Today, called Tajikistan “a remarkable success story,” highlighting how far it has come since the dark days of the Civil War and calling for increased activity to attract international investment. (all quotes from speech)

True, the country has taken steps towards internationally-assisted poverty reduction, and increased investment might help support commerce (though it might be more the big businesses like the Mongolian über-corporation MCS).

However, the government still basically does whatever it wants, the upcoming elections are a foregone conclusion (with Iskanderov’s prosecution), the drug trade has gotten worse and the human rights situation is abominable (and civil rights are in jeopardy). Moreover, Tajikistan’s support from Iranmight create geopolitical tensions and put the United States in a difficult diplomatic position.Not to play the pessimist, but the reality is that Tajikistan is still in dire straits, and I’m not convinced that investment will be Tajikistan’s panacea.

The sharpest point was made over corruption:

A lot really comes down to the issue of corruption, doesn’t it. President Rahmonov has said heis [sic] serious about decreasing corruption in Tajikistan. And yet it can never be “talked away” or “ordered away.” The government can help the president by legislating sensible business regulations that are fair for all, fairly implemented, and enforced by independent and impartial courts. When that is done, not only will corruption decrease, but also the economy will grow.

He correctly traced one of the primary roots: the Byzantine laws and regulations governing everyday commerce that force commonplace people into situations in which a bribe becomes the only practical option for getting things done. Interestingly, Ambassador Hoagland drew largely on the modernization theory of democratization (summarized succintly: “I am convinced prosperity will continue to grow. Prosperity is a “fertilizer” for democratic evolution. In the end, prosperity and democracy will be the twin guarantors of Tajikistan’s long-term stability.”) However, this may not be the case if the right business environment is not created. While the development of factories and the specialization of labor might have helped create Europe’s middle class, unless the Tajik government makes dramatic changes in its laws to prevent graft and corruption, the ordinary merchants and farmers will not enjoy any of the benefits. Moreover, his specific recommendations went only as far as particular policies for achieving the Tajik government’s goal of “[decreasing] opportunities for corruption, not [creating] new opportunities.” Rather than calling on the Tajik people to demand more accountable governance or on the network of (US-supported) NGO’s to press the government further, he only outlined particular laws, giving as the only incentive the hope of greater investment and trade in the distant future, small consolation in a country where commonplace people barely survive day to day…

As reported on Registan (previously here and here) and widely blogged about, in order to build him a new palace, Rakhmonov’s authorities have begun the demolition of Tajikistan’s only synagogue. The incident represents a shameful example of Rakhmonov’s pettiness and megalomania. The synagogue belongs to the Bukharan Jewish community, one of the world’s oldest Jewish communities and quite distinct from the Sephardim and Ashkenazim. The 280 members are mostly elderly and poor and have no way of paying for a synagogue.

As was suggested, the worldwide Jewish community has begun to respond - but it may be a case of too little, too late. statement (which upped the ante from its earlier ‘dismay‘) condemning the move and comparing the eviction to the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque. While the demolition is both illegal and a violation of religious freedom, I would not go as far as applying the ‘terrorism’ label (which can be applied to the bombing of Istanbul’s Neve Shalom and Beth Israel synagogues). While perhaps the instigators of both may have had the same pair of motives - fear and intimidation - there is a big difference between an anonymous group and a government which can be shamed and (hopefully) pressured to reverse its action.

Good news in the ongoing saga of Mukhtor Boqizoda, one of Central Asia’s most courageous pioneers of democracy, whom I had the honor of interviewing. The editor of the independent newspaper Nerui Sukhan and long a thorn in Rakhmonov’s side, he was sentenced in late August 2005 to two years of labor on the trumped-up charge of stealing electricity. According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: (scroll down to the second-from-bottom)

Tajikistan’s Supreme Court has suspended the sentence handed down by a Dushanbe court in August 2005 to Mukhtor Boqizoda, the editor in chief of the opposition newspaper “Nerui Sukhan,” Asia Plus-Blitz reported on 13 February. Boqizoda was convicted of stealing electricity and sentenced to two years of corrective labor, a verdict the Committee to Protect Journalists described as “politically motivated” (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” 26 and 30 August 2005). Boqizoda said that his legal troubles have cost him nearly $30,000 and he plans to sue for compensation. DK

This is a nontrivial accomplishment, as the Tajik government could have easily detained him (however illegally) for as long as it wished - who knows what softened Rakhmonov’s heart? Hopefully Mr. Moqizoda will be able to put all of the shattered pieces of his newspaper back together, and I wish all the best of luck to him. However, if the case of Jumaboy Tolibov, who was detained for over two months after the Supreme Court ordered his release, is any example, Mr. Boqizoda still has a long road ahead. I’ll keep you posted…

In terms of political evolution, Tajikistan is at least a decade behind Kyrgyzstan. It presents an interesting comparison, as it suffered both a past civil war (which was always highly unlikely in Kyrgyzstan, but North-South tensions are nevertheless present) and currently languishes under an increasingly authoritarian government (particularly after Kyrgyzstan’s March uprisings, which people describe here as the ‘occasional revolution’ - in other words, that it was an accident that should not have happened; in any event, the Tajik government is taking no chances). Cultural factors that make difficult the introduction of Western democratic principles such as rule of law, the social contract and government representation and accountability are stronger here. Beyond the ‘Soviet mentality’, there is even stronger pastoralism, created by larger mountain barriers (to the extreme that people in neighboring valleys can barely understand each other), greater family connections (like the Eskimos’ myriad words for snow, Tajiks have words that explicitly lay out the specific connection between people [i.e. my mother’s brother’s son, etc.]), and a greater acceptance of and tolerance for corruption.

The hope among many international organizations is to create a new generation of Tajiks open to cosmopolitan ideas and enable them to become leaders for their own people (this is also a strategy for Kyrgyzstan, but there is more hope there for the country’s present as well as its future). Unfortunately, the fall of the Soviet Union meant the end of a well-funded system of education - the generation that is supposed to lead the country has come from crumbling schools and abysmal classrooms; although they are now no longer lectured at great length on mundane topics (as during Soviet times), in all likelihood, they are not getting much of anything at all. With corrution more entrenched in the education system now than ever before (paying for entrance to school, paying for grades, paying for the diploma, etc.), it is unlikely that even basic knowledge (to say nothing of critical and creative thinking, major deficiencies in every generation in Tajikistan) such as literacy or arithmetic will be taught and the new generation will be more unprepared than ever to be the leaders in business and politics that the country so desperately needs.

Can international organizations save Tajikistan? The key, in my perception, lies in the government, a corrupt, nepotistic, bureaucratic kleptocracy bent on maintaining control and keeping the population in submission at all costs, buying into the concept that an empowered, educated populace will be better in the long run than the current situation, even if it means the end of the cushy lifestyles of virtually everyone in power currently (they can always escape to Russia a la Akaev…). Change is happening, mainly through NGO’s, but the pace is painfully glacial and by the time the government finally wakes up, is may be too late.

Only on Xinhua, the Chinese news site. It looks like, contrary to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the United States’ military presence in Central Asia (at least Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) will continue. This will likely have the effect of maintaing the size of the embassies in both countries, meaning that they will continue to have staff specifically for issues of democracy. Will the new Great Game continue? Much depends on how the United States deals with the unresolved issue of Uzbekistan’s human rights record - which faces major tests in the form of the trial of Internews employees and the future of the Uzbek refugees from Andijan currently in Kyrgyzstan.

A lot of research here in Dushanbe - Tajikistan is a fascinating case study in the immense and numerous challenges facing international aid and development programs. Much of the difficulties in Kyrgyzstan are an even larger influence here: the cultural divide between locals and Westerners is larger, the economic situation more desperate, the government more authoritarian than Akayev at his worst, and on top of a Soviet legacy (or ‘mentality’), there is the immense baggage of the Civil War. More to come soon.

One of the things many people have echoed here and in Bishkek is the ascendence of Russian influence in Central Asia. The five republics still look to Russia for their IR cues, and in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan at least (probably in Kazakhstan and who knows about Turkmenistan) the March events in Bishkek (people here are hesitant to call it a Revolution) scared governments into cracking down. The Internews trial will be a good test case, as Karimov sets the standard for Central Asian authoritarianism. It’s unclear how Bakiev will act - it seems like he is trying to get the get the best of both worlds - that is, the first and second worlds. Will the pressure signal a new Great Game? It seems that there will definitely be implications for and modern Great Power relations. What impact will this have on the progress of democracy? Certainly the Russian-led effort to curtail foreign funding for NGO’s will create problems for American programs - as a recent US House of Representatives hearing noted, “progress continues to be measured largely in terms of civil society development”, and a USAID page noted that “the development of a vibrant civil society is a basic underpinning to democratization”. Thus, even if Russia (or China or Uzbekistan) fails in pushing the United States out of Central Asia, it seems like their means will have as much an effect on the democratic prospects in the republics as their ends. However, it seems like the success of authoritarianism is becoming more likely, particularly if the United States backs down from the recent challenge. We’ll see if Rumsfeld accomplishes more in his upcoming visit than he did on his last.