 |
| Volume XIV, Spring 2007, Number 1 |
| |
ABSTRACT
Uzbekistan and the United States: Friends Or Foes?
|
| |
| Shahram Akbarzadeh |
| |
Dr. Akbarzadeh is an associate professor in global politics at Monash University in Victoria, Australia.
On July 7, 2005, Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the United States of failing to honor its financial obligations towards Uzbekistan. This was a transparent excuse. The United States had no financial obligations towards Uzbekistan. The Uzbek communiqué was the precursor to a formal eviction notice. Tashkent gave U.S. forces 180 days to leave the Karshi-Khanabad Air Base. This brought an end to a strategic partnership that was forged in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Tashkent’s move surprised many observers at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight it is reasonable to argue that the writing had already been on the wall for months. This paper examines the dynamics of U.S.-Uzbek relations and the single most important factor that broke the alliance.
A critical factor in policy making in post-Soviet Central Asia is the confluence of “national interests” with “regime interests.” This is, of course, not unique; as a general rule, authoritarian regimes exhibit a pronounced tendency to project their own interests onto the nation. “National interests,” in effect, become a euphemism for what is in the best interest of the ruling regime. This confusion is exaggerated in Central Asia. For example, in Turkmenistan, the late president named cities after himself or his mother and even renamed the months of the year after his mother. This is an extreme case. But other leaders are not far behind. In Uzbekistan, the ruling regime has systematically presented President Islam Karimov as the savior of the nation, a reincarnation of the fourteenth century hero and champion of Uzbek traditions, Amir Timur. In this paradigm, President Karimov and his government have an exclusive monopoly on defining what is in the best interests of the nation. Regime continuity, therefore, is seen by those in power as synonymous with national security.
|
| |
|
