Are today’s students in the former Soviet Union too political or not political enough? Two recent stories from Uzbekistan and Russia suggest that either way, students will end up being criticised: you’re damned if you do care and you’re damned if you don’t.
In Uzbekistan, the government has introduced a new moral code – no less than 23 pages long – in an attempt to rectify what it sees as poor behaviour amongst students. Apparently students are getting too wild for the government’s liking, with allegations of inappropriate dressing and listening to music that’s just way too foreign. The government clearly sees this as a threat
On the other hand, a visiting student at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in Russia has posted a well-written critique of the lack of politics at the Institute. The author sees this as contrary given that graduates of the Institute often go on to high-level positions in government and business. A small murmur of interest has arisen at the Institute since the post-election demonstrations in Russia in December 2011, but whether this is maintained remains to be seen.
I’d love to hear what current students in the region have to say about this.
I’d like to recommend a great article I’ve just read, The Soviet Fall and the Arab Spring.
By an experienced human rights researcher, the article provides six ideas “about what has to happen after the revolution to make change stick”.
The six ideas are:
1. There is nothing inevitable about transitions to democracy
2. Guard against misplaced blame (I found this a particularly interesting idea)
3. Institutionalize strong minority rights protections
4. International institutions matter
5. Establish concrete human rights benchmarks and give them teeth
6. Support a strong civil society
However, in the case of the post-Soviet countries featured in the article, it’s more of a sobering lesson in how human rights have not always been prioritised, and how motivation (political, individual) plays an important role in the success – or otherwise – of attempts to “make change stick”.
Happy new year! I hope you enjoyed a peaceful and happy holiday and are looking forward to what 2012 will bring.
You’ll notice I had a break from this blog too, spent with my family and friends and including a fantastic four-way Skype call on New Year’s Eve with my parents in Italy, my brother in the USA, my sister in London and my husband and me in Oxford! I also caught up with family and friends as far apart as Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Hungary and Australia as well as those closer to home. The world feels even more connected and global at times like these.
For today’s post, I thought it would be interesting to look at the new year addresses given by the leaders of the four Central Asian countries this blog covers to see if these shed any light on their hopes and plans for the year ahead.
Starting with Tajikistan, President Rakhmon makes open acknowledgement of the 1 million or so Tajiks currently living out of the country by referring to them in addition to his “co-compatriots” (i.e. the ones living in Tajikistan). He looks back on “one of the most important years” of the country’s history as it celebrated 20 years of independence, and talks several times about patriotism and national unity – signs of concern about a resurgence of the regionalism that partly led to the 1992-1997 civil war? He makes no reference to ongoing poverty in the country but instead hopes that this year will see a “growth in the authority and image of Tajikistan in the international arena.”
In Kyrgyzstan, new President Atambayev also talked about unity and how people have become more confident in themselves since showing that the country can “develop under conditions of democracy and freedom.” He spoke about the government’s accountability to the people and also the responsibility of individuals to helping ensure peace and prosperity for all. He signs off with lots of warm and wonderful wishes, including my personal favourite of the four addresses: “On this New Year’s Eve, all of us, like little children, await wonders. We believe in miracles!”
Kazakhstan‘s President Nazarbayev has a head start on the other nations due to the country’s higher levels of economic wealth and development, and this is recognised in his address. His words talk about the fact that Kazakhstan is united, and seen as a “strong, contemporary and respected nation in the world” that has one of the world’s most dynamic economies. I liked the fact that he thanked Kazakhs for their support of his “course” (i.e. pathway/decision-making) over the past year, although of course this masks underlying issues about the political system that I won’t go into right now.
President Karimov of Uzbekistan also talks about unity, so clearly this is the buzzword of the moment! He believes that 2011 was a year of wide-scale reform in the country that is recognised by the respect given by other countries (is that a reference to Hilary Clinton’s total failure to mention human rights in her recent visit?). Interestingly, he mentions climate change in a speech that seems to focus on rural issues and needs, although it is passed over quickly. Like the other leaders, he too stresses the need for his fellow citizens to help retain peace and stability but in a break from the similarity, he ends on a religious note: “may the Almighty protect us from all misfortunes and be a reliable support on our way”.
Of course, a new year’s address is never going to boldly uncover the deep and pressing problems that every country faces and I’m sure that in the coming months, the Central Asian nations will give us much to think about and that my favourite category of “bureaucratic madness” will be put to use again. But in the meantime, please enjoy this opportunity to celebrate, to think positively and to hope for a better future.
The “aeroplane affair” between Russia and Tajikistan, as I suspected, shows no sign of landing (excuse the pun) anytime soon. Konstantin Parshin has – again – written an excellent article summarising what’s happened over the last few days, so if you’re not following this story elsewhere (and even if you are), do read what he has to say. He’s based in Tajikistan and clearly has his ear to the ground.
Whilst my previous post about this incident took a somewhat sardonic look at the latest episode of post-Soviet squabbling, I have since been reflecting much more seriously about the repercussions this event could have for the political scene in Tajikistan.
Think about the following sentences as a chain of events, each magnifying the impact of the one before it. The first few hundred migrants have now been sent home from Russia and there are threats that more will follow. I hear reports from Moscow-based Tajiks that they are too afraid to leave their apartments due to anti-immigrant/nationalistic feeling amongst Russians. If this continues for a while, then they will probably lose their jobs for not turning up. If they lose their jobs, they lose their source of income. They may get sent home by the Russian government in any case. So the income from migrant workers’ wages that the Tajik economy is so dependent on starts to drop. Large numbers of mainly young men, mainly from rural areas, may come back to Tajikistan, and there certainly aren’t jobs for them to go to: that’s why they left in the first place. Then consider the altered social circumstances that these men will find when they return to their villages and see how the women/old men/children have been adapting without them.
All this leaves you with a a shrinking economy and more significantly, potentially a large group of unemployed young people with not much in the world going well for them.
And it’s not just this situation which could have longer lasting impact, as stories are circulating about a host of other issues that are making people in Tajikistan angry and frustrated:
Now set these events and feelings against what’s happening in two other Central Asian states. Whilst the recent presidential election in Kyrgyzstan wasn’t perfect, it was at least peaceful and led to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe saying they feel “cautiously optimistic about the future of democracy in Kyrgyzstan”. And in Kazakhstan, the President – not known for his overtly democratic tendencies – has today called a snap election for January 2012 in order to try and increase the number of parties in parliament (currently just one party is represented).
And then finally consider the impact that a lot of very angry and frustrated people in other parts of the world have had over the last year, notably North Africa. No one is yet talking about whether there will be a “Libya effect” in Tajikistan, but with increasing internet literacy and access, it can be expected that many Tajiks – particularly those in urban areas – may be very knowledgeable about the events of the Arab Spring.
Add all of these parts together and you see that there are already many straws loaded on the camel’s back. The question is, just how many more straws can it take before the load will become too heavy?
When I entered the Social Hall at the Ismaili Centre Dushanbe [the location for Clinton’s talk], it was full. There was no place to sit, even though I thought that I came early. There were school pupils, students, media, representatives from different NGOs and others.
We waited for about an hour and finally she came and everyone clapped. She said she was very glad to be here and have an opportunity to talk to young people.
She also said that she was surprised to see men and women gathering together – perhaps she thought that it would be like Afghanistan as she had visited it a few days before.
After she spoke for a while, she then asked us to ask questions. Mostly the questions were about the future collaboration of US and Tajikistan, about studies and work in US, even about the Roghun hydropower station. Someone asked whether, as she would be visiting Uzbekistan, she could discuss energy issues with the Uzbek President Islam Karimov. Uzbekistan has been trying to block the construction of Roghun as it would reduce the amount of energy Tajikistan needs to buy from Uzbekistan. Clinton answered that she wasn’t in a position to discuss it with President Karimov, suggesting that it was the responsibility of the main funders of the project.
There were other questions about religion and about women’s role in society and politics. She supports women always to be involved in government, in politics, and she thinks that women should always be given a chance too. She gave some examples of women who are prime ministers in different countries, mostly in Muslim societies.
In general, it was very interesting and yet curious to see Hillary Clinton.
You can find more information about Clinton’s visit here.
By Ramila Mukairshoeva
Ramila is Resource Centre Manager for the University of Central Asia-Aga Khan Humanities Project, and is based in Tajikistan. She was recently awarded a US government scholarship and will be heading to Indiana University Bloomington in 2012.
A slightly light-hearted post today as I’ve spent the last few days unwell and my mind is not in serious analysis mode right now!
As anyone in Central Asia will know, the American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid a short visit to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan over the weekend. This post is a round-up of some of the stories about the visit, which offered a rare occasion for Central Asia to get an airing in the international press. I think the opportunity was a missed one judging by the quality of the articles I chose…
Ahead of her arrival, ABC News published a handy pronunciation guide for anyone struggling to work out just where the stress goes in ‘Tashkent’. No, seriously.
Further help came from the American Washington Post, who described the two countries as ‘Afghanistan’s neighbours’. I’m not sure that’s an appellation most people would feel overly excited about.
Avesta.tj has several reports about the visit, including one entitled “Рогун и саксофон” (Rogun – a huge dam construction project that is always short of funds – and saxophone). With high hopes for a good local view on events, I was quickly disappointed. Clearly the journalist had become distracted by the novelty of a senior female politician.
Here are two short extracts: “Hillary is a good-looking woman. A strong woman. She was able to swallow the insult following the scandal of Bill and Monica’s saxophone lessons.” And just in case you didn’t think that was bad enough: “Hillary is a beautiful woman, but she came here as a politician, not a woman.” What a shame that trashy British tabloid News of the World has closed down, as the journalist could have had a great career with them.
Finally, over to CNN’s report on the visit. Two things about it made me laugh out loud. Firstly, the title’s focus on human rights discussions. Seriously? Just refer to my earlier post about forms of violence in the region to dispel any optimism on that front. And secondly – with apologies for my childishness – if you watch the short film on the webpage of Clinton being shown around the Botanic Garden in Dushanbe by Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, look out for the gesture Rahmon makes with his hands about three quarters of the way through and Clinton’s bemused laugh in response.
A friend of mine was due to be present at a speech given by Clinton in Dushanbe, and I’m hoping she will post a more balanced first-hand account of the visit – watch this space!
To end today, a postscript that speaks volumes about where power lies in the post-imperial Western world…
With all the talk about Clinton’s visit, almost everyone has overlooked the fact that the UK sent its first ever government minister to Tajikistan. Follow that link for the only article I saw on this event. I’ll leave you with a quote from minister Alan Duncan – the word IF in sentence three should be up in huge letters:
“The future could be bright for Tajikistan. There are decision makers here we can work with. If they can attract international investors to their agricultural businesses, and encourage a better environment for entrepreneurs, Tajikistan could be a Central Asian success story.”