ABSTRACT
This conclusion presents some closing thoughts on the concepts discussed in this book. The book shows that the ideas and public positions taken by Karimov mattered when accounting for Uzbekistan's international interaction, by looking at the historical developments of each relationship and the degree to which self-ascribed roles were compatible or not. The book agrees largely with Cooley who suggests that besides so-called great game analogies, it is also crucial to understand the position of Central Asian actors themselves. It reviews the claims and attempts to evaluate the consequences of Uzbeki-stan's overall foreign policy. The book adopts Andrei Tsygankov's (2016) four criteria of analyses – security, welfare, autonomy and identity – in order to discuss the successes and failures of Karimov's foreign policy legacy. It reviews those claims and attempts to evaluate the consequences of Uzbeki-stan's overall foreign policy. The book concludes with a brief discussion on potential trends for Karimov's successor, Uzbekistan's second president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev.
