This work was originally published in French in 1997. An English translation appeared in 2000. It has now been reproduced yet again, this time in a “newly updated version”. The promotional statement on the back cover (presumably written by the publisher) states that in this new edition the author “examines the political development of Central Asia, from the Russian conquest to the ‘War on Terror’ and beyond”. I am at a loss to understand the justification for this claim. Apart from a rather inconsequential “Prologue” of just over four pages (which wrongly dates the violence in Andijan and subsequent closure of the US base in Uzbekistan to 2006, instead of 2005), I have been unable to find any indication that this book has been updated. The last events mentioned in the final chapter of the new edition refer to 1996–97. The bibliography does not extend beyond works published in the mid-1990s, with the exception of one published in 1998, for which the bibliographic details are incorrect.

In my review of the 2000 edition of this book, I pointed out that the Soviet-era modernization of Central Asia “radically reshaped the public domain and influenced many areas of private life”. I highlighted the significance of free and universal education, the emancipation of women and “the role of the Communist Party, not only as an ideological force, but as a channel for social mobility”. Developments such as these shaped the “new” Central Asia, yet Roy either ignored them or else deemed them worthy of no more than a cursory mention. Instead, I suggested in my review, he had adopted an “orientalizing” approach that picked out the exotic elements in Central Asian societies without attempting to set them in context. I stand by this today, but I would now go further and say that this attitude, which at the time was shared by many in the West (United States and European Union member states), obscured the realities of the situation. To take but one example, Roy's confident assumption that there would be a de-linking from Russia, and a concomitant rise in the influence of the United States, is symptomatic of a wider failure to grasp the complexity of regional dynamics. The result of these miscalculations has been that Western policies in Central Asia have been largely ineffective.

The Central Asian states gained independence unexpectedly, without prior preparation. The early 1990s were marked by trauma and upheaval. They could have descended into chaos and conflict. In fact, with the exception of the civil war in Tajikistan (the peace treaty signed in 1997 is still holding) the transition from Soviet republic to independent statehood has been remarkably orderly. The changes that have taken place over the past seventeen-odd years are enormous. Certainly these states have many problems, some inherited, some of their own making. Yet they have also initiated serious and innovative measures to address these problems. Inevitably, they have not always been successful. They are, after all, following new and untried paths. However, in all these states there is a sense of direction and purpose. They are not looking for “mentors” or “patrons”, but partners with whom they can co-operate on a basis of equality and mutual benefit. If the West (governments, business corporations, non-governmental organizations and so on) wishes to engage with these states, a sober, nuanced understanding of regional developments is essential. Surely it is time to relegate “orientalist” interpretations to the realm of historiography.