A freebie for all of my loyal readers:

Need to know whether to address someone with a foreign name as “Mr” or “Ms” in an introductory email? Type their first name into Google Images. Sometimes it’s a tossup, but more often than not, a quick image search clears it up and helps you avoid embarrassment. If possible, “Dr” is always a good alternative.

What does freedom mean in Central Asia?

In a June 28 speech at Fort Bragg, Bush used ‘freedom’ 21 times and ‘free’ 13. Clearly, the words (and the specific ideology behind them) anchor the neoconservative worldview. But what does this mean in real terms? Certainly, statements of support of religious and political freedom fall flat in a region in which repressive governments are actively supported. I would argue that none of the Four Freedoms are widely enjoyed in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (and probably Kazakhstan) and are in jeopardy in Tajikistan.

What can Bush and the US Government do? First, clarify what freedom means across the world. The administration has been very clear on what it means for Iraq, but is this standard supposed to apply to all areas of the world or just the “vital region” (as Bush described the Middle East in the speech)? Where will the line between supporting rights and taking a realist/strategic perspective be drawn? Second, make the power of foreign aid work for the United States by making it more conditional on the degree of freedom (previously defined) in the political realm and public sphere. This policy must be government-wide to minimize contradictions such as keeping a base in Uzbekistan. Place greater conditions on governments to ensure transparency and minimize graft. Finally, increase political support for the places in which democracy has a chance, but is struggling - a few good words go a long way, but they must be delivered in connection with concrete action and a genuine desire to place human rights and political and social freedom atop the agenda, even in areas of geostrategic importance.

It seems that Kyrgyzstan presents an interesting case, as it is by far the most ‘free’ country in Central Asia by what I can infer are the terms used by the Bush Administration. Clearly, there are violations - intimidations of journalists and NGO’s, police firing on protestors, and the censorship of the media. However, much of Kyrgyzstan’s ills, primarily poverty and unemployment, are perpetuated by corruption at all levels of governance. Does bad government constitute oppression? (American leftists, don’t answer that) Clearly, there is some relationship between the two, as widespread acceptance of bribery leads to a tyranny by the wealthy and well-connected (which, arguably, has not changed despite the revolution). However, they are not exactly the same, and Kyrgyzstan’s current plight is different from those faced by democrats elsewhere in Central Asia.