Writing in The Baltimore Sun, RAND’s Olga Oliker argues that the US should not entirely sever security ties with Uzbekistan. Because Uzbekistan’s path will have a major impact on the rest of the region,
This means that the United States must seek to maintain security ties with Uzbekistan, and not just because ending ties would hamper existing cooperation. With business contacts shrunk and direct democratization assistance refused, cessation of what remains would close off Uzbekistan entirely. The U.S. record of bringing democracy to the less-democratic countries it cooperates with – and there are many besides Uzbekistan – is mixed. America’s record of democratizing countries with which it has no ties, however, is nonexistent.
Moreover, U.S. security contacts with Uzbekistan can advance democratic goals. Such ties can demonstrate to Uzbek security personnel that respect for human rights is not incompatible with security. Contacts also maintain U.S. links with more-moderate elements within the Uzbek government and might embolden them. The contacts also provide an awareness of developments and links to nongovernmental types. Thus, they might help prevent future Andijans.
Those who’ve been reading for a while will surely recognize that Oliker’s argument is similar to my own previous arguments against severing ties with Uzbekistan. So, I do agree with her in principle.
However, the Uzbek government’s attitude towards the US as evinced by recent statements from Uzbek officials and columns in the Uzbek media (and even public celebrations) is extremely hostile. In the face of what is surely strong pressure on even the most moderate and Western of Uzbek military officers and bureaucrats, I see little reason to believe that close US-Uzbek contacts will produce appreciable benefits beyond merely hoping they might.
That’s not to say that I advocate severing these ties with Uzbekistan. As I said, I agree with Oliker’s argument in principle. I continue to believe however that now is not at all the right time for the US to be putting effort into repairing the relationship. Especially when the Uzbek government has made it glaringly obvious that they have absolutely no commitment–not even the rhetorical and occasionally minorly realistic one they have shown in the past–to producing the kind of reforms needed.
Rather, let Uzbekistan stay in the driver’s seat of this relationship for a while longer and wildly steer it all over the road and spend time coming up with what steps the West can take to improve the situation in Uzbekistan.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments }
Nathan, I’m sure your argument along the same lines would be far more nuanced – this is just badly written and poorly argued. I don’t think the Uzbek govt really has “shared goals includ[ing] the fights against terrorism, narcotics-trafficking, other transnational crime’ as Olga puts it. The Uzbek govt has the goal of remaining in power. Period. If you think the alternative might be worse, then I can see there might be a valid argument for not undermining them too much, but repeating old chestnuts like ’security links leads to democratisation’ is not terribly useful. Security links should serve security needs. Education, health, culture, business, sure. But more counter-terrorism training for Uzbek policemen? Surely enough already.
Thanks. I agree that this is not a particularly well written argument. I was surprised to see it at all in a US paper at this time though.
I certainly think that she’s missing that while both the US and Uzbekistan share those goals, the Uzbeks, as you say, do so because they are a direct threat to the power of the regime rather than because they are ills in and of themselves.
What I didn’t mention in the post because I felt like it opened up the need for a few more paragraphs I didn’t feel like writing is that I think one of the advantages of Uzbek hostility towards the West and the weakening of ties is that it affords us a greater opportunity to speak more bluntly and to take steps that more directly undermine the government. Not that I think that we will unless officials in Washington suddenly decide Uzbekistan is a high priority. But I do hold out some hope that Chris Smith and a few other members of Congress will press for some sort of concrete and meaningful response.
Comments on this entry are closed.