Welcome home Keymir

It has been days since Turkmen dissident Keymir Berdiev was deported back to his native land by Swedish authorities – and still no solid information regarding his whereabouts is known.  Human rights activists are worrying that their worst fears could be realised and that he, like so many others before, may have been ‘disappeared’ by the tyrannical government of Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov.

Swedish officials had been given plenty of warning that their decision could lead to disaster.  They knew of Keymir’s background: how his brother and father were involved in both the opposition movement and Radio Free Europe’s Turkmen service during the 1990s.  They knew how he was active himself in dissident Turkmen politics until 2002.  They knew how he had fled first to Russia and then Sweden to escape the regime of previous president Saparmurat Niyazov –commonly regarded and one of the most insane and cruel dictators that Central Asia has ever seen.

Worst of all- they knew how he absconded and lived homeless in Swedish park when his asylum request was rejected, then tried to take his own life after being arrested.  Yet rather than recognise his understandable fear and re-asses his case they threw him in a secure hospital then sent him back home with the pathetic and frankly irrational claim that “there is a different government and there is no danger in deporting you to Turkmenistan."

One only needs to pick up a copy of Amnesty International’s latest report for evidence that very little has changed since Berdymukhamedov took control.  Somewhat ironically, the entry on Turkmenistan opens by highlighting the threat posed to “journalists working with foreign media outlets known to publish criticism of the authorities” – the exact reason why the Berdiev family is known there.  It goes on to talk about forced disappearances and rigged trials.  Last month’s report from Human Rights Watch outlining the state’s “appalling record on torture and ill-treatment” further underscores the legitimacy of Keymir’s terror at his deportation- describing how “people profoundly fear talking about mistreatment they or their relatives have endured at the hands of the authorities out of fear of government retaliation”  and highlighting the cases of Amangelen Shapudakov and Sazak Durdymuradov - Radio Free Europe Reporters detained in violent psychiatric institutes as punishment for their work.  Ominously, though quite correctly, an entire section of the report is entitled: End of the Niyazov Era but No Transition.

As the somewhat criminal deportation has already been carried out, many advocates of freedom in Turkmenistan feel that all they can now do is watch and hope.  However, individuals and governments around the world should be taking firm action – to press the Berdymukhamedov regime for evidence of Keymir’s wellbeing, to continue pressure for the release of other prisoners and  to reform asylum law throughout the democratic states of Europe to ensure that no one- especially political activists- are ever again deported to face the terror they fled from.  Perhaps most importantly, governments must be held accountable for such deportations: whatever happens to Keymir Berdiev now, the Swedish authorities must be made to answer for it. 

 

Technorati Tags: Turkmenistan,Keymir Berdiev,Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov,Sweden,Asylum

Tajikistan- between a rock and a hard place

Tajikistan has never had it easy. As soon as it gained independence from the USSR in 1991 it was plunged into a bitter five year civil war between a Russian-backed ‘old guard’ and an Iranian-backed Islamist-led opposition movement. Fifty thousand people died, one in ten fled the country and the economy sustained damage that –to this day- has left it the poorest state in Central Asia.

The killing of twenty three soldiers by Islamist rebels yesterday, just one month after twenty five escaped from a high security jail, will therefore do little to shock a nation plagued by decades of brutal conflict. But it does underline just what a dire state Tajikistan, and much of Central Asia, is in.

The Islamists, backed by fighters from neighbouring Afghanistan as well as Chechnya and Pakistan, are generally thought to be linked to the radical Hizb Ut Tahrir and in all likelihood harbour desires for a dictatorial Islamic Republic of Tajikistan that would be at odds with the desires, and the rights, of its (majority-Muslim) population. Unfortunately the government they are taking on is not much better: President Emomali Rakhmon's People’s Democratic Party has held power for the last two decades through rigged elections, suppression of civil society and what has been described by Human Rights Watch as “rampant torture.”

This devastating stand-off between a brutal dictator and radical Islamist rebels is replicated across most of the region; not least in Uzbekistan where President Islam Karimov used the state's Islamist insurgency as a pretext to massacre thousands of democratic protestors at Adijan in 2005; and to portray himself as an ally in the ‘War on Terror’, thus averting Western criticism of his brutal rule.

Notably, as pressure on Islamist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan continues, their increasing relocation to join those in Central Asia (especially in areas of Tajikistan such as the Rash Valley, with remote terrain and a sympathetic population) is certainly possible if not probable. The indication is, therefore, that insurgencies, and consequently the violence and repression of dictatorships such as Rakhmon’s and Krimov’s, may well grow.

In an arena where tyrannical rebels are vying for power against tyrannical rulers, support for fledging democratic opposition, combined with pressure for reform and religious freedom should be the priority of any external government’s foreign policy. Anything less and Tajikistan can look forward to another twenty years of pain.

Kyrgyzstan and the death of the Tulips

Kyrgyzstan: few people can even spell it, let alone point to it on a map. And even less will care about its plight while all eyes are focussed on Cameron and Brown's race to Downing Street. To be fair, BBC coverage of the unfolding crisis hasn't been at all bad but expect it to drop of rapidly as the election campaign hots up and the now recycled footage of burning trucks and dead protesters becomes too familiar to re-run.

Its one of those tragic political ironies that President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, now powerlessly hiding out in the South of the country, came to power 5 years ago in the Tulip Revolution - a popular uprising against corruption and authoritarianism. Like so many leaders- Uganda's Museveni, Zimbabwe’s Mugabe and Equatorial Guinea's Obiang being amongst today's worst examples - he turned into the exact abusive dictator that he fought to depose. The Tulips are well and truly dead.

But Kyrgyztan's turmoil is reflective of something much bigger - the failure of any real political progress in Central Asia. Since the Soviet Union collapsed and five new Central Asian Republics (known colloquially as the 'stans) were formed, the region has been blighted continuously by brutal dictators, sham elections and horrendous human rights abuses. President Niyazov's leadership of Turkmenistan - marked by rotating gold statues, a ban on beards and an attempt to build a palace of ice in one of the world's hottest climates - would have been almost laughable if it wasn't for the extrajudicial executions and mass starvation. Uzbek President Karimov's practice of boiling opponents alive sounded like something out of medieval times, not contemporary politics. And Tajikistan's recent legislative election, succinctly summed up by the Economist as "change you can't believe in", was so corrupt and shambolic that you could be excused for wondering why the government even bothered.

To the credit of the West some work is being done. The OSCE and American government are working to try and foster some form of democracy in Turkmenistan whilst the UK, among others, is providing aid to several Central Asian States, including Kyrgyzstan, with a portion devoted to improving governance. But these efforts are often uncoordinated and weak.

And they always shy away from criticising the ruling regime.

Why? Because Central Asia is on a fault line. It lies between the Russian and 'Western' spheres of influence. It also plays host to several military bases from both sides - the US ones playing a fundamental role in bombing raids on Afghanistan and Iraq. If that's not enough a lot of opposition movements (especially in Uzbekistan) are Islamic. So it doesn't pay to rock the boat. Craig Murray's excellent memoirs Murder in Samarkand show just how willing the US and UK have been to turn a blind eye to the Uzbek government's abuses, including widespread torture, in return for information and an ally in the 'War on Terror'.

And Kyrgyzstan is no different. In fact, as it plays host to both Russian and US bases, there is all the more reason for these governments to stay onside with whoever is in power. Ms Otunbayeva -one of the leaders of the current uprising- has already said that "some questions have to be considered" regarding the status of the bases. It wouldn't be too far off the mark to read this as a thinly disguised warning: "support me because I now call on shots on whether you get to keep your military presence here". Consequently neither Washington nor Moscow will want to go further than the other in criticising any developments in Kyrgyzstan.

On top of this you can add a big splash of public indifference in Western states. The UK currently spends just over £2 million on helping improve governance and democracy in Kyrgyzstan. In context that is next to nothing...but why splash out if it’s not going to win you any votes? Crises in Africa and Eastern Asia have often generated widespread public outcry in 'the West' but all too frequently, and for a whole host of reasons, Central Asia is overlooked. How many people have heard of the Andijan Massacre compared to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, even though it occurred 16 years more recently?

I should emphasise that I'm not blaming Central Asia's problems on outside states. Not by a long shot. The region's tragedies have been primarily generated by brutal and sometimes frankly insane leaders who are all to ready to abuse their own people for personal gain.

But there is more the international community can do to help. 'The West' should cooperate with Russia to provide coordinated governance-building programmes - and to provide strong, joint criticism when abuses occur. Governments should also invest more into aid and development, and not be willing to sell-out human rights and democracy for the sake of militarily strategic alliances. Big businesses investing in natural resources also have a role to play and should be encouraged to consider the region's citizens - not just their own profits.

And we, the public, should tell our elected representatives that we want them to act for Central Asia,that we care about its future.....that we care about Kyrgyzstan.