boeing: up to 15 787 Dreamliners (Kazakhstan); up to four 787 Dreamliners and 10 737 Max airliners (Tajikistan); and eight more 787 Dreamliners, bringing the prior total to 22 widebody jets (Uzbekistan)
Cove Capital: privatization of a tungsten mining company in Kazakhstan
John Deere: agricultural machinery for Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan
Leidos: upgrade of Kazakhstan’s National Air Traffic Management System.
MOUs between Nvidia, the Ministry of Artificial Intelligence & Digital Development, and Freedom Holding Corporation for Advanced AI chips in Kazakhstan

Until now, the U.S. Central Asia policy was adjunct to the Afghanistan policy. Now that Washington can deal with the region on its own, Trump is moving U.S. policy in the region from securitization to “economicization,” and the region, formerly the chasse gardée of Western military and security services, will welcome more economists, miners, and entrepreneurs.

At the meeting Trump endorsed the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, a new trade corridor designed to stabilize relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and boost regional connectivity and economic integration across Central Asia.

Despite last week’s announcements, China remains major investor in Central Asia.

According to the China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Investment Report 2025 H1, the first half of 2025 (2025 H1) saw the highest engagement for any six-month period ever, with US$66.2 billion in construction contracts and US$57.1 billion in investments (greater than BRI engagement in all of 2024 which was US$122 billion). Of that record first half engagement, US$39 billion went to Africa and US$25 billion went to Central Asia, notable on a per capita basis as Africa’s population is about 1.5 billion and Central Asia’s is about 84 million.

But the U.S. is elevating its game, and is giving the republics the opportunity to balance among the U.S., Europe, China, and Russia, understandable as the region has been part of someone else’s empire for over 300 years – since Russia ruler Peter the Great sent expeditions to the region in the early 1700s.

The most Washington can do to boost trade between the U.S. and Central Asia is to repeal the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which blocks Permanent Normal Trade Relations with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The Cold War has been over for a long time, but the U.S. Congress never finds the time to scrap Jackson-Vanik despite bipartisan support for repeal.

Not to be overlooked in all the talk about big contracts is the Joint Statement of Intent in the Field of Cultural Heritage, where the U.S. and the republics pledged to protect cultural heritage from theft and illicit trafficking; conduct expert exchanges and share best practices in curation and conservation, and ethnology, archaeology, architecture, and restoration; support national craft traditions and artisans, and strengthening of academic and research ties.

Uzbek president Shavkat Mirziyoyev took the lead for the region when addressing Trump and unveiled a “bold regional vision”, calling the C5+1 a key mechanism for building economic resilience and collective security in Central Asia, and emphasized the meeting with Trump marks “a new stage in the strategic dialogue” between Central Asia and the United States.

Trump noted approvingly, “Over the next three years, Uzbekistan will be purchasing and investing almost $35 Billion Dollars and, in the next 10 years, over $100 Billion Dollars, in key American Sectors, including Critical Minerals, Aviation, Automotive Parts, Infrastructure, Agriculture, Energy & Chemicals, Information Technology, and others.”

In the case of Uzbekistan, all those deals are the foundation for the country’s people-centered reforms and its vision for poverty reduction, justice, and shared economic opportunity outlined by Mirziyoyev at the Second World Summit for Social Development immediately before he traveled to his White House meeting with Trump.

The key takeaways from the C5 +1 are:Strengthening the Strategic Partnership and Mutual Trust. The U.S. and the republics underscored their shared commitment to building a long-term, strategic dialogue based on mutual respect, trust, and shared values. The C5 + 1 partnerships will be grounded in transparency, innovation, and shared global responsibility.
Deepening Economic and Investment Cooperation. U.S. focus is shifting to economics and business and away from security-only policies. The leaders’ meetings with U.S. business and financial leaders laid the groundwork for a new phase of trade, investment, and industrial collaboration in key areas such as green energy, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure development, digital transformation, and technology innovation.
Advancing Regional Connectivity and Sustainable Development. Economic connectivity, energy transition, regional security, and climate resilience are key to regional unity and integration, fostering a stable, prosperous, and interconnected Central Asia that contributes to global peace and sustainable development.
Opening a New Chapter in U.S.–Central Asia Relations. The leaders’ shared vision aims to foster innovation, resilience, and shared prosperity for the U.S., Central Asia, and the broader international community.

The C5 + 1 meeting was time well spent for the leaders, and was a moment to savor for the American and Central Asian public servants who have worked since the end of the Cold War – 34 years – to keep the fires alight, an effort that made the historic White House meeting possible.

This article was published by OilPrice.com


James Durso

James Durso (@james_durso) is a regular commentator on foreign policy and national security matters. Mr. Durso served in the U.S. Navy for 20 years and has worked in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Central Asia.