last week, while all the hoopla about reagan's death was going on, i asked a friend in uzbekistan what she thought of him. it started an fairly interesting back and forth over email.
like virtually everyone i met in uzbekistan, my friend wishes the soviet union was still around. when i was in uzbekistan the first couple of times i heard a local talk about the soviet union it surprised me. for years i had assumed (like most people in the u.s.) that the collapse of the soviet state was a good thing for the people who lived in there. but in uzbekistan, at least, i was hard pressed to find anyone who was happy to see the soviet union go. and these were not the old-school communist or russian nationalists you see photos of parading around moscow on may day. in fact, most of the people i spoke to about the issue were neither russian nor communists. their concern was less ideological than practical--with the fall of the soviet union came the collapse of their economy and a significant drop in their standard of living. in russia, one can argue that the economic collapse was at least in exchange for gains in political freedom (even though modern russia is not really a real democracy, one can still make that argument). in uzbekistan, on the other hand, their living standard dropped but they got no political liberalization in return. in fact, the people of uzbekistan probably have less freedom today than they did in the final decade of the soviet union.
so anyway, before i wrote my email last week i knew that my friend hated mikhail gorbachev and blamed him for the collapse of the soviet union. because in the u.s. many credited reagan for causing the collapse, i was curious what she would think of him. surprisingly, she had almost entirely positive views of reagan. although she didn't cite any specific examples, she thought he was "peaceful." not a word even reagan's fans in the u.s. often use about him. she also did not think reagan caused the collapse of the soviet union. she blamed gorbachev, not reagan. as she put it: "If Putin had been President then, there would still be a Soviet Union." (i edited her quote for grammar)
my friend's views reflect a largely positive view of the u.s. that prevails in uzbekistan. when i was there i met a few people who were critical of the u.s' role in the iraq war, but mostly i experienced apolitical good will towards anything american.
so i was thinking about that when i came across this post by chris at explanda, including nathan's comment to that post. chris' point seems to be that if the u.s. supports autocratic regimes like the karimov government in uzbekistan, it will ultimately backfire, damaging american credibility with the uzbek people. nathan (at least partly) disagrees, noting the general good will towards americans among uzbeks and the fact that most americans they come into contact with seem to be working against their government. is it possible that both are right? nathan, it seems, is talking about the present. chris, the future (i.e. the long term dangers in supporting the karimov regime). whatever good will exists in the present among uzbeks can change over time
but the original question chris sought to address was whether the u.s. should cut off aid to uzbekistan. and to that question i have decidedly mixed feelings. the friend i mentioned at the beginning of this post works for an NGO that depends largely on aid money. an aid cut-off might make her lose her job. will that accomplish anything positive for uzbekistan? it's hard to imagine that will do anything but poison the feelings of good-will most uzbeks have towards america.
it's not clear to me how much of the proposed aid cut off is aid directly to the uzbek government (like military aid) and how much ends up in craftmaking co-ops like the one in lyab-i-hauz in bukhara. i just googled around a little but couldn't figure out what specifically is being proposed. does anyone know?
