Closure of NGOs in Uzbekistan
During the last few weeks, a number of international NGOs have been closed or been threatened of closure in Uzbekistan. Since the end of April this year, the speed of closures seems to have increased. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. The anniversary of the Andijan events and the upcoming presidential elections early next year might be two motivations for the Uzbek authorities to become more active.
Parallel to this, the National NGO of NGOs of Uzbekistan (NaNaOuz) is becoming more active at national level. Beside an increased funding for projects of its members, the head of NaNaOuz (a former SB person) made it quite clear in an April meeting what he thinks about international NGOs in Uzbekistan. He also commented directly on EU NGOs during this meeting: “We don’t know yet how you get the money into the country but we will stop it.” (A participant of this meeting told me about this).
Also, Uzbek members of NaNaOuz are speaking at times in quite a negative way about EU NGOs. So, the rumor of EU NGOs laundering money is making it’s way around.
On June 1st this year, NGOs in Uzbekistan had to start re-registering again, which leads one to the assumption that the process of closure of NGOs will further continue. Only NGOs which are members of NaNaOuz have some kind of protection. I assume that right now there are only less than 15 international NGO left in Uzbekistan that are able to do some effective work. Embassies and other relevant international agencies such as the UN or the OSCE who still have some kind of influence in Uzbekistan do not have that much more time left to clearly give their support of international NGOs and Civil Society.
Finally, and to illustrate the recent situation, I summarize the closures during the recent months:
05/06/06: Possible closure of Partnership in Development (UK)
05/06/06: Closure of offices of Central Asian Free Exchange (USA). During the last weeks several of their offices were closed and I would say that CAFE will have to leave the country entirely.
01/06/06: Closure of Global Involvement Through Education (USA)
01/06/06: Closure of American Council for Collaboration in Education and Language Study (ACCELS) (USA) and warning for COFUTIS (France) and Magyar Okumenikus Szeretetszolgalat (Hungarian Christian Organisation)
17/05/06: Closure of protestant churches . I want to add that these churches offer some kind of protected space for civil society in Uzbekistan.
04/05/06 Closure of Counterpart International (USA)
24/04/06: Closure of American Bar Association Central European and Eurasian Law Initiatives’ (ABA/CEELI)
Update 7.6.2006:
The case of Counterpart Internaional is again discussed at the board of Tashkent city. Uzreport’s article is a little bit cryptic but gives some insight at least.
on June 7th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Let me play the devil’s advocate here. What if closing international NGOs turns out to be good for the development of democracy and a free market in the long run? For example, the Russian economy improved after Russia kicked out the Peace Corps. Given the track record of NGOs in Kyrgyzstan–where some see their rapied growth as destabilizing to the fragile balance in the country–perhaps Uzbekistan’s actions are rational responses. After all, in the wake of Andijan, with NGO people calling for Karimov’s overthrow, such actions are no more irrational than America’s shutting down Islamic NGOs such as Global Relief and Benevolence International–both registered charities–in the wake of 9/11.
on June 7th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
This is from the OMB Watch website:
on June 8th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Thanks for your comment Laurence. I don’t overestimate the impact of NGOs on the country. My point here is just that any country should allow civil society to get organised. And let me just give you one little insight. It is in the end all about money and monopolizing of NGOs. Why else do you think NaNaOuz is having a grip on the contry and the daughter of the president is the chair of about 5 or 6 government NGOs?
I also would be interested to read more about what you said about Peace Corps in Russia, because I can’t imagine it that well.
on June 8th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
on June 8th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
From the CIA world factbook:
on June 8th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Compare steady Russian economic growth to uncertainty in Ukraine, with a strong international NGO presence, according to same CIA world factbook:
on June 8th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
I still fail to see the connection between Peace Corps leaving Russia and subsequent economic growth. The passage above says that in 2005 Russia enjoyed its 7th straight year of economic growth, meaning that there was growth while the Peace Corps was active in the late 1990s. Also, there is no direct link between the article and CIA factbook summary that you posted above. Thus the conclusion that the Russian economy was greatly improved as a result of the Peace Corps leaving seems unlikely at best.
on June 8th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
It didn’t hurt Russia’s economy to throw out the Peace Corps or close international NGOs, that’s the point.
on June 8th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Of course the logic doesn’t make sense, but I was expecting you to adopt some sort of defense of the point, or at least give it a shot. That’s what playing devil’s advocate is all about.
on June 9th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Yep Lawrence, I agree with The Dag. The point is not that it did not hurt the Russian economy to kick out the Peace Corps but on the other hand it did not help either. And for Uzbekistan I would actually say the banning of international NGOs actually can harm the economy because expats bring in cash, support community level developments and actually compensate for obligations the Uzbek government does not fullfill (e.g. the Child Rights Convention that Uzbekistan signed but still pushes childen every year into the harvesting of cotton that is a clear breach of this convention).
I am not an advocate for the implementing of US style democracy and I agree that each country needs its own way. But, the way Uzbekistan has been taken during the last years is not my understanding of democratisation.
on June 9th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
The connection between economic growth and intl’ NGO presence is fairly far-fetched to say the least. Of course it doesn’t necessarily harm economic growth if country A kicks out huminatarian relief organisations. But to establish the connection in a way you do it Laurence, then the economy of country B also improves because it wasn’t hit by a meteor.
on June 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, yes: many of the Western NGOs which are given the boot promote non-viable, even alien, Western concepts; do have hidden agendas which I don’t like as well (eg. CAFE and CADA are basically cover-ups for evangelist sects); often, in no way represent what Olivier Roy called ‘civil society as it is’; and an overkill of NGO’s and aid projects is just not healthy for a society because it strengthens a culture of dependecy and handouts (just take a look at Kyrgyzstan, for example).
This said, the whole move in Uzb is in no way something that is to ‘facilitate economic growth’, ‘affirm independence’ or ‘not wanting to be treated like a third world country’. I mean, the regime and its goons are not that ‘patriotic’ and ‘independent-minded’ when it comes to pocket IFI and IO $$$€€€. It’s all about a doomed regime anxiously trying to safeguard raw power — nothing more, nothing less.
“for obligations the Uzbek government does not fullfill (e.g. the Child Rights Convention that Uzbekistan signed but still pushes childen every year into the harvesting of cotton that is a clear breach of this convention).”
Look, Uzbekistan and other Southern Soviet republics have signed tons of conventions, cooperation agreements and what all. The reality is that, by doing so, their ‘power elites’ basically continued what they did under de USSR: pay lip service to the party line, make sure the stats and reports are what they want to read, and cash in the subsidies/granst/IFI loans etc.
Also, this is a region were formal institutions and agreements have no value at all when push comes to shove. That IFIs and IO’s have obviously not understood that by now is either a matter of bad will or hallucinating gullibility and outlandishness of their country reps and HQ desks.
on June 9th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Atman, I know that these are mainly lip services that the govs in the region signed up to. But, they signed up and so they have to account for them. Then again, why should they account for them if the UN are actually bankrupt and many western govs (UK, US, Germany) don’t respect either all the conventions. What I want to say is - in an ideal world - that NGOs can have the function of an independent actor beside govs and media.
We (as I work for a secular NGO) have no real hidden agendas. Ok, these are not all NGOs, that’s sure. Our approach is theoretically oriented according to the basic needs of vulnerable people and we are free of any religious or ideologic overkill. But even for CAFE (despite their missonaric intention), they have real projects that try to improve the lives of people (like orphanages in Tashkent) and are not all “bad” or “importative”.
NGOs must have a clear and as much as possible neutral mandate, otherwise it does not work that well. And it must be clear that we should work for the people and not some screwed up directors or parties. If there is not announced need from people, bad luck, then we have to leave.
Beside all of this. Uzbekistan does not have any kind of media left that can truely report about the situation there. So maybe another function of NGOs can be to show a very naive way of “international solidarity”.
on June 13th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
BTW, ferghana.ru has a story by Alexey Volosevich with the self-explanatory title “Узбекские власти борются как с радикальными исламистами, так и с мирными протестантами” (The Uzbek regime is involved in fighting radical Islamists as well as peaceful Protestants): http://news.ferghana.ru/detail.php?id=960980471139.01,486,1171513
It mentions the closure of Global Involvement through Education (Глобальное сотрудничество через образование), CAFÉ in Kokand and Ferghana and two Korean NGOs, the «Institute of Asia Culture and Development» (Институт азиатской культуры и развития) and the «Korean Foundation for World Aid» (Фонд Всемирная корейская помощь), on the grounds that their use a humanitarian cover to proselytise (which, in these cases, is mostly true BTW).
“You can see the effect already”, Volosevich says. “The ‘patrols’ of Jehova Witnesses, a familiar sight a while ago, disappeared from the streets of the capital”. Volosevich tries to explain the causes of this rather recent and increasing anti-evangelist campaign: “Why are peaceful Christians being treated the same way as radical Islamists?”
According to him, the fact that they ‘spread alien Western values’ or ‘help foster Orange revolutions’ are only excuses. He suggests that since a few years, the Tashkent regime understood that that fact that while it cracked down on every independent expression of the Islamic faith, evangelists could openly proselytise, caused a lot resentment and inter-confessional hatred that can turn against the regime.
“почему христианам в Узбекистане разрешено заниматься миссионерской деятельностью, а мусульманам не разрешается пропагандировать даже свою собственную религию? Получается, что в исконно мусульманской стране практикуется дискриминация мусульман?..”
And while it can not, and will not, make any concession towards Islam and the Muslims because it is convinced that Islam, by nature, is violent, extremist and out to overthrow the regime and take state power anyway, it decided to take on the Christian sects.
Any views on this?
I do not agree though that the present harassment of Christian sects can be equalised with the persecution of Muslims in Uzbekistan. The latter was, and is, a much larger and much more vicious move that affects larger sways of the population than the former.
Some people may argue that militant Islamists are far more violent and far more of a threat than Christian evangelists. Well, the first are much more noisy and spectacular indeed — and the “threat” they pose has often been inflated for political reasons (besides, not all violence by Muslims, where it occurs, aims at an ‘Islamic state’, ‘the restoration of a caliphate’ and other fantasies; Muslims have the right to defend themselves against aggression and brutal oppression if there are no other means).
Even if evangelists may not be violent, the social damage they cause is there and much more subtle. Some do good things and are inspired by faith without actually proselytising indeed. Yet several others are sects. And sects do what they do: brainwashing vulnerable youth and women (it’s no coincidence that many focus on orphanages, for orphans are easy prey); the destruction of families by consciously setting up youth against their folks; luring people into conversion with promises of money, scholarships in the West and jobs; even semi-forced conversions (especially employers’ pressure, like I know one example in Taraz, Kazakhstan); also, for years, certain regimes and embassies were in cahoots with evangelists (most obvious in Kyrgyzstan under the former regime).
BTW, I found *part* (not all) of the Western(-oriented) aid and diplo community to be always *very* double-standarded towards the persecution on Muslims in Uzbekistan; that’s why I can not suppress a little Schadenfreude now that they get *a bit* of a taste of it themselves.
on August 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am
I am not an advocate for the implementing of US style democracy and I agree that each country needs its own way. But, the way Uzbekistan has been taken during the last years is not my understanding of democratisation.
on October 9th, 2007 at 9:21 am
why do americans need prosperity of Uzbekistan, no one needs the neighbours to be strong, therefore, the performance of US and other NGOs are taken under strict control, the NGOs are financing war and instability in those countries, therefore governments take the responsible actions afterwards. plz, try to understand, those people working in NGOs are professional liers, and their goal is not to help people in Uzbekistan or in Russia, but to help themselves. My point is if they destabilize the economy and policy of the country, their government would in turn be able to manipulate that country in their own way and “democracy”. This is my point, you would never help me, if you don’t know Uzbek, my traditions, my way of living and habits. In each “help” in deepth there is a goal of any organization, and those organizations work for their own government and their own people, not some Uzbeks they would ever try to know about… You would never care of us if you have no purpose, political, millitary, financial, or other form. But noone would give a clean help and hand to a dyeing country…
on March 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Hi there…Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts about comin..holy Tuesday .