Central Asia, particularly Uzbekistan, deserves more attention from America and the West. In the face of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and great power competition with China, the United States should build stronger diplomatic ties with Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries to enhance regional stability, counterbalance Russian and Chinese influence, and promote democratic values. Uzbekistan would clearly prefer a stronger relationship with the United States. And with some effort on our part, the United States could create new partnership options for Uzbekistan beyond Russia or the PRC. To make this happen, we must show up for Uzbekistan.?? 

Central Asia has a population of 80 million people. Uzbekistan, the region’s most populated country, boasts 36 million inhabitants. Uzbekistan could be more populous than Ukraine due to Russia’s illegal war, which forced many Ukrainians to flee for their safety. The population is quickly growing at a rate of around 2 percent per year. The country is landlocked and is located in a rough neighborhood, surrounded by Russia, China, Afghanistan, and Iran.

As a post-Soviet state, Uzbekistan has close historic ties to Russia, and yet Beijing has replaced Moscow as its largest trading partner over the last seven years. In 2017, China and Uzbekistan conducted $4.2 billion in trade. This number increased to approximately $14 billion in 2023. Russia and Uzbekistan’s trade volume was around $4.5 billion in 2017 and increased to $10 billion in 2023. Meanwhile, trade turnover between the United States and Uzbekistan was $355 million in 2018 and increased to $650 million in 2023.?? 

Uzbekistan would like to see more U.S. and European Union trade and investment to diversify its economy, strengthen political ties, and advance infrastructure and reform efforts.?The country has much going for it. First, it has a large and educated young population. Uzbekistan has made significant progress with youth and gender policies, such as ensuring equal pay and working toward the elimination of child labor. Second, Uzbekistan is rich in critical minerals, such as gold, copper, tungsten, and uranium. The country is ranked eleventh among countries with the largest reserves of copper in the world and is the fifth largest supplier of uranium. Finally, Uzbekistan is an enormous manufacturing hub. A massive General Motors factory is located in Uzbekistan. With its capabilities, Uzbekistan could be a “friend-shoring” partner of the United States.? ?? 

Uzbekistan seeks more engagement with the United States through bilateral efforts and the “C5+1” (the five Central Asian countries plus the United States) diplomatic platform. We might never become Uzbekistan’s best friend. However, we could become better and more reliable friends. Uzbekistan has five bordering countries, and at one point in the early 2000s, it considered the United States its “sixth neighbor,” the way that Mongolia, which Russia and China surround, considers the United States its “third neighbor.” When the U.S. government was active in Afghanistan, we supported Uzbekistan’s efforts to develop its economy and invest in its own security. With our disengagement from Afghanistan, we need to look at Uzbekistan as the valued partner that it could be and re-engage.?We should work towards the day that Uzbekistan considers the United States its “sixth neighbor” again.

Uzbekistan has a range of objectives that the United States could help achieve. Some are relatively easy to tackle, while others are much harder:?? 

1) On the easier side, Uzbekistan would like support from the United States to become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). While the United States has provided technical assistance, Uzbekistan’s project to join the WTO has been on and off for almost thirty years, as has the government of Uzbekistan’s willingness to implement the WTO-required policy reforms.

On a recent trip to Uzbekistan, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai conveyed America’s support for Uzbekistan’s accession process. USAID, the foreign aid arm of the U.S. government, has been working closely with Uzbekistan on this issue, but larger-scale engagement with U.S. institutions such as the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), Export-Import Bank (EXIM), or U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) could help Uzbekistan deepen its trade ties with the United States ?? 

2) Uzbekistan and several Central Asian countries want to see the removal of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the 1974 Trade Act. Originally created in response to the shameful restrictive emigration policies in the Soviet Union towards Jews and other minority groups, the amendment has outworn its usefulness as these religious groups were able to leave what was the former Soviet Union decades ago. Jackson-Vanik now restricts normal trade relations with several existing and former nonmarket economies, including Uzbekistan. For countries like Uzbekistan, Jackson-Vanik is a sign of disrespect that encourages them to take their business to China, Russia, Turkey, or the Gulf. ?? 

In general, the Jackson-Vanik amendment technically treats these independent countries as if they were still part of the Soviet Union, something which grates on their sense of identity and fails to recognize the progress they have made since independence. Repealing this legislation will demonstrate that we want to treat Uzbekistan and others as partners, not as wayward “pupils” or “Soviet Republics.”?? 

3) Many developing countries, including Uzbekistan, would like to see Congress successfully renew the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), a trade preference program. The GSP benefited many developing countries as it provided duty-free treatment for their products.?With the absence of this program, trade volumes between Uzbekistan and the United States have not been as impressive as they might have been. Compare U.S. trade with Uzbekistan and Uzbekistan’s trade with China, Russia, or the EU. The lapse of the U.S. GSP has had a real impact on our influence in places like Uzbekistan. In Washington, the GSP is seen as part of a larger negotiation over issues such as trade adjustment assistance or trade promotion authority. 

In the capitals of countries like Uzbekistan, failure to renew the U.S. GSP program is a strong signal (in their minds) that we do not care about them.? 

With the absence of a GSP with the United States, developing countries such as Uzbekistan are incentivized to trade with China or Europe. It is important to note that Uzbekistan has a successful GSP relationship with Europe that has led to a growth in trade at the expense of China. Trade turnover between Uzbekistan and the EU increased from $3.9 billion in 2021 to $5.8 billion in 2023. Renewing the U.S. GSP would give Uzbekistan the ability to diversify its markets further away from Russia and China. ?? 

4) Uzbekistan wants to partner with the United States on regional connectivity. Uzbekistan is “double landlocked,” meaning one must travel through two countries in any direction to get to the ocean.?Most of Uzbekistan’s transit options have historically gone through Russia, the so-called “Northern Corridor.” These routes have been disrupted because of Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine. ? 

Uzbekistan would like new options. ?Some of these options are going to be harder for the United States to support, at least in the short run, including options that run through Afghanistan, Iran, and China. These links are essential to Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries. We can’t just tell Uzbekistan, “You can’t use any of these routes,” or “We are not going to help you at all. Figure this out yourselves.” We can’t fight something with nothing. What is our something?

The alternative where the United States can be most helpful right now is in broadening the so-called “Middle Corridor” through Kazakhstan and potentially a “Trans-Caucasus Transit Corridor” through Turkmenistan onwards through Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, the Black Sea or the Caucasus onto Europe. Uzbekistan already uses the Middle Corridor, a route that connects Asia and Europe via two ports in Kazakhstan on the Caspian Sea, for transportation. There is significant interest in developing a rail link to the Turkmenbashi port in Turkmenistan. The United States might support this new route through Turkmenistan due to Turkmenistan’s efforts to modernize its transportation infrastructure. The Ukraine War is diverting the transit of goods and energy away from Russia, giving the Middle Corridor the chance to become the preferred path of commerce. ?? 

The Middle Corridor has developed over the past few years thanks to various investment projects by entities, including European financial institutions. The Middle Corridor has many advantages, like enhanced security and a shorter travel time. At the beginning of 2023, the total weight of shipments increased by about 65 percent from the same period in 2022. However, the corridor has limited capacity, and further developments are needed to prevent traffic throughout the route. These include improvements in security, more efficient customs and transfer processes, and an expansion in capacity. Regional security is another concern but can be resolved with international cooperation. Within the “Middle Corridor,” the “Trans-Caucasus Transport Corridor,” while not as developed, has also improved over the past couple of years. This route strengthens trade between the Southern Caucuses and the global market. Similar developments are needed, as well as transparent access to infrastructure, an increase in investments, and greater regional cooperation between Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey.

One way or the other, it is in the United States’ interest to be seen as helping Uzbekistan sort out its logistics and connectivity issues. Uzbekistan is a country that is growing rapidly and has an enormous industrial base with an enormous reserve of minerals. ?It boasts a growing IT sector and would like to diversify its relations in addition to its traditional ties with Russia and the PRC. Regardless of the U.S. elections, it is in our interest to strengthen our relationships with Uzbekistan and other Central Asian states.? 

5) The United States could have had a Bilateral Investment Treaty with Uzbekistan, a sort of “pre-free trade agreement.” The paperwork on the “BIT” was not completed for a series of reasons. First, there was a problem with Uzbekistan in 2005 when the government crushed riots in a regional city, prompting criticism from Washington.?Uzbekistan retaliated by kicking us out of the “K2” military base used for the Afghan War. This was twenty years ago.?In the last fifteen years, the appetite for new trade agreements of any kind has lapsed.?So, the BIT with Uzbekistan languished and could be dusted off and “enacted.” ?A new administration might take the opportunity to dust this off and sign it.

Many of Uzbekistan’s “asks” of the United States are feasible. With a bit of effort, we could deepen our partnership. Uzbekistan is seeking a closer relationship with us, and we can find ways to give them options away from Russia and the PRC. Every time Uzbekistan chooses someone other than Russia or China, it is a win for America.