Humanitarian Aid and Human Rights Defense in Central Asia

The following interview with Jacqueline Hale, senior policy analyst for EU External Relations at the Brussels office of the Open Society Foundations, originally appeared in News Eurideas.

What are the main objectives of the Open Society Foundations in Central Asia?

The objectives of the Foundations in Central Asia are the same as throughout the world: regardless of the region—whether Africa, Europe, Latin America, or the United States—we aim to foster vibrant and tolerant societies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. In Central Asia we support local civil society groups working on a range of issues from promoting debate and access to education to supporting budget transparency and independent media. In addition to fighting for civil liberties, our national foundations in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan champion social inclusion and protection of marginalized groups who are the most vulnerable in closed societies.

And what are the tools the Open Society Foundations uses in order to achieve them?

Our network of foundations—driven by local boards that set the priorities for a given country—combines grantmaking and advocacy to support our goals in Central Asia. The major thrust of our work is making grants to civil society organizations. A number of human rights NGOs receive grants to build their organizational and monitoring capacity; others receive support for specific initiatives. We also fund scholarships for young Central Asians to study at post-graduate level in Europe and the United States.

As a private grantmaker we can be both flexible and nimble and adapt to a fast-changing landscape. Based in Brussels, my job is to amplify the voice of local civil society organizations with EU policymakers and institutions. People in Brussels and the Member States are often not as familiar with the situation in Central Asia, and our extensive in-country networks enable us to provide timely information and evidence from the ground to European decision-makers. From commenting on specific provisions in a new law in Kazakhstan that will negatively impact freedom of religion, to providing broader policy analysis and advice on an EU response to developments in Central Asia.

Do you think efforts to improve human rights in Central Asia are being undermined by geostrategic and energy related concerns?

The EU is, on the whole, better at taking a more holistic view of Central Asia than the United States. The U.S. tends to see the region entirely through the prism of Afghanistan or in geostrategic terms relating to Russia’s sphere of influence. But on energy security questions reaching a deal on a pipeline can take precedence for the EU over speaking out on a country’s human rights record. The case of Turkmenistan, one of the most repressive states in the world (on a par with North Korea and Burma) provides one of the clearest examples of this. The EU has a Memorandum of Understanding on co-operation in the field of energy with the country; recently adopted a mandate to negotiate a Trans-Caspian Agreement (together with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan) on building a pipeline to connect to Europe; and is seeking a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to normalize relations between Turkmenistan and the EU. All this, despite the fact that thousands of people languish in jails to which the Red Cross does not have access, citizens are disappearing in the prison system and there is widespread torture, the government has put in place restrictions which prohibit civil society from functioning, and the authorities operate an exit ban list, which prevents citizens of Turkmenistan from leaving the country.

What are the difficulties you encounter in the field when trying to implement your projects?

Governments in Central Asia are distrustful of independent civil society and do not like criticism: decision making and governance continue to reflect aspects of the Soviet legacy in which criticism and free thinking were not allowed. This contrasts with the mission of the Open Society Foundations, which aims to foster critical thinking societies who hold their governments to account. Therefore governments have at times sought to curtail or restrict our activities or those of our grantees.

Moreover, in Central Asia there is a lack of capacity both in civil society and (with the possible exception of Kazakhstan) in government – something which has not been helped by chronic underinvestment in the education sector. Other than our scholarships, we have supported pilot projects fostering early childhood development (including pre-school learning) to give children a head-start. But there are limits to what a private foundation can do in a region where there is little investment by governments and growing youth populations. In terms of our policy and operational work, many of our projects seek to build capacity of local organizations to effect change. For example, we deliver training to partners on how to advocate and deliver messages at a national and international level and to professional organizations such as journalists and lawyers.

What is one of the most important recent achievements of the Open Society Foundations in this region?

It is difficult to pinpoint or prioritize a single achievement given the number of activities we are engaged in. Getting Kazakhstan to recognize—and implement—the concept of juvenile criminal justice system was one notable achievement; establishing day care centers in Tajikistan for pre-school children another. In the public health sphere, recently our Kyrgyz and Tajik foundations successfully pushed for the government to incorporate a specific curriculum for nurses on palliative care. This year, following the discovery that U.S. payments and contracts connected to the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan have served the private interests of powerful elites, Open Society colleagues in Washington and Kyrgyzstan persuaded the Kyrgyz government to set up an oversight body including civil society experts to monitor payments related to the base, as well as set up a fund within the state budget so the public can see how the money is spent.

Does the EU strategy towards Central Asia have a positive impact on society in the region?

If we look at the EU Strategy on Central Asia, on paper it says all the right things about the importance of human rights and good governance as one of seven priority areas for action. However, in practice the EU collectively as well as individual European governments tend to favor reaching bilateral agreements with partner countries, rather than taking a stronger negotiating stance premised on asking partners to improve their records on human rights, rule of law, and democracy through instigating reforms, as the EU asks accession and neighboring countries to do.

The EU has established annual human rights dialogues with all the countries, but they are operating at a technical level, divorced from high level political dialogue. It is not clear that closer relations are linked to progress made through these dialogues. The EU has also launched a regional rule of law initiative for the region—which has laudable aims—but it is discussed behind closed doors and so far is not well known beyond government circles. Like in other regions, the EU also has a problem with visibility and communicating its strategy. The architecture of policy and financial support is overly complex with seven regional political priorities, three regional assistance priorities, three flagship initiatives, three country-based assistance priorities, many of which overlap or do not map clearly on to one another. It is therefore difficult for beneficiary governments and civil society organizations to understand or convey to the broader population what the EU’s vision is and what it is trying to achieve.