IMPLICATIONS: A violent outcome in Uzbekistan would have potentially catastrophic repercussions for the war in Afghanistan and the greater global war on terrorism. It would create another front for the terrorists and their allies and would inevitably draw in one or another great power who felt obliged to protect its investment. Since Uzbekistan is the largest, most centrally located country in Central Asia, civil strife there, whatever its outcome, has immediate and significant repercussions that could even transcend Central Asia. Yet at present, for all intents and purposes Washington has nobody to speak to in governing circles and no way to make its support for reform pay off even to a modest degree. The Western punishment of Karimov for the Andizhan crackdown, which, however horrible, is not an open and shut case of a massacre of the innocents, has had predictable results. The Western indictment of Uzbekistan has led Karimov to take the country into the Russo-Chinese camp even at the expense of any hope for reform, progress, or for the full recovery of Uzbekistan’s sovereignty and freedom of maneuver in world politics. Under the circumstances, Uzbekistan’s loss of external freedom mirrors its growing internal gloom. Certainly we cannot say that the punishment of Uzbekistan had advanced the cause of democratic or even liberal reforms in that country. Neither is there any real chance for such reforms taking place as long as Moscow and Beijing support repression and encourage it even though the country may be slouching toward uncharted waters. Since there will eventually be a succession and new elite bargains among the rival factions and clans around Karimov, leaving the field to Moscow and Beijing means continuing to abandon the country to their tender mercies. But since it is all too likely that the course of action that those great power patrons would prefer for Uzbekistan will almost certainly drive it into conflict, affecting vital American interests, but where America has no voice, it is not too difficult to conceive of a strategic justification for seeking re-engagement, even at a lower level and on an agenda that could yield mutual gains for both sides. Reengagement can only be achieved if it takes place in an atmosphere where mutual confidence among the interlocutors is steadily reinforced, even if only in small issues or urgent ones like nuclear waste removal. Otherwise, it seems all too clear that no matter how brutal a regime this is, American interests and values will be put further at risk if the most likely outcome of present trends is allowed to come about without any effort to reverse that tide of events.
CONCLUSIONS: Every Administration spokesman and many experts who testified before Congress before Andijan, and some who have written about Uzbekistan since, have argued on behalf of reengaging Tashkent. It is not difficult to make the case on both strategic and democratic grounds that it is against our interests and values to have no voice in what is happening there or to be utterly unable to influence the course of events. While it may be necessary to engage the country mainly if not solely in long-term projects to help alleviate immediate distress, a so called “lifeboat strategy”; doing so not only shows the American hand in Uzbekistan, it also helps to restore connections to key socio-economic and political actors with whom a continuing dialogue is essential. Such a program of action also enables us to begin acting purposefully to avoid what would almost certainly otherwise be the descent of Uzbekistan into the maelstrom of civic violence should the regime falter or a succession crisis take place. Inasmuch as observers believe either or both of these alternatives to be likely, a countervailing course of action commends itself or should commend itself to policymakers. There clearly is no gain, moral or otherwise, from leaving the field exclusively to Moscow and Beijing who have not the slightest interest in democratic reform or even in liberalization which in itself would be a major step forward. Thus one can easily construct the kind of justification for reengaging Uzbekistan that may be making the rounds of those who support Vice President Cheney’s recent initiative. Undoubtedly there is a case to be made for the other side. But apart from the benefit of taking a stand on principle, even though we have hailed Kazakhstan, hardly a beacon of reform, as a leader in Central Asia, the tangible benefits of such a position have yet to make themselves visible.
AUTHOR’S BIO: Professor Stephen Blank, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013. The views expressed here do not represent those of the US Army, Defense Department, or Government.