A US Senate delegation has visited Uzbekistan to promote economic cooperation. An implicit understanding is in place in which the United States will provide assistance in return for Uzbek action on economic and political reforms. Several international observers, however, express concern that the United States will not enforce the deal, thus allowing the Uzbek government to enrich itself without easing the Central Asian nation's tightly state-controlled economic and political framework.

The senate delegation, led by Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut) and John McCain (R-Arizona), met January 6 with President Islam Karimov and other Uzbek defense and political leaders. "Our interest in the region post September 11 is going to be permanent and, I believe, constructive to economic development and to the spread of democracy, freedom and opportunity," McCain said.

The senators thanked Karimov for Uzbekistan's ongoing strategic assistance in the anti-terrorism campaign. Since late September, US forces have utilized Uzbek military facilities for conducting military operations in neighboring Afghanistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Lieberman said United States now sought to expand economic ties with Uzbekistan, establishing a "long lasting, constructive, mutually beneficial relationship with the nations and people of Central Asia, which we feel will be in the interest of stability and security and freedom."

In December, US and Uzbek officials discussed the framework for an economic stimulus package, including credits for small business development. At the time, both sides signed a memorandum of understanding. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. As part of that memo, Uzbekistan expressed its willingness to introduce the convertibility of its national currency, the som, and to improve the foreign investment climate.

According to Lieberman, Uzbekistan can expect the United States "to be supportive as we've tried to be for instance in International Monetary Fund relationship with this country to work together to adopt a favorable investment climate, a climate in which American capital and business can succeed." Last April, the IMF left Uzbekistan for the failure of the government to make any economic reforms.

An implicit understanding of the economic bargain was that Uzbekistan would also proceed with democratization, including improving the country's human rights climate. "Unless Uzbekistan continues to move in that direction there will be limits on the support that we can give," Lieberman said.

Lieberman's comment did not reassure human rights observers in Uzbekistan. Several voiced doubts about Uzbekistan's commitment to fulfilling its end of the bargain concerning civil society improvements. They also tend to believe that security concerns will prompt the United States not to hold Uzbekistan accountable for its lack of action on reforms.

Matilda Bogner from Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the United States might pour in a lot of money on the condition of human rights reforms, but that that human rights "will be put on the back burner and that other interests such as security will take the front seat." She cites past instances in which "there was talk about human rights, but the money came in even though the human rights situation wasn't improving."

According to Lieberman, President Karimov acknowledged the shortcomings of his country's human rights record. "He was quite direct in saying that Uzbekistan is at a stage of its national development a little more than a decade after declaring independence from its Soviet communist foundations, where the extent of democratization and human rights are not where they should be. But the question is: what is the direction in which it's going?"

Some observers said that the president's response is his typical response to foreign delegations and journalists. According to David Lewis from the International Crisis Group, "this 'it's only been ten years' argument is particularly specious - it's actually taken 10 years to make the human rights situation probably worse than it was under the Soviet regime."

Human rights monitors point out that there are currently an estimated 7,600 political prisoners in Uzbekistan, whereas there were none 10 years ago. "In other words Uzbekistan has been going backward, at least since 1992, not moving very slowly and carefully in the right direction, which I think some slightly naive foreigners think or would like to think," Lewis said. He characterized US policy in Uzbekistan as "schizophrenic," saying "[the Department of] Defense has a very different agenda from State, and at present it is Defense that seems to be running the show."

In terms of democratization, recent political activity in Uzbekistan seems to indicate regression. Shortly before the December visit by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Uzbek Parliament endorsed a proposal to extend President Islam Karimov's term for life. "You would think the referendum would be something that visitors would bring up with the government here, in terms of marking progress in terms of democratization," said Bogner. "I think it would show that democratization hasn't gone too far in this country."

In Tashkent, Lieberman recognized the importance of changing the political climate in Uzbekistan. "One of the lessons that I think we've learned in the last four months is that where there is not freedom and economic opportunity there is the grounds in which extremism can grow," Lieberman said.

Despite such recognition, Lewis gives a skeptical prognosis for Uzbek-US relations: "In the long term Uzbekistan needs the US more than the US needs Uzbekistan. At present, it is only the military logistics that make Uzbekistan an important partner [for the United States]. Once the need for logistical support is gone, the relationship will be much more tenuous. Uzbekistan, in the end, is not China and it's not Saudi Arabia."