In Ashgabat, a meeting took place between Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov and the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The negotiations were held within the framework of an official visit by representatives of the agency, which was initiated in the context of developing Turkmenistan’s cooperation with international structures in the field of the peaceful use of atomic energy. Formally, the discussion concerned technical interaction, the exchange of experience, and potential projects in the spheres of energy, medicine, and science. However, the very format of the meeting raised questions. Despite the fact that Serdar Berdimuhamedov has been the President of Turkmenistan since 2022, it was his father, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, who acted as the key negotiator. This is not an isolated case: a similar practice has been observed since the transfer of power and indicates the preservation of de facto control over the state in the hands of the former leader.
Since the moment of the formal transition of power in Turkmenistan, a model has been constructed in which the political system maintains continuity not only institutionally but also personally. Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, holding the post of Chairman of the Halk Maslakhaty, continues to play a decisive role in the making of strategic decisions. In this context, his participation in meetings with international organizations acquires a special meaning — it is a demonstration of who truly represents the country on the foreign policy arena. The visit of the IAEA delegation and the subsequent meeting did not arise spontaneously. They became part of Ashgabat’s consistent policy of expanding international contacts in recent years. Turkmenistan seeks to position itself as a state open to cooperation, especially in areas not directly related to political reforms. Atomic energy is convenient in this sense: it allows for talk of development, technology, and modernization without touching upon sensitive issues of internal policy. Nevertheless, an analysis of the content and context of the meeting shows that its significance goes far beyond the stated agenda.
Turkmenistan does not show signs of developing a military nuclear program, and interaction with the IAEA is limited to peaceful and technical directions. Moreover, the country is not among the problematic states from the point of view of international nuclear control. This means that the atomic subject matter in itself does not explain the high level of representation and the political emphasis of the meeting. The key to understanding what is happening lies in the sphere of internal politics. For authoritarian regimes, international contacts are an important tool of legitimation. Meetings with representatives of such organizations as the IAEA allow for the formation of the image of a recognized leader, the strengthening of positions within the country, and the demonstration of external support, even if it is formal. In the case of Turkmenistan, this effect is amplified by the personal factor. Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov’s participation in negotiations with international structures is not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a signal on several levels at once. Inside the country, it is addressed to the elites and society: real power has not changed, and key decisions remain with the former leader. A different signal is sent to the outside world: despite the formal change of the president, interaction should be built with the same figures.
Such a practice also has broader consequences. It contributes to the consolidation of a model of hereditary power in which state institutions play a secondary role compared to personal control. In this process, international organizations, acting within their mandates, effectively become participants in this process, albeit indirectly. The “normalization” effect creates a particular problem. High-level meetings, official statements, and joint projects form the image of standard diplomatic interaction. Against this background, systemic issues remain in the shadows: the lack of political competition, restrictions on civil liberties, pressure on independent sources of information, and the concentration of power in a narrow circle. Critics note that such contacts, even if they are technical in nature, are inevitably used by the authorities for propaganda purposes. Inside the country, they are presented as confirmation of international recognition and the success of the political course, while the real content of the cooperation often recedes into the background. Thus, the meeting with the IAEA in Ashgabat is not so much an event in the sphere of atomic policy as an element of a broader strategy to strengthen power. It demonstrates the stability of the existing system, emphasizes the role of a specific political leader, and contributes to the legitimation of a governance model based on continuity within a single family. As long as international contacts of this kind are perceived exclusively as technical cooperation, they will continue to perform a political function. In the conditions of Turkmenistan, this means not just a diplomatic dialogue, but a mechanism for maintaining and strengthening the existing power.
