Afghanistan and Central Asia

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.

There are many fronts to all wars and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is no different. NATO forces have supreme firepower to use against the Taliban insurgents, but this alone cannot defeat them and secure a safe and free nation. The Karzai government needs to produce good governance for its peoples and a civil society needs to be able to flourish for real progress. Deirdre Tynan writes in Eurasianet about how a recent battle over the appropriateness of two Indian soap opera style television shows, with some calling them ‘un-Islamic,’ exemplifies many of the different fronts in Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict.

Tynan argues that this television show’s ability to withstand vehement criticism from Taliban and extremist sources is in a way a litmus test for the Karzai’s government ability to truly lead and build a free and stable Afghanistan. The show’s two producers are interviewed and back their show, which is reportedly the most watched program in the country, and their right to show it. The Afghan government’s Ministry of Information and Culture has called for the show’s cancellation, which the producers and even a Freedom House analyst, call a larger attempt to undermine freedom of expression. They argue that Karzai is just trying to placate the more conservative elements in the country.

This challenging episode does provide a glimpse of progress however, besides the fact that under Taliban rule a show like this would never had made it on the air, as two civil society groups, the Afghan National Journalists Union and Nai, an Afghan media development organization, have come to the defense of the Indian soap operas and called on the government to stop their meddling.

The battles in and for Afghanistan are many and this may be just one small skirmish, but when a society/government is weak, disjointed, and young even small things can have large importance. The rights of the Afghan people need to be defended and for this to happen its government, NATO forces and leaders, civil society, and each individual in the nation will need to fight the good fight.

The moral high ground
Today, the International Crisis Group has sent out a bunch of useful information on Central Asia, and I can’t wait to read all of the in-depth work they’ve done on Pakistan.  On Turkmenistan, ICG’s Mr. Schutte at has also written a new op-ed, featured in the EU Observer, about clarifying the goals, aims, and quid pro quo between European states and Turkmenistan in diplomatic relations.  This “European clarification” resonates deeply in the United States and the international community in general, including myself.  But not today: I’m getting a little ill from hanging out with the prudes.

Being correct isn’t everything
As previously reported, Mr. Berdymukhamedov visited the EU on November 5th.  Despite this being a watershed occurence, or, a potential beginning for all kinds of discussions, here’s the principled, one-note, pro forma prescription, all over Central Asia without differentiation:

Beyond the smiles and formal statements, one hopes they took the opportunity to remind the Turkmen leader that the EU’s friendship has a price.

One year ago, [under the late President Niyazov] the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee made that price clear, . . . [they] would only give its approval to an Interim Trade Agreement “if concrete progress on the human rights situation is achieved”.

Well, there’s complete clarity here.  But it leaves out one very important intangible.

Loyalty to friends:  
You don’t want a friend that is watching you for every sign of a screw-up.  Even more, afraid of your screw-up, so much so that they can broadcast your failings to the world and disavow meaningful association with you at the first sign of trouble.   Guess what: Turkmenistan doesn’t either.  Also, democracies change their policies under each leader: it’s difficult for states such as Turkmenistan to seriously commit to a long-term relationship with a United States whose international policies change drastically every eight years. 

Second of all, let’s talk economic development: okay, let’s talk natural gas.  By itself, it’s not hypocritical for the EU or anyone else to be interested in natural resources.  The problem is that resource purchases are also straight quid pro quo–money for energy–and that set of transactions also does not lead to political loyalty in the end.

A style problem:
It’s a style problem for the EU, the humanitarians, and the policy prescriptors.  You can’t fault the analysis, only the delivery.  Mr. Schotte details the small promise of one Internet cafe with tight security, as opposed to full-out media transparency.  The new arrests of some officials and the new amnesties for others are bewildering:

Others point to the end-of-Ramadan release of 9000 prisoners as a sign of softening attitude towards the opposition, but the move was so sudden and random, it seems to have been almost a whim. And none of those set free is known to have been a political prisoner. Some former victims of political repression were allowed to flee the country, but that seems more an attempt to silence opposition within the country than a signal of any new freedom to travel abroad.

First of all, I wouldn’t count on the fact that what looks random from the outside, such as the unannounced release of prisoners, is actually random.   

But what’s wrong with asking for information rather than demanding it?  Asking to put in some internet cafes rather than dissing the one that’s there?  Arranging to have broadband capacity installed with cell phones rather than being contemptuous that it’s not already available?  Behind the scenes, diplomats are doing just that–and are frequently put off because we’re so busy talking about the target state’s deficiencies and stripping their pride.

And sometimes pride is the pivot. Turkmenistan has been a failed state in all but name.  Mr. Berdymukhamedov seems to understand that Mr. Niyazov perverted or killed every institution in Turkmenistan.  He’s been out in the world, trying to develop relationships.  I don’t consider that “grasping at straws” but evidence of real opportunity.

The style factor– and the substance
This state failure makes it imperative to include many of the reforms that the ICG editorial has noted.  But we’re not going to get there unless we promise to stick with our new friend, Turkmenistan.  We have to assume that from an international community point of view that Turkmenistan will continue to misstep, go too slow, refuse or balk at new reforms.   

And friends ask each other for favors: but they don’t present a list of demands at the moment of introduction.  At the least, they ask how you’re doing first.  They compliment you.  They listen to your dreams, plans, and problems.  They follow up and they follow through.  They catch your back.  Sometimes, they tell you off: but most of the time–not.  That’s the part of the quid pro quo that we seem to be missing.

For those of you and myself, who think I’m getting too much news from Ferghana.ru lately?  Well, IWPR is gone now, as well as Mr. Saipov, what else can I do?  Little by little, our eyes and ears are closed–the voices of Uzbekistan are silenced. 

In an earlier post, I said there wasn’t much news on Uzbekistan’s elections.  Here’s what there is, that I can find:

On October 10, opposition candidates were nominated:

All five officially registered political parties nominated their candidates for president of Uzbekistan. Dilorom Tashmuhamedova will run for presidency from the Adolat party, Ahtam Tursunov from Fidokorlar, Hoshid Dosmuhamedov from Milli Tiklanish, and Asliddin Rustamov from the People’s Democratic Party of Uzbekistan. The Uzbek Liberal Democratic Party in its turn nominated Islam Karimov.

November 7th, Mr. Karimov made his campaign promises: he promises to run for election for an unconstitutional third term.  No need to change the constitution though: this will only be Mr. Karimov’s second seven-year term, so he still qualifies.  But all sophistry aside:

Pills and Weddings:
If you want medical attention or a marriage license, you have to support Mr. Karimov’s third term. 

What information Ferghana.Ru has compiled indicates that the Tashkent narcological dispensary denies health certificates to whoever applies for it (without it, registries refuse to register marriages) without the applicant’s signature on the petition for Karimov’s third term of office. Collectors even walk door-to-door, even though this method is recognized as more difficult. The law “On election of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan” demands signatures of at least 5% of all voters.

If only that level of effort and ingenuity was being used for building infrastructure and relationships, training doctors and farmers and schoolchildren . . . .

In some ways, it’s always better to think in terms of interlocking regions rather than states–and with Central Asia as a nexus of interlocked regions, it’s most important.  Right now, Pakistan is –depending on one’s point of view–in more upheaval, or– determined to clamp down on upheaval for once and all.  For Central Asia watchers, the question goes past Pakistan alone, into the implications for Afghanistan-and for Central Asia in general.

Brief timeline:
September 10, 2007: Nawaz Sharif, a previous Pakistan President, returns to Pakistan to get ready for elections.  He is deported back to Saudi Arabia due to corruption charges against him in Pakistan.  This makes no sense to me, but there it is.

October 18th, 2007: Benazir Bhutto, another previous Pakistan President, declares she will run for office.  She sort of filled that media gap for the West: a symbol of progress (female president of developing state who interviewed well) but has also not escaped accusations of governmental corruption–and not just in Pakistan, but also in Swiss courts.

October 19, 2007: A rally for Benazir Bhutto’s candidacy is bombed, despite tight security.  One hundred and forty people are killed.  Although some suspect Taliban or MQM, Ms. Bhutto is on record saying that it could also be anti-democratic members of the Pakistan military (Mr. Musharraf is, or was, General Musharraf before the 1999 military coup that overthrew Mr. Sharif).

November 3, 2007: President Musharraf declares martial law. 
1. The Chief Justice Mr. Chaudhry, of the judiciary branch is told his services were not needed.  In the past, Justice Chaudhry has ruled against the government’s position.
2. Ms. Bhutto’s house is surrounded by troops (she was out of the country, but then returned). 
3. A prominent oppositionist and lawyer, Mr. Ahsan is detained, and so is popular sports figure and oppositionist Mr. Khan. 
4. Private TV goes off the air–that’s the end of the free press, in other words. 
5. The Constitution is suspended. 
Mr. Musharraf is doing this to prevent Pakistan from “committing suicide.”  Well, it looks like he killed democratic government in so doing.  But he wasn’t quite done:

November 4, 2007: The round-up and arrest of more than 500 opposition figures was completed today.  BBC and CNN were also taken off the air.  Other party workers for Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif were arrested.  Some figures are also detained in house arrest.

The rumor is that elections, supposed to be held mid-January, will be delayed for almost a year.

Radiating effects:
According to the NYT, there’s 25,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and more security problems are inevitable.  Once Mr. Musharraf is done jailing all of the middle class people who are interested in democracy, presumbably there will be a new push in the NorthWest territories to get Islamic extremists with bombs in hand.  Already there will be migratory pressures, as people flee arrest.  Then there will be strategic deployments of Pakistani weapons and troops, marauders and terrorists.  This will create even more unrest and instability on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Yes, and then other programs, already dealing with security problems such as the UN’s Aid Mission to Afghanistan, will have more people to look after and less security to do it in.  Likewise, whatever opium, morphine, and heroin interdiction programs are in operation right now in Afghanistan will be harder to implement, which has particular effect in Central Asia–especially Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan.  Also it is a problem for Iran, which tends to disrupt the already fragile social structures on the other side of Afghanistan: the Afghanistan-Iran border.

All you have to do is look at a map to see these problems radiating further: the rest of Central Asia, northern India, the Caspian, the Trans-caucasus. 

Further reading:
Thanks, BBC: English translation of Mr. Musharraf’s November 3 declaration of martial law

Today at the United Nations, Uzbekistan’s Permanent Representative Mr. Alisher Vakhidov warned the international community not to interfere in Uzbekistani affairs under the pretext of human rights concerns.  According the the RFE/RL report, Mr. Vakhidov said that international cooperation must be based upon “equality, mutual respect, social and economic development, and historical and cultural traditions.”

Okay.  I get that: 1. equal rights.  2. mutual respect. 3. social/economic development.  4. historical/cultural traditions.

Equality: This means equal rights under the law.  Mutual respect has to do with the same equality, but with some manners added in–and a sense of mutual, deserved worth.

Judicial Equality:  Defendants are presumed guilty at the beginning of the process, and judicial efforts to transact the case include proving guilt through the means of torture, intimidation, and a closed trial process.  This also has some implications for Mutual Respect.

Informational Equality: The lack of transparency means that citizens are unable to garner reliable information, and are aided by an unfree press which essentially repeats the party line and disallows investigative or oppositionist journalism.  A free press contributes to a free politics, but also to equal opportunity in economic affairs as well.  Again, Mutual Respect: that people in Uzbekistan can make their own political decisions and be trusted to start viable businesses and be in charge of their own economic fate.  Oh, and allowing, and allowing for, transparency and media incursions also has a lot to do with Social and Economic Development.

Social and Economic Development in Uzbekistan has been stymied since before the end of the Soviet Union, which is why it is an independent state today.  Since the command economy is no longer Soviet, and the vestiges of the command economy do not provide the same social guarantees, it would behoove Uzbekistan to attract new business: and it has.  However, significant barriers to prosperity exist: the bribe economy; the excessive permit regime; the propensity of Uzbekistan to expropriate businesses such as Newmont Gold mining and the old automobile plant.  Much of this Human Rights dialogue is aimed at developing Uzbekistan’s draconian legal system into a system that allows Economic development. 

In another sense, the Soviet-style economy can be seen as a Historical and Cultural Tradition.  And in that sense, we must honor some of its achievements: a high literacy rate, jobs, a social services net.  Also, we have to take into account the Soviet experience, which is why international actors such as the World Bank have developed prescriptions for those economies transitioning out of the now-defunct Soviet model.  It is also why states such as the U.S. developed funding programs to aid transition states; why the Council of Europe and the state of Japan, and many others, have made progress in Central Asia a priority.  As far as Mutual Respect goes: most Central Asia analysts feel that Uzbekistan could be a benefit to the region at large–or its greatest destabilizer.

Other Cultural and Historical traditions also prevail.  There is the customs of Islam, which Uzbekistan’s current government does not seem to be too happy about–see judicial torture above, for example–and the Cultural and Historical Traditions of an unfree press, an internal security service, et cetera.

 So, the principles go together, Mr. Vakhidov: you’re quite right about that.  Which is why some of us aren’t backing off anytime soon . . .

Photo: styledetective.com

After writing on the untimely death–no, criminal assassination–of Mr. Alisher Saipov, I’m noticing the Return of a Theme: the continuing loss of a precariously-positioned free press in Central Asia.  Here goes the round-up:

Central Asia in General:
One of the best English-language sources on Central Asia, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) , is now no longer promulgating stories.  Formerly funded by the U.S. Department of States’ Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, it is now a static web site.  What the heck happened?  The site says they have “completed one phase of their mission” and are “looking for more funding.”  This is not a good sign, especially given what is below this paragraph.

Kazakhstan:
1. Opposition Web sites in Kazakhstan were shut down this week when Rakhat Aliev stepped up to the microphone.  Mr. Aliev accused Kazakhstan’s President Nazarbaev of ordering the death of his last credible opponent in the 2005 elections, Mr. Sarsenbaev.  Opposition parties published these accusations on the Web–and hence, good-bye, electrons. 

2. IFEX also reports the loss of independent news agencies in Kazakhstan as well as opposition party sites:

The International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech “Adil Soz” expresses its deep concern over the recent mass repression against independent media in Kazakhstan. Websites http://www.zonakz.net, http://www.geo.kz, http://www.kompromat.kz and internet radio station http://www.inkar.info remain blocked since 23 October 2007. The website http://www.kub.kz was removed from the Kazakh segment of the internet without justification (see IFEX alert of 30 October 2007).

3. If you have any time at all, go read the article (linked above) at the IFEX site.  Because as of Yesterday, October 30th, Kazakhstan is now inspecting Newspapers as well.  Only the intervention of human rights defenders saved a computer with Subscriber’s Information on it.

Kyrgyzstan: 
1. The smear is on: Mr. Alisher Saipov, recently murdered, is now the target of a mudslinging campaign.  After the Kyrgyz police investigated and said that there was no evidence that Uzbekistan had anything to do with his murder.  Until they catch the actual murderer, that may well be true.  After a search of Mr. Saipov’s residence for Hizb-ut-Tahrir flyers, (none were found), police remain certain that Mr. Saipov was connected to extremist groups.  Fellow journalists are saying that of course he had contacts with HuT for the purposes of interviews–he had also interviewed Kyrgyzstan’s President Bakiev.  Does this mean that Mr. Saipov was connected to the president??  It’s a good point.

Since Mr. Saipov was employed frequently at Ferghana.ru, they are covering this story very carefully.  This article gives a timeline of the investigation so far, the accusations, and the defense.  Tell you what: it’s a murder.  It should get a complete and proper investigation regardless.

2. Ferghana.ru also has an article about the tight control by the government on Kyrgyzstani journalists.

Uzbekistan:
1. Referring to the last article at IWPR–a swan-song perhaps– “Uzbekistan officials tight-lipped about elections” posted September 26th.  If we don’t support a free press in Central Asia, who is going to do it?  If nothing else, the continual harrassment and death of journalists in the region show that they cannot do it alone.

2. Whether Uzbekistani government officials killed Mr. Saipov or not, the television program that marked him certainly set up a precondition. 

Further reading:
European Union Presidency on the death of Mr. Alisher Saipov, citing his work

Photo: thank you, gazdi.dox.hu for the perfect photograph

It’s making the rounds of the news: the death of another journalist in Central Asia.  Mr. Alisher Saipov, an ethnic Uzbek journalist who lived in Kyrgyzstan, has been killed.  He was 26 years old, and he was shot three times in the head and chest.

Mr. Saipov had begun to print an independent newspaper in the Uzbek language, which was printed in Kyrgyzstan and smuggled over the border.  This newspaper, or any one like it, would constitute the only “independent press” inside the state.  Two weeks ago, Uzbek television identified him as an enemy of the state, and showed his picture.  The rumors were that his death was worth USD 10 thousand dollars.  Now someone will collect.

Natalia Antalava at the Guardian has a requiem written for her friend and associate Mr. Saipov–and since she knew him, she can do a better job than I can of talking about his work.  One thing is clear: it is life-threatening to be a journalist in Central Asia. 

Ferghana.ru has an article which deconstructs the unspoken warning to other journalists:

Moreover, local journalists and analysts believe that whoever ordered Alisher’s assassination aimed to do away with a man who was a thorn in their hide and, also importantly, to intimidate his colleagues and all of the population of southern Kyrgyzstan. That is why the assassination was brazen and arrogant. Alisher had often worked late hours, calling it a day at 2 or 3 a.m. which made him an easy mark. But no, the assassins were ordered to murder Alisher almost in broad daylight and in a public place, so as to make a point and make other dissenters wary.

According to the same Ferghana.ru article, some Kyrgyz officials are up in arms–not about the crime itself–but that journalists always raise up to protect their own, while folks in other businesses and occupations die without the outcry.  The thing is, once there are no journalists, there is no journalism.  There is no free press to tell us what the political and economic forecasts are, where the traffic jam is, and who got the money.  The implications of Mr. Saipov’s death–along with the deaths of so many dedicated journalists–becomes a warning to each and every citizen: don’t pay attention to what your leaders do.  It is at once a human tragedy and a tragedy for two nations, a strike against the idea of democracy and the goal of transparency. 

It means so many things to all of us, and to Mr. Saipov’s family it means even more.  According to the news, Mr. Saipov was a new father.  His wife is seventeen years old.