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.

Daniel F. Runde is a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He is also the author of the book The American Imperative: Reclaiming Global Leadership Through Soft Power (Bombardier Books, 2023).

Image: Veggiewayfarer / Shutterstock.com.