Central Asia

The world is getting better, in some ways slowly, in other ways fast. What I mean by ‘better’ is a more safe and prosperous life for the average world citizen. But the world is also a very challenging place, and ripe with conflict, even in our ‘postmodern’ liberal-democracy-led 21st century. Two cases stemming from Afghanistan, but also taking part just outside the US border, present a stark contrast to an ever improving world. They are the targeting of international aid workers for violence and terrorism and the false imprisonment of innocents in the war on terror. The blame can go around, and at times the lines can be blurry, but these two incidences are one thing, wrong.

Just over a week ago, Taliban forces killed three female educators and a driver with the International Rescue Committee. Was this an accident? Did the Taliban target them specifically? It was no accident, as the Taliban claimed the attack was in revenge for a NATO strike against an Afghan wedding party. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have outright stated that they will target the United Nations as ‘direct enemies aiming to change the fabric of Muslim society.’ Last December, 17 UN workers were killed and 40 others injured in an Al Qaeda suicide attack in Algeria. And we must never forget the tremendous attack against Vieira de Mello and his UN staff in Baghdad, killing him and 21 others. International aid workers and volunteers are increasingly being lumped in with Western governmental and military forces in targeted attacks by extremists.

Samantha Powers, a Harvard professor writing a book about de Mello, offers recommendations about how to stop or at least minimize these attacks, none of them inspiring. 1. No choice but reduce physical presence of aid workers, as even nationalizing the force has not proven to lessen the attacks; 80% of UN civilians killed in the last 15 years have been local staff. 2. UN nations must pay regular dues to provide security for humanitarian groups, no more voluntary payments. 3. Get more cooperation from host countries. Unfortunately most host countries are experiencing governance and security problems, that’s why the humanitarian workers are likely there. Powers recommendations, if followed, could definitely assist the aid worker’s security, but never completely. What is missing is a worldwide condemnation of this type of target. Where are the people standing up and saying ‘THIS IS NOT RIGHT!’? I’m about to discuss the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, a subject widely disparaged and protested, and in many ways rightly so, but where is the clamor against suicide attacks on humanitarian workers? Where is it?

An American-Afghani, Mahvish Rukhsana Khan, in 2005 volunteered to be an interpreter for Afghan prisoners in Guantanamo prison and has now written a book about her experiences there. The book goes deeper than that though, as she follows several of the released Afghans back to their homeland to find out how they were captured in the first place and how they are doing now. Khan writes, ‘I came to believe that many, perhaps even most, of the detainees were innocent men who’d been swept up by mistake.’ Khan mainly interpreted for Afghan prisoners who were caught in Pakistan by bounty hunters. This account leaves no doubt that in the fog of war the US picked up and imprisoned innocent Afghan citizens and caused them great grief and pain in numerous ways. I could sit here as a proud American and list several reasons why this was justified in the heat of war, but this would be wrong. Innocents are innocents. Though at times there will be wrongs, the US may mistakenly arrest a terrorist suspect who will be found to be innocent (and hopefully released as soon as possible) and humanitarian workers will be injured and killed by accident while in dangerous zones, but the outright targeting of innocents by Al Qaeda and the too loose approach of arrests by the US after 9/11 were wrong. The only difference is the US feels shame when it does wrong and works to correct its past, present, and future efforts, where is Al Qaeda’s evil actions give them pride and are here to stay.

How closely related are these two crimes against humanity?  Why has there been a large decrying of Guantanamo Bay, but not as loud a one against these attacks?

Chinese President Hu Jintao visits Tajikistan and Turkmenistan

That’s it. He’ll be visiting both states before and after the August 28th SCO summit in Dushanbe. It will be a Chinese leaders first visit to Turkmenistan in 13 years.

On July 22, just days before the Russian-Georgia conflict, US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher spoke before the OSCE Helsinki Commission regarding Kazakhstan’s democratic and human rights progress before their scheduled 2010 OSCE Chairmanship. Before we get into how the US views their progress so far, it’s never a bad idea to go over official US policy in Central Asia and Kazakhstan specifically.

Boucher stated; ‘We support the development of fully sovereign, stable democratic nations, integrated in to the world economy and cooperating wit one another…to advance regional security and stability. We do not view Kazakhstan or any other Central Asian nation as a part of any external state’s special sphere of influence (Georgia anyone?), and our relations are not based on competition with any other power.” It is interesting, but not surprising, to hear the contrast of China/Russia’s rhetoric toward the CA, basically ‘foreign entities should leave these nations alone,’ to the US’s ‘these nations should be allowed to work with anyone they want.’ Each side is just trying to promote their own interests, but the US/EU include a democratic/human rights element, which is needless to say very important and as we saw in Georgia, potentially destabilizing and dangerous. Boucher went on to describe the US three main goals in their ’strategic relationship’ with Kazakhstan: 1. Advance democratic and market economic reforms 2. Fight terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of WMDs 3. Foster the development of CA’s significant energy resources, supporting US companies.

OSCE Chairmanship Reforms

Boucher emphasized that the decision to grant Kazak the Chairmanship was ‘not one th US made quickly or easily’ and that the process was moved to 2010 to give the state enough time to implement democratic and liberal reforms regarding election laws, media rights, political party liberalization, and Kazak’s concrete support of the OSCE’s Human Dimension and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. So how are they doing so far? Overall, the US asserts that progress has been ‘uneven and slow’, but that the US/OSCE were putting the pressure on.

Election Law - The OSCE’s Central Election Commission has been working Kazak political parties, including the opposition, to make changes to the law and expects draft legislation to be ready by the end of this year.

Media Law - The government committed to reform their media law, especially regarding reducing criminal liability for defamation in the media and liberalizing registration procedures for all media outlets, and created a working group that has now begun work on new media legislation.

Political Parties - Opposition parties and NGO’s have put forth many recommended proposals to liberalize the nation’s laws and registration barriers, but the government has not yet engaged with the OSCE on legislation.

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights -  Unfortunately Kazakhstan has not yet begun to play a ‘proactive’ role in this OSCE Committee.

Boucher mentioned that the US was also pushing for overdue religious freedom reforms.  Alas, not much progress seems to have been made (Anyone have evidence to the contrary?), but the fact that the US/EU/OSCE and NGOs are working with the Kazak government on these issues should make a difference, if only a small one.  In light of the Georgian-Russian conflict, should the West be more careful in pushing reforms in Kazakhstan?  The opposite?  What measures or levers could the OSCE pull to get more progress in Kazakhstan regarding these reforms?  If major progress is not shown, should the Chairmanship be revoked?  What consequences would that have?  Where is Kazakhstan heading toward as a nation/government?  Toward the West?  East?  The answers to most of these are murky.  In fact, just as Kazakhstan is moving toward ever so slightly democratic reforms, its government is extending its reach over its increasingly powerful energy sector, buying up companies and pushing around foreign investors in ways that remind one of Gazprom.  What do these actions portend?

China, an autocratic state that directly denies the freedoms of the press, speech, religion, and assembly to its citizens, and has shown oppressive measures in dealing with its minority factions, among them Muslim Uighurs and the people of Tibet, is about to host a world event like no other, the Olympics. Now the US has shown in its history that it stands for the very opposite of what was detailed about China’s governmental rule, so should we expect a political and human rights outcry?  We should and it exists, as will be discussed, but unfortunately these issues cannot completely overshadow other realities that are also vital to US existence, for instance the tremendous amount of trade and debt between the two nations and the fact that China is a geopolitical force to be reckoned with in many parts of the globe. The US Congress and President Bush need to take both of these factors into account when they come up with a diplomatic posture toward China during this Olympic season.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning China’s anti-democratic and human rights activities at home and abroad. Here is the Resolution;

“H. Res. ____, Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end its abuses of the human rights of China’s citizens, including its Tibetan, Uighur, and other ethnic minority citizens and to end its support for the governments of Sudan and Burma to ensure that the Olympic games take place in an atmosphere that honors the Olympic traditions of freedom and openness.”

The New York Times editorial page praised this resolution and demanded more from President Bush who will be attending the opening ceremony. On Tuesday, Bush, who has been quiet on the issue thus far, met with 5 Chinese dissidents, Harry Wu, Wei Jingsheng, Rebiya Kadeer, Sasha Gong and Bob Fu at the White House. He assured them that ‘he will carry their message of freedom as he travels to Beijing.’ The very same day Bush met privately with China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, though what they discussed is unknown. Michael Green, an Asia expert and former Bush adviser, argued that Bush’s meeting with the dissidents was a big step, ‘these are people designed to get the Chinese’s attention. It was not just a political move to provide cover at home. It was an important move to let Chinese leaders know that he’s not satisfied with the progress.’

Bush is definitely playing it closer to the vest than the members of Congress, New York Times, or groups such as Amnesty International, and I think that is largely okay. (Isn’t it interesting that these are largely the same people who criticize Bush for not engaging with Iran and Hezbollah enough) Bush is the head of state and needs to show a certain amount of respect toward the Chinese people and the Olympics, he’s got to walk a fine line. I think it is productive to let members of Congress force the issue, as Congressman Howard Berman stated about the House resolution; it is a “direct call to China by the House of Representatives to end human rights abuses, honor its commitments for freedom of the press and freedom of movement ahead of the Olympics, permit peaceful political activities during the Games, enter into direct discussions with the Dalai Lama over the future of Tibet, and end its political and economic support of the regimes in Sudan and Burma”
The Chinese government has failed to make political reforms as Olympic hosts, as this story about their website blocking showcases, and this is indeed unfortunate, but groups and institutions like the US congress, EU, and Amnesty International need to keep the pressure on. And yes, I expect Bush to do more of this as well before, during, and after his visit, but in just a bit more nuanced way.

I’m a couple days late, actually with the saturated media coverage it seems much longer, but Presidential candidate Barack Obama visited Afghanistan, meeting with US troops and the Afghan leadership. Reports stated that he made the trip to highlight the nation as the main front as the war on terror, more so than Iraq. I was pleased to hear that Obama visited, or at least flew over, the Pakistan-Afghan border where the insurgency is the strongest and where most NATO/US soldiers are dying. As I wrote last week this strategic area is of vital importance to US, regional, and international security and has been widely misunderstood by US officials and the media at large, so hopefully Obama was able to provide himself a clearer picture of the conflict by his visit (which I must say is about time, why did it take him this long to checkout the war-torn/vital nation? Well I’m at in this parantheses opinion piece, I have been also less than thrilled with Presidential candidate John McCain’s emphasis on Afghanistan, the public needs to know what the US/NATO/Afghan government is up against.) In positive news, Obama is reportedly going to ask Europe to ’shoulder more of the burden to help deal with global security threats’ in his upcoming Berlin speech. The global security threats definitely include Afghanistan and hopefully a fresh dialogue of NATO’s role can be opened.

In a reversal from the past few years, Afghanistan has taken over Iraq as the top international news story in the US. We can only hope this leads to more educated and effective policy prescriptions by politicians, backed by a knowledgeable populace. Here are a few worthwhile stories about the Afghan situation. I will not call this a link dump, there is just too much to cover for me to comment on them all, so let’s call it a ‘link gentle lay down’ instead.

Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie asserted that Al Qaeda was for the most part leaving Iraq and that many of its members were heading to Afghanistan. The Ambassador stated, ‘’We have heard reports recently that many of the foreign fighters that were in Iraq have left, either back to their homeland or going to fight in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now seeming to be more suitable for al-Qaida fighters.'’ Good news for Iraq, bad news for Afghanistan. That seems to be the trend lately.

Top Pentagon officials have recommended hundreds of more troops for the Afghan effort, but the official recommendation hasn’t been approved by Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Mullen or Defense Secretary Gates. Obama, McCain, and top commanders in Afghanistan have recommended about 10,000 more troops for the war.

Nancy Hatch Dupree, director of the Afghanistan Center at Kabul University, advocates greater support for education and literacy development in Afghanistan in her New York Times Op-Ed ‘Rebuilding Afghanistan, One Book at a Time‘. The Taliban have made schools, specifically ones that teach girls, a central target in their insurgency against the Afghan government.

Lastly, the New York Times Magazine has a major article about Afghanistan’s drug trade, titled ‘Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?’ I have not had a chance to read the whole article, but here is a shorter preview about a former US official who apparently was the main source for the article. I will try to summarize and analyze the article at a later date.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

Unfortunately before the Olympic Games could even begin in China, a terrorist event has occurred. Two bombs exploded on commuter buses in the city of Kunming, killing two and injuring several others. The Chinese police would not officially classify the attack as a terrorist incident, but that’s what the evidence points too. The Chinese government’s number one concern at the current moment is to have a successful, peaceful, and ‘quiet’ Olympic Games and stopping terrorist attacks and boisterous political protests tops this agenda.

The Chinese authorities have taken many measures, some of them basic and some severe, to intimidate and curb possible terrorist or political groups and individuals from ‘acting out’ during the games. For the Chinese government, the Uighur majority province of Xinjiang is a major concern and they have taken many police actions there to keep a lid on region’s independence movement, much like the situation in Tibet. The government announced that they arrested 82 suspected terrorists from the region and to board a plane in the area’s Urumqi Airport a passenger has to go through six checkpoints. The Chinese authorities are specifically worried about the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), an underground separatist organization based in several CA states and in Xinjiang, and recently performed an atrocious act to intimidate the nation’s populace. Thousands of Chinese students and workers were bused into a city square and were made to watch the execution of three convicted ETIM members who were said to have plotted attacks on the games.

The Washington Post has covered these stories very well and had this to say about the consequences of such harsh anti-terror/protest police methods;

“With the Games three weeks away, the precautions already have proved so sweeping that some observers question whether the sense of fellowship and fun that is supposed to accompany the Olympics can survive. Alongside the crackdown against Muslim extremists here in Xinjiang, for instance, have come confusing new visa restrictions, multiple roadside checkpoints, reinforced pat-downs at airports and subway stations, and raids on bars popular among foreigners. The result has been an atmosphere of coercion, not celebration.”

For the Chinese government though, a safe and stable Olympics may be acceptable enough;

“A safe Olympics is the biggest indicator of the success of the Games,” Xi Jinping, a member of the party’s elite Politburo Standing Committee and the senior official supervising preparations, said in a recent speech. “A safe Olympics is also the biggest indicator of the positive reflection of our nation’s image.”

When you’re watching the Olympics and everything seems to be going swimmingly, just remember that behind the tranquility could be quite the eruption.

(Photo/Map Source: The Washington Post)

Kazakhstan has found itself in the news lately, firstly, to no one’s surprise concerning energy resources, as the nation has begun building a natural gas pipeline connecting Central Asia to China and Gazprom’s recent announcement that they expect to double the price they pay for Central Asian gas (bad news for their Euro customers as Russia will not be the last entity to foot the bill). However, Kazakhstan’s leader, capital, and 2010 Chairmanship of the OSCE provide just a few other reasons for it to be in Central Asia’s spotlight.

Chairmanship of OSCE - OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb paid a visit to Astana last week and met with President Nazarbayev, leader of Senate, Foreign Minister Tazhin, and political party and civil society representatives. Stubb stated “Central Asia plays a key role in the OSCE, both as a region facing several challenges and as an active participant and supporter of the Organization’s plans to intensify engagement with Afghanistan.’ In reference to Kazak’s future chairmanship, Stubb stated the nation had a “unique chance to demonstrate its leadership by preparing carefully and by adopting and implementing reforms.” Now what could these reforms be, possibly democratic? Indeed, Stubb went on; “we welcome progress achieved so far, and hope to see swift continuation of reforms in fields such as media, elections and political parties.” Stubb went on to be more specific about these reforms, speaking of freedom of assembly, elections, religious freedom and religious associations, and ‘emphasized’ the ‘need for all political forces in society to have a chance to be heard.’ It would be a wonderful thing if Nazarbayev and the Kazak government could respond to these words and the 2010 chairmanship with real reform in these key sectors.

Ban Ki-Moon and Astana and Nazarbayev’s Birthday - UN General Secretary Ki-Moon spoke about Kazakhstan and its capitol and president’s birthday as well, but he left out the part about democracy. He expressed ‘admiration’ with the role the nation plays in the ‘provision of peace and stability’ in the region and gave his ‘warmest wishes’ to Astana’s 10 year jubilee and Nazarbayev’s birthday. Here is a quick history of the Kazak capitol. Nazarbayev has made quite the effort in modernizing the city in recent years and just made a speech detailing future improvements to what he calls ‘Central Asia’s first postindustrial city.’ In the speech, he discussed the development of high technological productions, service sectors, and the hope that the city will continue to become a regional business center. He concluded his speech, ‘Astana will be a city of high standards.’

One more bit of Kazak news: High level meetings have taken place recently between the leaders of Hungary and Kazakhstan as trade between the two states has considerably increased in recent years. A Hungarian diplomat stated that they consider Kazakhstan as a strategic partner.

That’s all folks, I hope I covered at least half of Kazak news.

Freedom House put two new reports out in June of interest: Nations in Transit 2008 Annual Report and Supporting Freedom’s Advocates?: An Analysis of the Bush Administration FY2008 Budget Request for Democracy and Human Rights (Follow the link down the page and download the pdf under ‘Past Reports’) These reports are linked in an unfortunate way, the decreasingly open and democratic nature of Central Asia’s regime is key to both of them.

The Nations in Transit report ‘measures progress and setbacks in democratization in 29 countries and administrative areas from Central Europe to the Eurasian region of the Former Soviet Union.’ In its overall analysis of the former Soviet States, specifically in Central Asia, the report stated; ‘In distinct contrast to the trajectories of the other regions, the former Soviet Union has moved toward a more deeply anchored authoritarian, democratic accountability is an ever-scarcer commodity.’ Dierdre Tynan of Eurasianet.org gives an overview and analysis of the report’s findings here.

The Transit report grades each country from 1-7, with 1 being the most free, on 8 different categories and then assigns a overall score. The categories are: 1. Electoral Process 2. Civil Society 3. Independent Media 4. Governance 5. National Democratic Governance 6. Local Democratic Governance 7. Judicial Framework and Independence 8. Corruption. In a sadly similar formula to last year’s Freedom of the World rankings for Central Asia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan’s scores could hardly get lower, ranking near the bottom of the world, 6.93 and 6.86 disrespectfully. Kyrgyzstan received the best score in the region, 5.93, with Freedom House calling its 2005 upheaval now a time of ‘lost promise.’ Tajikistan’s score worsened from 5.96 to 6.07, with Freedom House stating that ‘justice is bought and sold’ in the nation.

Concerning the analysis of the Bush Administration’s FY2009 Budget Request for Democracy and Human Rights, Deirdre Tynan also wrote up another overview and critique (I haven’t had time yet to read FH whole report). Tynan reports that FH is disappointed in the President’s proposed budget for two critical reasons; 1. A lack of transparency as to where exactly the money where go, for instance to help civil society, rule of law? 2. Though the budget request increased overall, funds for most Central Asian states fell. The report argues that the US government needs to put more funds in developing the civil society of the region, particularly Kazakhstan, and has harsh words for Russia’s presence in the region, calling it a ‘negative influence over its former Soviet neighbors’ and as sliding evermore ‘towards increased autocracy.’ Freedom House leaves out hope that Congress will put the money back in when they have an opportunity to appropriate funds.

I couldn’t agree more with Freedom House about greater transparency in the appropriation of these funds, we should know where and to whom they are going. And I am more than sympathetic to their promotion of greater aid to support Central Asia’s civil society, independent media, and promotion of the rule of law and free and fair elections, but there are indeed strategic elements to consider, such as energy supplies and the fact that we need to work with these authoritative leaders at time on issues such as Afghanistan’s security. To leaders like, Islam Karimov, Berdymukhamedov, and Nazarbayev this money is aimed at their removal from power and that can’t sit too well, not to mention that China and Russia both few it as an affront to their regional interests and influence.

However, in the end, these are two informative, important, and brave reports by Freedom House.

Today I have several stories to treat you to; some old, some new, some interesting, some bor…well you get the idea.

• Last March, Turkmen President Berdymukhamedov announced his country’s second military doctrine. The change appears to be in accord with Turkmenistan’s recent more open diplomatic and international posture, a strong departure from its recent isolationist past. Though one must not expect too much change too soon, as Berdymukhamedov stated that the nation’s military doctrine will ’still be based on permanent neutrality of the state and the acknowledgment that necessary levels of defense capability must be maintained.’
• Co-Chair Alcee Hastings on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and a bipartisan Congressional delegation, led by Senator Ben Cardin, was the largest ever diplomatic delegation to visit Kazakhstan. The attendees discussed Kazak’s 2010 OSCE Chairmanship as well as energy, igration, security, religious freedom and women’s rights. Here’s a telling and hopeful quote from Chair Hastings; “I think it will be extremely successful. The reason is that Kazakhstan is the first Central Asian country to chair. The simple fact that I believe - this will help Kazakhstan and this will help others in Central Asia and by the time that they finish their chair they will have learned a lot and that will be implemented here, that will benefit the people of both sides and reform elections and human rights here in this country.” It is much too early to tell how the Chairmanship will help open up Kazak or the CA states’ governments, but this particular delegation seemed hopeful and they may have possibly laid down some groundwork to hold the Kazak government accountable in its claims of transparency and allowance of individual freedoms.
• Pakistan’s new Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani stated that ‘foreign elements’ from the CA region were behind the latest unrest in his country’s tribal belt, aka the Pashtun-majority Federal Administrated Tribal Areas. Gilani gave no evidence to back up his claim. He also announced his government was adopting a 3-pronged strategy to bring peace and stability to the tribal areas; 1. Political Dialogue 2. Development of the area 3. Use of violence as a ‘last resort.’ Seems like the same old carrot and the stick policy.
• Paris’s Luxemburg palace held a scientific conference titled ‘Central Asia facing Globalization’ this past month. The event featured regional experts and local and international diplomats.
• Lastly, Mongolia is not an ‘official’ part of this blogs Central Asian theme, but it is an important regional country nonetheless. It is a democratic state and US ally sandwiched between the authoritarian and strong great powers of Russia and China and has a historical legacy and connections to nearly all the CA states. Here is a quick ‘Five Facts’ about the Asia’s landlocked giant.

Weeks back we discussed the media rollback within the Central Asia states, emphasized in a report by Freedom House, and last week I quickly mentioned a World’s Association of Newspapers report that also painted a bleak picture of media rights in CA. Today I have two stories that further showcase the region’s not only lack of media freedom, but also an outright battle against it by the region’s state governments. I also have another story that though has a positive slant, still portrays the region’s free press weaknesses.

Radio Free Europe reports on the story of Avas Saipov and his search for the murderers of his son, Journalist Alisher Saipov, who was murdered last October leaving his Kyrgyzstan office. Avas blames the Karimov government and Kyrg government for the attack and demands justice. He claims the murder was politically motivated because of Alisher’s journalistic work on corruption between the Kyrg and Uzbek governments and the upcoming December of 2007 presidential election for Karimov. Alisher also reported on human rights violations against Muslims in Ferghana Valley, interviewed members of banned religious groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, looked into the 2005 Andijon incident in Uzbekistan and even visited a refugee camp holding some of its victims. These are all issues and stories that the Karimov and other CA state governments want kept either in the shadows or at least under their control so it is no wonder Alisher came under some heat. Avas, the journalist’s father, stated ‘Why were they interested in this {his work}? Because they did not like the truth.’ Sometimes it’s that simple. At the end of the article, there are three short listings of Kyrg and Uzbek government transgressions curbing media rights and targeting Radio Free Europe journalists.

Internet Freedom

The independent websites of Fergana.ru, uznews.net, and ‘Uzbekistan’s Civil Society’ have all placed a special emblem (above left) on their homepages which says ‘This Site Is Blocked in Uzbekistan.’ They are calling on other Uzbek government banned websites to join their anti-censorship campaign ‘to demonstrate how many news websites are inaccessible in the country.’ Radio Free Europe reports that ever since the 2005 Andijon incidents, the Uzbek government has held a tight lid on all Uzbek Internet service, including blocking websites of all opposition groups and indepenent media outlets. Reporters Without Borders puts Uzbek and Turkmenistan on their short list of world’s greatest ‘Internet Enemies’ for good reason. What these websites are doing will not bring down any autocratic government or release press freedom in these countries by itself, but they valuable stances of freedom and showcases of tyranny that will be crucial in the long run in spreading freedom and openness in Central Asia and in the world. When you see tyranny, do not let it go unnoticed.

Speaking of Turkmenistan, the Associated Press reports that its government has begun to allow private citizens to connect to the Internet, connecting about 20 homes a day, mainly in the capital Ashgabat. Before only government, diplomatic officials and major international companies could use the Internet. Before we start celebrating, it is still unclear just how many Turks can afford to pay for the service and if the government will really offer it the general population. It is also dubious to think that many websites will not be banned. But all in all, this has to be considered a welcome move from a government that just years before had a media that was strictly concentrated on and by one person, former President Niyazov.

(Photo: Radio Free Europe)

We’ve had a ‘Good News’ blog and another lighthearted one of various links, but the good times are over! Thanks to Freedom House’s newly released Freedom of the Press 2007 Survey, we can put the good feelings behind us as our Central Asian states received bleak, down-trending outlooks. The Survey concluded that Press Freedom was in retreat throughout the world, the six year in a row the Survey concluded this, and that many former Soviet States regressed the most dramatically. In fact, most Central Asian and Caucasus countries received lower grades than last year and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan garnered ’special’ mention as two of the most media repressed societies in the world. Freedom House’s website has a thorough amalgam of description’s, charts, and analysis of the survey that should not be missed. Also, here is a short description of the Survey’s findings from Eurasianet.org.

Just like Freedom House’s overall Freedom Rankings, in this survey a nation is ranked either Free, Partly Free, or Not Free based on these three categories:

1. Political influence on reporting and access to information

2. Legal environment in which media outlets operate

3. Economic Pressure on content and the dissemination of news

Each nation was ranked on a scale of 0-100, with 100 representing complete government control over mass media, and zero indicating perfect freedom.

Kyrgyzstan- 70, Downward trend, government pressure on public broadcast media affecting the political environment

Turkmenistan- 96, Same score, only Burma and North Korea received a worse score, the report stated ‘the government retained its absolute monopoly over all media, directly controlling not only media outlets, but also the printing presses and other infrastructure’

Uzbekistan- 92, up one point from last year, the report states that Uzbek authorities ’showed no respect for freedom of speech or of the press’

Kazakhstan- 78, two point increase, the report acknowledged widespread government control and the harassment of independent journalists and editors

Tajikistan- 77, the report criticized its treatment of journalists and the introduction of amendments criminalizing libel and defamation on the Internet

An overall poor showing for the whole region.

An ongoing story I came across recently exemplifies the region’s problems with a free and secure media environment. It appears the government of Kazakhstan has blocked Radio Free Europe’s (RFE/RL), an independent news and broadcast organization funded by the US Congress, website. RFE/RL President Jeffrey Gedmin at first thought it might be a technical problem, now, after the Kazak government failed to respond to several inquiries, suggests that this is a case of ‘deliberate interference.’ This shutdown does not only affect Kazak’s population, but the people in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan as KazTelecom, the state telecom operator, is the key Internet service provider across all of CA.

This situation is getting serious as OSCE representative on media freedom, Miklos Haraszti, sent a formal letter to the Kazak government asking why the service has been interrupted and requesting that it be brought back right away. It is important to know that Kazakhstan stands to take over the OSCE Chairmanship in 2010 and has faced much criticism from many human rights group in the West who are against a country with such a poor record holding such an important position. This event is drawing fresh attention to Kazakhstan’s repressive government, no doubt attention it does not desire. Haraszti uses rather strong language in his letter stating;

‘I am convinced that the state Internet service providers were informed by your government that interference in providing service would violate Kazakhstan’s press freedom commitments.’ He adds that OSCE’s Permanent Council Decision No. 633, states that participating states must pledge ‘to take action to ensure that the Internet remains an open and public forum for freedom of opinion and expression.’

As of right now, no Kazak government official has publicly responded to the letter.

In the same report, Turkmenistan’s government was criticized for harassing and intimidating various Radio Free Europe correspondents. In addition, Kyrgyzstan has a new media bill that some argue would crush any positive steps that have been taken since their 2005 popular uprising.

Freedom House’s media survey and these recent events portray a region in the dark and one whose leadership wants to keep it that way.