Central Asia

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.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has made his second visit to Central Asia, this time stopping by Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan for the second time. Gas was apparently the only thing on the diplomatic menu. Medvedev and his Gazprom officials are wary of European and Chinese influence and engagement in the region’s energy resources, a sphere Russia has dominated for years, and this trip’s purpose appears to keep that monopoly intact.

Medvedev first went to Baku, Azerbaijan and reportedly told the nation that it was willing to buy up all of its Caspian Sea and land gas to keep it from heading to Europe via the BTC pipeline already functioning, or the Trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines in discussions right now. This would be a tall order for Medvedev to accomplish, as Azerbaijan has been courted by the West and strategically faced that way for some years now.

Immediately after this visit the Russian president visited Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan before heading off to the G-8 summit. Russia/Gazprom already dominate gas flow from these two states, but it faces growing competition from Europe and China and therefore wants to solidify its position. Last December, Russia and these two states agreed to build a new pipeline a while later Russia agreed to up its price for their energy resources, both moves to hurt Europe/China’s chances of getting in ‘on the game.’ The purpose of this recent visit also appears to be for Russia to buy up as much of the two nation’s gas as possible in order to stifle any deals the states would make with the EU/China and India for that matter. Russia’s energy policy is not one of just paranoia, as China has just announced the start of construction of a huge, 30 billion cubic meter natural gas pipeline transversing from Turkmenistan, through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and ending in its own Xinjiang Province and EU representatives are in serious talks with Turkmen officials about the Trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines.

(Photo: Medvedev with Azerbaijan President Aliyev: Source Asianews.it)

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)

Here’s a story, in fact really a series of events, in which I have not heard much about. The governments of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and even resource-poor Tajikistan have led many ‘urban renewal’ projects in their respective capitals and major cities. This makes sense in many ways as most of these states are receiving large profits from energy deals and desire to update their out of style, possibly dilapidated, Soviet buildings and infrastructure, but they apparently are going about this process in the way they do nearly everything, without the consent of their own people.

In all of these states, Farangis Najibullah reports that their renovation projects have unfairly and without due process removed thousands from their homes, pushing many of them into the homes of relatives, sharing small flats, and even into homelessness. The governments desire to create fancy apartment buildings and office space and to make room they need these people out of the way. Some offer financial or land compensation, but in most cases it is not enough.

In fact in Dushanbe, Tajikistan displaced residents must prove they are below the official poverty line to receive compensation, unfortunately the poverty line for a family is less than $6 a month! It goes without saying that virtually no Tajiks receive this reimbursement. Also in Dushanbe, residents who lose their home are entitled to a piece of land, but the land is part of a desert wasteland outside of the city and they are given no money or construction materials in which they could actually build a house. These people can not turn to their government for help, and must rely on family and friends for shelter.

Last April, two protests were held against the government by those who had lost their homes. In one case a group of women were arrested, let go, and told never to protest again. Apparently, there was a protest that turned violent in Almaty, Kazakhstan two years ago against the demolition of housing and that several Almaty residents have gone on hunger strikes to draw publicity to their plight, but Najibullah reports they were ‘ignored by city officials.’

Cities and capitols should modernize and improved infrastructure is a positive thing, but the way these authoritarian CA leaders go about it is the ’same old song and dance’ with their citizens. The citizens of these nations need a voice, a place to go to have their feelings and opinions heard, and these governments fail to provide this and this is a tragedy.

Comments: If you have comments/opinions/questions please post them or email me. I will do my best to get your comments posted or questions answered as soon as possible. Thanks.

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.

To offer some sweet relief for your Monday blues, here’s some Central Asian geopolitical analytical madness! A couple of weeks ago we discussed the EU’s attempts at diversifying CA gas exports to circumvent Russian territory and influence, mainly in Turkmenistan. In addition, on this blog we have talked about China and India’s growing role in the region, once again usually centered on natural resources. The geopolitics surrounding CA’s ‘Great Game’ have been analyzed for decades, but I must admit the stories and actors involved remain vibrant and the debate about who’s winning and losing rages on.

Professor Stephen Blank, from the US Army War College, has written an excellent piece analyzing Russia’s March 11 deal with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan to buy their gas at world prices. He argues that this move signifies a weakening Russian position in the region (and possibly in Europe) and rising regional cooperation between the Central Asian gas and oil producing states. Blank sees the region opening up for natural resource competition with an aggressive China with a voracious oil/gas appetite and the EU showing greater policy cohesion in regional resource negotiations. He asserts that this competition is forcing Russia into compromising positions (the price hike) and heightening the importance and negotiating posture of the CA states.

If one has been following the news lately, this analysis appears to be more right than wrong. Although, I believe Blank is overstating Russia’s weakness (though not as much as this piece), he is right that the CA strategic resource holding states have gained an increasing amount of leverage with suitors from China, EU, US, and India joining Russia. Whether the CA states can use this an opportunity to heighten their regional cooperation, which has never been strong unless you count Soviet domination in the 20th century, is another story.

Blank argues that Russia desperately desires to keep China’s actions in the region in line by chaining them down in an energy club based in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where they can work together to separate and exploit the CA states and keep the US/EU out of the loop at the same time. This is good policy for Russia in that it needs to be careful not to allow a CA with unchecked natural resource competition, but the SCO has not proven itself to be a strong enough group to hold its cohesiveness (aka Russia-China partnership) when it comes to such a vital national interest as oil/gas procurement. The SCO also receives weak marks in curtailing EU/US influence in the region. The US has its largest presence in the region (mainly due to the Afghanistan war) ever and as this article showcases, the EU is making progress in its energy dealings in the region.

Is Russia’s hold on Central Asia, specifically regarding natural resources, ebbing or is its faltering influence highly exaggerated? Does the March 11 agreement portend rising regional cooperation between Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan? Is more open competition for resources involving India, Russia, China, EU, and the US good or bad for the CA states? Do you think it was tough for Professor Stephen to grow up with the last name ‘Blank’?

Just as I opine about a growing autocratic threat to the world liberal system I want to introduce a report by the Brookings Institution analyzing weak states, many of which consist of authoritative leadership. Of course yesterday’s discussion centered on the Great Powers of China and Russia who do not fair prominently on this list, though Russia actually made it in at 65 (the lower the number the weaker the state) which was ahead of both Kyrgyzstan (73) and Kazakhstan (89). Here is the actual report and a summary.

Nathan at Registan.net’s Central Asia News — All Central Asia, All The Time discussed this report a couple weeks ago and highlighted the fact that two of CA’s most oppressive dictatorships, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, faired the worst, ranked 35, 36 respectively. Nathan summarizes the reports stated weakness’s of such regimes as their continuous reshuffling of government officials and that both of these governments pursue foreign policies that mainly only increase the executive power of the state and not the state as a whole.

Nathan finishes his analysis by making the pertinent point that these dictators, Karimov and Berdymukhammedov, feel very insecure and that foreign nation’s policies toward these unstable leaders must take this into account in diplomatic dealings. It would be easy for these leaders to lean in a direction where they feel more secure, and as China and Russia have shown, they are more than willing to forgive these leaders’ transgressions as long as they keep their nation stable and accept their economic and security influence. The West’s task with these types of states is tremendously difficult; they want to help them become more liberal/democratic, share in their economic and strategic resources (such as oil and bases), and have their governments lean in their direction, all at the same time. Attaining all these goals is mammoth endeavor and has shown to be a continual forward and back struggle.

How much influence should a country’s type of leadership affect a state’s (US) policy towards them? Do you agree with the Brookings Report rankings? Do you think that Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and Russia for that matter, have weak governments?

On a related note, I have discussed Turkmenistan’s recent movements away from Niyazov’s totalitarian regime and the New York Times has jumped in on the discussion. In the article, Professor Eric McGlinchey correctly cautions optimism regarding these changes, warning that the current President, Mr. Berdymukhammedov may be using these transformative polices just to consolidate his own rule in the nation.

On April 21st I discussed Turkmenistan-EU’s growing energy supply relations, specifically in regards to the building of the Nabucco and Trans-Caspian Pipelines, and yesterday I dropped you a quick article about a recent Memo of Understanding (MoU) between Turkmenistan and India regarding oil and gas cooperation. I have been wanting to discuss India’s growing role in Central Asia for quite awhile now and the visit of their Vice President Hamid Ansari to the region last week provides a great opening.

It was during this visit that the MoU was signed between Turkmenistan and India. The agreement paves the way for Indian energy companies, such as OSGC, OVL, GAIL, AND IOC, to participate in the hydrocarbon sector in Turkmenistan. During these talks, the long delayed Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India Gas Pipeline Project (TAPI) was also featured and this Radio Free Europe article believes that the project is gaining strength. This project is far from becoming a reality, but it has one major benefit and that is it would provide the struggling Afghan government some much needed transit fees. However, one of the project’s main obstacles is the lack of security in southern Afghanistan due to the current insurgency. Overall it was a productive visit and Ansari left Turkmenistan with these words; “India considers Turkmenistan an extended neighbor, a natural ally and a key partner in Central Asia.”

India’s Vice President Ansari followed up his visit to Ashgabat with a trip to Kazakhstan, where he met with Prime Minister Massimov and President Nazarbayev. The two sides also signed a MoU, though one that seems less substantial, ‘expressing readiness to work on a project specific mode in the hydrocarbon sector.’ Food production, Information Technology, and education were also emphasized in their discussions.

One of major issues standing in the way of greater relations between India and the CA states is a lack of efficient transportation capabilities; roads, railways..etc. However, the Indian Press has reported that an International North-South Transport Corridor linking CA with India will soon be developed. Indian Union Minister for Extenal Affairs Pranab Mukherjee happily stated; “The absence of direct surface transportation routes has been a major handicap in furthering economic and trade ties between India and Central Asia. The recent steps taken by Kazakhastan, Turkmenistan and Russia to increase road and rail connectivity may help in the development of the corridor.” Of course, just like the TAPI, this has been in the works for years so it’s still a ‘wait and see.’

In my brief discussion of recent activity in relations between India and Central Asia, it is obvious that energy supplies are a crucial component of their current and budding relations (Ah ha! here is an article about a Cultural Dialogue between the two), but each side has much else to gain by deepening their connections. For India, not only does their rising economy need energy (Pun Warning!) to fuel its drive to world power status (2.5 billion barrels of oil consumed a day), but it also has much incentive in growing overall trade relations and maintaining a stable environment in the CA. India is surrounded by unstable or authoritative states and if it can cultivate positive and effective relations with its immediate northern neighbors, all the better. For CA, the positives to a relationship of India are obvious; another market to diversify their energy supplies, a strong nation that can help them balance Chinese, Russian, and US pressure, help in progressing their economies beyond just energy supplies (IT sector?), and greater amounts of foreign investment. India is also the only democratic state close enough and strong enough to have some influence in the region and hopefully through time this can have a positive effect.

I will promise to keep you abreast of this ongoing, shall we say dynamic, relationship. Can you think of any more positives for each side? What about negatives? How do you think Russia, China, and even the US view this burgeoning relationship? Should the US work with India in CA to curtail the influence of Russia and China? Is this even feasible?

We have discussed Turkmenistan’s ‘opening up’ diplomatically from their isolationist and totalitarian Niyazov era on a few occasions. The nation’s participation in the latest NATO Summit, EU Troika, and their warming of relations with Turkey, for instance. I am pleased to report that this ‘opening up’ seems to have some legs:

1. Current President Berdymuhamedov has introduced major amendments to the constitution, planned for September 2008. A special committee has been formed to propose constitutional reforms and the president requested the ministry of justice, ministry of internal affairs, ministry of national security, the Supreme Court, prosecutor general, and the institute of democracy and human rights to create working groups to also propose reforms. For reasons of showcasing the transparency of this process, Berdymuhamedov stated that the mass media will publish the details of proposed amendments and that local journalists will be invited to attend the constitutional reform meetings once a month. After the parliament debates the proposals, a special session of the Khalk Maslahaty (People’s Council) will be held in September in Ashgabat to adopt the amendments. Berdymuhamedov asserted; ‘The world is moving forward and any state that cannot keep pace with the global developments will inevitably be left behind.”

2. Last Wednesday, Turkmenistan and Lithuania signed a memorandum of understanding for intergovernmental cooperation with an emphasis in the energy, transportation, tourism, trade, culture and humanitarian spheres. This is another example of Turkmenistan looking toward to the West to increase its leverage in all directions and to court the resources and markets that Europe can provide. During the meeting with Lithuania’s Prime Minister Kirkilas, Berdymuhamedov stated; “European direction is one of the priority areas for the foreign policy strategy of Turkmenistan. We are taking steps to deepen our dialogue with the EU.”

3. On a much larger scale, Turkmenistan and India have signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation in the oild an gas sectors, but this will be discussed in the next few days.

4. On a cultural bent, Berdymuhamedov gave parliament his approval to work on changing the names of the months back to their traditional forms. The nation’s previous dictator, Niyazov, infamously changed these names in 2002 to versions that honored Turk heros, chief among them, himself. The official parliament resolution should happen sometime this year, maybe as early as June. Gurbansoltan (April), Turkmenbashi (January), and Ruhnama (September) will soon be left to the trash heap of history.

It is important to not overstate these reforms and claim that Turkmenistan is headed towards democracy and an open and vigorous foreign policy, but these reforms, even as slight as some appear, matter and are positive signs none the less.

To personify just how far Berdymuhamedov and Turkmenistan have to go though, here is a report from Forum 18 about a recent government raid on a Bible class in Ashgabat. Unfortunately, religious and personal freedoms are still pedestrian in this nation showing signs of progress.

Two steps forward, three religious persecution steps back.

(Photo Source: The Guardian, Guardian.co.uk)