Tolipov, Farxod. "The OSCE in Central Asia: Victim of Geopolitics or Promoter of Democracy? A View from Uzbekistan". Bishkek: OSCE Academy. 2015.

Tolipov, Farxod. The OSCE in Central Asia: Victim of Geopolitics or Promoter of Democracy? A View from Uzbekistan. Bishkek: OSCE Academy. 2015.

• The Central Asian republics have a history of violence and insecurity within an already unstable region. This situation is compounded by an inability for any state to become the regional hegemon and enforce order. The OSCE has tried to take on this role in recent years, with extremely failure (3).
• The OSCE's position has been criticized by all Central Asian republics for inefficiency and overemphasis on issues of democracy and human rights. Despite these setbacks and a widespread belief of American ideological propaganda, the author believes that the OSCE needs to stress these principles even more, or risk becoming a different sort of organization (4).
• Brief history of Uzbekistani participation with the OSCE: "Uzbekistan became a member of the then CSCE on 26 February 1992, and its representation was opened in Vienna in 1994. The OSCE Liaison Office for Central Asia was opened in October 1995 in Tashkent. Afterwards, missions of the Organization were opened in other countries of the region (in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan by 1999 and Tajikistan yet in 1994). Therefore, the mission in Tashkent was renamed into OSCE Centre in Tashkent" (5).
• The OSCE Mission to Uzbekistan has been downsized recently. Additionally, the mission there must receive permission for all projects from the Tashqi Ishlar Vazirligi (9).
• The political system created in Uzbekistan is one of 'filtered democracy', with discussion of democracy and controversial topics the privilege of a few experts within a narrow range of pro-regime opinions. This limited concept of democracy -- sold as 'authentically Uzbek' and cultural specific -- is then sold to the people, who believe it to be the only legitimate system in their region (7).
• Uzbekistan's position as a low-level member in multiple international fora and security organizations leaves it in a precarious position where its non-alignment prevent intensive (and useful) integration. This is symptomatic of 'heavy realism' influencing foreign policy and eliminating ideology in determination of alliance structure (10).
• This is esp. true of security structures, where Uzbekistan has become partially integrated in reformist, conservative, Western, and anti-Western structures. This presents a potential internal conflict of interest within the republic (11). 
• The OSCE mission in Uzbekistan and other missions in Central Asia must enforce the totality of the OSCE's norms and moral obligations in that region. The author argues that not only can we not allow concerns of cultural bias from prevent the instillment of democracy, but that we must actively fight against such claims created by authoritarian states for the purpose of deflecting blame (15).
• The OSCE needs to stop treating its European members differently from its Eurasian members, this leads to double-standards in one-direction and the perpetuation of human rights abuses in the other (17).