ABSTRACT
Uzbekistan is Central Asia’s most populous and militarily powerful state. It also shares a border with Afghanistan and every other Central Asian state. It was, as such, likely to come to play a significant role in the war on terror. According to regional expert Shahram Akbarzadeh, Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov had eagerly pursued a partnership with the US long before September 11. During the first decade of its independence, Uzbekistan deliberately and systematically sought to align its foreign policy with that of the United States. This included pro-Amer ican positions on Iran, Iraq, Israel, and the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet Union. The response from the Clinton administration was ambivalent, however, as there were concerns in Washington over Karimov’s autocratic style of governance.1 As noted, every presidential doctrine features its own tense combination of realism and liberalism. These tensions were illustrated in 1996 by the contrast between Karimov’s cool reception at the White House and the friendly meeting he had with the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon.2 America’s Uzbekistan policy began to shift towards engagement around 1998, partly as a result of terrorist actions by Al Qaeda (and later the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan), as well as the Congressional testimonies of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Martha Brill Olcott. Former National Security Advisor Brzezinski argued that Central Asia was important because of its natural resources and the threats posed by the prospect of spiralling conflict and state failure. Carnegie Endowment expert Olcott’s testimony focused on Uzbekistan’s critical role in regional stability, arguing that large-scale unrest would inevitably spill over to the neighbouring states. Shortly afterwards, the Senate approved the Security Assistance Act of 1998 and the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1998. The former gave Uzbekistan access to some defence articles and services while the latter was meant to support the development of transport infrastructure, energy extraction, and democratic reform. The Tashkent bombings in February 1999 helped to justify the provision of security assistance. Although the war on terror certainly saw a dramatic rise in engagement between the US and Uzbekistan, this was still part of the pattern that had begun under Clinton.3
