About Popular Movements

? Speaking to television audiences during a live call-in show on December 25, 2004, the eve of the runoff presidential election in Ukraine, President Akaev spoke about recent developments in Ukraine and Georgia. He said, “We need to reject political forces who want to repeat the revolutionary scenarios that were used in Georgia and Ukraine and funded by Western financial groups.”1

? In another television interview the next day, on December 26, President Akaev compared political blocs in Kyrgyzstan to the popular opposition movements whose mass demonstrations led to a change of government in Georgia and Ukraine. In response to a question about local political blocs, President Akaev was quoted as saying, “Unfortunately there are some movements, like people’s movements, which have been formed of late. They are being formed using the funds of international organizations and on their demand. They [sic] aim is to split our people. Their aim is to organize revolutions like the rose revolution in Georgia and the orange revolution in Ukraine, when we are developing stably.”2

? During the same interview, President Akaev reportedly went on to say, “I am against such movements, which split people on the demand of international organizations. We do not need these movements. We have been stably developing over the past two years…. We should maintain this and we should maintain stable development and accord among our people during the 2005 elections. I therefore urge people to rebuff the calls of those people’s unions which aim to organize revolutions. Only then can we hold democratic, free and fair elections and develop our economy and improve our people’s living conditions.”3

? On January 11, President Akaev told national television audiences, “Ordering a public scandal is so topical and revolutionary heat has stirred up some heads so much that they are organizing pickets, not particularly bothering to read the laws and regulations in the Election Code. Nobody wants to understand that ordinary people in Kyrgyzstan are deeply concerned about all pickets like these that are ordered and paid for in advance.”4

? Also speaking in January, Presidential advisor Bolot Januzakov told an audience of representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, presidential administration, and Central Electoral Commission that, “Our opponents are trying to use young people in their plans. They want to mislead the youth and take them to the street using the example of Georgia and Ukraine.”5

? Taking aim particularly at protests regarding the denial of one would-be candidate’s registration, Januzakov said, “January protests by the opposition show that certain political forces do not want to comply with current laws. Their goal is destabilization at any cost and the usurpation of power.” He added that, “Law enforcement departments must provide for law and order under these complicated circumstances” and “…must prevent conflicts and shows.”6

Youth groups claiming to be independent of the government have also publicly denounced the changes that took place in Ukraine and Georgia and vowed not to participate in public protests.

? On January 18 one such Kyrgyz Youth Organization, “KelKel” (“Renaissance”) organized a press-conference and said, “…hysterical picketing harms the stability of our country. We are against the export of ‘velvet revolutions.’ We are against those who bring ruin and conflict to our peaceful Kyrgyzstan using the money of sponsors. We will carry out our own actions but not show off in ‘dirty rallies’ of the former government officials who are now supposedly representing the opposition.”7

Accusing the Opposition of“Extremism” and Subversion

Inflammatory statements made by senior government officials appear to be designed to cast legitimate peaceful political opposition in the same light as dangerous and “extremist” threats to the state. The government has also raised the specter of terrorism and “radical Islam” at this politically sensitive time; a move perceived by some as an attempt to establish a pretext to undermine democracy and violate the rights of the political opposition and general electorate.

? During an interview on January 28, 2005, in response to a question about the possibility of “revolutions” in Kyrgyzstan, President Akaev said, “…[those people] attempting to launch ‘velvet revolutions’ in Kyrgyzstan need to take into account the distinct national features of the Central Asian region. Such tactics meant to change a regime can bring about civil war. Revolution in Central Asia will not be as easy a process as in Georgia and Ukraine. They have European culture. We Kyrgyz are nomads. However, due to external financing and support, Hizb ut-Tahrir branches have also appeared in our country. And on the eve of the upcoming election we are afraid that the radical factions of the opposition will merge with radical Islamic groups. Some of our opposition leaders use their support, including material support…”8

? Prime Minister Nikolai Tanaev is reported to have stated publicly in December, “We have to step up preparations for the forthcoming elections. First of all, we must not allow different religious extremist powers or Western organizations to intervene in our internal affairs during the election campaign and the process of elections with the aim of destabilizing the social and political situation in the country. At present representatives of radical powers and extremist organizations are making attempts to get to power and into parliament. We must by no means allow the Georgian scenario to take place in Kyrgyzstan.”9

? President Akaev’s press secretary likened the push for Ukrainian style reform to preparation for civil war. On January 26 Abdil Segizbaev said, “Those who are trying to make Kyrgyzstan into a Ukraine, 2004, are actually creating a Tajikistan circa 1992.”10

? In early December, Boris Poluektov, first deputy head of Kyrgyzstan’s National Security Service, reportedly told the Russian news agency Interfax that, “As the country moves closer to the elections, tensions may rise and the opposition may attempt to launch outrageous actions to provoke public unrest and destabilize the situation.”11

? Poluektov also reportedly charged that, “At parliament sessions, some deputies have already started working on Georgian scenarios.”12

Accusing the Independent Press of “Extremism” and Subversion

The Akaev government has also taken aim at the independent and opposition-affiliated media in an apparent attempt to neutralize criticism of state officials’ and pro-government parties’ conduct during the pre-election campaign.

? In an October 2004 address to the Kyrgyz Security Council President Akaev spoke out against what he called “ideological extremism,” including, “aggressive attempts by individual groups, organizations, and mass media entities that are involved in political struggles to force on society their own vision of ways for the development [of] the country.”13

President Akaev made statements implying that the legitimate exercise of the rights to free expression and political participation was tantamount to subversion.

? In the same address to the Security Council referenced above, Akaev stated that, “Some printed editions that call themselves opposition newspapers immediately turn their pages in the direction of destabilization as soon as the slightest chance arises to exacerbate the situation.”14

? Discussing what he termed mass media entities and groups that are involved in political struggles, President Akaev reportedly said, “In their interpretation, democracy ceases to be a means for achieving the stable, steady development of society, and becomes a goal for which that stability and steadiness are sacrificed. What this amounts to is not merely harmless propaganda, but systematic preparations for the seizure of power.”15

Disdain for International Monitoring

In a major setback to the promotion of human rights in Kyrgyzstan, President Akaev has also has begun referring to human rights developments as exclusively an internal matter, dismissing the international dimension of ensuring compliance with human rights.

The Kyrgyz government’s antagonism toward supposed outside interference in Ukraine has led President Akaev to make statements in direct contravention to the country’s international obligations to uphold and defend human rights. However, Kyrgyzstan voluntarily became a party to international instruments that establish that human rights are of universal concern and are not solely the internal affair of any one government. If violations of human rights take place during the course of political events in Kyrgyzstan, these are legitimately matters of concern and interest for the entire international community.

The government of Kyrgyzstan invited election monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to observe the February vote. The Election Observation Mission (EOM) was launched on January 18. The OSCE is one of the region’s foremost experts in election observation. That organization has issued reports critical of the conduct of elections in Central Asia and other parts of the former Soviet Union and has worked closely with governments to help them to improve election-related legislation and has advised authorities on ways to establish a level playing field for pre-election campaigns.

Several statements suggest the government’s rejection of respect for human rights principles as universal, and its suspicion of election observers.

? “All public and political events of the state are internal affairs,”16 President Akaev said in a television appearance in which he also told viewers that the upcoming elections should not be a cause for outside interference in the republic’s domestic affairs.

? On December 25 President Akaev reportedly said on national television, “We are opposed to foreign observers turning themselves into supervisors. In Ukraine we saw them become the ‘Orange Revolution’s’ organizers. We should not allow this to happen in our republic.”17

Hostility toward NGOs

The head of the state Central Electoral Commission (CEC) has also suggested that the work of civil society NGOs to educate the electorate to ensure a free and fair vote qualifies as attempt to unduly influence the election’s outcome.

? On January 17 CEC chairmanSuleiman Imanbaev reportedly charged that the Association of Centers of Civil Society Support (ACCSS) was trying to influence “the politics of the regional mass media during the elections period.”18

The ACCSS is a Kyrgyz NGO that has received grant money from USAID to support civil society groups, including NGOs and mass media outlets involved in conducting non-partisan public education campaigns regarding the elections process, such as voting for the first time, and other impartial election-related materials.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/02/11/kyrgyz10168_txt.htm

Increased Repression Ahead of Elections. Government Restricts Rights to Avoid ‘Ukraine Scenario’

The Kyrgyz government is stepping up repression in advance of this month’s parliamentary elections to forestall a repeat of the ‘Ukraine scenario,’ Human Rights Watch said today.

In a letter to President Askar Akaev, Human Rights Watch warned that the clampdown could compromise the fairness of the election when citizens go to the polls on February 27. The group urged the government to take specific steps to ensure respect for fundamental rights.

“These elections will test the Kyrgyz government’s commitment to democracy and human rights,” said Rachel Denber, acting executive director of the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch. “The question is whether the Kyrgyz government will meet public demands for responsive government and fair elections, or resort to violating fundamental rights to avoid a repeat of Ukraine’s ‘Orange Revolution.’”

Human Rights Watch’s 12-page letter details how the Kyrgyz authorities unfairly excluded opposition candidates from running for office, launched new restrictions on freedom of assembly and harassed opposition supporters and civil society activists. The letter said that a series of public statements by senior government officials who, warning against the ‘Ukraine scenario,’ attempted to equate political opposition with subversion.

In an appendix to the letter, Human Rights Watch lists some of these statements, which it says appear designed to impugn and intimidate the political opposition and civil society groups. “These statements have poisoned the pre-election environment,” Denber said.

New York, February 14, 2005
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/02/11/kyrgyz10169.htm