Plus Ca Change

Tuesday, 22 February, 2005

The link has been copied

Michael Farquhar

The human rights situation across the five Central Asian republics shows no real sign of getting better, twelve years after these countries gained their independence.

While there were some very limited improvements in 2003, overall the situation was depressing, with governments continuing to jail opponents and stifle public debate.

The authorities in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan took new steps to consolidate their power. And the Kazak, Uzbek and Kyrgyz governments all made moves to curb the already crippled media.

After the September 11 attacks on the United States, many observers hoped that the increased western engagement in Central Asia because of the region's new role as an ally in the "war on terror" might eventually encourage local governments to open up their societies, initiate political reforms, and show more respect for human rights.

Last year did see some encouraging developments. In November, following the publication of an OSCE report naming Kyrgyzstan as one of the former Soviet states that had not fulfilled an international obligation to ban torture, the Kyrgyz government announced new legislation making the use of torture punishable with a ten year prison sentence. It is hoped the law might limit practices which according to rights activists, were used by police almost as a matter of routine.

Observers were also encouraged by the Tajik authorities' prosecution in July of two men implicated in the murders of two leading journalists during the five-year civil war that gripped Tajikistan following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The cases were noteworthy since, of the dozens of cases of journalists killed by forces on both sides during the conflict, only about 15 have so far been pursued by prosecutors, who argue it is impossible to look into all the murders.

But 2003 also saw many worrying developments across the region, including clear indications that there will be no softening of official attitudes to political opposition.

The Uzbek authorities persisted in arresting members of the outlawed Islamic group Hizb-ut-Tahrir throughout the year, although reportedly at a slower rate than previously. While it is easy to see why Hizb-ut-Tahrir - with its ultimate goal of creating an Islamic state - is perceived as a threat by the Uzbek government and its neighbours, the group has not been linked to violence, and human rights groups are united in condemning the apparently indiscriminate arrest of suspects and the subsequent judicial process, which they say includes the admittance of evidence extracted under torture.

Uzbek security forces were so intent on hunting down possible suspects that they made a habit of crossing into Kyrgyzstan to snatch them. IWPR reported the case of local mullah Sadykjan Rahmanov, who disappeared from the town of Uzgen in September. There were strong indications that the man was spirited away by Uzbek plainclothes police, and would join 260 others who have been kidnapped only to reappear in an Uzbek prison.

Turkmenistan does not have a domestic political opposition, but just in case, President Saparmurat Niazov, better known as Turkmenbashi, instituted a further crackdown following an apparent attempt on his life - orchestrated from abroad, he said - in November 2002. The campaign was facilitated by new legislation stipulating that anyone found guilty of treason faces life imprisonment with no chance of amnesty or parole. The offence is so loosely defined - it includes "encouraging opposition to the state" - that the legislation effectively gives the Turkmen authorities free rein to deal with anyone they would prefer to see behind bars.

In what appeared to be a further move to consolidate his authority, Turkmenbashi also took steps to limit the rights of the country's ethnic Russian community. By cancelling their right to hold dual citizenship he forced them to choose which country they wanted to spend the rest of their lives in - and severely curbed their ability to move freely between the two. The June deadline saw a mass exodus as panic-stricken Russians took what they believed could be their last chance to get out. Following the angry response from the Russian government, the legislation has since been relaxed somewhat - though not entirely.

There were also signs that Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan might be heading in the direction of the more hard-line Central Asian dictatorships. A February 2003 referendum in Kyrgyzstan enabled the authorities to reduce the two-chamber parliament to a single house, a change which observers said could turn the legislature into a toothless body and concentrate more power in the president's hands.

In June, Tajikistan held a referendum of its own, permitting President Imomali Rahmonov to stand for two further seven-year terms when his mandate expires in 2006. In both cases, opposition groups criticised the conduct of the ballot.

Throughout the year, governments across Central Asia maintained a tight grip on the media, with two particularly notorious cases of journalists apparently imprisoned for their critical reporting.

In January, a court in Kazakstan found opposition journalist Sergei Duvanov guilty of raping a minor and sentenced him to three-and-a-half years in prison. Duvanov had previously worked for the Kazakstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law and was a regular IWPR contributor. There was a widespread sense that the charges were fabricated in order to stop him pursuing his investigations into high-level corruption.

In August, an Uzbek court sentenced reporter Ruslan Sharipov to five-and-a-half years - later reduced to four - on gay sex charges, in what was generally seen as an attempt to bring an end to his human rights campaigning. Sharipov reported that he was tortured in custody.

Following pressure from the international community, both men were eventually released to a form of house arrest in early 2004, although the convictions were not changed.

Media freedom was further restricted in Uzbekistan by a new law requiring all media outlets to re-register by the end of the year. The decree differed from previous measures of this kind in that non-government organisations, NGOs, which publish newsletters are now required to register. Activists said the new legislation was intended to remove the "last piece of freedom of speech".

The slightly greater freedoms enjoyed by journalist in Kazakstan stand to be eroded by a new media law which was passed by the lower house of parliament in December, and is expected to come into force within weeks. The legislation was criticised by local and international analysts, who said it would simply create further complications for Kazak journalists and would do nothing to protect their rights. Journalists in Trouble president Rozlana Taukina told IWPR that the regulations would give the information ministry almost unlimited power by allowing it to close any media outlet on the smallest pretext.

Press freedom took a blow in Kyrgyzstan with the closure of the newspaper Moya Stolitsa-Novosti, which was forced to fold after being ordered to pay over four million som, around 100,000 US dollars, in libel damages to a number of government officials.

The closure was a victory for officials who appear to be trying to hamstring outspoken media outlets by instituting crippling lawsuits. Moya Stolitsa-Novosti went the way of two other independent newspapers - Asaba passed into the hands of pro-government businessmen in 2000 following a series of lawsuits, and Delo No is currently entangled in protracted legal proceedings.

Observers expressed concern about the latest curbs on Kyrgyzstan's media, which until recently enjoyed more freedom than in other parts of Central Asia. "If the persecution of the media goes on as is currently happening, then independent media will simply cease to exist in Kyrgyzstan," warned Stuart Kahn, head of a local Freedom House project supporting human rights activists.

The media crackdowns across the region, together with fresh political arrests and discouraging legislative changes by governments, made 2003 a disappointing year for Central Asia.

Suggestions that increased awareness and integration of the region into the international community might bring about a strengthening of democratic institutions were, it seems, premature. All that last year's record shows is how far these five countries have to go before they meet basic international standards.

Mike Farquhar is an intern working as an editor with IWPR in London.