The Tensions between Authoritarian Rulers and International Organizations in Central Asia

At a recent Kennan Institute talk, Andrea Berg, Senior Researcher, Institute of Peace Research and Security Policy, University of Hamburg, Germany, argued that the authoritarian governments of Central Asia have become increasingly wary of international organizations. As the issue of succession becomes more pressing in these states, leaders fear that international interference could lead to popular mobilization. Berg noted that in Azerbaijan, president Heydar Aliev successfully positioned his son as his successor, and Ilham Aliev was elected president following his father's death. Georgia, however, presents an alternate scenario, where the official winner of elections was forced out of power by popular pressure. Central Asian leaders, Berg explained—particularly President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan and President Karimov of Uzbekistan—believe that limiting the role of Western states and organizations in their countries will reduce the likelihood of a "Georgian scenario" in their own countries.

Uzbekistan began instituting harsher laws regulating the work of international organizations shortly after Georgia's Rose Revolution. According to Berg, in early 2004, the Uzbek government passed a series of laws that required foreign organizations to re-register and limited the ability of local organizations to receive and spend foreign grants. These new laws were contrary to a 1994 bilateral agreement between Uzbekistan and the U.S. that gave U.S. organizations significant leeway to work in Uzbekistan. Berg said that the laws were applied selectively and mostly aimed against the Open Society Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, and Freedom House. OSI was eventually denied permission to re-register.

Following the well known events of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the so-called Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the leaders of Kazakhstan and Tajikistan became more concerned about international organizations, Berg said. In April 2005, Tajikistan passed a law allowing closer state monitoring of international organizations, and the Kazakh parliament is currently considering two draft laws that would force international organizations to re-register and give the state more control over foreign grants. In addition, Berg noted, all Central Asian states have been critical of the OSCE over the past two years. Central Asian leaders have joined Russian President Putin and other CIS leaders in condemning "double standards" employed by the OSCE.

The future of Central Asia's authoritarian leaders is unclear, according to Berg. Uzbekistan has experienced significant unrest over the past year, and both local and outside observers see the potential for revolutionary change. However, Berg argued that the one Central Asian "revolution," Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution, was not in fact a true regime change. One corrupt an ineffective leader was replaced with a similar leader, and the problems of corruption and violence in Kyrgyzstan are not getting better. Berg noted that it is likely that the EU will soon impose sanctions on Uzbekistan, and it remains to be seen how this will affect the political situation in Central Asia.