Spotlight on Uzbekistan
159
proactive, outward-looking but balanced policy. The debate about the Eurasian Economic Union
(EAEU) clearly has a geo-political dimension (for Russia it remains primarily a political project), but
the decision over Uzbek membership needs to be driven by whether it delivers real economic
benefits for Uzbekistan in terms of its trade within Central Asia and its economic relationships with
Russia (a calculus that may have changed if the reduction of migrant work remains supressed into
the long-term post-pandemic). The parallel push for World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership
should not meaningfully interfere with decision making on the EAEU (given that all but Belarus are
also WTO members) and will help diversify Uzbekistan’s options. Western partners such the
European Union, United States and United Kingdom (UK) can have an important part to play in
engaging with Uzbekistan, providing partnerships than can help potentially balance (though not
replace) Uzbekistan’s need to work with Russia and China. Years of diminishing regional engagement
have reduced the West’s leverage but some remains and it needs to be focused on supporting
Uzbekistan to keep moving forward on its reforms rather than retrenching. This does involve the
scaling up of both technical and financial assistance, while ensuring that international partners and
institutions on the ground retain the capacity to criticise when and where things are going wrong as
well as championing what is being done right. Western jurisdictions need to take further action to
prevent their financial systems being used to shelter illicit Uzbek wealth. In the UK for example this
needs to involve prosecuting mysterious companies which submit false or improper filings, reforming
the rules around ‘Scottish Limited Partnerships’ and applying further pressure for the transparency in
the Crown dependencies.
Regarding the important emerging partnerships in the education sector, if Western institutions and
organisations are putting their names to campuses, courses and curriculums they need to play an
active role in ensuring that student and academics working in those systems have greater academic
freedom than would be possible in the wider Uzbek system. This is particularly relevant in higher
education, and if the situation on Uzbek campuses does not move closer to achieving standards
comparable with their own institutions they should rethink the partnerships.
The international community faces a tricky balancing act, rewarding reformers for their efforts and
ensuring these partners have the political capital within the Government to keep moving forwards,
while not ignoring or excusing the considerable problems the country still faces. A clear test of this
balancing act is the how to respond to Uzbekistan’s candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council and
its bid for the Asian Games. A few years ago, the recommendation from independent observers
would have been simple, it would not have been appropriate for Uzbekistan to get these honours.
Now, in the context of ‘a lot done, a lot still to do’ finding an answer is more challenging. A potential
solution would be making support for Uzbekistan’s membership of the Human Rights Council and
hosting the games conditional on a human rights health check by international partners (both NGOs,
institutions and international partner governments), and further action by the Uzbek Government on
issues raised in this publication including NGO registration and torture in order for the international
community to be able to give the green light.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: