Skip to content

On the way to emancipation, not all roads lead through NATO

Article by Dr Kevork Oskanian

May 10, 2021

On the way to emancipation, not all roads lead through NATO

‘What does Russia want?’: this perennial question of the post-Cold War era has remained left, right, and centre of policymaking and analysis towards Moscow since the end of the Cold War. At first, in the 1990s, the question depended largely on the drama of Russia’s collapse, and a tug-of-war between the various competing identities – liberal, pragmatic, red/brown – that marked both state and society during that unsettled decade.[1] The restoration of the power vertical by Vladimir Putin didn’t end the ambiguity and confusion on Russian intentions. Over time, however, one thing became abundantly clear: the Putin regime was willing to pay considerable costs to maintain a regional ‘sphere of special interest’, composed of states whose sovereign equality it had much difficulty in accepting.

 

Western observers like to explain Putin’s apparent inability to ‘let go’ of his neighbours in various ways: it is, some say, a ruse designed to mobilise public opinion around the flag of an autocratic regime suspicious of Western-style democracy;[2] others present it as a product of an entrenched, specifically Russian neo-imperial political culture that demands obedience from hapless neighbours stuck in its ‘near abroad’;[3] and those of a more realist persuasion tend to point at NATO’s attempts to expand Eastwards – and into that ‘near abroad’ – as the primary driver of a Russian subversion born from insecurity.[4] In the process, more or less clear dividing lines are created: between those who see NATO’s open-door policy as representing the road to emancipation from Putin’s authoritarian reflexes or Russian neo-imperial meddling, and those who see it as the primary cause of Russian pushback. It is, more often than not, either one, or the other; hawks or doves, a hard or soft – the dividing lines appear clear.

 

The binaries whereby Russian motives are reduced to either domestic or external factors, and the solution is presented as ‘NATO expansion or bust’ simplify both the causes of, and the solutions to the predicament confronting not just Ukraine, but all the states that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. The result has often consisted of reducing complexity to a false choice: between a continued attachment to a mechanism that was once seen as a solution to the ‘Russian problem’ by the luckier members of the former Soviet bloc – NATO membership; or the abandonment of the hapless countries on the other line of the current NATO boundary to the Russian sphere of interest.

 

Indeed, the latter goes against the fundamental principles of the Liberal International Order (LIO), and the West’s default position has remained offering countries like Ukraine and Georgia a – highly theoretical – chance for membership, in the absence of a clear consensus on its feasibility, let alone a concrete timeline for its realisation. This has allowed Western policies towards the former Soviet space to become stale, predictable, formulaic, leaving Putin the continued ability to surprise, thwart, and sabotage at a price he is willing to pay. In both Georgia and Ukraine, the Kremlin knows where to poke and to provoke so as to foster division and complicate this supposed roadmap towards emancipation; beyond aspiring NATO candidates – in Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan – his ability to pull rabbits out of his hat is also proven, time and again.

 

But is NATO the only answer? As I shall argue here, NATO membership is neither a practically sufficient, nor, in fact, a morally necessary solution to the post-imperial predicaments of Russia’s immediate neighbours. There are, in fact, other ways of ensuring the security and emancipation of these states and societies, albeit ones that require strategic patience and adaptability away from long-held, ossified assumptions on Russian motives, and an attachment to solutions based more on policy inertia than a clear-eyed view of ever-changing geopolitical realities. If NATO has been relatively successful in Central and Eastern Europe, the conditions which made this success possible do not hold in the former Soviet Union, and the ‘NATO imperative’ now presents rigidities and complications that Eastward policies could very well do without – not least, in the longer-term interest of Russia’s neighbours themselves.

 

This is not an argument in favour of appeasement or abandonment, far from it. Instead, it is one in favour of changing the cost/benefit environment within the former Soviet space from a logic based on unidimensional views of Russian motivations, and a short-term, outdated view of the wider strategic environment, to a finer-grained, longer-term, contextualised alternative. It is based on a cautious rejection of the idea that Russia could be coaxed to return to a golden age of the ‘Liberal International Order’ – which mainly exists in the minds of the selectively forgetful in any case – in a geopolitical great-power contest which reinforces, rather than weakens, Moscow’s association of territoriality with great-power status; and the embracing of a new world, where the West and the former Soviet states will have to dig in, adequately shield themselves, and patiently wait for more secular changes in Russia to manifest themselves, opening up possibilities for future arrangements not necessarily based on a return to an idealised, liberal past.

 

What does Russia Want – and Why Does it Want it?

To start with, it is simplistic to assume that Russian foreign policy is the product of the innate anti-democratic ideological propensities of one man, or group of (mostly) men. Quite apart from the fact that attributing a coherent ideology to Putin would be quite mistaken – beyond a general imperative for power – the reduction of Russia’s recent behaviour to an individual or distinct group would also only tell a very partial story. Individuals do not exist in social and institutional voids, they shape and are shaped by these environments. To ask ‘how do we solve a problem like Putin/the ‘Siloviki’ thus misses the wider structural contexts within which leaders like Putin emerge, and their imperious acts earn them popularity. It also creates the unrealistic expectation that once the ‘criminal’ Putin regime is removed, the elements for a ‘new Russia’ may somehow miraculously fall into place – based on the mistaken assumption that, in the Russian case, broader institutions and political culture would temper, rather than enhance, any moves towards more assertive, illiberal foreign policies.[5]

 

Waltz’ warning against overstating the case for the ‘first image’ of international relations – individuals – stands;[6] so does his admonition on placing too much faith in the second image – the domestic political system – by assuming the arc of Russian history would gravitate towards democracy were it not for Putin. Chances are that, rather than some kind of liberal enlightenment, a fall of the regime would be followed by a tug-of-war between hawks and doves, hardliners and moderates, with history – and Russia’s present realities – considerably in favour of the former. Russia’s liberals and liberalism itself have been comprehensively sidelined over the past few decades, both within government, and in society at large.[7] And while conflict over Russia’s relationship with the West has been a recurring phenomenon throughout its history, it has never been able to change its worldview in a way that denied itself an exceptional role within a hierarchically conceived neighbourhood: even the 1990s liberals envisaged a ‘normal’ Russia as having a special role in ‘its near abroad’.[8]

 

That is not so say that Russian society has some kind of unchangeable, self-contained imperial reflex. For, just as Putin is also a product of Russian domestic society, the Russian elite’s world-view is also a product of an International Society marked by the dominance of a Western modernity towards which it has strived, problematically, since the days of Peter the Great.[9] Against those who see Russian actions as inevitable by virtue of a circular non-argument – ‘Russia is Russia’ – the country’s state and society are inextricably entangled with the West. Russia’s centuries-old struggle with Western modernity as a model – often the goal, and always, frustratingly, out of reach – underlies many of its contradictions, including, paradoxically enough, its current challenge to the LIO.

 

This goes further and deeper than the old realist argument that sees NATO eastward expansion as the only or even primary cause of Russian assertiveness. Focusing on territory, and NATO expansion, alone as an explanation for the current predicament in Western-Russian relations only tells a very partial story. Beyond the realist explanations based on hard power, security dilemmas and spheres of influence, Russia and the West would likely have ended up at loggerheads even in the absence of territorial intrusion. Not because of some self-contained, innate Russian propensity towards confrontation, but because it could not attain the markers of status that make the contemporary West ‘Western’, and undergird its global hegemony. In simple terms: elite status in the Liberal World Order required a number of attributes – a liberal-democratic system, a free market, and, crucially, subordination to US ‘leadership’ – which Russian elites were not prepared, able, or willing to adopt, with or without NATO expansion.

 

Putin’s Failed, Feigned Quest for Status

This quest for status manifested itself in two distinct ways: first, there was an element of imitation, an approach that was predominant during, roughly, the first half of the Putin regime’s period in power. At the time, Moscow at the very least feigned conformity to the LIO’s basic precepts – through the adoption of the language on the Global War on Terror, a superficial, ‘sovereign’ application of democracy and constitutional rule, and interference in its neighbours’ affairs carefully clad in liberal or technocratic language.[10] Even during the invasion of Georgia, in 2008, it still appropriated, distorted, and deployed the – very liberal – language of R2P. But sometime in the later 2000s – from about the period of Putin’s now-infamous Munich speech – Russia started giving up on being accepted in ‘the West’ as an equal, not merely because of NATO expansion, but also because it could no longer pretend to acquire the attributes associated with membership of the Western international ‘elite’. Liberal rationalisations had worn thin, any pretence of modernisation – carried most explicitly, and mainly rhetorically – by Dmitri Medvedev had failed.

 

I’ll leave the specific question whether this ‘feigning’ was an instance of ‘faking it till you make it’, or simply a ruse meant to lull the West into complacency in the absence of power, and any genuine willingness to adopt liberal norms open to speculation; the fact is that, since about the beginning of Putin’s second stint as president, Russia has placed itself radically outside and against the Liberal West. The reasons for this are complex, but, again, likely go beyond any simple domestic, or geopolitical explanation. From the ‘grand sociological’ point of view suggested above, two developments could explain this transition. On the one hand, a dashed entitlement to membership of the global, liberal elite on (feigned) liberal terms, and, secondly, the crisis of liberalism itself, which made a rejection of its normative framework more feasible. Simply put, Russia would be recognised, either as a ‘respectable’ member of ‘really existing’, liberal international society, or as a challenger to it, and an accelerator of its decline. In the process, it also went from claiming a right to ordering a separate, subordinate sphere of interest in a (feigned) liberal manner, to just ordering it at will, outside its – now weakened – normative framework.

 

The move away from ‘feigned liberalism’ or ‘liberal performance’ thus resulted in a much more crudely formulated, civilisational legitimising discourse in Moscow.[11] Having given up on – and thoroughly discredited itself in – formulating its hierarchical interventions in the former Soviet space in liberal terms, the Putin regime now makes much more recognisably civilisational claims, separating a regional sphere of influence for itself without the desired blessing of the LIO – whereas in earlier years it would still have tended to rhetorically couch its justifications according to that order’s terms of reference. The Crimean annexation was thus defended in Russian nationalist terms; but, more broadly, the interventions in Ukraine – and, more recently, Belarus – have been incongruously justified in terms of an attempt to safeguard an ‘authentic’ – i.e. pro-Russian/Soviet – from the adulteration of Western-inspired hyper-liberalism or ‘fascism’.

 

But, not unlike ‘feigned liberalism’, this anti-cosmopolitan claim encompasses an element of imitation: Putin’s Russia imitates the West in determining the ‘exception’ within this claimed sphere of interest it has appropriated for itself. Just as the West – and the exceptionalist United States – functions as supreme adjudicator at a global level – determining exceptions for itself in all manner of legal regimes, and in more specific instances from Kosovo to Iraq – Russia does the same, ever so clumsily, in its own claimed sphere. Determining the exception and freely interpreting international law thus remain a marker of great power identity as performed by the United States itself; the difference is that Moscow has largely ceased to even pretend to be determining exceptions within its ‘near abroad’ within liberal terms of reference.

 

In that sense, Russia’s civilisational discourse retains a crucial link to Western behaviour: as a marker of great power status, the West’s ability to determine exceptions to the liberal order has transmogrified into Putin’s claimed ability to determine exceptions within his own custom-made regional ‘order’, full stop. The Russians themselves, and the states and societies within that claimed sphere of interest, are the foremost victims of this exceptionalism: they are now swept up in an increasingly nihilistic power- and status-seeking project, where history and civilisationism are employed at the expense of the self-determination of both Russian and non-Russian societies.

 

An Emancipatory Pivot

But is the prospect of NATO membership for Russia’s beleaguered neighbours the only answer to this predicament in light of the above? It is, in fact, neither practically effective, nor morally necessary. From a practical perspective, it puts the NATO candidate states themselves in an eternal waiting room, exposed to Russian meddling and interference without the benefits of article V; it also reinforces rather than weakens Russia’s identification of status with a sphere of influence, based on the outdated logic of a bygone age. Neither do the moral arguments withstand closer scrutiny. The claim that NATO expansion would entail a return to a past ‘rules-based order’ thus idealises an arrangement that was always marked by exceptions – albeit ones determined by the West; and the insistence on alliance membership as the only pathway to post-imperial emancipation turns it into an end-in-itself rather than just one of a number of alternative means towards a broader, and more attainable emancipatory goal. Both practically and morally, NATO expansion thus comes to represent an unnecessary encumbrance, rather than a road towards a more manageable, freer future.

 

It is often pointed out by the proponents of NATO membership for former Soviet states that countries like Ukraine and Georgia have already been lost to Russia: and, indeed, while Ukrainian society turned in favour of alliance membership after the 2014 Russian interventions, a consistent majority in Georgia has supported an Atlanticist course since well before the 2008 invasion.[12] Both within their elites, and in their societies, these two states now see membership of the Atlantic community as the ultimate way out from domination by an overbearing former imperial power. Both these NATO candidates have paid, and are paying, a price quite literally measured in blood and soil for their desire for self-determination.

 

But if these people and their lands have been lost to Russia, neither have they been gained by NATO – membership of which is as far off as it ever was. The magic of article V has not rubbed off on candidate-members, which now have to contend with the worst of both worlds: seeing Russia enraged at what it defines as a potential civilisational retrenchment, without the benefit – as in, for instance, the Baltics – of full-scale deterrence. To make things worse, there is no prospect of emerging from this purgatory any time soon, not least because of the reasonable expectation, shared by many in the West, that the current Russian regime would go to extreme lengths to keep what it has never ceased viewing as its own sphere of interest outside the Alliance. NATO membership also remains out of reach because its clear requirements provide a power- and status-seeking Russia with a spoiling advantage: Moscow knows exactly which buttons to press in order to prevent the not-so-inevitable, without necessarily having to achieve a substantive, positive alternative in an ongoing rear-guard struggle. It knows the costs some in the Western alliance are quite unwilling to pay, the commitments they are unwilling to make.

 

Additionally, tugs-of-war over spheres – which is exactly how the Kremlin sees the fight over NATO expansion – are a game the Kremlin is all too adept at playing. Indeed, it nurtures its obdurate search for status – after all, such contests are exactly what Great Powers are supposed to engage in – and allows it to displace any genuine calls for democratisation and self-determination into this territorialised great-power game. It is so much easier to deny the agency of Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarusians, and, indeed, the Russians themselves when it can be dismissed and subsumed into machinations of an expansionist alternative;[13] a conjoining of geopolitics and democratisation then makes any hint at revolutionary liberalisation – as most recently attempted in Belarus – doubly unacceptable to the Kremlin. In the process, Moscow is never confronted with the harsh truth that it has lost these lands and peoples not because of NATO intrigues and geopolitical circumstance, but because of a genuine will to independence of the non-Russian populations of its former empire.

 

Apart from these practical considerations, the equations of NATO membership with the ‘restoration of a rules-based order’ or an emancipatory imperative aren’t as morally clear-cut as would appear.  Firstly, the insistence on NATO expansion – and, more broadly, of Russian compliance to the LIO – aims for the restoration of an idealised past that arguably never was, or, at least, a past whose conditions have by now withered away.[14] One might forgive Western states for subscribing to the idea of a return to a principled ‘rules-based order’ that never existed in the first place; after all, it is easy to rationalise exceptions to that order in the face of claims to ‘principle’ when one had the privilege of determining those exceptions, be it in Kosovo, or Iraq, or Libya. Moreover, the success of previous bouts of NATO eastward expansion was always based on the illusions created by a geopolitical vacuum rather than its status as an immutable element of sound, moral statecraft.[15] In achieving its stated goals – stabilising Europe’s Centre and East, and ensuring its security – it was, undoubtedly, a great success, which even Moscow had, however begrudgingly, accepted as a fait accompli; this illusion of expediency can no longer be maintained in the former Soviet space, where Moscow is both able and willing to object, and push back. With the road to disaster often paved with good intentions, its resulting impracticality, and its condemnation of candidate states to a form of never-ending purgatory makes the project morally questionable in itself.

 

Secondly – and more importantly – an unquestioned and unquestionable fixation on NATO expansion appears to have made some lose track of the other ways in which the security and self-determination of post-Soviet societies can be effectively ensured. Provided, that is, that the pivot towards alternative policies is carried out in concert with the states concerned, and with a clearly stated, and enacted commitment to supporting their resilience and independence even without the prospect of membership. This more honest, realistic approach would not counter the overall aim of self-determination. After all, membership of the alliance has always remained subordinate to other aims much more immediately relevant to the populations concerned, including democratisation, the restoration of territorial integrity, the consolidation of statehood, (…). This opens to possibility of those states themselves taking the courageous decision to pivot away from aspired membership in concert with their Western allies, and move towards more realistic ways of ensuring their security, without being dependent on the unanimous good graces of others. It is, indeed, very difficult to envisage them doing this at present, but, over the longer term, independence and self-determination may come to be understood as dependent on a much broader repertoire of prudent, flexible, responsive statecraft than merely membership of an exclusive club of states, after a seemingly unending apprenticeship in a dangerous waiting room. The alternative – of a divided West throwing in the towel unilaterally would be a much worse alternative, and, while unlikely at this point, one that could not be excluded over the longer term.

 

Taking NATO expansion off the table in this way would neither imply giving up on the states surrounding Russia, nor would it result in appeasement: instead, it would open up the space for more flexible, adaptable, and, if necessary, assertive policies that may put Moscow on the back foot by reversing its spoiling advantage and confronting it with the idea that, even in the absence of an expanding alliance, it has lost control over the states and societies of ‘its near abroad’. It would, moreover, likely lower the threshold at which Moscow would be able to accept that fact because a perceived ‘loss’ of Ukraine or Georgia would not equal an expanding rival alliance on its boundaries, or a return to a past perceived by the vast majority of Russians as humiliating – a fact eagerly exploited by the Putin regime. If combined with the prospect of a de-territorialised form of great power status, Russia accepting the independence of its neighbours without them entering NATO, may prove more realistic – and beneficial – aim over the longer term.

 

Conclusion

Not unlike Communism in earlier times, NATO membership risks becoming a goal set somewhere in a mythical, idealised future, eternally around the corner, and always out of reach. A much more attainable approach would include tempering one’s adherence to ideal-type outcomes, while building on the resilience and will to self-determination of the societies around Russia, redefined not in terms of membership of a certain alliance, but in terms of an ability to participate in realistic, measured, flexible statecraft as sovereign states. The prudent assertiveness of the major states of Central Asia, their gradual – and relatively successful – efforts at building distinct post-imperial identities and foreign policies indicates that such an approach is not as far-fetched as it would first appear, especially if the West continued to back the same process outside the confines of NATO membership, in the former Soviet parts of Eastern Europe.[16] Such a move would take strategic foresight, and a commitment to delayed gratification on the part of the Western policymaking community, and the states concerned themselves. It would also require coordination and consent, rather than being seen as a green light for deciding ‘over their heads’.

 

In final analysis, taking NATO out of the equation while still remaining committed to the independence and resilience of all states would take policy from the 1990s into the 21st century. When it comes to Russia that will require correctly calibrated signalling in the beginning, and considerable patience afterwards – most probably until the replacement of the Putin regime with ‘something else’. If that ‘something else’ results from a liberal swing in Russia’s long-term ideological pendulum, this will make life easier for any government genuinely committed to reform;[17] but, even in the absence of such a Russian ‘liberal enlightenment’, without a NATO-branded sword of Damocles, it will put the threshold at which a new, post-imperial arrangement becomes acceptable to a Russian regime at a much lower level. At the very least, it should be considered as a third option, beyond the counterproductive, sterile binary confrontation between ‘Atlanticists’ and ‘Realists’, ‘Russia hawks’ and ‘Russia doves’ around the ‘NATO membership, or bust’ axis; these new times may be calling for a revision of these outdated dividing lines.

 

Image by NATO under (CC).

 

[1] Tolz, Vera. 1998. Forging the Nation: National Identity and Nation Building in Post‐Communist Russia. Europe-Asia Studies 50 (6): 993-1022, https://www.jstor.org/stable/154053; Chafetz, Glenn. 1996. The Struggle for a National Identity in Post-Soviet Russia. Political Science Quarterly 111 (4): 661-688, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2152089

[2] McFaul, Michael. 2020. Putin, Putinism and the Domestic Determinants of Russian Foreign Policy. International Security 45 (2): 95-139, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/putin-putinism-and-domestic-determinants-russian-foreign-policy

[3] Edward Lucas, Imperial Abnormality, CEPA, December 2020, https://cepa.org/imperial-abnormality/

[4] John J. Mearsheimer, Getting Ukraine Wrong, The New York Times, March 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/opinion/getting-ukraine-wrong.html; John J. Mearsheimer,

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: the Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault

[5] Anders Åslund and Leonid Gozman, Russia after Putin: How to Rebuild the State, Atlantic Council, February 2021, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/russia-after-putin-report/

[6] Waltz, Kenneth Neal. 1959. Man, the State and War: a Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.

[7] Laruelle, Marlène. 2020. Making Sense of Russia’s Illiberalism. Journal of Democracy 31 (3): 115-129, https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/making-sense-of-russias-illiberalism/

[8] Andrei Kozyrev, The Lagging Partnership, Foreign Affairs, May/June 1994, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1994-05-01/lagging-partnership

[9] Zaraköl, Ayse. 2010. After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201-239.

[10] Oskanian, Kevork. 2018. A Very Ambiguous Empire: Russia’s Hybrid Exceptionalism. Europe-Asia Studies 70 (1): 26-52 (pp. 39-41).

[11] Bettiza, Gregorio, and David Lewis. 2020. Authoritarian Powers and Norm Contestation in the Liberal International Order: Theorizing the Power Politics of Ideas and Identity. Journal of Global Security Studies 5 (4): 559-577.

[12] Oksana Grytsenko, Kyiv Post Cites New Ukraine Poll: NATO support grows in Ukraine, reaches 53 percent, IRI, July 2019, https://www.iri.org/resource/kyiv-post-cites-new-ukraine-poll-nato-support-grows-ukraine-reaches-53-percent; Agenda.ge, NDI poll: 82% of Georgians support EU, 74%- NATO membership, January 2020,https://agenda.ge/en/news/2020/146

[13] TASS, CIA Working with Navalny, Kremlin Spokesman Says, October 2020, https://tass.com/politics/1207373; Tom Balmforth, Russia Accuses U.S. of Promoting Revolution in Belarus, Toughens Stance, September 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belarus-election-idCAKBN2672NC

[14] Porter, Patrick. 2020. The False Promise of Liberal Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

[15] Oskanian, Kevork. 2019. Carr Goes East: Reconsidering Power and Inequality in a Post-Liberal Eurasia. European Politics and Society 20 (2): 172-189.

[16] Nomerovchenko, Alina, Jaechun Kim, and William Kang. 2018. Foreign Policy Orientation of Independent Central Asian States: Looking Through the Prism of Ideas and Identities. The Korean Journal of International Studies 16 (3): 389-410.

[17] Vladislav Inozemtsev, The Pendulum Effect, Riddle Russia, April 2018, https://www.ridl.io/en/the-pendulum-effect/

Footnotes
    Related Articles

    Being the values you want to see in the world? Global Britain, domestic trajectories and the Integrated Review

    Article by Dr Jonathan Gilmore

    May 7, 2021

    Being the values you want to see in the world? Global Britain, domestic trajectories and the Integrated Review

    The publication of the Integrated Review (IR) in March 2021 marked the most detailed account yet of the Government’s vision of a post-Brexit ‘Global’ Britain. A vision of foreign policy as flexible and dynamic, yet committed to established partnerships, and both a defender of values and dedicated to the pursuit of national interest. Familiar tensions within UK foreign policy have remained evident, and the Review makes an obvious effort to please segments of both the Conservative Party and the electorate with very different views on Britain’s role in the world.

     

    However, there is also much to welcome within the Review. It makes clear commitments to the ‘values’ component of UK foreign policy – support for democracy, human rights and international development. Despite the markedly nativist politics of Brexit, it seems that UK foreign policy itself has not swung decisively in this direction. However, problems can also be seen in the instrumental use of values as a stick with which to poke authoritarian states, and the corrosive impact of failing to embody these values in domestic British political life.

     

    The IR marks a less radical shift in the UK’s international priorities than may have been anticipated, given Britain’s departure from the EU and the nativist pull of populist nationalism. These influences are certainly evident in the repeated emphasis on Britain as an independent sovereign state and its new-found flexibility as a ‘buccaneering free trader’.[1] Indeed, Dominic Raab’s description of the UK as “a creative disrupter”, reflects more than a passing hint of Trumpian rhetoric.[2]

     

    Nevertheless, there is an important and encouraging continuity in the UK’s commitment to a ‘values’ component in its foreign policy. Indeed, the Review and Raab’s recent speeches make liberal use of the claim that Global Britain is to be a ‘force for good’ in the world. The Review marks the most assertive foregrounding of moral commitments in UK foreign policy since the similar use of ‘force for good’ nomenclature in New Labour’s foreign policy during the 1990s. The Review’s ‘force for good’ agenda maintains commitments to the promotion of human rights, democracy, the rule of law and international development, as core drivers of UK foreign policy. The Review also pushes the values agenda somewhat further, committing to support the expansion of democratic values, human rights and responsible state behaviour into the ‘future frontiers’ of cyberspace. Whilst Britain’s actual conduct of international affairs is highly unlikely to mirror its professed values at all times, their continued presence in the language of UK foreign policy is an important means of holding the Government to account for the ethical choices they make.

     

    The Review also demonstrates a healthy degree of realism regarding the challenges faced by the liberal international order, and its fragmentation into a more polarised and competitive system. The enthusiasm for the promotion of values in foreign policy is pitched against the rise of authoritarian challengers. The familiar antagonists of North Korea and Iran are highlighted by the Review, alongside the more direct inclusion of Russia as a major security threat. The authoritarian challenge posed by China is implied, though is stated deliberately ambiguously given its importance as a trading partner. Although the fragmentation of the liberal international order is disconcerting for advocates of human rights and democratisation, the recognition of these limitations is conversely a positive development.

     

    Assumptions about the onward march of democracy and the universal validity of liberal values have been at the heart of a range of miscalculations in Western foreign policy in the post-Cold War period. Such assumptions were latent in Western responses to the Arab Spring. In Libya, this manifested itself in excessive faith about the solidity of the National Transitional Council and the democratic trajectory in a post-Gaddafi era. In Syria, significant errors were made in assuming the inevitable demise of Bashar al-Assad and underestimating the potential of Russia as a powerful and decisive counter-revolutionary force.

     

    The IR more openly recognises the frailty of the liberal international order and the plurality of interests and worldviews. As a strategic guide for action, this recognition provides openings for more creative and nuanced approaches to UK foreign policy. Rather than assuming a linear path to a more democratic and cooperative world order, the onus is on practitioners of British foreign policy to work pragmatically within the constraints of the present.

     

    Within this context, the Review positions the UK in an entrepreneurial role, ‘shaping the open order of the future’, as Raab put it ‘a disruptor for stability’.[3] History has not ended, authoritarianism is not vanquished, and Western democracies must work to create the international order in which they’d like to reside.

     

    Although the IR’s ‘force for good agenda’ keeps values firmly on the radar of British foreign policy, it also reveals a more troubling direction. Global Britain as a ‘force for good’ is quite clearly positioned in opposition to nefarious authoritarian forces, who seek to target the vulnerabilities of democratic societies and undermine social cohesion within them. The Review positions the UK in a binary struggle between rival political systems as authoritarian states seek to expand their zones of influence. Britain’s commitment to human rights, open societies, democracy and the rule of law as defining features of its ‘force for good’, are by extension polarised against the ‘forces for bad’. The IR moves beyond acknowledging the diversity of worldviews and orientates British foreign policy towards a much more direct ideological conflict.

     

    In this context, the values around which Britain seeks to shape its foreign policy risk becoming instrumentalised in this international struggle, as tools to challenge rival powers, rather than ends in themselves. This instrumentalisation of the values component is reflected in the recent decision to more closely link development aid to national interest priorities, with the merger of the FCO and DFID.[4] Placed into the context of a global political struggle against authoritarianism, the risk is that development aid will become similarly instrumentalised and directed to allied ‘frontline states’, rather than those most in need of developmental assistance.

     

    The IR is noteworthy for making some acknowledgment of the domestic context within the UK and its relationship to foreign policy. It recognises that ‘freedom must start at home’ – that domestic populations must be convinced of the benefits of openness and protected from the negative impacts of globalisation. The Conservative Government’s new-found popularity amongst ‘Red Wall’ voters in the economically depressed former Labour heartlands adds a new optic to this. Having myself previously argued for greater focus on the domestic foundations of UK foreign policy, I do see this recognition as a positive development.[5]

     

    However, it is on this point that fissures in the ‘force for good agenda’ begin to emerge. The nod towards the domestic context and the steadfast commitment to values in UK foreign policy sits awkwardly with a contradictory direction in some of the Government’s domestic policies. Elements of the Government’s domestic agenda appear to undermine sources of UK soft power, threatening core values, and in certain cases suggest echoes of democratic backsliding.

     

    The IR is explicit that democratic values, the UK legal system and ‘large and diverse diasporic communities’ are central facets of British soft power. Yet in each case, recent domestic policy approaches have worked against this.

     

    In terms of democratic values and human rights, the Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, currently passing through Parliament, will impose significant restrictions on public protests and the traditional way of life of Gypsy and Traveller communities. This legislation has already met with fierce resistance from human rights and civil society groups.[6] For foreign policy practitioners, challenging crackdowns on pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong, Belarus or Russia, becomes significantly more difficult when democratic norms on protest are under threat at home.

     

    Along similar lines, the IR’s aspirations to infuse democratic values and human rights into the future frontiers of cyberspace, also run into tension with recent UK legislation eroding rights to privacy and enhancing the surveillance powers of the state. Enhanced powers for security agencies to intercept electronic communications and allow blanket access to internet connection records were established in the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act. End-to-end encryption remains a target of legislation.

     

    Domestic approaches to immigration also pose an intersecting threat to human rights and the ‘people to people links’ emphasised in the Review. Ending freedom of movement and limiting immigration were central planks of the Brexit campaign and the Conservatives 2019 election manifesto, indicating that the future trajectory is to constrict, rather than expand person to person links through immigration.[7] The ‘Migration and Mobility Partnership’ agreement between India and the UK, signed in May 2021, does suggest that the search for new trade deals in the post-Brexit may demand a softening of the anti-immigration platform. At the same time, a significant component of the UK-India deal is also aimed at constraining irregular migration.[8] Positioned alongside a largely anti-immigration narrative, the Government’s enthusiasm for ‘people to people links’ is thus likely to be limited to narrow categories of outsiders who are deemed economically useful.

     

    The ‘hostile environment’ policies that emerged from the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts and culminated in the Windrush Scandal, are emblematic of the human rights implications of the UK’s anti-migrant domestic policies. The Acts simplified deportation processes for irregular migrants and increased border everyday immigration surveillance powers in housing, banking and public services.

     

    This domestic anti-immigration trajectory appears set to continue with the Government’s proposed overhaul of the UK asylum system, a move at odds with its commitments to human rights, civilian protection and international law.[9] The proposal to reduce entitlements for asylum seekers who entered Britain through ‘illegal’ means runs against the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which explicitly prohibit penalising asylum seekers due to their mode of entry to the country.[10]

     

    Finally, domestic inconsistencies are also emergent with respect to the rule of law and the power of the judiciary. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling against the 2019 prorogation of Parliament during the EU withdrawal process, the Government’s response has been to review the power of the courts to challenge decisions by the executive.[11] Although this has not yet been translated into any formal limitations on judicial review, it does carry with it unpleasant echoes of democratic backsliding in Poland and the stripping back of judicial checks on government power.

     

    As an agenda for future UK foreign policy, the IR thus provides cause for optimism in its foregrounding of a values-based agenda. However, there are important questions about the role values will play and inconsistencies in the depth of commitment across different spheres of state activity. The growth of authoritarianism certainly does not provide an encouraging environment within which human rights and democracy might flourish internationally. However, weaponising these values to stoke an ideological conflict with authoritarian powers is also unlikely to foster wider consensus on human rights norms and democratic development.

     

    Similarly, erosion of human rights and democratic norms within Britain has the potential to reduce UK soft power and suggests that the promotion of these values in its foreign policy has a hollow core. If Britain wishes to defend human rights and democracy internationally against rising authoritarianism, it must embody these values domestically. Without doing so, it risks being charged with hypocrisy in attempting to shape values-based norms internationally, whilst presiding over their decline at home.

     

    Dr Jonathan Gilmore is a Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Manchester. His expertise centre on British foreign policy, global ethics, humanitarian intervention and comparative defence and security practices. His research has featured in major international academic journals and his book ‘The Cosmopolitan Military’ was published in 2015.

     

    [1] The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Global Britain is leading the world as a force for good, The Sunday Telegraph, September 2019.

    [2] FCDO and The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, A force for good: Global Britain in a competitive age, Aspen Security Conference, Gov.uk, March 2021, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-force-for-good-in-a-competitive-age-foreign-secretary-speech-at-the-aspen-security-conference

    [3] Ibid.

    [4] House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Merging success: Bringing together the FCO and DFID, Sixth Special Report of Session 2019-21, House of Commons, September 2020, https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/2704/documents/26878/default/

    [5] Jonathan Gilmore, Developing domestic foundations for a values-based UK foreign policy, The Foreign Policy Centre, September 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/developing-domestic-foundations-for-a-values-based-uk-foreign-policy/

    [6] Liberty, Leading Organisations Join Condemnation of Policing Bill, March 2021, https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/leading-organisations-join-condemnation-of-policing-bill/

    [7] The Conservative Party, Get Brexit Done: Unleash Britain’s Potential: The Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2019, London: The Conservative Party, 2019, p. 20.

    [8] Home Office, MoU on the migration and mobility partnership between India and the United Kingdom, Gov.uk, May 2021, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom

    [9] BBC News, Priti Patel pledges overhaul of asylum seeker rules, March 2021, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56500680

    [10] Article 31(1) of the 1951 Convention.

    [11] Independent Review of Administrative Law, Gov.uk, January 2021, https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-review-of-administrative-law

    Footnotes
      Related Articles

      Crackdowns on investigative journalism in Russia versus the lack of crackdown on corruption in the UK

      Article by Lana Estemirova

      April 21, 2021

      Crackdowns on investigative journalism in Russia versus the lack of crackdown on corruption in the UK

      While Russia is cracking down on investigative journalists exposing corruption amongst its political elites, the UK’s political elites are failing to do enough to crack down on corruption exposed by investigative journalists.

       

      The arrest of Roman Anin, Founder of iStories

      On the evening of April 9th, the founder of investigative news website iStories, Roman Anin, received an unexpected visit from the police. In what has now become a routine occurrence for many Russian journalists, his house in Moscow was searched for seven hours, his electronics were seized and thoroughly examined. The investigators were especially interested in all non-Russian materials: documents in English, articles and even Roman’s photo from Stanford University, where he is posing with his course mates.[1] There’s been some speculation on whether it is another attempt to forge a foreign intelligence agent story – something that’s already happening to a former Kommersant journalist, Ivan Safronov.[2] The following day the office of iStories also suffered from a police raid. Roman himself was taken in for questioning in connection with a privacy invasion case, where he is listed as witness. The lawsuit was filed in 2016 by oligarch Igor Sechin’s ex-wife Olga, following Roman’s investigation about the family’s luxury yacht that served as a backdrop to many of her Instagram posts.[3] The timing of the new onslaught on the Pulitzer winning journalist is intended to send a signal to him and his colleagues. Roman is also a member of the OCCRP network that investigated Panama Papers leaks, there little doubt that he is being harassed because of his work.[4]

       

      Russia is going through something of an investigative journalism boom. In 2020 alone, outlets such as iStories, Proekt media, the Insider and many more, produced an array of investigative blockbusters exposing the corrupt underbelly of the Russian elite. The mushrooming of these newsrooms corresponds to the Government’s tightening of the screws – increasing attempts to control the internet, a severe clampdown on civil protest and the persecution of independent journalists. The work that these new media organisations produce is a fightback against the increasingly authoritarian stance of the Government. In a country where citizens’ private data can be bought and sold on the black market like an old watch, the classic definitions of journalism are being replaced with something that is closer to private investigation work.[5] And it pays off – among the most famous revelations of 2020 were the unveiling of Putin’s palace in Gelendzhik and his Crimean summerhouse;[6] a peek inside the questionable dealings of Putin’s former son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov, that landed him an immense fortune; [7] and the discovery of Ramzan Kadyrov’s mysterious wife and her luxury properties in Moscow – to name a few.[8]

       

      The rebuttals issued by the Kremlin (including Putin himself) frame investigative media outlets as puppets of Western regimes with no agenda of their own. However, the backlash against anti-corruption activists and journalists shows that their work is perceived as a serious threat to the status quo. The whole world watched the saga of Alexei Navalny: from his Kremlin-backed poisoning and unmasking of his own murderers, to his return to Russia and inevitable arrest. Alexei’s health is deteriorating rapidly as he is being denied proper medical attention, while prosecutors propose to label organisations tied to him as extremist. This feels like a very critical moment for Russia. As of now, journalist Roman Anin is walking free but if his witness status is changed to the defendant, he will need all the publicity he can get to ensure his safety.

       

      Russian corruption and British ‘Sleaze’

      The UK has condemned the treatment of Alexei Navalny and imposed a new set of Magnitsky laws that target Russian individuals implicated in human rights abuses. But the critics note that the sanctions are not targeted enough.[9] A new set of additional sanctions to be announced in spring is set to tackle corruption by introducing asset freezes and visa bans.[10] Nonetheless, London remains a playground for rich and powerful Russians with unexplained wealth, who enjoy a plethora of financial and legal services to protect their status and reputation. The coveted ‘golden visa’ for individuals who invested £2m in the British economy has not been curtailed, despite the evidence that this fast track to residency does not have a sufficient enough screening process.[11] The lack of effective pushback implies that the British political and business establishment is easily seduced by dirty money from countries with poor human rights record. Furthermore, the Russia Report that concluded that there was foreign interference into the Britain’s domestic politics was largely dismissed by the Conservative Government.[12] In 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s appointed the son of an ex-KGB agent, Evgeny Lebedev as a life peer in a much criticised gesture.

       

      Those who try to challenge the London ‘laundromat’ may expect a call to court. Journalist and writer, Catherine Belton, is currently being sued by Roman Abramovich for defamation over claims in her book, Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West, that the oligarch bought Chelsea football club on Putin’s orders.[13] The Foreign Policy Centre’s report Unsafe for scrutiny details the ways in which London enables the flow of dirty money and offers legal services to reprimand journalists who investigate them with SLAPP lawsuits.[14]

       

      The recent Greensill revelations and a string of exposes surrounding the awarding of COVID-19 contracts to close contacts of the Conservative Party reveal that Britain has its own problems when it comes to corruption and the trafficking of influence.[15] Terms such as ‘sleaze’, ‘chumocracy’ and ‘cronyism’ are euphemisms that obscure the true nature of the problem. Britain is in no position to wag its finger at the elite of other nations when it is mired in its own controversy and questionable dealings. In fact, the two are very much interlinked – those with the right political or social connections, including those with dubious links with foreign governments, are able to buy influence at the highest levels of government for relatively small amounts of money, with ex-civil servants, senior government advisors and former politicians happy to lobby on behalf of their paymasters. Britain readily employs the language of human rights and civil liberties, but it is little more than window dressing if it allows itself to be compromised by the ill-gotten cash and blood money of Russian elites, complicit in the destruction of civil liberties in their homeland, while enjoying the prestige of wealth and the protection of British law in London.

       

      [1] Alexey Kovalev, Not everyone has what it takes Roman Anin, whose home and newsroom were raided by federal agents last week, explains the challenges of investigative journalism in Russia today, Meduza, April 2021, https://meduza.io/en/feature/2021/04/15/not-everyone-has-what-it-takes

      [2] BBC News, Russian space official Safronov charged in treason probe, July 2020, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53319545

      [3] Roman Anin, The Secret of the St. Princess Olga, OCCRP, August 2016, https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/5523-the-secret-of-the-st-princess-olga

      [4] OCCRP, OCCRP Newsletter, April 2021, https://mailchi.mp/occrp/newsletter-april15?e=3faf659e43

      [5] Ben Smith, How Investigative Journalism Flourished in Hostile Russia, The New York Times, February 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/business/media/probiv-investigative-reporting-russia.html

      [6] Palace Navalny, Palace for Putin, https://palace.navalny.com/; Ekaterina Reznikova with Elizaveta Surnacheva, The story of how Vladimir Putin’s entourage bought the palace of Leonid Brezhnev, which he liked, Proekt Media, February 2021, https://www.proekt.media/guide/dacha-putina-krym/

      [7] Roman Anin, et al., Love, Offshores, and Administrative Resources: How Marrying Putin’s Daughter Cave Kirill Shamalov a World of Opportunity, iStories, December 2020, https://istories.media/en/investigations/2020/12/07/love-offshores-and-administrative-resources-how-marrying-putins-daughter-gave-kirill-shamalov-a-world-of-opportunity/

      [8] Maria Zholobova with Roman Badanin, Investigation into how Russia got its own sultanate, Proekt Media, April 2021, https://maski-proekt.media/vtoraya-zhena-kadyrova/

      [9] Luke Harding, UK’s Magnitsky law does little to stem flow of dirty money from Russia, The Guardian, July 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/10/uk-magnitsky-law-does-little-stem-flow-dirty-money-from-russia

      [10] Dr Susan Hawley, The UK’s new corruption sanctions regime – Can it help end the UK’s role as a global money laundering centre and what role will journalists play?, FPC,  March 2021, https://fpc.org.uk/the-uks-new-corruption-sanctions-regime-can-it-help-end-the-uks-role-as-a-global-money-laundering-centre-and-what-role-will-journalists-play/

      [11] Will Bedingfield, How the golden visa scheme let Russian money pour into the UK, Wired, July 2020, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/russia-report-golden-visas

      [12] BBC News, Russia report: UK ‘badly underestimated’ threat, says committee, July 2020, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53484344

      [13] Murad Ahmed, Roman Abramovich sues HarperCollins over Chelsea acquisition claims, Financial Times, March 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/b79f2c82-6974-4fd7-8899-266025b7436b

      [14] Susan Coughtrie, Unsafe for Scrutiny: Executive Summary & Recommendations, FPC, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/unsafe-for-scrutiny-executive-summary-recommendations/

      [15] Peter Walker, What is the Greensill lobbying scandal and who is involved?, The Guardian, April 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/14/what-is-greensill-lobbying-scandal-who-involved; Toby Helm and Michael Savage, The return of Tory sleaze: a scandal set to haunt Boris Johnson, The Guardian, April 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/18/the-return-of-tory-sleaze-a-scandal-set-to-haunt-boris-johnson

       

      This piece was produced as part of the Unsafe for Scrutiny project, which is kindly funded by the Justice for Journalists Foundation.

      Footnotes
        Related Articles

        With growing public calls for a Council of Europe recommendation on SLAPP, is now the time for the UK to act on this issue or risk falling behind?

        Article by Susan Coughtrie

        April 7, 2021

        With growing public calls for a Council of Europe recommendation on SLAPP, is now the time for the UK to act on this issue or risk falling behind?

        This week Unsafe for Scrutiny’s Project Director, Susan Coughtrie, spoke with Sarah Clarke, Head of Europe and Central Asia at ARTICLE 19, Flutura Kusari, Legal Advisor at the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Charlie Holt, Legal Counsel for Campaigns at Greenpeace International, Dirk Voorhoof of the Human Rights Centre at Ghent University, and Nora Wehofsits, International Advocacy Officer at the Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF). They have been spearheading initiatives, as part of a broader coalition of civil society groups, to address the issue of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) across Europe.[1]

         

        On 26 March 2021, 106 civil society organisations, on the initiative of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), signed a public call for the Council of Europe (CoE) to introduce a recommendation to combat SLAPPs.[2] The joint statement points to the growing body of evidence that shows a rise in the use of costly legal procedures, or the threat thereof, as a means of silencing critical expression across the continent. This latest initiative follows a similar one launched in December 2020, to push for the adoption of a European Union (EU) Directive to address SLAPP amongst its 26 member states.[3] With the United Kingdom (UK) firmly ‘Brexited’, an EU Directive if taken forward would not have any remit in this country. The UK is however still part of the CoE, a body that it was instrumental in founding in 1949,  and with 47 member states has a much wider reach than the EU.

         

        Given the UK’s ignoble role as the leading international source of legal threats against journalists, it gives rise to the question as to what positive part could, and should, the country play in addressing SLAPPs both at the CoE and domestically.[4] Unlike in the EU, there has been little official recognition by authorities in the UK of the serious impact that legal threats emanating from this country have on journalists, as well as wider society, both here and abroad. For example, the first ever UK National Action Plan on the Safety of Journalists, recently published by the Government makes no mention of legal threats or SLAPP cases, focusing solely on physical violence and online harassment.[5] This is despite several examples of legal threats coming intertwined with other types of violations against journalists, including smear campaigns, online trolling, surveillance and hacking.[6]

         

        SLAPP cases in Europe are being actively documented through the ECPMF’s Mapping Media Freedom tool as well as the CoE’s own ‘Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists’.[7] Greenpeace EU and Index on Censorship have published reports on the rise of SLAPP in Europe and FPC’s own findings have pointed to the impact of legal threats.[8] In FPC’s global survey of 63 investigative journalists in 41 countries, published in November 2020, 73% of all respondents experiencing threats had received communication(s) threatening legal action as a result of information they had published. Moreover, almost half of those experiencing any form of threat stated that it was legal ones that have had the most impact on their ability to continue working.[9]

         

        The need for a CoE Recommendation has been set out in a memorandum outlining measures to deter and remedy the use of SLAPPs, published in tandem with the joint statement. It was authored by a CoE sub-committee of the CASE coalition, who have responded to questions regarding the importance of a CoE recommendation and what role the UK could play:

         

        Q: How does the recommendation differ from, or indeed connect with, action being taken elsewhere – e.g. the draft Anti-SLAPP Directive at the EU or initiatives at a national level?

        Nora Wehofsits: “SLAPPs are a threat across Europe. So a CoE recommendation is of great importance to positively influence developments throughout CoE member states, also those that are not members of the EU. At present, no dedicated European human rights standards document on SLAPPs exists. A recommendation is the most suitable way to create this and can provide a coherent set of guidelines, also to the EU, on how to prevent SLAPPs by way of legislative action or other remedies.”

         

        Q: Why should the UK care about this issue at the CoE?

        Charlie Holt: “A combination of plaintiff-friendly libel laws and high legal costs have made the UK particularly fertile ground for legal intimidation. The UK continues to be a favourite destination for libel tourists and a breeding-ground for aggressive SLAPP-happy law firms. The fact that the country is now out of the EU – and therefore outside the jurisdiction of a potential EU anti-SLAPP directive – makes the intervention of the CoE all the more important to the UK. A CoE recommendation would set authoritative standards on what protective measures are required from the UK, and could help positively shape domestic legal reform to tackle SLAPPs in the country.”

         

        Q: Is there the scope for the UK to play a key role, particularly given they are no longer part of the EU?

        Dirk Voorhoof: “SLAPP suits can also be construed as cross-border disputes, and lead to (abusive) forum shopping. In such circumstances plaintiffs make use of applicable rules of private international law to select the jurisdiction where the likelihood of achieving the desired result is the greatest instead of the one that has the closest connection to the dispute, or instead of the one where there is less perspective that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit would be declared admissible, let it be well-founded. The UK is familiar with this phenomenon, which has been labelled as ‘libel tourism’ to the UK. The existence of uniform safeguards, applicable in all Member States of the CoE, including the UK, would reduce the attractiveness of libel tourism, apart from the specific measures that can be taken in the UK in order to reduce such claims where plaintiffs and defendants are established and have their main activities outside the UK.”

         

        Q: What action would you like to see from the UK and its permanent representation in Strasbourg? Or members of the UK’s Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly to the CoE (PACE),  are there concrete ways they can show their support for the Recommendation?

        Flutura Kusari: “There are a number of actions PACE can take. In particular, it can adopt a resolution or a recommendation calling on CoE member states to take concrete steps against SLAPPs, and it can ask the Committee of Ministers to issue its own recommendation on this topic. We would like to see the UK delegation to PACE actively supporting these steps. We hope the permanent representations of the UK in Strasbourg will engage in all discussions about SLAPPs and will proactively support any effort to fight them.”

         

        Q: What would the adoption of this recommendation mean for national governments, including the UK?

        Sarah Clarke: “A CoE Recommendation can guide national authorities to build safeguards into the procedural framework of the state laws, so that SLAPP lawsuits are as far as possible deterred, or else can be dismissed at an early stage. Safeguards against disproportionately large damage claims and provisions for legal aid must also be introduced; these are difficult or impossible for a judge to create, and must be provided for in legislation. Even if it is not legally binding, a CoE Recommendation sends a strong persuasive message to the member states to implement the guidelines or principles of a recommendation into their domestic law and practices. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) at several occasions has integrated principles and guidelines of COE recommendations into its jurisprudence and hence made them binding for the member states in interpreting and applying the (binding) European Convention on Human Rights. Ultimately, however, national governments must demonstrate the political will to implement these reforms in order to prevent the practice of SLAPPs.”

         

        In a recent article for FPC, Dr Alice Donald and Professor Philip Leach argued that “the time is ripe for the UK to reset its relationship with the CoE and reclaim the moral and political leadership that it once showed.”[10] They reference the fact that the UK was an early signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950, and it was British lawyers who, from the 1970s, pioneered litigation before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, shaping its early and most influential case law.[11] Yet despite this, and  that the UK remains one of CoE’s five largest financial contributors, Donald and Leach state that “no mature democracy has done more to destabilise the CoE in recent years than the UK”.[12]

         

        On that basis, one might fear the outlook is bleak. The remaining question is whether the UK will see these calls for anti-SLAPP initiative at the CoE as an opportunity to support action in line with its stated foreign policy priority of promoting media freedom globally. Or risk being seen to fall behind its European counterparts on addressing this important topic.

         

        [1] The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), which publicly launched on 26 March 2021, is made up of a wide variety of civil society organisations who are campaigning for anti-SLAPP initiatives to be adopted at the European Union and the CoE. CASE members are also documenting cases, with the possibility to self-report via the CASE website – www.the-case.eu.

        [2] Statement on The Need for a Council of Europe Recommendation on Combating SLAPPs, CASE, March 2021, https://www.the-case.eu/statement-on-the-need-for-a-council-of-europe-recommendation-on-combatting-slapps

        [3] PROTECTING PUBLIC WATCHDOGS ACROSS THE EU: A PROPOSAL FOR AN EU ANTI-SLAPP LAW https://dq4n3btxmr8c9.cloudfront.net/files/zkecf9/StopSLAPPs_04Dec.pdf

        [4] Unsafe for Scrutiny: Examining the pressures faced by journalists uncovering financial crime and corruption around the world , FPC, November 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Unsafe-for-Scrutiny-November-2020.pdf

        [5] Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport and Home Office, Guidance Note: National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists, UK Government, March 2021, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-action-plan-for-the-safety-of-journalists

        [6] Susan Coughtrie, The UK as a key nexus for protecting media freedom and preventing corruption globally, FPC, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/the-uk-as-a-key-nexus-for-protecting-media-freedom-and-preventing-corruption-globally/

        [7]  ECPMF, Mapping Media Freedom, https://www.ecpmf.eu/monitor/mapping-media-freedom/; Council of Europe, About the Platform for the Protection of Journalism and the Safety of Journalists,  https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/the-platform#:~:text=WHY%20THE%20PLATFORM%20%3F,E%20uropean%20Convention%20on%20Human%20Rights

        [8] Greenpeace EU, Sued into Silence: How the Rich and Powerful use Legal Tactics to Shut Critics Up, July 2020, available at: https://storage.googleapis.com/planet4-eu-unit-stateless/2020/07/20200722-SLAPPs-Sued-into-Silence.pdf and  Index on Censorship, A Gathering Storm: the Laws being used to Silence the Media, available at: https://www.indexoncensorship.org/campaigns/the-laws-being-used-to-silence-media/

        [9] Unsafe for Scrutiny: Examining the pressures faced by journalists uncovering financial crime and corruption around the world , FPC, November 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/publications/unsafe-for-scrutiny/

        [10] Dr Alice Donald and Professor Philip Leach, Engaging with Europe after Brexit: Time to reset the UK’s relationship with the Council of Europe, FPC, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/engaging-with-europe-after-brexit-time-to-reset-the-uks-relationship-with-the-council-of-europe/

        [11] Dr Alice Donald and Professor Philip Leach, Engaging with Europe after Brexit: Time to reset the UK’s relationship with the Council of Europe, FPC, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/engaging-with-europe-after-brexit-time-to-reset-the-uks-relationship-with-the-council-of-europe/

        [12] Dr Alice Donald and Professor Philip Leach, Engaging with Europe after Brexit: Time to reset the UK’s relationship with the Council of Europe, FPC, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/engaging-with-europe-after-brexit-time-to-reset-the-uks-relationship-with-the-council-of-europe/

         

        This piece was produced as part of the Unsafe for Scrutiny project, which is kindly funded by the Justice for Journalists Foundation.

        Footnotes
          Related Articles

          Is the US pulling ahead in the global fight against corruption and what does this mean for investigative journalists?

          Article by Susan Coughtrie and Casey Michel

          March 24, 2021

          Is the US pulling ahead in the global fight against corruption and what does this mean for investigative journalists?

          This week Unsafe for Scrutiny’s Project Director, Susan Coughtrie, spoke with Casey Michel, a US based investigative journalist, and author of the upcoming book American Kleptocracy, to get his insights into recent, promising anti-corruption developments in the US and what impact he expects these to have on the global fight on corruption as well as the work of journalists like him who play a critical role in uncovering it.

           

          Susan Coughtrie (SC): President Biden’s entry into the White House appears to have come hand in hand with renewed interest in the US stepping up its efforts in the global fight against corruption, with his administration declaring it a ‘core national security interest’. What do you think have been the driving factors behind these latest developments?

           

          Casey Michel (CM): From my vantage point, there are two primary drivers behind this increasing interest in and focus on addressing, corruption, kleptocracy and the enablers that allow it to operate. The first, specific to the American context, is our experience under the previous president, Donald Trump. We have witnessed how these corrupt, kleptocratic networks, which initially helped propel Trump into power, took full advantage of having a figure like him in the White House. It was, speaking frankly, a horrible four years – dispiriting, depressing, and inordinately challenging – but a silver lining was it brought all of these concerns around dark money networks and the tools they use, such as anonymous shell companies and real estate purchases, to the fore. It forced so many Americans, and their allies, to closely examine the links between transnational corruption and the potential dismantling of the broader liberal democratic project, including national security and electoral security. That is the legacy that we are seeing the Biden administration’s reacting to now, having witnessed what could potentially happen if we continue to ignore these corrupt, kleptocratic elements operating within our society.

           

          The second driver is the broader growing international awareness of kleptocracy and transnational corruption over the past few years. Both through the release of large scale journalistic investigations, such as the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, as well as a number of reports coming from high level bodies, including the United Nations and the European Union. Awareness has grown as to the magnitude of these offshoring systems used by kleptocratic networks as well as the wider societal impact they can have on, for example, wealth inequality or geopolitical instability. What we have seen on the American side of things is a kind of microcosm of what has been taking place internationally – including examining the kinds of policy proposals that are going to be required to unwind the impact these networks have already had.

           

          SC: The passing of the US Congress of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) on 1 January 2021 has been described by anti-corruption campaigners as ‘historic’. Amongst other measures, the CTA introduces requirements that will put an end to the practice of anonymous shell companies operating inside the country. As someone who has written extensively about corruption facilitated through shell companies in US jurisdictions, what impact do you think this legislation will have? Is it as positive as it sounds?

           

          CM: This is a remarkable piece of legislation and it is difficult to understate just how important it is. There has been an effort to ban the formation of US anonymous shell companies since at least 2008, with a very clear through line of bi-partisan support, however for a number of reasons it did not happen. The US for years and years has been the capital of anonymous shell company formation thanks to states like Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming, which sold anonymous shell companies to anybody who wanted them – drugs or arms traffickers, oligarchs or dictators’ families –  all and sundry could get an anonymous American shell company in 15 minutes for $100, if that. So thousands and thousands of these anonymous shell companies were being created every single year, and it was impossible to track back who is running them, who is profiting from them, who was taking advantage of them, but now because of this legislation it will.

           

          This is an instance of the US following others’ lead. The UK for example passed similar legislation a few years ago, which means you can go to Companies House’s website and plug in the company you want and find information about who the person of significant control (PSC) is for it. The American variant is not going to be public, its entries are only going to be accessible to American law enforcement authorities and other foreign governmental officials or bodies that file the proper paperwork to request information. So journalists like myself, or researchers are not going to be able to access information, but that is fine for right now. We will get there at some point, some day. The fact of the matter remains that, at long last, the US is no longer the global capital of anonymous shell company formation.

           

          SC: One of the problems that has faced the UK has been implementation and enforcement. There have been criticisms of Companies House, which is currently going through another review, but at least there has been a level of transparency. Do you have concerns about that from the US point of view, given that it is going to be a closed book and as a journalist you are not going to be able to check that what was promised is being done?

           

          CM: I do, and not least because if there is one lesson to be taken from the UK example from the past few years, it is that enforcement is just as key as the actual passage of legislation. There are any number of journalists who have done fantastic work looking through just how porous the UK system of beneficial ownership information collection remains. At the end of day, even though the legislation exists, even though there is information on file, that does not mean that it is accurate and it does not guarantee that the person listed is the beneficial owner or the proper address has been given etc. Enforcement for any comparable pieces of legislation is always going to be a concern and even more so in the US now that it is private and there is not the possibility to have journalists like myself, researchers or major media outlets looking through as a non-governmental check to make sure that information is accurate. So the US has taken one giant step forward, there is still more work to do, but the US is moving in the right direction. If anything under the new administration the momentum will only continue and this legislation is an excellent platform upon which to build.

           

          SC: What effect do you think the US’s renewed anti-corruption efforts are going to have on the country’s foreign policy? Particularly when dealing with countries in which the political elites have reputations for laundering their money in the West?

           

          CM: From my end, there are two responses to that. There will be a restoration of American leadership on issues such as good governance, pro-transparency and anti-corruption reforms that the US has put forth for decades. For example, we are now four and half decades after the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was passed in the US, which really set the bar for legislation that we see elsewhere, whether that is the EU or the UK. On the one hand, this low hanging fruit – American leadership in this space should never have been abdicated – on the other hand the current administration’s efforts in this area are likely to be welcomed by many abroad. The flip to that, is how is it going to affect American foreign policy with those who have benefitted under the last four years? The short answer is I do not know, and I am excited to see. However, what comes to mind is the numerous instances of oligarchic figures in places like Ukraine, Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey using the tools of financial secrecy to wheedle their way into the levers of American power, that is to say access those close to or in fact in the White House. Influencing American foreign policy decisions over the past four years followed the line of ‘the deeper your pockets, the easier it is’. And to a certain extent that is true for every administration – but there were elements which made it grotesquely and ludicrously easy for those with dirty money, those involved in kleptocratic networks, who will not be able to achieve the same level of success as they did over the last four years.

          One of the figures that I am writing about in my book, which will come out later this year, is a Ukrainian oligarch called Igor Kolomoisky. Widely considered the most powerful oligarch in Ukraine – who has a very lengthy and sometimes concerning relationship with the Ukrainian President Zelensky. Ukraine has been going through fits and starts of ‘de-oligarchisation’ for years and years now, encompassing two revolutions. Obviously the previous administration did not care one bit about that, but in just the first two months of the current administration sanctions have been introduced against Kolomoisky. It was very much a shot across the bow to convince Ukraine that now is the time, the US is here to support you, in order to take the necessary steps to remove the remaining influence of the oligarchs in the country. So that is already one manifestation of the kinds of new policies out of the current US administration, which certainly I and many others who work in this space are very grateful for.

           

          SC: What have the biggest challenges been for you as a US-based investigative journalist uncovering financial crime and corruption? Do you anticipate those becoming more or less challenging in light of the recent developments?

           

          CM: Fortunately I have never experienced or had to deal with any serious threats to my safety and security, and much of that has to do with the fact that I am based in the US. Although I know that journalists have died in the EU in the past few years, working on similar topics, so it is not anything that I take for granted. Particularly  given the way the last US President had no qualms about whipping up his supporters to incite violence and threats against the personal safety of journalists.

           

          The challenges I face are twofold – access to information and legal pressure. Firstly, these kleptocratic networks rely on secrecy and anonymity and have built in defences to throw off investigative journalists like myself and other researchers, whether in the American context or elsewhere. That is a structural challenge in and of itself, which is not going away any time soon despite the new legislation. Secondly, there are the legal threats and pressures, underpinned by lawyers as well as reputation management and PR companies who work in tandem for their clients, which have only been increasing in recent years.

           

          SC: As part of FPC’s Unsafe for Scrutiny project we have been documenting cases of journalists facing vexatious legal threats emanating from the UK, sometimes accompanied by smear campaigns and forms of harassment orchestrated by reputation management companies. Do you perceive a parallel in the US?

           

          CM: Yes, this is a manifestation of a pattern that we have seen in the UK already. Obviously there are different legal structures and different elements at play, but at a 10,000 ft. level there are similar dynamics that are moving in a very concerning direction. There are structural issues within the media, the decreasing budgets, decreasing willingness to push back against some of these figures, increasing concerns, understandably about being taken to court and not being able to succeed, or even to bankroll the defence of some of these pieces of coverage. A few months ago I submitted a story to an outlet and the editor got back to me to say this is great, nothing is factually incorrect, but we are just going to cut a lot of the case studies, which I had included, because we don’t want to deal with the lawyers that are going to be involved with this. It was a quick look into the internal discussions that take place in American media regarding concerns about threats from lawyers working at the behest of these transnational oligarchic and kleptocratic figures. Most concerning is that they do not even have to file lawsuits or email or call the media. They have done it enough already that the editors are now less willing to go through with publishing these details, which are accurate and pertinent but would cause problems.

           

          There is every reason to think that if there is not a very concerted effort to stop the direction the US is going in, we will end up in the same position that the UK is in right now, pertaining to these legal threats, pertaining to these backroom conversations that prevent information from ever even being published, let alone being published and then seeing a lawsuit thereafter.

           

          SC: Do you think it is the internal financial considerations and the declining revenues that is the missing element stopping media from fighting back or is it something more than that?

           

          CM: I think the resourcing is one of the primary, if not the primary, issues; it’s certainly not illogical to foresee the constraints for news outlets and journalists, and why there is going to be a greater reticence to fight some of these threats. At the same token it’s almost a reinforcing dynamic, in so far as the less that these outlets are willing to fight back the greater the temerity, the greater the aggression these figures, networks, lawyers, and PR teams will employ to push as far as they possibly can. They know that these outlets’ backs are up against the wall. This is the thing: They do not even have to file the lawsuits, they do not even have to go to court, all they have to do is make a phone call, email or whatever it might be or as I experienced a few months ago – they just have to have their reputations already in the editors’ minds to convince the outlet to say, ‘Well, the article is perfectly accurate but we just do not want to deal with these lawyers, with these figures, we do not want to tangle with them, so we are going to forego including some details in there.’

           

          SC: Whereas those figures on the other side who want to hide their wrongdoing are presumably well resourced and motivated?

           

          CM: Absolutely, there is no limitation on their funds. This is why what you and your colleagues, as well as some of the other civil society organisations, are doing is so necessary to raise awareness that this dynamic is at play. As well as highlighting what the logical extension and outcomes of this dynamic will be. This is the beauty and the horror of the last four years in the US, is that it has allowed the current administration to propel itself and these anti-corruption reforms forward. But it is just by the hair of our chins that we dodged far more bullets than we would have ever anticipated. We came so close, far closer than I think we are really aware of, to just how dark things could have gotten if Trump won re-election. To say nothing of whether he wins in four years time or not. When you have high level people in the US administration declaring the press ‘the enemy of the people’ and Supreme Court Justices saying we need to revisit basic First Amendment protection for the press. All this tilts that balance even further in the favour of those corrupt figures.

           

          SC: What else would you like to see change to improve the safety of investigative journalists investigating financial crime and corruption based in the US or elsewhere? For example, do you think greater recognition of their work in official initiatives, like the sanction regimes, provides a form of protection?

           

          CM: I have been involved in some of the conversations from the civil society side with US government officials about sanctions list and I do frankly think that is an absolute boon to the scope of Global Magnitsky, and the efficacy of sanction programmes like this, to have journalists and civil society involvement. That input is absolutely a benefit to what these programmes stand for and how they should be successfully implemented. Certainly anything that can increase the scope and capacity of those conversations, of that flow of expertise and flow of recommendations to government bodies is something I could absolutely get behind.

           

          In terms of recognition, the reports that FPC has already issued, including the survey findings etc., regarding this topic are a necessity. When you think about it, especially on the American side, and I’m sure on the British side as well, these media outlets are already showing themselves less than willing to push as far as they should, uncover as much as they should and stand by as much as the findings as they should. There is no reason to think that outlets will then also highlight how many pressures they are facing, how many threats they are facing. Those considerations are working on two different trajectories, at which point civil society needs to step into the breach. Someone else other than the media needs to detail and analyse and publicise these issues facing them, so that policy platforms can be implemented. Civil society has a different role from journalists, but at the end of the day they are moving in similar directions and can work in tandem with one another.

           

          SC: The UK has previously sought to position itself as a global leader in tackling corruption, however arguably it now appears to be falling behind. The most recent FinCEN Files investigation, released in September 2020, brought to light that the US Treasury refers to the UK as a ‘higher risk jurisdiction’ – do you perceive any changes in the US – UK relationship as a result of this apparent widening gap in anti-corruption efforts?

           

          CM: In the short term no, I do not think that this is going to shift anything in terms of the core pillars of the relationship. There was concern amongst some of the anti-corruption reformers regarding Brexit, which was that unmoored from EU regulations the UK would undercut some of the existing anti-corruption and pro-transparency protocols. Certainly some developments in the past few months in the UK feed directly into those concerns.

           

          In the long term, and a lot can change in a decade or two, my sense is the relationship is strong enough to weather any number of crises. One potential fault line that could emerge however would be over the overseas territories. The British Virgin Island (BVI) beneficial ownership registry is supposed to be coming, as is the Caymans registry, but they’ve punted it down the line already and if the rest of the world continues creating beneficial ownership registers and BVI and Caymans are still lagging– at what point does the US or Brussels or whomever come forward and say enough is enough and this will begin impacting trade policies.

           

          A key message to get across to policy makers – to say nothing of the broader public in the West – is the falsity of the notion that corruption, kleptocracy and authoritarianism, and the realities and trajectories that make them happen, take place over ‘there’ – i.e. in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia. But in reality, it is the Western service providers, the Western enablers – lawyers, PR firms, non-profits, company service providers – that are propelling these networks and are allowing these corrupt influences to integrate themselves into Western politics, British politics, US politics. We need to upend these antiquated notions that it is something that is happening elsewhere, because it’s not. It is right here and it’s been here for years and years, but thankfully in the US we are starting to see some change.

           

          Casey Michel is a writer, analyst, and investigative journalist working on topics ranging from kleptocracy, illicit finance, and foreign interference to developments in the post-Soviet space and dark money financing networks. His upcoming book American Kleptocracy will be published in October 2021 (available for pre-order here). Michel is also a member of the Advisory Council for the Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative, where he helps co-host the “MAKING A KILLING” podcast on corruption and kleptocracy.

           

          Michel will be speaking at the Foreign Policy Centre’s upcoming event on 20 April –  Investigating Corruption: US versus UK – A Widening Transatlantic Divide? – alongside Tom Burgis, Investigations Correspondent at The Financial Times and author of Kleptopia: How Dirty Money Is Conquering the World’, Dr Sue Hawley, Executive Director of Spotlight on Corruption and Dr Tena Prelec, Research Fellow with the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford, and part of the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence Project.

           

          Full details of the event and registration is available here.

           

          This interview was produced as part of the Unsafe for Scrutiny project, which is kindly funded by the Justice for Journalists Foundation.

          Footnotes
            Related Articles

            A response to the Integrated Review

            Article by Dr Kate Ferguson

            March 18, 2021

            A response to the Integrated Review

            There is a lot to digest in the much awaited publication of the Prime Minister’s Integrated Review (IR) of UK international policy. It is a weighty enough document of over 100 pages and there is more evidence of strategic thinking than sceptics projected but inevitably there are more top lines than details. That’s the nature of these documents – a vision that sounds great on paper but how these shifts in understanding, prioritisation and implementation evolve will be the real measure of the IR’s success. Or, as the outcomes paper says itself, ‘what Global Britain means in practice is best defined by actions rather than words.’

             

            I called in various forums and submissions to the IR, including in an article for the Foreign Policy Centre, for atrocity prevention to be integrated at the heard of UK foreign policy and for the narrow approach to conflict to be broken open.[1] I wasn’t alone in these recommendations; the Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggested the IR prioritise mediation, conflict resolution and atrocity prevention and the UK Atrocity Prevention Working Group called for a national strategy.[2]

             

            While the outcomes paper falls short of committing to a comprehensive strategy on mass atrocities, it does promise greater emphasis on atrocity prevention. And to be fair to the authors, it is perhaps not a great surprise that more was not fleshed out in the one page dedicated to the UK’s approach to conflict and stability within the new strategic framework. As the various sub-strategies are drawn up and the merger of the FCDO is finalised, we should expect to see this commitment built out across the new architectures of government, properly integrated throughout new UK policy and training, and the creation of new positions of appropriate seniority in the FCDO and other relevant departments.

             

            The new framework also sets out a prioritisation of ‘grievances, political marginalisation and criminal economies’ as part of ‘a more integrated approach to government work on conflict and instability.’ This signals a critical and very welcome shift in the understanding of where much modern violence comes from. The UK approach to conflict was always too conceptually narrow and programmatically disjointed to meet the complex challenges posed by the rising incidence of genocide, crimes against humanity and other mass atrocity crimes.[3] The false but common assumption that such acts follow on from armed conflict meant that the propellants of identity-based violence and atrocities – namely grievances, discrimination, and marginalisation – were too often absent from UK development priorities and prevailing HMG conceptualisation of where complex violent contexts come from.

             

            The focus on criminal economies is also good news. We know that modern atrocities and conflict are commonly accompanied – and at times waged by – organised criminal networks and yet UK conflict prevention has rarely prioritised strategies that address organised crime, corruption and the petty criminality that perceived immunity breeds in the lead up to, during, and in the wake of organised violence. In bringing these dynamics to the forefront of UK thinking, a spectrum of preventative interventions opens up for the UK and its networks, from a more creative use of the new sanctions regime to programme design that seeks to interrupt the recruitment of potential perpetrators. I would like to see this priority area being joined up with the UK’s approach to serious and organised crime, bringing in the services of the intelligence agencies and the mapping exercises that track and trace the networks of non-state actors, smuggling routes, illicit cash flows, and so on. Modern atrocities, particularly those that are identity-based, can very often be understood best as a type of organised crime and many of the principles of prevention and response are transferable.

             

            Another welcome shift in the approach to conflict is the commitment to ‘focus on political approaches to conflict resolution’, again something that has for so long been absent in how the UK responds to violence, with DFID often preferring instead to focus almost entirely on the humanitarian consequences. If this new focus does indeed signal a willingness to get into the political reasons why modern conflicts and atrocities occur, we should expect to see a much needed investment in the diplomatic corps, analysts, civil society relationships, and a willingness to be more creative with the tools and levers at the UK’s disposal. The FCDO merger, while posing a real risk to some of DFID’s more longstanding (and crucial) contributions, does pose a genuine opportunity to develop a coordinated approach to conflict and atrocities, and which rightly puts a political response to violence at the heart.

             

            Perhaps the most important indication the paper gives of a change in approach is the prevention-first framing and a focus in earlier ‘upstream’ priorities, which connect strongly with the central thread throughout the whole document of resilience. The UK’s overriding approach to conflict and mass atrocities has been one of response, of firefighting, and consequently has often resulted in missing opportunities to help mitigate risks. Whether in Rakhine in Myanmar in 2017, in Central African Republic in 2014, or Syria in 2011 those windows where risks against populations could still be mitigated or stemmed slipped by before the UK had properly recognised the trajectory of violence.

             

            Throughout, the IR promises an integrated approach to national security ‘that covers the full lifecycle of risk: anticipation, prevention, preparation, response and recovery’. This has the potential to bring together policy threads that are usually seen as being disparate or unrelated. The promise of deeper integration across government builds on the Fusion Doctrine introduced in the 2018 National Security Capability Review, which encouraged more effective and joined up approaches to threats like serious and organised crime. The potential gains are significant: ‘A more integrated approach supports faster decision-making, more effective policy-making and more coherent implementation by bringing together defence, diplomacy, development, intelligence and security, trade and aspects of domestic policy in pursuit of cross-government, national objectives.’ If this big promise can be properly built in to how the UK monitors, mitigates, and prepares for violent crises, and if Government fully commits to ‘acting upstream to tackle risks at source’ – from mass atrocities to climate action as well as efforts to disrupt transnational organised crime groups, this prevention-first approach to policy thinking will save lives, money and political capital.

             

            And so even in the brief outlines of a new approach to conflict and resilience we can see the influence of the principles of atrocity prevention, not only in recognising grievances, marginalisation and criminal economies as priority areas, but also in the commitment to invest in political approaches to disputes (something parts of DFID always pushed back against), and the overall emphasis on prevention and resilience (something that was never enough pronounced in DFID and something FCO never thought was their responsibility).

             

            But the success of this new approach to conflict will depend on political leadership at the ministerial level and within the civil service, the development of clear-eyed sub strategies, and the extent to which an understanding of grievance and marginalisation is embedded across HMG. Much of this will be down to the new Conflict Centre within the FCDO that promises will ‘draw on expertise from across government and beyond to develop and lead a strategic conflict agenda, harnessing the breadth of conflict and stability capabilities and working with partners to increase our impact in preventing, managing and resolving conflict in priority regions.’

             

            Within this new Conflict Centre we’ll want to see a fully integrated architecture that houses new atrocity prevention systems and capabilities but coordinates implementation beyond the conflict corps and across government. This new approach to violence prevention and civilian protection should look to integrate currently overlapping – but not coordinated – agendas such as Women Peace and Security, Protection of Civilians, Human Rights (including sexual orientation and gender identity, freedom of religious belief, and media freedom), peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and counter terrorism/counterinsurgency, Preventing Violent Extremism, and Organised Crime.

             

            Preventing and responding to modern atrocities and conflict requires a holistic, integrated approach, which is what the IR promises on paper but ultimately it will be actions that determine the extent to which this comes to life. Already there are concerns that the words of the Integrated Review do not match the deeds of government.[4] The steep cuts that have already been announced jar with many of the promises laid out in the IR. A commitment to tighten focus on the cross-government Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) by prioritising its resources on the foundational link between stability, resilience and security is only welcome if it is matched by a commitment to invest in a wider breadth of civil society organisations and move away from the large contracts with private enterprises that lack the fundamental understanding of the very root causes the new approach to conflict promises to tackle. It seems natural that the Government needs to go back to community building and away, finally, from strategic communications-based interventions that take up so much of the CSSF budget.

             

            The creation of an Open Societies directorate within FCDO should be an additional forum where the new commitment to address grievances and marginalisation could be embedded; certainly if the UK’s new emphasis on  atrocity prevention does not sit across Open Societies as well as the new Conflict Centre, the FCDO will risk replicating the cracks between DFID and FCO, between which the implementation of the atrocity prevention and human rights – rather than their superficial promotion – so often fell.

             

            It is important that upholding human rights has been retained as a core principle of continuation but it’s far harder to see what is new or bold here. There are hints at what this change in approach towards conflict and human rights might look like, including the recognition of the ‘increasingly blurring the boundaries between war and peace’ and the recognition that conflict and instability will remain prevalent and likely increase ‘unless concerted action is taken to address underlying political, social, economic and environmental drivers, especially in fragile states.’ The relationship between a commitment to confront marginalisation and prioritise political approaches to resolution will inevitably require frameworks of human rights, identity-based violence, and atrocity prevention; if this work does not become better integrated the impact of both the Conflict Centre and the Open Societies Directorate will be stymied from the beginning.

             

            The promise that the thematic priority of open societies will be ‘characterised by effective governance and resilience at home’ signals a generational shift we’ve seen in recent years in the ways in an increasing number of NGOs and politicians in global north democracies have come to articulate the impact of climate change, conflict, and threats to democracy, finally recognising the extent to which these crises are felt ‘at home’, not only ‘abroad’.  But the ‘whole-of-government approach to protecting democracy in the UK’ must be just that, recognising that a good governance agenda – whether here in the UK or in fragile states – requires an understanding of grievance and marginalisation that assesses who is included and who is excluded from democratic processes and trust-building activities. (Who does introducing voter ID hit hardest?) And if the Government is serious about narrowing the conceptual and practical disconnect between its domestic and foreign policies it must learn to prize consistency over political interests. (Does the UK champion international law or undermine it?) It will be important to watch what it means for the FCDO and the UK’s domestically facing departments as this commitment to more closely link domestic and international action is implemented.

             

            This commitment to build resilience at home and abroad, and the changes in thinking around modern conflict will necessarily come together in the creation of a cross-government Situation Centre in the Cabinet Office, intended to ‘anticipate and respond to crises’. This has the potential to centre prevention-thinking in the heart of government. Knowing what to look for, how to analyse the information and how to ‘raise the alarm’ are crucial steps for successful early warning and early action. Let’s hope this new Situation Centre includes a much needed early warning system, capable of monitoring and analysing threats to national and global security. The absence of an internal prevention analysis system, incorporating indicators of grievance, trust, and resilience, and capable of reporting on real-time trends of exclusion and violence (and other threats) has inhibited UK thinking and policy but the IR promises to address these gaps.

             

            Perhaps the big bump in funds for the intelligence services could facilitate a more integrated relationship between MI5, MI6 and UK prevention thinking at home and abroad? Whoever undertakes the work, the current analysis gap the Situation and Conflict Centres have the potential to bridge require human expertise and bureaucratic coordination rather than big data, statistical modelling. The good news is that doesn’t require big budgets

             

            Overall there is a lot to welcome. The dominant threads of resilience and prevention promise a genuine shift from the prevailing policy. Emphasis on building trusted governance, government capabilities, social cohesion, and resilience while confronting marginalisation and grievances signals a new logic is informing the new approach.

             

            That is not to say that there are not gaps that will need to be addressed. Colleagues in the development sector will not be reassured by what was published this week. The biggest tension in UK foreign policy between values and trade was left unaddressed and unresolved. The paper sets out a siloed approach that contradicts its fundamental vision of an integrated international policy.

             

            The paragraphs on China are some of the weakest in the whole document. Acknowledging that the UK has responded ‘to China’s human rights violations in Xinjiang through measures to ensure that British organisations are neither complicit in nor profiting from them’, while simultaneously committing to pursuing a state-level economic relationship that would risk the UK Government becoming complicit in or profiting from CCP atrocities undermines what is strongest about the new vision for the UK in the world.

             

            How can the UK ‘continue to pursue a positive trade and investment relationship with China, while ensuring our national security and values are protected’? It is difficult to see how HMG ‘will not hesitate to stand up for our values’ while also committing to pursuing a trade deal. It’s a fundamental hypocrisy that will need to be interrogated. China is difficult for the UK and there are disagreement within government as well as in the Conservative party as to how to navigate the relationship. As Paul Goodman wrote in Conservative Home some weeks ago, HMG needs a strategy on China, a strategy on modern mass atrocities, and needs to understand how and when the two come together.[5]

             

            The UK deserves an international policy capable of predicting and preventing crises as well as responding to them, fit to meet challenges it cannot yet foresee as well as those it can. If properly built out, this new vision has the potential to establish a prevention-first policy mindset as well as policy coherence across currently highly diffused agendas. I have long argued that prevention – of atrocities and of all global threats – is a matter of both national security and national interest for all States, and therefore requires state-level as well as multilateral commitment: the outcomes of the IR suggest just such a pivot in how the UK will prepare for, predict, prevent, and respond to threats. But it will require radical shifts in thinking, hiring, and coordination within the bureaucracy of government.

             

            As COVID-19’s economic and political consequences deepen, climate events become more common, and identity politics worsen, widespread and systematic identity-based violence, including mass atrocities, will become increasingly frequent. The same nexus will drive large-scale population movements, which will continue to drive exclusionary populism in developed and developing democracies. The relevance of this complex threat nexus, as emblematic of international policy, will become increasingly evident to changing electorates. The outcomes of the Integrated Review and the changes brought by the FCDO merger to the Government architecture indicate a commitment to embed the capabilities and systems to meet this projected increase in identity-based violence and mass atrocities but there is a long way to go.

             

            The new approach to conflict and resilience has the potential to be transformative not just for UK policy but in the reform of how likeminded states approach the drivers and propellants of violence. Of today’s major and emerging crises, the vast majority – including Syria, Yemen, Libya, Myanmar, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Venezuela, and Xinjiang – are driven, at least in part, by the deliberate violent targeting of civilian groups by political elites. Systematic or widespread discrimination against people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, political affiliation, age, disability or class has not become a challenge of the past but a common phenomenon of our modern world. Identity-based violence occurs in some form or another in all societies and as such, its prevention is something needed everywhere all of the time. The IR now promises that better understanding of where this violence comes from and how the UK and its networks can contribute to its prevention will be fully integrated across the composite parts of government.

             

            The coming weeks and months will therefore be critical and I hope that it will see the Government, finally, opening up again after a period of exceptionally closed civil society relations to ensure the full breadth of expertise is able to help shape this new prevention-first era of UK international policy.

             

            Dr Kate Ferguson is a foreign policy expert driving a new approach to preventing identity-based violence in the UK and internationally. In 2014 she co-founded Protection Approaches where she is Co-Executive Director and which works with communities, civil society and governments to transform how identity-based violence is understood and prevented. In 2017 Protection Approaches established and now convenes the UK Atrocity Prevention Working Group, a network of some 25 NGOs, research institutions and experts. Kate is Chair of Policy at the European Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and Honorary Research Fellow at the University of East Anglia. Her book Architectures of Violence: The Command Structures of Modern Atrocities will be published by Hurst and Oxford University Press later this year. She tweets @WordsAreDeeds.

             

            [1] Protection Approaches and United Nations Association – UK: Written evidence to Foreign Affairs Select Committee (INR0087), https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/10640/html/; Dr Kate Ferguson, Putting atrocity prevention at the heart of British foreign policy, FPC, September 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/putting-atrocity-prevention-at-the-heart-of-british-foreign-policy/

            [2] Foreign Affairs Committee, A brave new Britain? The future of the UK’s international policy, Fourth Report of Session 2019-21, House of Commons, October 2020, https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3133/documents/40215/default/; Protection Approaches, Submission to the Integrated Review of UK international policy, August 2020, https://protectionapproaches.org/news/f/submission-to-the-integrated-review-of-uk-international-policy

            [3] Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Britain: The Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention, House of Commons, September 2018, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/1719/171902.htm

            [4] Catherine Philp, Ignore human rights and strike trade deals, Dominic Raab told officials, The Times, March 2021, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ignore-human-rights-and-strike-trade-deals-dominic-raab-told-officials-w2l8rm5rc

            [5] Paul Goodman, Who’s in charge of the Government’s clattering China train? It’s heading for a crash., Conservative Home, February 2021, https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/02/whos-in-charge-of-the-governments-clattering-china-train-its-heading-for-a-crash.html

            Footnotes
              Related Articles

              Building on the Integrated Review

              Article by Adam Hug

              March 16, 2021

              Building on the Integrated Review

              The publication of the long awaited Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, entitled ‘Global Britain in a competitive age’, should finally help give greater clarity  to the UK’s foreign policy and global strategy after the dislocation of the pandemic, organisational restructuring and budget cuts. This very initial response to a 112 page document released a few hours ago does not seek to capture the full complexity of a review that will shape the UK’s policy for years to come. However, it seeks to briefly address some of the key themes, particularly those that were addressed by the Foreign Policy Centre’s Finding Britain’s role in a changing world programme in 2020.[1]

               

              There is much to welcome in the text of the Integrated Review (IR). Whether you agree or not with the priorities the Government has chosen, it is very helpful to have them articulated through the IR’s formal statement of what it sees as ‘Our interests and our values’, the articulation of the Prime Minister’s ‘vision for the UK in 2030’ and the four priorities of the ‘Strategic Framework’, between them it gives a consolidated list of the objectives the UK is seeking to pursue, which can help anchor future policy.[2]

               

              The IR recognises that the UK’s departure from the EU necessitates a swifter moving, more agile approach to its international action. However, it rightly states that this depends on being able to retain ‘a consistent level of international influence, maintaining the soft and hard power capabilities required to support this’ and that this needs ‘new ways to cooperate through creative diplomacy and multilateralism’ as well as developing an increased competitive edge.

               

              The Prime Minister’s vision of the UK being ‘a problem-solving and burden-sharing nation with a global perspective’ is a both a welcome recommitment to this longstanding principle but also a declaration of a notable policy shift. What is clear is that the IR envisages a revised approach to multilateralism that is less focused on post-Cold War institutions (though NATO is mentioned multiple times) and the ‘rules based international system’, but that seeks to respond to a more fragmented and contested world order by being more proactive and adaptive. This approach carries both high risks and high rewards as it is imperative that the UK does still meet its commitment to ‘do more to reinforce parts of the international architecture that are under threat’ (i.e. not leaving existing structures to be dominated by revisionist powers such as China and Russia) while executing its pivot into increased global leadership in regulatory and norm setting institutions, particularly in the technology and data space (and on Space!).

               

              It will be essential that a long-term view is taken when assessing what the UK wants to achieve through multilateral systems to avoid perceptions of opportunism and to build trust amongst traditional allies in such forums who recognise the enduring importance of having rules based systems for middle powers, and who may still hold reservations over the UK’s intentions in the wake of Brexit. The UK Government may not be sentimental about multilateralism but many of its partners are more so, not least the Biden administration’s rhetorical commitment to rebuilding traditional alliances (though in practice both recognise the need for urgent institutional reform).

               

              The IR rightly addresses the central role of what it calls ‘Systemic Competition’, with a recognition of the challenges of rising authoritarianism creates for the cause of liberal democracy and the stability of existing institutions. The review hardens the UK’s formal posture towards both China and Russia, while recognising that without the ability to retain some space for dialogue, particularly with the former, there will be little prospect of meaningfully addressing global challenges such as climate change. In relation to Russia, the recommitment to the central importance of the Euro-Atlantic region to the UK is welcome to show European partners that despite Brexit the UK still has a lot to offer and that it is still ‘a European country’ albeit one ‘with global interests’. The second strand of the IR’s Strategic Framework, entitled ‘Shaping the open international order of the future’, should help shape the priorities and assist in the UK’s response to this moral and strategic challenge, most notably through the first goal under this strategic priority, which ‘is to support open societies and defend human rights’ as part of the UK’s stated commitment to be ‘a force for good’.

               

              The addition of the term ‘sovereignty’ to the IR’s statement of values and interests clearly has echoes of the Brexit debates and will be seen in that light by many. However, it is also being used to reframe the Government’s focus on building domestic legitimacy and accountability for its policies, creating a through line between the national and international in its language on the importance of democracy. The international perceptions of such as statement will need to be managed carefully to prevent the UK from being seen as aligning itself with illiberal powers that use sovereignty rhetoric to ignore international rules and human rights standards. This sovereignty framing helps shape the language contained in the ‘Strengthening security and defence at home and overseas’ section on the resilience of the UK’s democracy.  Much of the language around ‘protecting democracy in the UK, supporting a democratic system that is fair, secure and transparent’ is welcome. However, it contains within it a deeply troubling confirmation that the ‘work programme will include: introducing voter ID at polling stations’. Attempts to mirror US style voter suppression techniques would not only create a threat to the UK’s democratic legitimacy and detract from the other important steps outlined here on disinformation and other issues, it also risks undermining the UK’s ability to promote strengthening electoral systems and access to democratic rights around the world.

               

              The IR rightly recognises the UK’s fundamental strengths as a cultural leader, which it dubs as being a ‘Soft Power Super Power’. It also has helpfully shown a greater focus on trade (and its integration with foreign policy and national strategy) than might have been envisaged at the start of the consultation process, nonetheless there is a missed opportunity to make clear the role trade policy can play in encouraging the UK’s support for open societies and incentivising human rights in addition to the Government’s focus in this area on open economies. Tackling illicit finance, as well as serious and organised crime, is also a welcome component of the IR’s approach, with the commitment to bring in new Magnitsky sanctions focused on corruption as well as a recognition of the need to tackle money laundering facilitated by the UK.

               

              So while there are a number of areas of concern in the document that fall beyond the remit of the FPC’s ‘Finding Britain’s role in a changing world’ project, such as the proposals to increase the UK’s nuclear stockpiles, the overall balance of the text is a positive one that can help shape government policy going forwards. However, it is a review of significant scope and one that will only achieve its goals, particularly the objective of being truly integrated, if it is able to be effectively implemented.

               

              Central to that implementation challenge is the level of resource available to deliver its objectives and manage the process of change. Much has already rightly been said about the Government’s decision to cut UK aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of a falling national income.[3] The impact of this is being seen in the public debate over the cuts to UK assistance in Yemen, the future of VSO (Voluntary Service Overseas) and other longstanding UK priorities. There is understandable concern, particularly within the development sector, about the shift away from having discrete aid and development priorities and commitments to the UK’s aid spending being more instrumentalised to achieve integrated policy goals.  More debate will take place over the coming weeks and months as the reality of some of the shifts in geographical and policy priorities outlined in the IR begin to align with the scale of the budget reductions to significantly reduce the capacity of the UK and its partners in areas of previous strength. For example, on the day of launch, openDemocracy reported that the FCDO’s Open Societies and Human Rights Directorate  was facing a 80% budget cut and the National Crime Agency’s ODA funded work on anti-corruption was also to be significantly cut.[4] Such practical pressures clearly do not align with the strategic vision outlined in the IR. This capacity crunch is brought into even more stark relief by the Government’s new commitment to an ‘Indo-Pacific tilt’, seeking to rebuild its presence East of Suez across the full spectrum of government activity.[5]

               

              The IR is clearly a strategy document designed to drive culture change across Whitehall and, as recommended in the FPC’s research, the Government says that it is looking to beef up mechanisms to ensure its implementation. These include ‘a new Performance and Planning Framework and is establishing an Evaluation Taskforce’ as well as departmental ‘Outcome Delivery Plans, against which ministers will receive regular performance reports’. The Integrated Review itself is conspicuously light on detailed policy commitments. The Government has argued that this is by design, allowing the review to be more flexible and adaptive over time, ‘a living document’ in official parlance. However, this reduces the number of measurable objectives against which government performance can be measured, potentially undermining the Government’s stated objective of using the process to build public trust and legitimacy amongst a domestic audience. More thought should be given towards how information from the performance and planning framework and top line information from each department’s Outcome Delivery Plans can be made available to the public and relevant stakeholders to ensure they are able to hold the Government to account on its commitments.

               

              Image by FCO under (CC).

               

              [1] This comprised five publications and a number of events that sought to inform the public debate around the Integrated Review, https://fpc.org.uk/programmes/finding-britains-role-in-the-world/. The views expressed here represent the personal views of FPC Director Adam Hug based on the ‘Finding Britain’s role in changing world’ research in 2020.

              [2] There may still be some benefit in combining these three strands in the IR document into one integrated list. FPC, The principles for Global Britain, September 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/publications/the-principles-for-global-britain/

              [3] Addressed in the FPC’s project in 2020.

              [4] Peter Geoghegan, UK government plans 80% cuts to world-leading anti-corruption work, openDemocracy, March 2021, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uk-government-plans-80-cuts-to-world-leading-anti-corruption-work/

              [5] The cost and benefits of such a tilt are addressed in the FPC previous work.

              Footnotes
                Related Articles

                The UK’s new corruption sanctions regime – Can it help end the UK’s role as a global money laundering centre and what role will journalists play?

                Article by Dr Susan Hawley

                March 10, 2021

                The UK’s new corruption sanctions regime – Can it help end the UK’s role as a global money laundering centre and what role will journalists play?

                This spring, the UK’s Foreign Secretary is set to announce a new stand-alone corruption sanctions regime which will give the Government power to impose visa bans and asset freezes on corrupt officials and their related entities.[1]

                 

                This regime will complement the Global Human Rights (Magnitsky) Sanctions regime introduced last summer, which currently lists 68 individuals. These range from those implicated in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer and tax advisor who exposed corruption in Russia, and the murder of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi, to the former President of The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh and his wife, and the current President of Belarus. At the same time, the UK has rolled over 27 ‘geographic’ or country specific regimes, some of them introduced on human rights’ grounds, from the European Union sanctions regime.[2] These allow it to impose sanctions on individuals and entities in countries including Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Lebanon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Guinea, and Venezuela among others.[3]

                 

                The new corruption sanctions regime will bring the UK more in line with its US and Canadian counterpart ‘Magnitsky’ regimes, which both include corruption as a grounds for imposing visa bans and asset freezes. It will also put pressure on the EU whose new global human rights sanctions regime introduced in December 2020 does not.[4]

                 

                Major opportunity, real challenges

                The introduction of corruption as a grounds for sanctions in the UK is a significant opportunity in the fight against kleptocracy and dirty money globally for various reasons:

                •     The UK has long been a magnet for dirty money. An effective regime could help shut corrupt actors out of the UK and deprive them of the ability to enjoy their stolen wealth;
                •     Given the challenges that face UK law enforcement, including the length of time it takes, to bring criminal and civil enforcement action against corrupt wealth in the UK, corruption sanctions could offer a swift and powerful way of sending a strong message that corrupt actors cannot act with impunity;
                •     Corruption sanctions will be “given effect” in the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.[5] How robustly this will happen remains to be seen but this could have a major impact on the access that kleptocrats have to global financial services through these jurisdictions, which have featured heavily in all major money laundering scandals;[6]
                •     The UK will be able to act in concert on corruption sanctions with the US, Canada and other allies developing similar regimes, adding to the global impact of these sanctions; and
                •     It will signal that the current UK government is seeking to maintain a global leadership role in the fight against corruption, as part of its proposed “force for good” agenda.[7]

                 

                At the same time, it is important to be realistic about how much impact the regime will have. The UK is at a vulnerable stage in economic terms as it seeks to negotiate new trade deals around the world. Realpolitik means that there is a danger that the corruption sanctions regime may be skewed towards ‘weaker partners’ or countries where the UK has little economic or political interest. At worst, it may be applied primarily against those with no connection to the UK, leaving the sanctions purely symbolic in value. Meanwhile, the expected significant cuts in the UK’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) budget may well reduce the UK’s standing and leverage in countries[8] where it wishes to impose sanctions, thus undermining their effectiveness.

                 

                At the same time, the UK regime has significantly more legal safeguards built in for those being sanctioned than the US regime. Given the significant amounts of money that kleptocrats have at their disposal to defend their assets and reputations and the difficulties of proving corruption, ‘designations’ to the corruption regime may be heavily contested. This could make the Government risk averse in who it chooses to put on the list.

                 

                And finally, the sanctions regime in the UK is significantly less well funded and staffed than the US regime, meaning less capacity in the civil service to process potential designations, and less law enforcement capacity to enforce violations. This could result in relatively few designations for corruption. Additionally, as law enforcement already faces serious resource constraints, which may well be further exacerbated by cuts to the Overseas Development Aid budget that funds international corruption work, this could result sanctions being poorly enforced reducing their effectiveness.

                 

                Significance for journalists

                Given their role in investigating and exposing corruption, the introduction of the regime is a major opportunity for journalists to achieve real impact with those investigations. Working in collaboration with UK and international NGOs, there is genuine opportunity here for journalists to contribute their evidence on corruption to get corrupt actors sanctioned in the UK.

                 

                Journalists will also play a key role in communicating news about sanction designations in local contexts. Coverage of when and why corruption sanctions have been imposed increases pressure for action to be taken domestically against corrupt actors and those who enable their corruption.

                 

                And finally, there may be opportunities for the sanctions regime to be used more effectively, or even extended, to protect journalists targeted for their corruption investigations and media freedom. The February 2020 report by a High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom convened by the UK and Canadian Governments urged governments to use sanctions against those who murder or imprison journalists and restrict freedom of the media.[9] The UK’s current global human rights sanctions regime expressly prioritises media freedom, and those who commit human rights abuses against civil society, journalists and whistleblowers.[10] Those sanctioned, particularly on geographical sanctions lists, include officials and entities who have engaged in intimidation and violence against journalists, including, for example, judges in Belarus who have made politically motivated rulings against journalists, as well as those who have engaged in state propaganda.

                 

                However, there is certainly scope for the UK’s sanctions regime to go further and make clear, as the High Level Panel recommended, that arbitrary detention of journalists is an explicit ground for sanctions. And it would send a powerful message if the Foreign Secretary emphasises, when he announces the new corruption regime, that those who seek to intimidate, harass, and imprison journalists and civil society activists who expose corruption will face a serious risk of being sanctioned too.

                 

                Dr Susan Hawley is the Executive Director of Spotlight on Corruption. She is an anti-corruption specialist who has worked on anti-corruption issues in the UK for nearly two decades. She has expertise in policy and research in UK anti-corruption enforcement. Previously Susan was a founder and Policy Director of Corruption Watch UK, where she led the work on monitoring court trials, tracking UK enforcement and pushing for greater court transparency.

                 

                [1] Lisa Nandy, Topical Questions, FCDO – in House of Commons on 2nd March 2021, TheyWorkForYou, March 2021, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2021-03-02b.111.1&s=sanctions#g111.6

                [2] Global Legal Monitor, European Union: Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime Enters into Force, Library of Congress, January 2021, https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/european-union-global-human-rights-sanctions-regime-enters-into-force/

                [3] FCDO, Collection – UK sanctions regimes, Part of Brexit, Gov.uk, January 2020, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-sanctions-regimes-under-the-sanctions-act

                [4] Council of the EU, EU adopts a global human rights sanctions regime, December 2020, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/12/07/eu-adopts-a-global-human-rights-sanctions-regime/

                [5] FCO & FCDO, Guidance – UK sanctions, Part of Brexit, Gov.uk, August 2019, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-sanctions

                [6] Transparency International UK, The Cost of Secrecy, December 2018, https://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/cost-of-secrecy/

                [7] FCO and The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Global Britain is leading the world as a force for good: article by Dominic Raab, Part of Brexit, Gov.uk, September 2019, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/global-britain-is-leading-the-world-as-a-force-for-good-article-by-dominic-raab

                [8] Peter Geoghegan, UK government accused of ‘grotesque betrayal’ as full foreign aid cuts revealed, Open Democracy, 5th March 2021, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uk-government-accused-of-grotesque-betrayal-as-full-foreign-aid-cuts-revealed/

                [9] International Bar Association, New report urges nations to use targeted sanctions to protect journalists, February 2020, https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=77561bf1-ef89-4df1-97e5-549f5929ddb3

                [10] FCO & FCDO, Policy Paper – Global Human Rights Sanctions: consideration of designations, Gov.uk, July 2020, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/global-human-rights-sanctions-factors-in-designating-people-involved-in-human-rights-violations/global-human-rights-sanctions-consideration-of-targets

                 

                This article was produced as part of the Unsafe for Scrutiny project, which is kindly funded by the Justice for Journalists Foundation.

                Footnotes
                  Related Articles

                  Retreating Rights – Kyrgyzstan: Executive Summary

                  Article by Adam Hug

                  March 1, 2021

                  Retreating Rights – Kyrgyzstan: Executive Summary

                  Kyrgyzstan has just experienced another period of rapid and chaotic change, the third time the country has overthrown an incumbent President in the last 15 years. This publication shows how the roots of the problem run deep. It explores how a culture of corruption and impunity have been at the heart of Kyrgyzstan’s institutional failings, problems that have sometimes been overlooked or downplayed because of the comparison to challenges elsewhere in Central Asia, but that were ruthlessly exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

                   

                  The publication tries to explain the recent emergence of the new President Sadyr Japarov in the unrest of October 2020 and what it might mean for the future of Kyrgyzstan. An instinctive anti-elite populist with a powerful personal narrative and a past reputation for economic nationalism Japarov is undertaking a rapid consolidation of power, including through controversial constitutional reform.

                   

                  Liberal minded civil society has been under increasing pressure throughout the last decade. They have faced successive governments increasingly seeking to regulate and pressure them and a rising tide of nationalism that has seen hatred against civil society activists expressed on the streets and online, particularly due to the weaponisation of work on women’s and LGBTQ rights. The publication proposes a root and branch rethink of donor initiatives in Kyrgyzstan to take stock of the situation and come again with new ways to help, including the need for greater flexibility to respond to local issues, opportunities for new ideas and organisations to be supported, and a renewed focus on governance, transparency and accountability.

                   

                  Magnitsky sanctions and global anti-corruption measures can be used to respond to the ways corrupt elites have stashed their earnings abroad and they can also be used to seek redress where justice is unlikely to be served in Kyrgyzstan, such as in the tragic case of Azimjan Askarov. There is scope to better condition potential trade, aid and investment incentives to human rights benchmarks. The publication suggests areas for further amendment in the drafting of Kyrgyzstan’s new constitution and calls for more action from social media companies to protect activists and journalists who are subject to harassment.

                   

                  The international community should be under no illusions about the scale of the challenges Kyrgyzstan faces. It should take swift action to prevent further backsliding on rights and freedoms, while finding new ways to help resolve Kyrgyzstan’s systemic problems.

                   

                  Recommendations for the Government of Kyrgyzstan, international institutions and Western donors:

                  • Ensure a rigorous focus on issues of corruption, hatred and impunity;
                  • Undertake a systemic review of international donor funded projects in Kyrgyzstan including budget support, the use of consultancies and working with NGOs. It should look at both objectives and implementation, based on evidence and widespread engagement;
                  • Find ways to empower fresh thinking and new voices, while giving partners the space and resources to adapt to local priorities;
                  • Encourage the Japarov Government to develop a new National Human Rights Action Plan;
                  • Increase human rights and governance conditionality in order to unlock stalled EU and UK partnership agreements, debt relief, further government related aid and new investment;
                  • Deploy Magnitsky Sanctions and anti-corruption mechanisms more widely on Kyrgyzstan;
                  • Expand Kyrgyz language moderation on social media and strengthen redress mechanisms;
                  • Push for further amendments to the draft constitution to protect NGOs, trade unions, free speech and minority rights, and avoid increasing the power of the Prosecutor General; and
                  • Explore new mechanisms for civic consultation, learning from local practices in Kyrgyzstan, consultative bodies in other developing countries and the use of Citizens Assemblies.

                   

                  Image by Sludge G under (CC).

                  Footnotes
                    Related Articles

                    Retreating Rights – Kyrgyzstan: Introduction

                    Article by Adam Hug

                    Retreating Rights – Kyrgyzstan: Introduction

                    Introduction: Examining the pressure on human rights in Kyrgyzstan

                     

                    This publication, Retreating Rights, is an attempt to take stock of another period of rapid and chaotic change in Kyrgyzstan, looking at how the country arrived at its current situation and assessing what can be done next.[1] The roots of where the country now finds itself run deep, deeper than many of the institutions Kyrgyzstan has built up over the years, and a more detailed analysis of these structural questions is covered in the second half of this introduction and in many of the essay contributions.

                     

                    When this project was initially conceived in Autumn 2019 the storm clouds of nationalism and corruption over the country had been gathering for some time (and in many respects had always been there), before a weak response to COVID and pent-up frustration with a self-interested ruling class triggered the third overthrow of a government in little over 15 years. Kyrgyzstan’s relative openness, at least when compared to its Central Asian neighbours, has often masked some of the deep and deepening challenges on governance and human rights issues. The roiling intra-elite competition and concerns over corruption have driven two previous revolutions, a contentious election in 2017 and the violent siege and arrest of former President Almazbek Atambayev in August 2019. The country is also dealing with the legacy of inter-communal violence targeted mainly at the ethnic Uzbek minority in Southern Kyrgyzstan, with discrimination against that community and the suppression of their language and property rights not satisfactorily resolved. The tragic death of political prisoner Azimjan Askarov in 2020 is a legacy of this grim situation and a symbol of the continuing communal tensions.

                     

                    Over the last decade, and particularly in recent years, civil society activists have tried to raise the alarm about the increasing challenges they faced from the bureaucratic pressure, security service snooping and nationalist backlash, but too often these concerns have been minimised, informed in part by a desire to retain the idea of Kyrgyzstan as the Central Asian success story when it came to human rights and civic freedoms, even as poverty and other development metrics showed much more limited progress. As recently as June 2020 international partners such as the EU were arguing that ‘the overall human rights situation remained stable and is considered as the most advanced in the region. The government remained committed to its human rights agenda and adopted relevant documents for its implementation, e.g. the National Human Rights Action Plan 2019-2021.’[2] Incremental mounting concerns were too often overlooked until it became too late to stop more profound change. The ‘frog’ of Kyrgyzstan’s political wellbeing had been gently boiled over several years before the pan bubbled over in late 2020, leaving serious, overdue questions about the long-term health of that metaphorical amphibian that this publication seeks to answer.

                     

                    How we got here: a brief history of Kyrgyzstan

                    The land that is now Kyrgyzstan has been home to a series of step civilisations including the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate (likely to have been formed by ancestors of the modern Kyrgyz people) before its conquest by other step peoples including most notably the Mongol Empire in the thirteenth century.[3] The folk history of this initial founding period (in the ninth century) is shaped by the events told in the Epic of Manas, one of the world’s longest poems, which has been used heavily by modern Kyrgyzstan as the basis for its national identity.[4] The Kyrgyz remained predominantly as nomadic tribes in what is now Kyrgyzstan and the surrounding regions, interacting with the Chinese and other settled empires such as the Timurids to the south. First contact between the Kyrgyz tribes and Katherine the Great’s Russia took place in 1775 and just over a 100 years later (in 1876) the land and its people were taken and absorbed into the Russian Empire. The Soviets established the Kara-Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast within the Russia Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1924 which would gradually evolve in 1936 into the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic, a full constituent republic of the Soviet Union. Shortly before the dissolution of the Soviet Union the President of the Kirghiz Academy of Science Askar Akayev won the Presidency after stalemate between more established Communist Party figures. Akayev would lead the new Republic of Kyrgyzstan until 2005, moving further than his Central Asian peers down the road of economic and political liberalisation. Although less authoritarian than his fellow post-Soviet Central Asian leaders the level of corruption steadily grew through his time in office.

                     

                    How we got here: 2005- 2020

                    Despite having previously promised to retire as mandated at the end of his third term in 2005, rumours swirled that Akayev planned a managed transfer of power to one of his children or to break the term limits that would have prevented him standing again. Protests against his government escalated across the country, particularly in response to strong concerns of ballot rigging in the February 2005 parliamentary election, that culminated in Akayev fleeing the country (and resuming his academic career in Moscow), a sequence of events known as the Tulip Revolution.[5]

                     

                    Leader of the protest movement, former Prime Minister Kurmanbek Bakiyev became both interim Prime Minister and Acting President and would subsequently win the July 2005 elections that followed Akayev’s ouster. Like his predecessor Bakiyev would promise reform and then became mired in increasingly egregious corruption, as a number of authors in this collection note. Amid an energy crisis (with rolling blackouts and spiralling costs), opposition to Bakiyev’s corruption crystallised into protests and riots that escalated into the capture of key government buildings and the White House (home to the Parliament and Presidential Administration) with around 65 deaths before the resignation of Bakiyev in April 2010. However his supporters would continue to mobilise in the south of the country leading to unrest that culminated in the June 2010 riots in Osh that predominantly targeted the ethnic Uzbek population who had been seen to be supportive of those who had ousted Bakiyev, though the roots of the dispute lie much deeper as explained in this publication. Bakiyev, along with many of his family and entourage, sought and gained asylum in Belarus, including the bizarre case of former Prime Minister Daniyar Usenov who is believed to have changed is name and now serving as the director of the Belarus National Biotechnology Corp, while Bakiyev’s son Maxim gained asylum in the UK.[6] Roza Otunbayeva, who had previously been a key figure alongside Bakiyev in 2005, served as President on a short-term basis following the passage of the July 2010 Constitution in a referendum that saw the transfer of significant powers from the Presidency to the Parliament (the Jogorku Kenesh or Supreme Council).

                     

                    Otunbayeva was succeeded as President in December 2011 by the Prime Minister Almazbek Atambayev. Again, as a number of authors in this collection show, he came in promising reform and left with a reputation for corruption and mismanagement. However, so far uniquely in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan, he made it to the end of his term of office. Atambayev was able to hand over power in 2017 to his hand-picked successor and Social Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan (SDPK) colleague, the Prime Minister Sooronbay Jeenbekov, in an election that was broadly free but far from entirely fair, marred by misuse of vote buying and use of administrative resources.[7] Yet upon taking office the relationship between the two men swiftly fractured with a flurry of legal cases against Atambayev and his inner circle, culminating in an armed stand-off at Atambayev’s home compound and his subsequent arrest and conviction for 11 years on corruption charges and manslaughter charges still pending. The SDPK fractured between pro-Jeenbekov and pro-Atambayev factions, with many of the former ultimately coalescing around the Birimdik (Unity) party to act as the ‘party of power’ ahead of the 2020 elections.

                     

                    Kyrgyzstan’s reputation as an ‘Island of Democracy’ has been repeated often throughout the country’s post-Soviet history as a point of comparison to its neighbours, but throughout said history there have been significant concerns about its political health.[8] At the very least it is worth pointing out that every elected President has either been removed from office by protests or been subsequently imprisoned after their term had expired.[9] The country remains the second poorest in the post-Soviet space, with a GDP per capita of $1,309 (actual USD or $5,485 PPP) and massive levels of migration, in particular to Russia that sees remittances form 28.5 per cent of the Kyrgyzstan’s GDP.[10] The Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) places the country at 124th in the world and despite the lingering perception of Kyrgyzstan’s democratic bona fides Freedom House’s Nations in Transit Report has repeatedly classified Kyrgyzstan as a Consolidated Authoritarian Regime, with an overall score for political freedoms of 11 out of 100 and an albeit slightly better 27 out of 100 for Civil Liberties.[11] In 2016, Kyrgyzstan only narrowly avoided introducing a Russia-style foreign agents law after intense pressure from Kyrgyz civil society and Western donor governments and many NGOs have reported continuing pressure from the authorities and non-state actors linked to powerful interests.[12]

                     

                    As set out later in this section and in many of the essays, nationalism has been on the rise over the last ten years to become a major mobilising force in Kyrgyzstan’s public life.[13] This has manifested itself in many different ways, but particularly in the form of both anti-Western and anti-Chinese sentiments, a growing hostility to local Russian speakers (though rarely to Russia itself) and ongoing tensions over women’s rights issues and with ethnic and sexual minorities.

                     

                    From late 2018 onwards a series of protests began against Chinese migrants (both real and perceived), Chinese investments in the country and around the treatment of ethnic Kyrgyz in China.[14] In August 2019, protests erupted at the Solton-Sary mine, owned by the Zhong Ji Mining Company, over allegations of environmental damage and poor treatment of Kyrgyz employees.[15] As well as the ethnic and geo-strategic dimension in relation to such protests, the protests tapped into wider concerns about lack of economic progress and the sense that those benefiting from Kyrgyzstan’s resource wealth are not the local population but international investors (and domestic elites). Dissatisfaction and protests against foreign ownership of the Kumtor Gold mine, owned by Canadian mining firm Centerra and accounting for around nine per cent of Kyrgyz GDP, have been a recurring theme of Kyrgyz political debate and was the source both of now President Sadyr Japarov’s initial popularity and his criminal conviction for a kidnapping that occurred as part of pro-nationalisation protests he led in 2013.[16] 2020 began with further protests against perceived Chinese economic encroachment, ultimately leading to plans for a $275 million Sino-Kyrgyz logistics center in the Naryn Free Economic Zone near the Chinese border to be scrapped.[17]

                     

                    Women’s rights have become a particular flashpoint between women’s rights protesters (along with their supporters in liberal civil society) and nationalist counter-demonstrators. In late 2019, the Femminale of Contemporary Art, an exhibition of feminist art by Kyrgyz and international artists at the National Museum of Fine Arts in Bishkek became the centre of protest.[18] The backlash by protesting nationalists groups against the display (that included Kazakh artist Zoya Falkova’s Evermust, a punching bag made into the shape of a female torso to highlight domestic violence) lead to the Ministry of Culture censoring some of the exhibits and forcing the resignation of the Museum’s curator amid death threats against her.[19] International Women’s Day (March 8th) has also long been a flashpoint between the two faces modern Kyrgyzstan and in 2020 it again became a point of conflict. As Eric McGlinchey puts it in his essay, ‘on March 8, 2020—International Women’s Day—a group of masked men wearing Ak-kalpaks, traditional Kyrgyz hats, attacked a group of activists who had gathered on Victory Square to highlight the persistence and acceptance of widespread domestic violence, bride kidnapping, and rape.[20] Revealingly, while the violent attackers were not detained, 50 women’s rights activists were arrested.’[21]

                     

                    How we got here: March-October 2020

                    Ten days after the International Women’s Day protests however normal political life would come shuddering to a halt as the first cases of COVID-19 were identified in Kyrgyzstan. By March 22nd a state of emergency was declared and public transport was shut down in Bishkek, which would evolve into a more substantial lockdown and curfew.[22] As with so many countries around the world, including this author’s own, the ensuing crisis fully exposed the strengths and many weaknesses of the Kyrgyz state. As Ryskeldi Satke’s essay in this collection shows the pandemic overwhelmed the capacity of Kyrgyzstan’s health system (both in terms of beds and staff) and laid bare the endemic problems with governance, lack of transparency and corruption that undermined the country’s ability to cope. Problems included a lack of oxygen and ventilators and the virus running rampant through healthcare workers who were struggling with the lack of PPE and other protections.[23] In the first few months of the pandemic the true picture was also somewhat obscured by cases regularly being misrecorded as cases of pneumonia.

                     

                    Much of the initial response was characterised by an intra-elite blame game. By April 1st President Jeenbekov fired the heads of his COVID taskforce, Health Minister Kosmosbek Cholponbayev and Deputy Prime Minister Altynai Omurbekova over perceived failings in the initial response.[24] Cholponbayev would subsequently be arrested in September 2020 amid claims of negligence and concerns over a consulting contract he had negotiated.[25] Prime Minister Mukhammedkalyi Abylgaziev would take a leave of absence on May 27th, mid-crisis, and would subsequently resign two weeks later over corruption allegations relating to the sale of national broadcasting frequencies.[26] At Abylgaziev’s leaving party ministers were caught on camera not wearing masks and breaking social distancing rules leading to 28 politicians and officials being fined.[27]

                     

                    Ordinary citizens found the situation chaotic. The implementation of internal movement controls created havoc for the many people whose jobs relied on commuting into major cities such as Bishkek or who had been living in those cities without the formal propiska registration documents.[28] The crisis also saw Kyrgyzstan take on significant amounts of emergency funding from international institutions, $627.3 million by July 2020, triggering further concerns about transparency and accountability of how the money was spent.[29] However, as so often in cases of state failure in Kyrgyzstan, volunteers stepped into the breach to provide support in hospitals and other health care facilities.[30] Come 2021 and the Japarov administration would announce that the previous Government significantly under counted the death rate, with more than 4,000 having died in the initial 2020 outbreak compared to the previously quoted figure of 1,393.[31]

                     

                    The crisis also not only necessitated the restriction of civil liberties on public health grounds seen around the world but it provided the Government with opportunities to further restrict media and political freedoms. As Elira Turdubaeva points out in her essay, independent media was not able to operate outside during the lockdown period, the Parliament tried to proceed with laws designed to increase bureaucratic measures on NGOs and the security services ramped up arrests of social media users who criticised the Government response to the pandemic (including medical workers protesting the lack of PPE).[32]

                     

                    Despite the social and economic turmoil ahead of the Parliamentary elections, it initially seemed that the contests would simply act as an intra-elite competition between oligarchs and local power brokers, as the party system reshaped itself following the implosion of the SPDK.[33] It soon became clear that much of the activity was centred around jostling between forces directly aligned with President Jeenbekov (including his brother Asylbek), which coalesced around the Birimdik party (Party of Democratic Socialism—Eurasian Choice ‘Unity’), and forces close to the powerful Matraimov family network (about more of which below), which acted through the also notionally pro-Jeenbekov Mekenim Kırgızstan (‘My Homeland Is Kyrgyzstan’) party.

                     

                    Rules prohibiting the use of volunteers entrenched the capacity gap between the well-resourced efforts of Birimdik, Mekenim Kirgizstan and Kanatbek Isaev’s Kyrgyzstan party (also seen as being pro-Jeenbekov), and their rivals.[34] However, perhaps more important than formal campaign spending was the continuation of large-scale vote buying, a common practice in past elections, which this time also included the abuse of pandemic related charitable initiatives, as well as the traditional abuse of administrative resources (the coercion of state institutions and employees) to back pro-Jeenbekov candidates (albeit often against one another in internecine contests that devolved into brawls on more than one occasion).[35] 16 of the 17 Parties in the October election signed up to the Central Election Commission (CEC) code of conduct on hate speech but this was often ignored online during in the campaign.

                     

                    Here: October 2020 onwards

                    On election day itself, October 4th, social media was awash with images of electoral shenanigans including videos of vote buying, voting for multiple people and suspected ‘carousel’ voting (where people vote in multiple polling locations, potentially abusing the ability to temporarily change voting addresses).[36] The OSCE Final Election monitoring report subsequently noted that its observation mission had received ‘numerous credible reports from interlocutors throughout the country about instances of vote buying and abuse of administrative resources.’[37]

                     

                    In the preliminary results, Birimdik narrowly bested Mekenim Kirgizstan by 24.50 per cent to 23.79 per cent (which would have equated to 46 and 45 seats respectively in the 120 seat Supreme Council (Jogorku Kenesh), with Kyrgyzstan some way behind on 8.7 per cent and 16 provisional seats.[38] The fourth party to scrape over the seven per cent electoral threshold was the only party not to be openly and explicitly aligned with President Jeenbekov, the nationalist Bütün Kırgızstan (‘United Kyrgyzstan’), led by 2011 and 2017 Presidential election also-ran Adakhan Madumarov. This result was despite pre-election polling clearly showing that only a third of the electorate approved of the incumbent Government’s pandemic response.[39]

                     

                    Protests on Bishkek’s Ala-Too Square and outside the CEC began as early as the announcement of the provisional results on the evening of October 4th, led by campaigners for the many parties that had failed to clear the electoral threshold and therefore would not hold seats in the new Supreme Council. By the following morning protesters were on the streets of Bishkek in significant numbers protesting the results and the open levels of fraud that had gone on the day before. By that afternoon and into the evening Ala-Too Square was full with thousands of protesters, waving flags and singing the national anthem.[40] By this stage sources in President Jeenbekov’s Birimdik were already saying that they were open to the election being re-run.

                     

                    However, later into the evening the situation deteriorated into violence as police attempted to disperse the protestors, both those outside the White House and the square with water cannon, stun grenades and tear gas, escalating the tension.[41] By 3am the protesters had broken into the White House, including into President Jeenbekov’s office, and the State Committee for National Security (GKNB).[42] Among those released from the GKNB building included former President Atambayev and a former Member of Parliament Sadyr Japarov.[43] While Atambayev would attempt to somewhat awkwardly join the protesting opposition groups in Ala-Too Square, something that weakened the liberal camp’s legitimacy and that Asel Doolotkeldieva argues fundamentally weakened its negotiating position with Jeenbekov, Japarov was joined by his own supporters, that included amongst their number mixture of nationalist groups and ‘Sportsmeni’, who would ultimately coalesce around the City’s Old Square.[44] Less than a day after his release from prison Japarov would be find himself proclaimed as the country’s interim Prime Minister, late on October 6th, by a group of Parliamentarians from the pre-October 4th Supreme Council who had hunkered down in the Dostuk Hotel, though this meeting would be broken up by opposition supporters decrying the legitimacy of this impromptu, inquorate gathering. With President Jeenbekov absent from the scene, beyond the occasional video calling for calm, competing factions on the street proclaimed the support for their own leaderships, with young entrepreneur Tilek Toktogaziev being proposed by the liberal opposition. Tensions would ultimately come to a head on October 9th with street brawls between Japarov and opposition supporters, including a shot being fired at former President Atambayev’s car, that help to firmly tilt the balance of power in favour of Japarov’s supporters at the expense of the disorganised opposition movement and more liberally minded protestors.

                     

                    As Bishkek was gripped by political upheaval another force made its presence felt on the streets in the absence of effective police control, the druzhinniki (volunteer civil defence units).[45] These volunteers fanned out across the city to protect shops and other businesses to prevent a repeat of the looting that followed the revolutions in 2005 and 2010.[46]

                     

                    Japarov would again be declared Prime Minister on October 10th and 14th in incrementally more formal votes of the Parliament and amid claims of intimidation of its members by Japarov’s supporters.[47] On October 15th, Jeenbekov finally resigned and Japarov would take his place (and that of Prime Minster) on an interim basis, completing his transition from prisoner to President in ten days.[48]

                     

                    In summary, the brief hopes that the opposition was uniting and able to come up with an alternative to the status quo came to naught as the enthusiastic but unprepared activists could not decide on how to seize their momentum, beset by tensions between younger activists and older, often discredited, opposition politicians who tried to ride the nascent revolution back to relevance.[49] Into the vacuum stepped a more organised alternative in Japarov, combining new mobilisation techniques, an outsider persona and a genuine personal following but with ties to old players, particularly those around former President Bakiyev and suspicions of ties to many of the shadowy forces that had previously participated in the rigged election.[50]

                     

                    The rise of Japarov

                    Sadyr Japarov first came to limited public notice in the wake of the 2005 Tulip Revolution as a Parliamentarian and then advisor to then President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, serving a stint at the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption at a time of widespread corruption allegations against those close to Bakiyev. Following the 2010 revolution Japarov initially followed Bakiyev to Osh and was present in the city during the inter-ethnic conflict between Kyrgyz nationalists and ethnic Uzbeks.[51] He resurfaced after the violence as an MP for former Minister of Emergency Situations Kamchybek Tashiev’s nationalist Ata-Zhurt party, which supported overturning the 2010 referendum that watered down the powers of the Presidency and argued for the return of Bakiyev.

                     

                    However it was through his campaign against the Canadian ownership of the Kumtor mine that brought him to prominence, popularity and notoriety.[52] In 2012 a protest Japarov organised, protesting the amount of tax the mine owner Centerra was paying and calling for the nationalisation of the mine, turned violent after an incendiary speech by Tashiev that was seen by some as implying that they should occupy the White House. Some of the protesters duly tried to break in and there were claims that Tashiev tried to lead protesters over the fence.[53] Both Japarov and Tashiev faced criminal charges and they were stripped of their seats in Parliament as part of the settlement of the case.[54] In 2013 Japarov’s campaign against Kumtor escalated into months of protests in the Issyk Kul region near the mine. In October 2013 Government representative Emil Kaptagaev, who had attempted to speak to protestors, was bundled into a car that was then doused with petrol and threatened to be set alight.[55] Japarov himself was not present at this point, having travelled abroad a few days earlier, but was charged with inciting the violence. He would stay in exile until 2017 when he returned to Kyrgyzstan and was subsequently jailed for an 11.5 year term for his role in the kidnapping of Kaptagaev, this was despite Kaptagaev himself criticising the trial and saying that “fairness in the justice system has died”.[56] During the time Japarov spent in pre-trial detention and in prison his son and parents would pass away and he survived a suicide attempt, adding to a public persona of a politician who was personally suffering for his campaigning against vested interests.

                     

                    Despite being in prison Japarov served as leader of the Mekenchil (‘Patriotic’) party alongside his longstanding political partner Tashiev who served as its chairman. In the disputed elections of October 4th Mekenchil would receive the highest share of the vote of those parties not due to enter the new Supreme Council with 6.85 per cent, just below the seven per cent threshold for receiving seats. However, given the scale of vote buying by other parties, this was not a particularly helpful indicator of Japarov’s support, or at least his potential support. Joldon Kutmanaliev and Gulzat Baialieva show, in their essay in this collection and in their previous research, how Facebook played a crucial role in building his political brand; how WhatsApp was crucial in marshalling supporters to fill the crucial political vacuum that followed the rigged elections, and how he and his team built a following on Instagram and the Russian social network Odnoklassniki to create an organic social media presence that dwarfed other political figures who were more reliant on traditional methods of political horse-trading and vote buying.[57] The political messages that would churn within these groups sought to burnish Japarov’s reputation as a popular hero who stood up against the corrupt elite over Kumtor and was unjustly imprisoned, an economic populism and nationalism that was a central part of his image. Such narratives would overlap with more socially conservative nationalist rhetoric and anti-Western sentiment, particularly around pages linked to the Mekenchil party, built on the ground swell of nationalist and neo-conservative sentiment that had fermented in recent years.[58] These narratives and numbers were able to mobilise Japarov’s supporters, particularly amongst the rural population and unemployed former migrant workers returned from Russia, to build their own independent presence on the streets of Bishkek that would ultimately overwhelm the forces of the State, the liberally minded (and often urban) young activists and the more traditional opposition groups.

                     

                    What Sadyr did next

                    The day after his assentation to the Interim Presidency Japarov installed his long-time political partner Kamchybek Tashiev as head of the security services, solidifying his hold on the levers of power.[59] At Tashiev’s direction a number of well publicised, and some would argue stage managed, moves took place to signal that the new leadership was taking action on corruption.[60] This included the arrest and pre-trial detention of Raiymbek Matraimov and the announcement of an investigation into 40 people believed to be part of his network.[61] As part of a 30 day ‘economic amnesty’ whereby former officials and other past beneficiaries of corruption could repay their ill-gotten gains to the Government, it was claimed Matraimov agreed to transfer two billion soms ($23.6 million) back to the state in return for a pardon.[62] At the same time it was noted that the network of fake accounts run by organised troll farms linked to Matraimov and who had previously been actively promoting Mekenim Kırgızstan turned their attention to supporting the new interim President.[63]

                     

                    Around the country, local officials with ties to the Jeenbekov Government were removed from their posts. In the initial chaos figures from the Bakiyev-era, such as former Mayor of Bishkek Nariman Tuleev and Melis Myrzakhmetov, the controversial former Mayor of Osh heavily implicated in the 2010 inter-ethnic violence, tried to return in their former posts (and in Tuleev’s case briefly succeeded) before less contentious supporters of the new regime could be installed in acting control of key posts.[64]

                     

                    Amid the chaos and factional horse-trading, positions of power in the cabinet and institutions were rapidly filled with people with personal and political connections to Japarov and Tashiev. One of the few exceptions, an attempted olive branch to opposition protesters, was the entrepreneur, turned opposition activist, turned less successful self-proclaimed president Tilek Toktogaziev who would find himself Minister of Agriculture in the interim administration.[65]

                     

                    Attempts at formal legitimacy for all manoeuvres taken by the interim Government rested on the approval of members of a Supreme Council whose mandate had ended on October 15th. However instead of swiftly pursuing efforts to re-run the Parliamentary elections, the initial demand of the protestors who had filled the Bishkek streets, Japarov instead focused on his own political priorities.[66] These priorities included legitimising his hold on power through a new Presidential Election and delivering a long-held political goal of unravelling the post-2010 constitutional settlement in order to increase the power of the Presidency, a role which of course he now held. A one million dollar public affairs and PR contract was agreed, apparently funded by a supportive businessman, to help bolster the international image of the new political setup.[67]

                     

                    So, after less than a month in the job, on November 14th Japarov relinquished the role of interim President in order to campaign for snap Presidential elections that were now to take place on January 10th 2021. Talant Mamytov, a deputy from Tashiev’s former Ata-Zhurt party, became the new Acting President having been elected as the speaker of the zombie Parliament earlier in November in a choreographed move to enable Japarov to run.[68] Artem Novikov, a young civil servant who had been acting as Japarov’s First Deputy Prime Minister, became the acting Prime Minister.

                     

                    The second half of the double bill also announced for January 10th was Japarov’s promised constitutional referendum to approve a return to a strong Presidential system. The referendum that was initially due to approve the draft constitution was agreed on November 17th by the Supreme Council, with only four Parliamentarians voting against the plebiscite (Dastan Bekeshev, Aisuluu Mamashova, Natalya Nikitenko and Kanybek Imanaliev). However only 64 MPs (out of 120) were actually present for this huge decision, a reflection not only of the controversial nature of the proposal but that a constitutional process was being directed by a body sitting unconstitutionally beyond its original mandate.[69] In the wake of publication there was widespread confusion about what had happened with a number of the listed signatories denying they had seen or approved it and did not actually support some of the measures.[70]

                     

                    The initial draft of the new constitution was, unsurprisingly, in-line with Japarov’s thinking and the priorities for reform of some of the nationalist groups that had coalesced around him.[71] This included articles that would create the long-mooted ‘People’s Kurultai’, a deliberative forum based on the traditional consultative body of nomadic tradition. The Kurultai movement was seen by both some of its proponents and opponents as a way to usurp the role and function of the existing Supreme Council.[72] Regional examples that claim some link to this heritage include the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan, comprising representatives of local assemblies, and the People’s Council in Turkmenistan (at times called the Council of Elders) both which act as rubber stamp bodies for those country’s political leadership given authoritarian control over the way members are elected. The proposed constitution incorporated Japarov’s priorities for strengthening the Presidency including allowing the office holder to stand for two five year terms and enshrining the President’s appointment of and control over the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, as well as agency heads and local officials. It also proposed reducing the size of the Supreme Council from 120 to 90 members. A source of significant international outcry was to be found in draft clause 23 that sought to prohibit the distribution of media or information that ‘contradict generally recognised moral values, traditions of the peoples of Kyrgyzstan’ or which ‘can be harmful morality and culture’.[73]

                     

                    The work of determining what this new proposed constitution actually would mean in practice was handed to a new Constitutional Council, who were to publicly deliberate and expand on the proposed changes.[74] However by December 10th, amid internal wrangling, protests from civil society and backlash from the international community, attempts to put a full constitutional draft on the ballot in January were scrapped with instead voters being asked if they would prefer a Presidential or Parliamentary Republic, with the details to be determined after later.[75]

                     

                    The liberal leaning elements of the opposition, demoralised after the October events focused on challenging the process as illegitimate and on successfully watering down the scope of the referendum to prevent it adopting the initial draft. As the overwhelming front-runner and despite facing no challengers who could plausibly find a path to victory Japarov took a cautious approach to the campaign, avoiding public debates between the candidates.

                     

                    The election and referendum day itself was far less eventful than in October.[76] Turnout was low, 39.75 per cent and 39.88 per cent respectively, but of those that did vote Japarov won comfortably with 79 per cent of the vote while the Presidential model was supported by 80 per cent of people in the referendum.[77] A number of factors can be seen to lie behind the drop in turnout, including the time of year, concerns over the pandemic and the perception that the result was not in any doubt. Many opposition figures were disputing the legitimacy of the process and, as a number of our authors note, Japarov’s campaign used a notably lower amount of direct vote buying than in October or other previous elections. This is in part due to it not being needed as much given the capture of administrative resources in the period since October, Japarov’s own personal following and a recognition that gratuitous displays of corruption could potentially undermine that support. Public support for radically empowering the Presidency, which carries clear risks of a slide into authoritarianism, can be seen not only as a response to recent chaos and the roiling sea of factions and faces over the last ten years but perhaps also a recognition that after having three Presidents removed from power the last 15 years some people believe it is easier to remove a President than it is to truly shift the wider web of political forces that underpin the parties and Parliament, at least according to some local observers.

                     

                    By early February a new, smaller Cabinet was formed of 16 members rather than 48, with many ministries and government agencies being consolidated.[78] The Cabinet is led by the former President of the Court of Auditors Ulukbek Maripov, with Artem Novikov reverting to the role of first Deputy Prime Minister.[79] Critics of Japarov who had been co-opted into the interim cabinet, such as Elvira Surabaldieva and Tilek Toktogaziev unsurprisingly did not retain their posts.[80] Upon the announcement that Maripov would take charge of the Government, small protests were held against the appointment focused on allegations against the new Prime Minister’s father, a former Parliamentarian.[81] As so often happens in the wake of a shift in power in Kyrgyzstan, legal action is ramping up against officials of the former regime implicated in wrong doing and/or who had punished those close to the new ruling elite when they were out of power. However the speed and scale (including two of Japarov’s previous Presidential rivals and many senior figures in the previous Government) of this process gives additional cause for concern.

                     

                    On February 9th Parliament published the revised draft constitution following the deliberation of the Constitutional Convention.[82] The Legal Clinic Adilet note that there had been a number of positive changes compared to the November draft due to public pressure and the work the Convention. They note that ‘Multiple references to the supremacy of moral values ​​have been excluded, standards are provided for the inadmissibility of slavery and exploitation of child labour, as well as the principle of ensuring the best interests of the child etc. There are new provisions that strengthen human rights guarantees, in particular regarding the provision of social, economic and cultural rights.’[83] The proposals for the People’s Kurultai seem to have been watered down, with the body having fewer formal powers than initially suggested, playing a more consultative and advisory role to the existing branches of government, though it is now proposed to play a role in the selection of judges. The draft proposes creating a new ‘chairman of the cabinet of ministers’ who is also head of the Presidential Administration, in effect replacing the position of Prime Minister.

                     

                    However there remain two areas are likely to generate potential concern for NGOs and international observers. The draft Article 8.4 would create a requirement that ‘Political parties, trade unions and other public associations ensure the transparency of their financial and economic activities’, something that may seem innocuous but there are fears it may give constitutional weight to efforts to increase burdens on NGOs as discussed below. As Adilet have said the sections on ‘moral values’ have been watered down but the revised draft still contains Article 10.4 which states that ‘In order to protect the younger generation, events that contradict moral and ethical values, the public consciousness of the people of the Kyrgyz Republic may be limited by law.’ Those involved with the Constitutional Convention have suggested that this revised wording echoes Western constitutional provisions on protecting children from things like pornography.[84] However similarly framed commitments in places like Russia have been used to restrict discussion and activism on social and cultural issues including LGBTQ and women’s rights, as well as to censor art or content some find in conflict with ‘traditional’ values on the basis that children might view such content, even when they are not target audience. With President Japarov confirming his intention to put the new constitution to the vote on the same day as the local elections, on April 11th 2021, there is limited time for civil society to press for further changes.[85]

                     

                    For now President Japarov is unchallenged at the top of Kyrgyzstan’s political hierarchy and is busily reshaping the system in his image. However Kyrgyzstan still faces huge economic, social and public health challenges and the pressure is now on for him to deliver on his promises. He has faced widespread international scepticism around his assent to power, which hampered relations with Russia, China, the West and international institutions prior to his election. In part to reassure foreign investors and donors he has already rowed back on some elements of his economic nationalism, conscious of the need for international support to help the country move out of its current predicament. This has included distancing himself from calls to nationalise Kumtor, the issue that raised him to prominence (and prison), though a medium term review of the mine’s taxation arrangements to ensure the Canadian company pays more into the Kyrgyz treasury would seem very likely.[86] Japarov has repeatedly said that no new mining contracts will be given to international companies, but that existing contracts would not be impacted, raising questions about how local businesses will gain the relevant technical knowhow to fill this gap in a crucial export sector for Kyrgyzstan.[87] However on February 24th, Turkey and Kyrgyzstan announced a new framework agreement to draw a line for enhanced cooperation in the field of mining, Energy and Natural Resources, which raises questions over these previous assurances.[88]

                     

                    Given that anti-elite economic nationalism has been core to his personal political brand this new caution carries real political risks for him and leaves open the question of whether his populist focus will shift to new targets. As Aksana Ismailbekova points out ethnic nationalism has not been a central feature of his politics (despite the Bakiyev links), however given the broader cultural and conservativism of many of his online supporters, and the ethnic nationalism and religiosity of some of them, there is concern that minority groups may come under increasing pressure if things do not start to go well. The analogy between President Japarov and Trump has been often made. As Georgy Mamedov puts it they share an understanding of ‘politics as confrontation’ and indeed Japarov has used some similar rhetoric including “the country has become mired in a swamp because of the interests of a narrow group of people” (though he has tried to distance himself from being described as populist).[89] His passion for a strong Presidency, which long predates his holding of the role, is part of a desire to see state consolidation after years of fragmentation, bureaucratic inefficiency and chaos, has clear echoes of the way in which Putin sought to strengthen the state to provide legitimacy for his rule.

                     

                    How we got here: The systemic challenges

                    It is perhaps stating the obvious that Kyrgyzstan finds itself where it is today because what came before clearly was not working for far too many people. To some extent the international communities desire to praise and encourage Kyrgyzstan’s comparative openness, in contrast to the often horrendous regional picture, has perhaps led some to downplay or overlook the deep structural problems that have faced the country for some time. This is not only due to the perhaps understandable desire for a good news story but that the country’s comparative freedom has made it a regional hub for many organisations, something that may add to an unwillingness to rock the boat.  However, the is a need for some reflection that the often poor outcomes that ‘democracy’ was providing for ordinary citizens in ‘Central Asia’s only democracy’ has weakened some of democracy’s attractiveness and undermined faith in liberal institution building amongst Kyrgyzstanis (and some others in region who comment on the ‘chaos’) .

                     

                    As Asel Doolotkeldieva, Jasmine Cameron and others note in their contributions, the country’s elites have failed time and time again to learn the lessons of previous revolutions.[90] Shirin Aitmatova and others have also pointed out many of the formal institutions that have been established in Kyrgyzstan since the collapse of the Soviet Union have too often been a something of a façade, beneath the surface of which true power lies and rents are sought and distributed. This is despite, and in some cases the result of, billions of pounds in international assistance.[91] In 2017 it was estimated that Kyrgyzstan had received over nine billion USD in loans and grants (of which over $2.5 billion had been given as grants), compared to a pre-COVID overall annual GDP of around $8.5 billion.[92] Since the collapse of the Soviet Union successive leaders have followed the orthodox (neo-liberal) policy prescriptions proposed by the international financial institutions that replaced a sclerotic and controlling state, with a hollowed out one, captured by politically connected players that can benefit from it (including through the divestment and privatisation of state assets).

                     

                    The weakness of state institutions has been mirrored by the fluidity of its political party system where political groupings are little more than loose affiliations, led by individual personalities, with limited ideological coherence (though sometimes with shared approaches to broad themes such as nationalism, liberalism, pro-Russia or to specific policies such as a preference for a presidential or Parliamentary system). In too many cases the parties’ primary function can be best conceived as a sorting mechanism for oligarchic interests and societal networks.[93] A recurring theme is that to win a top position on the party list can cost between $500,000 and one million in bribes, with the roles opening up both new opportunities for illicit earnings and providing immunity from prosecution.[94] Whatever the many legitimate concerns about the consolidation of power under the return to the strong Presidential system it is clear that the previous Parliamentary system was failing to deliver its intendent results and was doing little to hold those in power to account.

                     

                    Corruption and organised crime

                    As set out clearly above, in many of the essays in this collection and much of the informed coverage of Kyrgyzstan it is clear that corruption is at the root of so many of the challenges that the country faces. Kyrgyzstan lacks the scale of natural resource wealth that fuels much of the grand corruption elsewhere in the region but nevertheless the problem is endemic, entwined with structures of power from the local level to the elite.

                     

                    Kyrgyzstan’s location is an important part of problem. It acts as a key entry point for goods coming into the Eurasian Economic Union’s customs union comprising Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. The transport of goods into the customs area, particularly from China (‘the Northern Route’ starting in Kashgar in north western China via the Torugart Pass into Kyrgyzstan and then on to Russia and Kazakhstan), creates significant opportunities for graft and informal monopolies by powerful players. Illicit earnings can be generated through the payment of bribes to pass through formal customs checkpoints, opportunities for smuggling and contraband where such formal procedures are ignored, and through the abuse of the power to allow goods into the country being used to dominate the transport and logistics sectors involved in bringing items across the border.[95] The second dimension to this is Kyrgyzstan’s position on what is also separately called the ‘Northern Route’ towards Russia and Europe, making it an important waystation for the smuggling of narcotics, most notably heroin from Afghanistan via Tajikistan.[96] As Shirin Aitmatova notes in her contribution the overall size of the shadow economy in Kyrgyzstan is enormous, with the most recent projection she quotes as being 42 per cent of GDP.[97]

                     

                    The powerful forces alleged by journalists and international officials to be dominating these two sources of illicit funds respectively are Raiymbek Matraimov (customs) and Kamchybek Kolbayev (drugs). Matraimov had worked his way through the ranks of the customs department in the southern region of Kyrgyzstan, becoming its deputy head and then the head of customs in Osh in 2007 before being made head of customs across the South in 2013. In 2015 he was made deputy head of the national customs service, by which point however he had already acquired the nickname ‘Raiym million’ in recognition of the allegations of illicit earnings.[98] Although he was fired by President Atambayev shortly before the end of his term of office in 2017, Matraimov’s brother had already secured a Parliamentary seat in the then dominant SDKP and the family would ultimately found the Mekenim Kırgızstan party as described above.

                     

                    Although the significant wealth and influence of a (mostly) mid-ranking customs official was widely understood in Kyrgyzstan it was investigative journalism by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), and its Kyrgyz member center Kloop, which brought Matraimov to the centre of political debate in the country.[99] Their reporting initially centred on the Matraimov’s close connections to Khabibula Abdukadyr, an ethnic Uighur with a Kazakhstani passport based in Dubai but with major property holdings in London, Washington DC and Germany, who the investigative team argue is at the centre of a Central Asian cargo smuggling empire.[100] The investigation was made possible by the revelations of Aierken Saimaiti who claimed he acted as a middle man and money launderer, transferring $700 million over five years on behalf of these networks.[101] Saimaiti’s revelations included transfers of almost $2.4 to the Matraimov’s family foundation and information relating to alleged collaboration between the Matraimov’s and Abdukadyr over a Dubai property development. Saimaiti was murdered in a contract killing in Istanbul shortly before the publication of the expose. The reporting sparked anti-corruption protests in Bishkek and the UMUT 2020 movement led by Shirin Aitmatova who writes in this publication.[102]

                     

                    The controversy reared its head again, shortly before the October 2020 elections at which Matraimov’s Mekenim Kırgızstan was closely challenging for first place, with more RFE/RL, OCCRP, Bellingcat and Kloop reporting centred on Matraimov, entitled the Matraimov Kingdom.[103] The reporting documented the mechanisms through which they argue that Matraimov built his business. A significant proportion of the investigation was made possible by Matraimov’s wife Amanda Turgunova flaunting her jet setting lifestyle and lavish spending on social media.[104] The reporting caused further outrage and helped fuel the further anger at the vote buying, by the Matraimov’s Mekenim Kırgızstan and others, in the October 4th election that led to the overthrow of President Jeenbekov.[105]

                     

                    In the immediate aftermath of the elections and Japarov’s rise to power much show was made of investigations into Matraimov by the new authorities, with allegations that he was part of a wider scheme to attract ‘shadow revenues of up to £$700 million from the customs system’.[106] To that end Matraimov was arrested on October 20th and charged with having personally benefited by around two billion som ($23.6 million). However, as noted above, the approach taken by Japarov and his new chairman of the State Committee for National Security Kamchybek Tashiev was to encourage an economic amnesty whereby those who had benefited from past corruption were encouraged to return some of their ill-gotten gains in return for avoiding serious criminal penalties for their crimes. This provided a quick injection of cash into the public coffers and showed immediate ‘results’, whilst avoiding asking too many difficult questions or unsettling the delicate balance of power that was emerging. Of the two billion som ($23.6 million) that Matraimov agreed to return, 600 million som was provided in the form of a shopping mall and nine apartments in Bishkek. He ultimately pled guilty and accepted an additional $3,000 fine (in addition to the $23.6 million returned) and a three year ban from holding public office from February 2020.[107] Unsurprisingly this was seen by many in Kyrgyzstan as merely a slap on the wrist and the public outcry led to renewed protests.[108] In something of a surprise plot twist, at time of writing, Matraimov was rearrested by the GKND, less than a week after his previous trial on further allegations of money laundering and has been detained for two months on pre-trial detention.[109] Irrespective of his legal troubles in Kyrgyzstan, Matraimov and his wife has been subject to US Magnitsky Sanctions on the grounds of corruption since December 2020.[110]

                     

                    Kamchybek ‘Kamchy’ Kolbayev has had a less direct impact on Kyrgyz politics but remains designated as a ‘significant foreign narcotics trafficker’ under the US Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act since 2011 and under an asset freeze by the US Treasury Department since in February 2012.[111] Kolbayev was subsequently extradited in December 2012 from the United Arab Emirates back to Kyrgyzstan where he was initially jailed for five and a half years, subsequently reduced to three years before being released in May 2014 on the grounds of time served. Charges of leading an organised criminal group were also dropped at the time.[112] The investigation by RFE/RL, OCCRP, Kloop, and Bellingcat into the Matraimovs also showed the links between Kolbayev and the Matraimovs, with the latter family staying at a villa believed to be owned by the former in Lake Issyk-Kul.[113] Kolbayev was detained as part of the much publicised anti-corruption push by Japarov and Tashiev in October 2020, but it remains unclear if action will be taken against him.[114]

                     

                    These larger players sit atop an engrained culture of graft, as documented by Aksana Ismailbekova in her essay, which runs through both the criminal class and throughout the operation of the state. Business people have to adapt to a symbiotic relationship with the Government and criminal networks from the local to the national level through the paying of bribes in return for protection harassment (both official and informal) and for economic opportunities. Figures from Kolbayev and Matraimov all the way down to local politicians and officials run their own personal patronage and client networks. The big players effectively provide their own social welfare schemes that are able to step in where the state has failed. For example Matraimov’s family foundation has a considerable presence in the Kara-Suu running social programmes and funding students to go to University in Osh.[115] As Erica Marat noted, Kolbayev stepped into provided supplies and support in his native Issyk-Kul during the pandemic when support from the state collapsed.[116] At a local level, notably still in Osh and its surrounding areas, sports clubs and gyms act to supply local muscle (sportsmeni) that can act on behalf of the particular patron which funds them. These young men can be deployed to act as election observers on behalf of political parties and manage vote buying schemes on the ground on behalf of the party supported by their patron.

                     

                    As set out above President after President have used the power of their office to line their own pockets. A 2016 study by Sarah Chayes of the Carnegie Endowment, sets out the dominant position the President (at the time Atambayev) has over other kleptocratic networks in the country, through his control of law enforcement and the courts.[117]

                     

                    Faced with such an unpromising environment, it is little surprise that Western backed efforts at institutional reform to tackle corruption have struggled to gain deep purchase. Kyrgyzstan is currently part of the Open Government Partnership, the global organisation which works with governments to improve transparency and accountability, but despite some limited progress in improving access to information in some ministries and a useful but underused eProcurement system under Jeenbekov the Government prioritised the PR benefits of membership of the scheme, and of similar Governmental reform projects supported international donors, over meaningful reform.[118]

                     

                    According to Aksana Ismailbekova, President Japarov has promised he would eliminate the system of ‘dolya’ (shares of business profits ‘given’ to state authorities) and as mentioned above the economic amnesty returned some funds to the state in a light shakedown upon the new leadership’s arrival in October. However as Ismailbekova points out not everybody who supports Japarov because they believe he will take action on corruption does so because they actually believe he will rid the country of corruption. Particularly away from Bishkek the perception in some quarters may be that Japarov, as an economic populist, will manage the engrained processes of corruption with the public’s interests more clearly in mind than his predecessors with action taken against egregious excesses. It is in this context the limited return of funds and slap on the wrists administered under the amnesty need not be fatal blow to Japarov’s support if he is clearly seen to take meaningful action to the petty corruption by local officials and police and the actions of organised crime that blights the lives of ordinary citizens. Such a shift would make it easier to maintain the type of grand corruption practiced behind closed doors (if it can be kept away from social media by its practitioners) that entrenches the structure of power. On potential example of this approach might be the recent arrest of alleged organised crime boss Kadyrbek Dosonov whose large properties were filmed and publicised by the State Committee for National Security.[119]

                     

                    Nationalism, traditionalism, rights and religion 

                    Alongside the rising corruption, nationalism and related populist socially conservative and traditionalist movements have been some of the key factors in the evolution of Kyrgyz politics. During and after the collapse of the Soviet Union the process of what it means to be a citizen of Kyrgyzstan has been evolving. While the Kyrgyz had been distinct ethnic group, Kyrgyzstan as such did not exist before its absorption into the Russian and Soviet empires and the territory of the country encompassed significant numbers of ethnic minority groups, most notably the Uzbek community in southern Kyrgyzstan and Russians who had moved there in Imperial and Soviet times.[120] Despite President Akayev’s ‘Kyrgyzstan is our common home’ approach he and subsequent politicians would seek to grow, shape and channel ethnic Kyrgyz nationalism to their political ends.[121] Tensions between the ethnic Kyrgyz (a dominant presence in the state structures of southern Kyrgyzstan) and ethnic Uzbeks (dominant in the private sector economy of the south until the events below) manifested in two major riots in and around Osh in 1990 (which would see over 300 killed in a dispute over control of a collective farm) and in 2010 (where the death toll remains unclear but is likely to be between 426, the figure given by the internationally criticised National Commission of local experts and upper estimates of several thousand).[122]

                     

                    The 2010 violence was sparked following the ouster of President Bakiyev, who had returned to his political stronghold amongst the ethnic Kyrgyz in southern Kyrgyzstan. The evolving debate at the time over the country’s political future saw ethnic Uzbeks make demands for greater political representation and the ethnic Kyrgyz reiterated calls for land reform and in some cases for the expulsion of Uzbeks to redistribute their land to poor Kyrgyz.[123] Tensions escalated between April and early June before exploding into riots that peaked on May 19th in Jalal-Abad and most notably on the 9th and 10th of June 2010 in Osh.

                     

                    In the wake of the riots, in addition to the locally led inquiry, an Independent International Commission of Inquiry into the Events in Southern Kyrgyzstan (Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission- KIC) was established after the President Otunbayeva invited Dr. Kimmo Kiljunen, Special Representative for Central Asia of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, to lead it.[124] The KIC found that in addition to the injuries and deaths, a figure it put at 470 (the majority of which were ethnic Uzbeks) though it suggested this could grow, it noted that around 111,000 Kyrgyzstani Uzbeks had been displaced to Uzbekistan and around 300,000 had been internally displaced within Kyrgyzstan. However, the Kyrgyz Parliament rejected the Commission’s findings on the grounds of, in their view, a pro-Uzbek bias and declared Kiljunen persona non-grata. As Eric McGlinchey ruefully notes in his essay ‘no Kyrgyz leader has sought to challenge (former Osh Mayor) Myrzakmatov’s—or any other Kyrgyz nationalist’s—one-sided narrative of the 2010 ethnic violence. To challenge this narrative would be political suicide. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that, to this day, no Kyrgyz executive has sought to reverse the Kyrgyz judiciary’s gross miscarriage of justice conducted against ethnic Uzbeks in the aftermath of the 2010 riots.’

                     

                    In the years that followed the violence the ethnic Kyrgyz community has expanded its role in the local economy of the south as long desired. The Uzbek population have had to resort to defensive approaches, noted in Ismailbekova’s essay, to limit the risk of further violence or political pressure, this has included ensuring they support the likely winners of elections and there has also been significant migration of the community to Russia and Uzbekistan. Efforts to promote a civic (non-ethnic) Kyrgyzstani identity that could encompass both Kyrgyz and Uzbeks have foundered in the intervening years amid the rising tide of nationalism.

                     

                    However, as noted at the start of the publication, the growing manifestations of Kyrgyz nationalism over the last ten or so years have often not been focused on the domestic Uzbek minority but on challenging Western values, worrying about growing Chinese influence (as mentioned earlier) and on promoting the Kyrgyz language. Language is a growing dimension of the debate over Kyrgyz identity with a marked divide between an urban population, particularly in Bishkek that was educated in and predominantly uses Russian, rather than Kyrgyz and a rural population that may have limited or non-existent Russian.[125] So the promotion of the Kyrgyz language and literature is part of not only a nation building project, but a class and regional divide with Kyrgyz still holding connotations of backwardness in some Russian speaking quarters. In the current constitution Kyrgyz is currently the ‘state’ language, with Russian also designated as an ‘official language’. There had been some suggestions that Russian’s official status should be removed as part of the new Constitution but so far these have been resisted in the February 2021 draft, not least with Moscow watching developments.[126]

                     

                    Growing hostility to ‘Western values’ has perhaps been the strongest driver of Kyrgyz nationalism in recent years. As in many countries this has focused on issues relating to women’s rights and LGBTQ rights, echoing narratives promoted in Russian propaganda, but with clear local roots in the evolving debate around ‘traditional’ Kyrgyz values and national identity.[127] Internationally backed efforts to tackle issues such as bride kidnapping (ala kachuu), abuse of daughters-in-law forced to work in the husband’s parents’ home (kelinism) and domestic violence are seen through a nationalist prism and a traditionalist conception of Kyrgyz manhood and a patriarchal construction of family life.[128] Reported cases of domestic violence have increased by 400 per cent since 2011.[129] The country lacks meaningful anti-discrimination laws or protections against hate speech, with a reliance on Article 16 in the current constitution as the basis for local practice.[130] Despite strong social pressures for ‘traditional’ gender roles women play a somewhat greater role in Kyrgyzstan’s political class than in many of its Central Asian neighbours, with a 30 per cent gender quota on party lists which led to 23 women MPs in the current (2015-2020) Supreme Council.[131] As noted above Otunbayeva was a leading political figure in the 00s and served as acting President, though only two of the 16 members of Japarov’s new cabinet are women, Minister of Justice Asel Chinbayeva and Minister of Transportation, Architecture, Construction and Communication Gulmira Abdralieva.

                     

                    Similarly the limited efforts that have been made to try to protect LGBTQ people in Kyrgyzstan, through the work of supportive NGOs like Labrys, or including limited LGBTQ references such as demands for ‘equality for all’ or carrying rainbow flags at the 2019 International Women’s day march engendered significant political push back from nationalist groups and Parliamentarians such as Jyldyz Musabekova.[132] She wrote on Facebook that “the men who do not want to have children and the girls who do not want to pour tea…must not only be cursed, they must be beaten…We have to beat the craziness out of them, are there any decent guys out there [willing to do that]?” and later warned that “if we sit silently…Kyrgyzstan will become a ‘Gayistan.’” Such attitudes are common place amongst wider society and violence is widespread against members of the small LGBTQ community who are no longer able to meet publically since the closure of the last open LGBTQ venue, called London, in 2017.[133] Police are known not to take action against perpetrators of violence against the community and indeed are often alleged to demand bribes to avoid informing the victims’ family that they are gay. The current and revised draft constitution both define marriage as being between a man and a woman, something that was brought in through a referendum in 2016 to act as a ban against the future possibility of same sex marriage.[134] According to the 2017-19 World Values survey, 73 per cent of citizens of Kyrgyzstan said that they would not want a homosexual neighbour and 83 per cent said that it was never justifiable to be homosexual (with only 1.3 per cent saying it was always justifiable).[135] Such engrained public attitudes make efforts to protect LGBTQ rights a hugely difficult challenge for NGOs and the international community and an easy target for nationalist groups, such as the vigilante organisation Kyrk Choro (Forty Knights), to whip up public anger.[136]

                     

                    While much of Kyrgyzstan’s social conservativism is rooted in traditionalism and nationalism, these attitudes are also being bolstered by its increasing religiosity, something that has happened in a more open way than elsewhere in Central Asia. Like the rest of the region during the Soviet period religion was heavily regulated by the SADUM (Spiritual Administration of the Muslims of Central Asia) and that supervision has continued in the form of the Spiritual Directorate of Muslims of Kyrgyzstan (SAMK). Despite the continuation of top-down control over official religion the nature of Islam is evolving through increased contact with the wider Muslim Ummah and investment by Arab, Pakistani and Turkish foundations not only in Mosque building (the number of mosques has gone from 39 in 1990 to 2,600 in 2019), but in religiously inspired social projects such as the provision of schools and access to water.[137] As a result the transition is underway from a more cultural form of Islamic identity based around tradition and family, with prayers only before dinner to a more observant one. The hijab is more openly worn than elsewhere in Central Asia but a de facto ban remains on its use in schools though the ubiquitous use of school uniform policy.[138] Rules against ‘aggressive proselytisation’ are only really applied in practice against Protestant and minority Muslim groups, particularly those who are not officially registered with the State Committee on Religious Affairs (SCRA).[139] During the 2020/21 constitutional redrafting process there was a debate about whether to remove the requirements that the state be ‘secular’ (Article 1), with pressure for change from the religious community and a potential conflation between secularism and soviet-style atheism in the public mind.[140] However, as of the February 2021 draft, the designation of the state as secular has remained in Article 1.

                     

                    So the forces of nationalism and social conservatism have been growing in strength and putting liberal social movements under increasing pressure. Most Kyrgyz Presidents have courted the nationalist vote to some extent but Japarov’s political persona is that of a populist nationalist. So far however, despite the fairly standard expressions of social conservatism, his political pitch has been one of economic nationalism, based on his record in the Kumtor mine nationalisation campaign, and anti-elitist populism. However with the President already having to row back on nationalisation under pressure from international investors at a time of economic fragility, including the Chinese who are keeping a watchful eye on further bouts of sinophobia, this leaves a significant risk that the focus of his administration’s populist ire may fall on issues facing women and the LGBTQ community or the liberal, pro-Western NGOs that work on them.

                     

                    Civil society

                    Despite the significant challenges listed above and below for now Kyrgyzstan remains a regional hub for civil society activity, both organisations that are active in Kyrgyzstan and those that operate across the rest of Central Asia. However it is clear that civil society in Kyrgyzstan has been under sustained pressure for several years and perhaps the worse situation elsewhere in the region has acted as a barrier to some international observers engaging fully with the depth of the problem the country faces. Local NGOs were in a reasonably strong position in the 2000s and their alumni were seen to play an active part in the 2005 and 2010 protests and their aftermath, something that gave even the politicians who were beneficiaries of the change they campaigned for cause to pause. In 2011 NGO’s were significantly more trusted than the state, with 77 per cent of respondents in a poll believing they acted for the benefit of social development and 62 per cent of respondents not trusting the Government to do the same thing.[141] However, they have been subject to a sustained campaign of de-legitimation and pressure over the last ten years, with Ernest Zhanaev’s essay noting a particular increase since 2014.

                     

                    As has already been documented civil society has faced several attempts to add to the bureaucratic burdens they face, most notably the 2016 attempts to replicated the Russian Foreign Agents law and the attempts in 2019-2020 that would add significant new reporting requirements about details of their income and made it harder to recruit temporary staff.[142] Local NGO activists also report increasing pressure from the security services, including people being questioned by security officials and put under surveillance by both official methods and by unknown actors. Despite these pressures many civil society activists have been able to do vital work raising awareness of human rights abuses and exerting pressure that has been able to curb some of the worst excesses of the system, at least until now.

                     

                    These direct actions are set in the wider context of sustained efforts at de-legitimation from nationalist groups and hidden sources using popup media outlets or social media campaigns of unknown origin, with concerns from activists about the potential involvement of the security services (Kyrgyz and, some claim, Russian). Russia does certainly play a part in promoting region wide narratives against NGOs that feed off and amplify local concerns. As noted above efforts NGOs working on women’s rights and LGBTQ issues, areas where activists face huge challenges in engaging entrenched conservative public opinion, have been weaponised by their opponents who argue the sector’s interests are more aligned with Western interests rather than local people. This perception helps to amplify the second charge, that of ‘grant eating’, with NGO’s being portrayed as only being interested in what they can raise donor money for rather than being focused on local priorities, a narrative which fuels further pressure on public reporting requirements.

                     

                    Kyrgyzstan’s Supreme Council has also recently revived a draft law ‘on Trade unions’ that seeks to increase the regulation of trade union activity by forcing all regional and sectoral trade unions to join the Federation of Trade Unions of Kyrgyzstan, which would become the only national-level union body recognised by the Government.[143] This follows a politically charge fight for control of the Federation where the politically connected former General Secretary was removed from office and other union officials and activists were subjected to a campaign of harassment by the Government, including 50 criminal cases, according to the Central Asia Labour Rights Monitoring Mission and Human Rights Watch. The Federation was barred from holding its annual congress in late 2020 to elect his successor.[144]

                     

                    Amid the deluge of bad faith accusations pointed at Kyrgyzstan’s civil society, it is tempting for the international community to take a purely defensive posture, circling the wagons in an attempt to keep on going and using diplomatic pressure to fight back against negative narratives being promoted by political figures. While it is right and necessary to continue to push back against these political pressures, after the third revolution in 15 years, it is clearly also time for a rethink on strategy.

                     

                    Many essay contributors put forward ideas in this collection about how they believe donor priorities and operations might evolve in the current climate. Asel Doolotkeldieva has previously argued for the need for reconsider the depth of civil society impact in political areas given the relatively limited impact they have been able to have in the evolution of recent events, saying that a few ‘brave activists’ are not enough and calling for a greater focus on economic equality projects over democratisation in the short-term.[145] Doolotkeldieva’s contribution in this publication expands on her theme to suggest new ways of working. In her contribution, Shirin Aitmatova is blunt about her views on the need for change in Kyrgyzstan’s NGO sector, arguing for fresh voices, new thinking from donors and greater creativity in funding mechanisms. There will need to be further efforts to address long-standing questions of local accountability, with some donors perhaps needing to give partners the space to respond flexibly to local concerns as well as their strategic priorities.[146] They will also need to think about how they can most suitably engage with newly emerging groups of activists. From the volunteers who helped in the COVID response to the druzhinniki who protected businesses from potential rioting to the Bashtan Bashta (‘Start with your head’) protest movement, which in recent months has organised creative campaigns against elements of the proposed constitution, there are new social movements that are developing, often coordinated through social media rather than existing institutions, which show an enduring appetite for civic and social activism.[147]

                     

                    Media and online freedoms

                    With respect to media and online freedoms again Kyrgyzstan’s relative freedom compared to the regional average can sometimes mask some of the deep structural challenges it faces. State television continues to draw the biggest media audience, closely followed by Russian domestic channels, and television overall still provides the primary source of news and entertainment in rural areas, while in the cities where internet penetration is higher online outlets are rapidly growing to outpace traditional media.

                     

                    Some of the biggest challenges the sector faces are the local example of the problem facing journalism the world over around making independent media profitable in the context of growing dominance of online advertising (and its capture by social media and search providers) and the weak state of the local economy. Questions of media ownership and funding are the main source of censorship and journalistic self-censorship. The difficult media economy exacerbates the extent to which many outlets operate a ‘pay to play’ model where articles and editorial outlook are shaped by those able to fund them.[148] This not a situation unique to Kyrgyzstan but it manifests itself in everything, from direct influence of coverage by local business and political elites through to relying on produce placement and sponsorship which can limit independence. The latter includes partnerships with international agencies such as UNICEF to increase awareness of their activities, which is clearly preferable to other available funding sources that have been claimed to influence coverage. International support (from donors and social media companies) may be needed to help local outlets identify and generate new sources of income, including support to make their entertainment and lifestyle output more attractive to help draw audiences that stay to read the news. While more training for the sake of holding training should be avoided, there remain skills gaps, particularly in the Kyrgyz language sector and in local journalism. International partners perhaps can provide further assistance in helping local outlets package international news for a Kyrgyz audience.

                     

                    As with NGOs the growing pressure on independent media is not only financial but has come from politicians, the security services and shadowy forces linked to the wealthy and powerful. COVID provided an opportunity for politicians to try to introduce a new ‘Law on Manipulating Information’.[149] A previous version of the bill was blocked by President Jeenbekov in July 2020 and referred back to Parliament for revisions, however following the change of Government Parliamentarians have confirmed their intention to bring back this legislation.[150] Ostensibly drafted to address misinformation being circulated in the wake of the pandemic, its framing is seen as too broad and overly vague by international observers. The obvious concerns about abuse of such legislation has been amplified by the ways existing laws were abused by the security services during the pandemic against those criticising the government response as noted earlier.[151] Journalists were also targeted, physically and online, for their reporting on potential electoral irregularities in the October 2020 election.[152] As Eric McGlinchey notes in his essay, President Japarov has pledged that ‘freedom of speech and the media will continue to be an inviolable value’, however, his post-election victory speech added a chilling caveat to that commitment, saying “while I will defend the media, I ask you not to distort my words or the words of politicians and officials, not to take our statements out of context. Do this and there won’t be any prosecutions.”[153]

                     

                    Radio Azattyk, RFE/RL’s local station, and a major source of radio and online news in the country has been targeted publically by politicians in attempts at delimitation and its journalists have faced pressure from security services and potentially from the subjects of their investigations.[154] President Japarov has publically criticised Azattyk over coverage of allegations they published around possible links to those involved in organised crime.[155] It will be important for the Biden Administration, as part of its new relationship with the Japarov administration and as part of its wider reset of post-Trump RFE/RL strategy to actively defend the political space for RFE/RL and safety of its journalists. At the moment the BBC’s Kyrgyz service is not seen by local observers as a particularly significant player in the local media market and the BBC should consider ways in which this might change, including new content partnerships with local outlets.

                     

                    Online trolling has become an increasing source of pressure on journalists (and NGO activists). Such trolling has two notable sources. Firstly, there are organised troll factory operations, though not at the industrial scale of their Russian equivalents they provide a paid presence that is used to harass and challenge journalists. Investigative reporting, published by openDemocracy, has shown the existence of operations that work on behalf of whoever is will to pay, some with alleged links to the Matraimovs that have been used to target journalists from Kloop, Azattyk and other independent outlets.[156] These networks have also been used to assist political campaigns, operating in support of Mekenim Kırgızstan ahead of the October elections and then Japarov and his campaign for constitutional changes in the post-election period and in the January 2021 Presidential poll.[157]

                     

                    Secondly, the growing power of nationalist groups and Japarov’s genuine support in populist and nationalist online communities. As with populists in other country contexts this has led to the growth of organic, free range trolls, who can supplement and amplify the work of paid trolls in such a way, which may in time reduce the need for expensive and intensive troll farming.

                     

                    The essays in this collection by Gulzat Baialieva and Joldon Kutmanaliev, Begaim Usenova and ARTICLE 19, and by Dr. Elira Turdubaeva explore the emerging online movements and trolling campaigns, notably in the Kyrgyz language sections of media where much of this harassment is situated.[158] Facebook, which provides three of the most used social media and messaging services in Kyrgyzstan (Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp), looks after the Central Asia region including Kyrgyzstan as part of its Asia Pacific public policy team’s coverage. The public policy team also gets support from the company’s community operation team (which does the content moderation work), legal, and other teams for Facebook’s work in Central Asia. Facebook’s community operation also relies heavily on machine learning. Outside Facebook, the company is also understood to have expert ‘trusted partners’.[159] Given the nature of machine learning, which could result in mistakes or ignore certain issues due partly to lack of understanding in local culture and nuances by the AI, it will be important that Facebook looks at ways to expand its Kyrgyz language capabilities and add more Kyrgyz speaking human reviewers for content moderation, particularly around potential flashpoints such as elections and constitutional referendums, and to look at ways to provide quicker and easier access to human led review processes for journalists and activists facing organised harassment efforts.

                     

                    Rule of law

                    As with so much in Kyrgyzstan’s public life the operation of the legal system is significantly undermined by endemic corruption and deference to those in power, a topic addressed in Jasmine Cameron’s essay in this collection which highlights the debilitating effect this has on the rule of law. It is clear that the Prosecutor General’s office, police and the judiciary operate under considerable political influence of whoever is in power at the time, from the Presidential Administration right on down to local power brokers. In cases where a clear political direction is not set from the top, further opportunities arise for lower level corruption. Local NGOs, such as the legal clinic Adilet, note that official oversight and disciplinary mechanisms for prosecutors and judges are ineffective, particularly in cases where officials are following orders, creating a culture of impunity.[160] Corruption and political favouritism is seen as impacting both who is selected for judicial training through the Higher school of Justice and who is selected by the Council for the Selection of Judges, two thirds of the whom are made up of political appointees (albeit notionally split between the Parliamentary majority and opposition).

                     

                    Reform of judicial selection is included in the February 2021 draft Constitution, which states that ‘the Council for Justice Affairs (will be) formed from the number of judges who make up at least two thirds of its composition, one third are representatives of the President, the Jogorku Kenesh, the People’s Kurultai and the legal community’.[161] This change could potentially be helpful in the long-term to increase the formal distance between the judiciary and politicians, but will do little to change the existing pool of judges and their connections who may still perpetuate the current legal culture absent additional measures to tackle corruption and political direction. As potentially less helpful proposed constitutional change is the proposal to further increase the power of the Prosecutors office by giving them ‘the right to conduct inspections of citizens, commercial organisations, other economic entities, non-governmental, non-commercial organisations, institutions, enterprises, etc.’, which Adilet explain would ‘largely duplicate the activities of other state and law enforcement agencies, primarily the State Committee for National Security for Combating Corruption’ opening up the possibility for all such responsibilities to be centralised in one all-powerful prosecution service as in Soviet times.[162] While such a change may reduce opportunities for different agencies to be used in intra-regime spats it would hand prosecutors an even broader range of tools to apply pressure improper pressure if not handled with extreme caution and the kind of strong safeguards that have not often been applied in the past in Kyrgyzstan.

                     

                    Cameron notes that 61 per cent of people who have had contact with the police in the last year reported having to pay a bribe and exposes the lack of oversight and enforcement of anti-corruption. Several authors in this collection give examples of particular extortion by police of vulnerable communities, including Uzbek business people and the LGBTQ community.

                     

                    As Cameron points out, the combination of corruption and abuse of power creates a legal culture where citizens do not have trust in the legal process, so resort to other methods of trying to resolve their problems including violence in the court room against the opposing party, lawyers and court officials. More work needs to be done to improve the status of defence lawyers, including ensuring that they are present during the questioning of suspects, vis-à-vis the powerful Prosecutors operating under the aegis of the Prosecutor General’s Office.[163] Efforts are also underway to encourage the use of cameras in the court room to try to promote transparency and accountability, while international organisations such as the ABA and Clooney Foundation’s Trial Watch are attempting to provide official observers to monitor trial conditions in contentious cases.[164] However, as a number of different experts have noted, international investment in rule of law reform in Kyrgyzstan, including 38 million euros from the EU between 2014-2020, has so far generated limited results, particularly in controversial cases.[165] In a country where domestic violence is believed to be endemic Cameron notes that in 2019 there were only 9,000 cases of domestic violence recorded. ‘Of those, approximately 5,456 cases were registered with the authorities as administrative cases, and only around 784 were registered as criminal’, which seems indicative of lack of trust in the system as well as wider cultural barriers.[166]

                     

                    The United Nations Human Rights Committee, the expert body that reviews legal cases and other alleged abuses against individuals that relate to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has played an important external role in requesting the review of controversial human rights cases, 25 in all including the case of Azimjan Askarov noted below.[167] However, efforts are underway in Kyrgyzstan to end the requirement for the local review of cases criticised by international legal bodies, reacting to international pressure over Askarov and echoing narratives deployed against international judicial scrutiny by Russia, the UK and USA amongst others.[168]

                     


                    Azimjan Askarov

                    By Aydar Sydykov

                    Azimjan Askarov was a well-known human rights defender and journalist in the Kyrgyz Republic. He was recognised as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International and received international awards, including the CPJ International Press Freedom Award.[1] In 1996, he became involved in the protection of human rights, and in 2002 he established an NGO called Vozdukh to investigate and document human rights violations by the local police and penitentiary/detention facilities.

                     

                    In 2010 Askarov was accused by local officials of participating and organising mass riots, inciting ethnic hatred and killing a police officer during the June clashes between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in Bazar-Korgon (in the Jalal-Abad region) and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In the view of many human rights organisations, Askarov was convicted for his human rights activism, especially during the 2010 clashes when he documented pogroms, arson and gathered information about the dead and wounded (including civilians who were not involved as participants in the conflict). The investigation was conducted with gross violations of Askarov’s human rights. In detention Askarov was repeatedly subjected to torture, cruel treatment, while the state authorities did not provide access to judicial protection and a fair trial.

                     

                    Despite the fact that Askarov’s advocate repeatedly filed complaints about the torture, ill treatment and other violations, on September 15th 2010, Askarov was found guilty of the charges against him and sentenced to life imprisonment. The sentence was upheld by higher courts. All medical documents proving his injuries, facts of torture during detention, including the results of two medical examinations conducted by a foreign medical expert, were consistently ignored by all court instances, prosecutor’s office and other state authorities.

                     

                    After the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, Askarov submitted individual complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee, alleging torture, Kyrgyzstan’s failure to provide effective remedies, arbitrary and inhuman detention and the violation of his rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression. In 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee in its decision found violations of Askarov’s rights in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[1] The Committee decided that Kyrgyzstan has to make full reparation to Askarov; to release him immediately; quash his conviction; and, if necessary, conduct a new trial with guarantees of fair trial.

                     

                    On June 12th 2016, considering the UN Human Rights Committee’s decision as newly discovered facts, the Kyrgyz Supreme Court reversed previous court’s decisions and ordered a new trial to be started in the first instance court. Unfortunately, despite all the evidence submitted by Askarov and the UN judgement the lower courts declined to effectively reconsider the allegations of torture with no action to investigate the allegations of torture and bring its perpetrators to justice. In May 2020 the Supreme Court upheld the decision not to reopen the case passed by the lower courts, leaving the guilty verdict in place with still Askarov incarcerated for life. Sadly on July 25th 2020 Azimjan Askarov died in prison during the COVID-19 pandemic despite his advocate’s statements and international outcry about Askarov’s poor health and the urgent need for medical examination and treatment.


                     

                    Human rights

                    The Askarov case was, until his tragic death in 2020, one of the most high profile failings of the Kyrgyz judicial system, the country’s most significant case of the persecution of a human rights defender and an enduring symbol of the political paralysis engendered by the failure to equitably resolve the ethnic tensions in the south. Successive political leaders have found themselves beholden to powerful local interests in the south and afraid of sparking further anger amongst the region’s ethnic Kyrgyz population. With the chance to obtain justice, even posthumously, for Askarov within Kyrgyzstan seemingly remote, not least given the court decision to refuse his widow the right to continue the appeals process, focus must turn to what measures can still be taken by the international community.[169] One of the challenges in the case is the seemingly diffuse nature of systemic responsibility for his imprisonment, however, there is clearly a strong argument in favour of the deployment of Magnitsky sanctions by the US, UK, EU and others against officials involved in the case to send a clear message against impunity even if it is unlikely that many of those involved have a significant footprint in any of those jurisdictions.

                     

                    The Askarov case is far from the only example where allegations of torture have been documented For example, in the first half of 2019, there were 171 allegations of torture registered in Kyrgyzstan with the Prosecutor General’s office.[170] Human Rights defenders, whether they be lawyers or NGO representatives routinely experience harassment from the security services and online nationalist trolling.[171] A number of international human rights activists and independent journalists remain banned from entering Kyrgyzstan including Mihra Rittmann from Human Rights Watch, AFP’s Chris Rickleton and Vitaly Ponomarev, the Central Asia director for Russian Human Rights NGO Memorial.[172] Kyrgyzstan also controversially accepted an extradition request from Uzbekistan for journalist Bobomurod Abdullaev, despite concerns over the risk of torture (something Abdullaev had previously experienced at the hands of the Uzbek authorities).[173]

                     

                    International relations and their impact on Kyrgyzstan

                    As a relatively small country with a fragile economy a significant factor in Kyrgyzstan’s stability and success is its relationship to the regional neighbours and international powers. As has been set out above, the country is a member of the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union, which has helped to further increase economic integration with Russia and Kazakhstan and to some extent improved the coordination of the large numbers of economic migrants it sends to them (predominantly, around 513,000 of which, to Russia).[174] Additionally, Chinese economic interests in the country have been expanding, with some controversy, in recent years and Kyrgyzstan is also part of the Beijing-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation that focuses on security sector cooperation. Sensitive border and water disputes with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the Fergana Valley add to the febrile atmosphere in intercommunal relations with the Uzbek and other minority communities within southern Kyrgyzstan.[175]

                     

                    With economic opportunities relatively scarce, for the most part Western strategic interests have been focused on issues around the drug trade and anti-terrorism concerns since the Manas airbase stopped being used for operations in Afghanistan in 2014. However, as discussed, Kyrgyzstan’s comparative openness by Central Asian standards has made the country the regional hub for Western international aid and activity.

                     

                    Japarov’s sudden rise to power took Kyrgyzstan’s international partners by surprise. In addition to statements of concern by Western states, Putin’s frostiness towards someone who overthrew his predecessor was palpable, including a public snub at a November 10th CIS meeting, though relations have begun to normalise in the wake of President Japarov’s January election.[176] Prior to the electoral upheaval Kyrgyzstan had asked China, which holds around 43 per cent of Kyrgyzstan’s external debt and therefore significant leverage, for COVID-related debt forbearance as Bishkek struggled to manage repayments.[177] Following Japarov’s rise to power, and initial concern amongst the Chinese leadership, Kyrgyzstan has gone out of its way to reassure international investors (particularly Chinese ones) that they have nothing to fear despite the new President’s previous resource nationalism and the anti-Chinese sentiments amongst some of his supporters (though Carnegie’s Temur Umarov argues that Japarov himself has strong family and business backer ties to China).[178]

                     

                    In terms of formal relations with Western partners, the EU-Kyrgyzstan Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement has yet to be ratified despite being initialled in July 2019, with translation delays blamed but also concerns around potential for issues, such as the human rights situation, impacting European Parliamentary ratification.[179] The UK is currently negotiating a partnership agreement, based on the existing 1999 EU-Kyrgyzstan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, though the deal is likely to come after the conclusion of other deals with larger economic benefits for the UK (most relevantly and gallingly for Kyrgyzstan the deal with Kazakhstan). The UK could potentially generate good will and some limited leverage by basing the offer in its proposed deal on the 2019 rather than 1999 EU package and offering to speed up its passage in return for taking certain actions to protect human rights and improve governance standards.[180]

                     

                    The EU and its member states have invested 907.69 million euros in aid to Kyrgyzstan between 2007 and 2020 (of which the Commission has been the largest donor at €391.3 million, followed by Germany at €349.69 million).[181] The most recent round of EU bilateral development cooperation was based around ‘the Multiannual Indicative Programme (MEP) for 2014-2020 with the total budget of €174 million’, which ‘focused on three main sectors: Education (€71.8 million), Rule of Law (€37.8 million) and Integrated Rural Development (€61.8 million)’, which was supplemented by a €36 million emergency COVID relief package in 2020.[182] Until recently, as noted here, Germany has been the largest bilateral donor amongst EU member states, but the Federal Ministry for Economic Development and Cooperation (BMZ) announced in May 2020 that it was pulling out of bilateral development spending in Kyrgyzstan as part of refocusing its efforts elsewhere in the world.[183]

                     

                    The US Aid spend in 2020 was $40.17 million, of which Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance was the largest area of spending ($13.3 million or 33 per cent), followed by Education ($9.07 million 23 per cent), then Economic Development and Health.[184] The UK’s direct aid spend is scheduled to be £7.47 million for the 2020/21 financial year though this figure is scheduled to fall to £5.15 million by 2022/23 in the wake of the overall cut in UK Aid spending from 0.7 per cent to 0.5 per cent of a COVID impacted GDP.[185] The current UK Government priorities are: improving the transparency of public finance management, to tackle corruption and improve outcomes; working with Parliamentarians to improve scrutiny; and improving the regulatory environment for private sector investment.

                     

                    As set out in a number of essay contributions and in the conclusion to this publication there is a strong case for looking again at the extent of progress achieved existing schemes and potentially reconsidering donor priorities in the context of the fragility and opacity of formal institutions and political parties in a system where, until now at least, much of the real decision making power has been found elsewhere. Irrespective of donor priorities around long-term capacity building, the rapidly changing situation on the ground should necessitate a renewed focus on preventing backsliding on Kyrgyzstan’s already tenuous freedoms.

                     

                    Image by Sludge G under (CC).

                     

                    [1] This publication is the first in a series that will comprise Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan.

                    [2] EEAS, EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World 2019 Country Updates,  https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/201007_eu_country_updates_on_human_rights_and_democracy_2019.pdf

                    [3] The precise details of this history are sometimes contested

                    [4] Francisco Olmos, State-building myths in Central Asia, FPC, October 2019, https://fpc.org.uk/state-building-myths-in-central-asia/. The historical existence of Manas is hotly debated but it seems likely that though carried for many years through oral tradition before its transcribing in the 18th Century, its origins are many centuries later than the time it recalls, making Manas a figure seen by scholars as more akin to King Arthur than a historical figure.

                    [5] BBC News Channel, Profile: Askar Akayev, April 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4371819.stm

                    [6] Catherine Putz, Kyrgyzstan and Belarus: Congratulations and Notes of Protest, August 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/kyrgyzstan-and-belarus-congratulations-and-notes-of-protest/; Peter Leonard, Lukashenko appears alongside “dead” ex-Kyrgyz PM after protests, Eurasianet, August 2020, https://eurasianet.org/lukashenko-appears-alongside-dead-ex-kyrgyz-pm-after-protests; Bermet Talant, Twitter Post, Twitter, August 2020, https://twitter.com/ser_ou_parecer/status/1292758150333059072?s=11

                    [7] OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, OSCE, October 2017, https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/kyrgyzstan/333296

                    [8] International Crisis Group, Kyrgyzstan at Ten: Trouble in the ‘”Island of Democracy”, August 2001, https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/central-asia/kyrgyzstan/kyrgyzstan-ten-trouble-island-democracy

                    [9] Otunbayeva was appointed to the post.

                    [10] The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$) – Kyrgyz Republic, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=KG; The World Bank, Personal remittances, received (% of GDP) – Kyrgyz Republic, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.DT.GD.ZS?locations=KG

                    [11] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index – 2020, https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/kgz#; Freedom House, Nations in Transit 2020, Kyrgyzstan, https://freedomhouse.org/country/kyrgyzstan/nations-transit/2020; Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2020, Kyrgyzstan, https://freedomhouse.org/country/kyrgyzstan/freedom-world/2020

                    [12] Anna Lelik, Disputed ‘foreign agent’ law shot down by Kyrgyzstan’s parliament, The Guardian, May 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/12/foreign-agent-law-shot-down-by-kyrgyzstan-parliament. For more information see: FPC, Sharing worst practice: How countries and institutions in the former Soviet Union help create legal tools of repression, May 2016, https://fpc.org.uk/publications/sharingworstpractice/

                    [13] Nationalism and religiosity in the country were addressed in the FPC’s 2018 publication ‘The rise of illiberal civil society in the former Soviet Union?’, https://fpc.org.uk/publications/the-rise-of-illiberal-civil-society-in-the-former-soviet-union/

                    [14] Kamila Eshaliyeva, Is anti-Chinese mood growing in Kyrgyzstan?, openDemocracy, March 2019, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/anti-chinese-mood-growing-kyrgyzstan/; Nurlan Aliyev, Protest Against Chinese Migrants in Kyrgyzstan: Sinophobia or Demands for Social Justice?, The Central Asia-Caucasus, April 2019, http://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13568-protest-against-chinese-migrants-in-kyrgyzstan-sinophobia-or-demands-for-social-justice; David Trilling, Poll shows Uzbeks, like neighbors, growing leery of Chinese investments, Eurasianet, October 2020, https://eurasianet.org/poll-shows-uzbeks-like-neighbors-growing-leery-of-chinese-investments; Reuters Staff, Kyrgyz police disperse anti-Chinese rally, Reuters, January 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-kyrgyzstan-protests-china-idUKKCN1PB1L7

                    [15] Catherine Putz, Tensions Flare at Kyrgyz Gold Mine, The Diplomat, August 2019, https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/tensions-flare-at-kyrgyz-gold-mine/

                    [16] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Kyrgyz Protesters Again Block Highway In Gold-Mine Protest, RFE/RL, October 2013, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-kumtor-gold-nationalization/25129980.html; RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Kyrgyz Protests Again Demand Nationalization of Major Gold Mine, RFE/RL, June 2013, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-kumtor-mine-protest/25029473.html; RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Ex-Kyrgyz Lawmaker Japarov Jailed On Hostage-Taking Charge, RFE/RL, August 2017, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-japarov-hostage-taking-charge-jailed/28655237.html; Sam Bhutia, Kyrgyzstan say its economy growing at a healthy clip. Really?, Eurasianet, November 2019, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-says-its-economy-is-growing-at-a-healthy-clip-really#:~:text=The%20Kumtor%20mine%20alone%20contributed,remained%20stable%20in%20recent%20years.&text=Apart%20from%20depending%20on%20one,Kyrgyzstan’s%20exports%20are%20not%20diversified

                    [17] Catherine Putz, Kyrgyz-Chinese Joint Venture Scrapped After Protests, The Diplomat, February 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/kyrgyz-chinese-joint-venture-scrapped-after-protests/

                    [18] Ophelia Lai, Bishkek feminist art exhibition censored, ArtAsiaPacific, December 2019, http://www.artasiapacific.com/News/BishkekFeministArtExhibitionCensored

                    [19] Mohira Suyarkulova, Fateful Feminnale: an insider’s view of “controversial” feminist art exhibition in Kyrgyzstan, openDemocracy, January 2020, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/fateful-feminnale-an-insiders-view-of-a-controversial-feminist-art-exhibition-in-kyrgyzstan/

                    [20] For more on the symbolism of the Ak-kalpak, see: Ak-Kalpak Craftsmanship, Traditional Knowledge and Skills in Making and Wearing Kyrgyz Men’s Headwear, Intangible Cultural heritage, UNESCO, https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists

                    [21] Women’s Rights Rally Held in Kyrgyz Capital, BBC Monitoring Central Asia Unit Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, March 2020, https://advance-lexis-com.mutex.gmu.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:5YD2-42T1-DYRV-33TC-00000-00&context=1516831

                    [22] Reuters Staff, Central Asia tightens restrictions as coronavirus spreads, Reuters, March 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-centralasia/central-asia-tightens-restrictions-as-coronavirus-spreads-idUSKBN218090; AFP, Kyrgyz health minister, vice premier sacked over coronavirus response, Business Standard, April 2020, https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/kyrgyz-health-minister-vice-premier-sacked-over-coronavirus-response-120040100745_1.html

                    [23] Bermet Talant, Bishkek is running out of hospital beds as coronavirus pneumonia cases surge, Medium, July 2020, https://medium.com/@ser_ou_parecer/bishkek-running-out-of-hospital-beds-as-coronavirus-pneumonia-cases-surge-4817a7a41e1d. A number of these challenges were being faced across the world but exacerbated by the prior lack of capacity in Kyrgyzstan’s health sector.

                    [24] AFP, Kyrgyz health minister, vice premier sacked over coronavirus response, Business Standard, April 2020, https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/kyrgyz-health-minister-vice-premier-sacked-over-coronavirus-response-120040100745_1.html

                    [25] Baktygul Osmonalieva, Ex-Minister of Health Kosmosbek Cholponbaev detained on suspicion of negligence, 24.kg, September 2020, https://24.kg/english/165292__Ex-Minister_of_Health_Kosmosbek_Cholponbaev_detained_on_suspicion_of_negligence/

                    [26] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Kyrgyz Prime Minister Resigns Over Corruption Probe, RFE/RL, June 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyz-prime-minister-abylgaziev-resigns-corruption-probe/30672225.html

                    [27] Ruslan Kharizov, Members of Cabinet fined 140,000 soms for violation of mask requirement, 24.kg, June 2020, https://24.kg/english/157124_Members_of_Cabinet_fined_140000_soms_for_violation_of_mask_requirement/

                    [28] Maria Zozulya, Emergency in Kyrgyzstan: Government Without Masks and the Precious Passes, CABAR, April 2020, https://cabar.asia/en/emergency-in-kyrgyzstan-government-without-masks-and-the-precious-passes

                    [29] Kamila Eshaliyeva, Is Kyrgyzstan losing the fight against coronavirus?, openDemocracy, July 2020, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/kyrgyzstan-losing-fight-against-coronavirus/

                    [30] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kyrgyzstan: Volunteers play heroic role in battle against COVID-10, Eurasianet, July 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-volunteers-play-heroic-role-in-battle-against-covid-19

                    [31] Zamira Kozhobaeva, COVID-19 in the Kyrgyz Republic: Real mortality may be three time higher than official data, Radio Azattyk, January 2021, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/covid-19-v-kr-realnaya-smertnost-vyshe-ofitsialnyh-dannyh-v-tri-raza/31053269.html

                    [32] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kyrgyzstan: Draft bill threatens to drive NGOs against the wall, Eurasianet, May 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-draft-bill-threatens-to-drive-ngos-against-the-wall; IPHR, Central Asia: Tightening the screws on government critics during the Covid-19 pandemic, November 2020, https://www.iphronline.org/central-asia-tightening-the-screws-on-government-critics-during-the-covid-19-pandemic.html

                    [33] These two articles capture the dynamics of the change at different points in the contest: Bruce Pannier, No Coronavirus Postponement And No Front-Runners So Far In Kyrgyz Elections, RFE/RL, August 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/no-coronavirus-postponement-and-no-front-runners-so-far-in-kyrgyz-elections/30771625.html and Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kyrgyzstan vote: New-look parliament but old-style politics, Eurasianet, September 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-vote-new-look-parliament-but-old-style-politics

                    [34] The OSCE’s election monitoring report notes that ‘According to bank reports, Birimdik incurred a total campaign spending of KGS 104.6 million, Kyrgyzstan – KGS 123.6 million and Mekenim Kyrgyzstan – KGS 142.5 million. All other parties reported expenditures below KGS 53 million each.’ ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission, Final Report, Kyrgyz Republic, Parliamentary Elections, 4 October 2020, OSCE, December 2020, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/a/472461.pdf

                    [35] Catherine Putz, After Brawls and Protests, Kyrgyzstan’s Campaigns Near Election Day, The Diplomat, September 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/after-brawls-and-protests-kyrgyzstans-campaigns-near-election-day/

                    [36] For an example see: Chris Rickleton, Twitter Post, Twitter, October 2020, https://twitter.com/ChrisRickleton/status/1312649397168201729?s=20

                    [37] ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission, Final Report, Kyrgyz Republic, Parliamentary Elections, 4 October 2020, OSCE, December 2020, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/a/472461.pdf

                    [38] Electoral Information System, Election of Deputies of the Supreme Council of the Kyrgyz Republic 4/10/2020, Overview of ballot counting, https://newess.shailoo.gov.kg/en/election/11098/ballot-count?type=NW_ROOT

                    [39] IRI, Kyrgyzstan Poll Suggests High Voter Intent Ahead of Parliamentary Elections, September 2020, https://www.iri.org/resource/kyrgyzstan-poll-suggests-high-voter-intent-ahead-parliamentary-elections

                    [40] Colleen Wood, Twitter Post, Twitter, October 2020, https://twitter.com/colleenwood_/status/1313086167248760832?s=20

                    [41] Bermet Talant, Twitter Post, Twitter, October 2020, https://twitter.com/ser_ou_parecer/status/1313195446463016963?s=20; Joanna Lillis, Twitter Post, Twitter, October 2020, https://twitter.com/joannalillis/status/1313129376976953344?s=20

                    [42] Bermet Talant, Twitter Post, Twitter, October 2020, https://twitter.com/ser_ou_parecer/status/1313234787029725186?s=20

                    [43] Peter Leonard, As dawn breaks in Kyrgyzstan, protesters control government buildings, Eurasianet, October 2020, https://eurasianet.org/as-dawn-breaks-in-kyrgyzstan-protesters-control-government-buildings

                    [44] Groups of young men often attached to sports clubs that act as social networks and in a number of cases of such groups there are perceived links to organised crime.

                    [45] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kyrgyzstan: In an uprising low on heroes, defense volunteers shine, Eurasianet, October 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-in-an-uprising-low-on-heroes-defense-volunteers-shine

                    [46] Erica Marat, The incredible resilience of Kyrgyzstan, openDemocracy, October 2020, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/incredible-resilience-kyrgyzstan/

                    [47] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Kyrgyzstan Lawmakers Approve Japarov As New Prime Minister Days After He Was Sprung From Jail, RFE/RL, October 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyz-japarov-new-prime-minister-political-turmoil-atambaev-arrest/30885681.html; DW, Kyrgyzstan’s parliament taps Sadyr Zhaparov, as new premier, October 2020, https://www.dw.com/en/kyrgyzstans-parliament-taps-sadyr-zhaparov-as-new-premier/a-55270788; IPHR, Post-election protests plunge Kyrgyzstan into crisis, October 2020, https://www.iphronline.org/post-election-protests-plunge-kyrgyzstan-into-crisis.html

                    [48] Bruce Pannier, Jeenbekov Failed To Tackle Kyrgyzstan’s Problems. Now He’s Gone, RFE/RL, October 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-jeenbekov-resignation-analysis-qishloq-ovozi/30896794.html

                    [49] Peter Leonard, Twitter Post, Twitter, October 2020, https://twitter.com/Peter__Leonard/status/1313052691610951680?s=20; Kaktus Media, Tolekan Ismailova: There is no hope for parliament, the president must come out the underground, October 2020, https://kaktus.media/doc/423327_tolekan_ismailova:_na_parlament_nadejdy_net_prezident_doljen_vyyti_iz_podpolia.html; Aksana Ismailbekova, Intergenerational Conflict at the Core of Kyrgyzstan’s Turmoil, The Diplomat, October 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/intergenerational-conflict-at-the-core-of-kyrgyzstans-turmoil/

                    [50] Bruce Pannier, A Hidden Force In Kyrgyzstan Hijacks The Opposition’s Push For Big Changes, RFE/RL, October 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/a-hidden-force-in-kyrgyzstan-hijacks-the-opposition-s-push-for-big-changes/30891583.html

                    [51] Temur Umarov, Who’s In Charge Following Revolution In Kyrgyzstan?, The Moscow Times, October 2020, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/10/26/whos-in-charge-following-revolution-in-kyrgyzstan-a71856

                    [52] Sam Bhutia, Kyrgyzstan says its economy growing at a healthy clip. Really?, Eurasianet, November 2019, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-says-its-economy-is-growing-at-a-healthy-clip-really#:~:text=The%20Kumtor%20mine%20alone%20contributed,remained%20stable%20in%20recent%20years.&text=Apart%20from%20depending%20on%20one,Kyrgyzstan’s%20exports%20are%20not%20diversified

                    [53] Zairbek Baktybaev, Is the assault on the White House a planned action? Radio Azattyk, October 2012, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/kyrgyzstan_power_opposition/24736283.html; David Trilling, Kyrgyzstan: Nationalist MPs and Rioters Attempt to Storm Parliament, Eurasianet, October 2012, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-nationalist-mps-and-rioters-attempt-to-storm-parliament

                    [54] David Trilling, Kyrgyzstan: Nationalist MPs and Rioters Attempt to Storm Parliament, Eurasianet, October 2012, https://cabar.asia/en/who-is-acting-president-of-kyrgyzstan-sadyr-zhaparov-here-s-the-explanation

                    [55] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Kyrgyz Police Disperse Mine Protest, RFE/RL, October 2013, https://www.rferl.org/a/kumtor-kyrgyzstan-gold-mine-hostage/25129053.html

                    [56] Nurjamal Djanibekova, Kyrgyzstan: Two Opposition Trials Conclude With Lengthy Sentences, Eurasianet, August 2017, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-two-opposition-trials-conclude-with-lengthy-sentences; Emilbek Kaptagaev, Facebook post, Facebook, August 2017, https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=728676047334502&id=100005763398264

                    [57] Gulzat Baialieva and Joldon Kutmanaliev, How Kyrgyz social media backed an imprisoned politician’s meteoric rise to power, openDemocracy, October 2020, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/how-kyrgyz-social-media-backed-an-imprisoned-politicians-meteoric-rise-to-power/; Gulzat Baialieva and Joldon Kutmanaliev, In Kyrgyzstan, social media hate goes unchecked, openDemocracy, December 2020, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/kyrgyzstan-social-media-hate-goes-unchecked/; Elena Korotkova, “Made a revolution out of prison.” What Sadyr Zhaparov told about in an interview with Kommersant, kloop, January 2021, https://kloop.kg/blog/2021/01/11/sdelal-revolyutsiyu-iz-tyurmy-o-chem-rasskazal-sadyr-zhaparov-v-intervyu-kommersantu/

                    [58] Asel Doolotkeldieva, Twitter Post, Twitter, December 2020, https://twitter.com/adoolotkeldieva/status/1342036354335715332?s=11; FPC, The rise of illiberal civil society in the former Soviet Union?, July 2018, https://fpc.org.uk/publications/the-rise-of-illiberal-civil-society-in-the-former-soviet-union/

                    [59] Yuri Kopytin, Kamchybek Tashiev appointed Chairman of SCNS, 24.kg, October 2020, https://24.kg/english/169646_Kamchybek_Tashiev_appointed_Chairman_of_SCNS/

                    [60] Oksana Gut, “Corrupt officials should not be imprisoned, it is enough to return the stolen goods”, vb.kg, October 2020, https://www.vb.kg/doc/393327_korrypcionerov_ne_nado_sajat_v_turmy_dostatochno_vernyt_ykradennoe.html

                    [61] Oksana Gut, Matraimova, according to the agreement, will be fined and banned from holding public office for 3 years, vb.kg, October 2020, https://www.vb.kg/doc/393320_matraimova_po_soglasheniu_jdet_shtraf_i_zapret_zanimat_gosdoljnosti_3_goda.html; Radio Azattyk, The State Committee for National Security identified about 40 people from the closest circle of Matraimov involved in his corruption scheme, October 2020, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/30900569.html

                    [62] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Kyrgyz Acting President Announces ‘Economic Amnesty’ After Powerful Oligarch’s House Arrest, RFE/RL, October 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-economic-amnesty-japarov-matraimov-house-arrest-oligarchs/30905101.html; Zdravko Ljubas, New Kyrgyz Authorities Act Against Graft, Matraimov, OCCRP, October 2020, https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/13272-new-kyrgyz-authorities-act-against-graft-matraimov?fbclid=IwAR20RcpzFEsE7Af_pFDWvvyus77DYUIfx5MyL1eKkiLBERmsQ5d5uw3nnlo

                    [63] Kamila Eshaliyeva, Real fakes: how Kyrgyzstan’s troll factories work, openDemocracy, November 2020, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/troll-factories-kyrgyzstan/?source=in-article-related-story; Kaktus Media, Matraimov and Japarov. When there is one “troll factory” for two, February 2021, https://kaktus.media/doc/432331_matraimov_i_japarov._kogda_na_dvoih_odna_fabrika_trolley.html

                    [64] RFE/RL, Ex-Bishkek Mayor Jailed For Corruption, July 2013, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-bishkek-mayor-corruption/25060829.html; AKIpress, Nariman Tuleev became acting mayor of Bishkek, October 2020, https://akipress.com/news:649885:Nariman_Tuleev_became_acting_mayor_of_Bishkek/;  Kaktus Media, Twitter Post, Twitter, October 2020, https://twitter.com/kaktus__media/status/1318467547138789376. However on October 22nd he was pushed out himself: Maria Orlova, Nariman Tyuleev refused the post and. About. Mayor of Bishkek: a dirty struggle of groups, 24.kg, October 2020, https://24.kg/vlast/170262_nariman_tyuleev_otkazalsya_otpostaio_mera_bishkeka_gryaznaya_borba_gruppirovok/

                    [65] Members of the government, Government of Kyrgyzstan, https://www.gov.kg/ky/gov/s/103

                    [66] The Central Elections Commission decision to order a re-run of the elections was blocked by the courts in line with the wishes of the interim President.

                    [67] Bermet Talant, Twitter Post, Twitter, November 2020, https://twitter.com/ser_ou_parecer/status/1324370570507620352?s=20

                    [68] Eurasianet, Kyrgyzstan: Parliament reshuffle paves way for Japarov to cement power, November 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-parliament-reshuffle-paves-way-for-japarov-to-cement-power?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

                    [69] The initial draft version of the constitution on the Supreme Council Website quoted here has now been replaced with the revised version produced in February 2021: Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic, From November 17, 2020, the draft Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On the appointment of a referendum (nationwide vote) on the draft Law of the Kyrgyz Republic One the Constitution of Kyrgyz Republic”, November 2020, http://www.kenesh.kg/ru/article/show/7324/na-obshtestvennoe-obsuzhdenie-s-17-noyabrya-2020-goda-vinositsya-proekt-zakona-kirgizskoy-respubliki-o-naznachenii-referenduma-vsenarodnogo-golosovaniya-po-proektu-zakona-kirgizskoy-respubliki-o-konstitutsii-kirgizskoy-respubliki; Kaktus Media, Deputies of the Jogorku Kenesh adopted the bill on referendum in two readings at once, December 2020, https://kaktus.media/doc/427740_depytaty_jogorky_kenesha_priniali_zakonoproekt_o_referendyme_srazy_v_dvyh_chteniiah.html

                    [70] Catherine Putz, What’s in Kyrgyzstan’s Proposed ‘Khanstitution’?, The Diplomat, November 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/whats-in-kyrgyzstans-proposed-khanstitution/

                    [71] The principles were set out by Japarov in this interview: Kaktus Media, Sadyr Zhaparov, said that he has a draft constitutional reform ready (video), October 2020, https://kaktus.media/doc/424039_sadyr_japarov_skazal_chto_y_nego_gotov_proekt_reformy_konstitycii_video.html

                    [72]Ayday Tokoeva, “The president is crushing the legislative and judicial branches of government.” Ex-MP of Sher-Niyaz on amendments to the Constitution, kloop, November 2020, https://kloop.kg/blog/2020/11/18/prezident-podminaet-pod-sebya-zakonodatelnuyu-i-sudebnuyu-vetvi-vlasti-eks-deputat-sher-niyaz-o-popravkah-v-konstitutsiyu/

                    [73] Abhi Goyal, Twitter Post, Twitter, November 2020, https://twitter.com/goyal_abhi/status/1328780940777230340?s=21

                    [74] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Acting Kyrgyz President Says Constitutional Council Will Be Established To Implement Reforms, RFE/RL, November 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/acting-kyrgyz-president-says-constitutional-council-will-be-established-to-implement-reforms/30927703.html; Radio Azattyk, Edil Baysalov proposed to rename the Jogorku Kenesh to Kurultai or National Assembly, November 2020, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/30975946.html

                    [75] Bektour Iskender, Twitter Post, Twitter, November 2020, https://twitter.com/bektour/status/1332613244310200320; Human Rights Watch, Kyrgyzstan: Bad Faith Efforts to Overhaul Constitution, November 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/21/kyrgyzstan-bad-faith-efforts-overhaul-constitution#; Tatyana Kudryavtseva, Referendum on form of government scheduled for January 10, 2021, 24.kg, December 2020, https://24.kg/english/176489_Referendum_on_form_of_government_scheduled_for_January_10_2021/

                    [76] ODIHR, Early Presidential Election, 10 January 2021, OSCE, https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/kyrgyzstan/473139

                    [77] Electoral Information System, https://newess.shailoo.gov.kg/en/

                    [78] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Trimmed-Down Kyrgyz Cabinet Sworn In After Parliament’s Approval, RFE/RL, February 2021, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyz-lawmakers-approve-new-government-/31084236.html

                    [79] AFP, Kyrgyz Coalition Puts Forward New PM, Barron’s, February 2021, https://www.barrons.com/news/kyrgyz-coalition-puts-forward-new-pm-01612174805?tesla=y; Kaktus Media, Government without Surabaldieva. New line-up proposed by Ulukbek Maripov, February 2021, https://kaktus.media/doc/431074_pravitelstvo_bez_syrabaldievoy._novyy_sostav_predlojennyy_ylykbekom_maripovym.html; Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kyrgyzstan: Parliament approves new, streamlined government, Eurasianet, February 2021, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-parliament-approves-new-streamlined-government

                    [80] Kaktus Media, Government without Surabaldieva. New line-up proposed by Ulukbek Maripov, February 2021, https://kaktus.media/doc/431074_pravitelstvo_bez_syrabaldievoy._novyy_sostav_predlojennyy_ylykbekom_maripovym.html

                    [81] Gulmira Makanbai, Rally against appointment of Ulukbek Maripov as Prime Minister held in Bishkek, 24.kg, February 2021, https://24.kg/english/182213_Rally_against_appointment_of_Ulukbek_Maripov_as_Prime_Minister_held_in_Bishkek/

                    [82] Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic, The draft Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic if posted on the official website of the Jogorku Kenesh, February 2021, http://kenesh.kg/ru/news/show/11009/proekt-konstitutsii-kirgizskoy-respubliki-razmeshten-na-ofitsialynom-sayte-zhogorku-kenesha;

                    Version of the Legislation with an updated draft attached: Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic, From November 17, 2020, the draft Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On the appointment of a referendum (nationwide vote) on the draft Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic”, November 2020, http://kenesh.kg/ru/article/show/7324/na-obshtestvennoe-obsuzhdenie-s-17-noyabrya-2020-goda-vinositsya-proekt-zakona-kirgizskoy-respubliki-o-naznachenii-referenduma-vsenarodnogo-golosovaniya-po-proektu-zakona-kirgizskoy-respubliki-o-konstitutsii-kirgizskoy-respubliki

                    [83] Adilet, Analysis of the draft Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, February 2021, https://adilet.kg/tpost/2i09a01nu1-analiz-proekta-konstitutsii-kirgizskoi-r

                    [84] The example cited was German Basic Law Article 5.2 which creates this caveat on free speech rights ‘These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour’, Gesetze-im-internet.de, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.pdf

                    [85] AKIpress, Constitutional referendum and local elections set for April 11: Japarov, February 2021, https://akipress.com/news:654513:Constitutional_referendum_and_local_elections_set_for_April_11__Japarov/

                    [86] Chris Rickleton, Kyrgyzstan: Mining sector braces for regulatory blow, Eurasianet, November 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-mining-sector-braces-for-regulatory-blow?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

                    [87]Kanat Shaku, Foreign investors banned from future mining projects in Kyrgyzstan, BNE News, February 2021, https://intellinews.com/foreign-investors-banned-from-future-mining-projects-in-kyrgyzstan-201724/

                    [88] Daily Sabah, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan to sign framework deal for cooperation in mining. February 2021, https://www.dailysabah.com/business/energy/turkey-kyrgyzstan-to-sign-framework-deal-for-cooperation-in-mining

                    [89] Georgy Mamedov, “Japarov is our Trump”: why Kyrgyzstan is the future of global politics, openDemocracy, January 2021, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/japarov-is-our-trump-kyrgyzstan-is-the-future-of-global-politics/; Erica Marat, Twitter Post, Twitter, January 2021, https://twitter.com/Ericamarat/status/1348273098370519040; Toktosun Shambetov, What form of government do the candidates for the presidency of Kyrgyzstan choose?, Radio Azattyk, December 2020, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/31011983.html; The Economist, Sadyr Japarov is elected president of Kyrgyzstan in a landslide, January 2021, https://www.economist.com/asia/2021/01/14/sadyr-japarov-is-elected-president-of-kyrgyzstan-in-a-landslide

                    [90] Asel Doolotkeldieva, Twitter Post, Twitter, January 2021, https://twitter.com/ADoolotkeldieva/status/1348230029906489344?s=20

                    [91] Asel Doolotkeldieva, Twitter Post, Twitter, January 2021, https://twitter.com/ADoolotkeldieva/status/1348312032337133569?s=20

                    [92] Ryskeldi Satke, The Downside of Foreign Aid in Kyrgyzstan, The Diplomat, June 2017, https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/the-downside-of-foreign-aid-in-kyrgyzstan/; The World Bank, Kyrgyz Republic, https://data.worldbank.org/country/KG

                    [93] What a number of observers describe as clans: RFE/RL’s Service, OCCRP, Kloop, and Bellingcat, A Powerful Kyrgyz Clan’s Political Play, RFE/RL, October 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/30870040.html

                    [94] Omurbek Ibraev, Cost of Politics in Kyrgyzstan, WFD, September 2019, https://www.wfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Cost-of-Politics-Kyrgyzstan.pdf; Erica Marat, Kyrgyzstan’s Protests Won’t Keep Corrupt Criminals Out of Politics, Foreign Policy, October 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/22/kyrgyzstans-protests-wont-keep-corrupt-criminals-out-of-politics/

                    [95] RFE/RL’s Service, OCCRP, Kloop, and Bellingcat, The Matraimov Kingdom, RFE/RL, October 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/the-matraimov-kingdom/30868683.html

                    [96] UNODC. Afghan Opiate Trafficking Along the Northern Route, June 2018, https://www.unodc.org/rpanc/en/Sub-programme-4/afghan-opiate-trafficking-along-the-northern-route.html

                    [97] Results of research by the international SHADOW project presented in Bishkek, IBC Members’ News, December 2020, http://ibc.kg/en/news/members/4807_results_of_a_research_of_the_international_shadow_project_presented_in_bishkek

                    [98] Eleanor Beishenbek, The secret of the success of “Rayima Million”, Radio Azattyk, August 2015, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/27215390.html

                    [99] Ali Toktakunov, Following in the footsteps of millions of dollars withdrawn from Kyrgyzstan, Radio Azattyk, May 2019, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/29971887.html; OCCRP, RFE/RL, and Kloop, The $700 million man, RFE/RL, November 2019, https://www.rferl.org/a/the-700-million-man/30284812.html

                    [100] OCCRP, RFE/RL, and Kloop, A Real Estate Empire Built on Dark Money, OCCRP, December 2019, https://www.occrp.org/en/plunder-and-patronage/a-real-estate-empire-built-on-dark-money

                    [101] OCCRP, RFE/RL, Kloop, and Bellingcat, ‘His Murder Is Necessary’: Man Who Exposed Kyrgyz Smuggling Scheme Was Hunted By Contract Killers, RFE/RL, November 2010, https://www.rferl.org/a/man-who-exposed-kyrgyz-smuggling-scheme-was-hunted-by-contract-killers/30940261.html

                    [102] Nurjamal Djanibekova, Kyrgyzstan: Impromptu rally signals new way of opposing corruption, Eurasianet, November 2019, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-impromptu-rally-signals-new-way-of-opposing-corruption

                    [103] RFE/RL’s Service, OCCRP, Kloop, and Bellingcat, The Matraimov Kingdom, RFE/RL, October 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/the-matraimov-kingdom/30868683.html

                    [104] OCCRP, RFE/RL’s Radio Radio Azattyk, Kloop, and Bellingcat, The ‘Beautiful’ Life of a Kyrgyz Customs Official, OCCRP, December 2020, https://www.occrp.org/en/the-matraimov-kingdom/the-beautiful-life-of-a-kyrgyz-customs-official

                    [105] The OCCRP Team, So Your Reporting Became a Factor in an Ongoing Revolution. What Do You Do Next?, Medium, October 2020, https://medium.com/occrp-unreported/so-your-reporting-became-a-factor-in-an-ongoing-revolution-what-do-you-do-next-54b993a11a39

                    [106] Zdravko Ljubas, Kyrgyz Authorities Arrest Raiymbek Matraimov, OCCRP, October 2020, https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/13282-kyrgyz-authorities-arrest-matraimov-the-700-million-man

                    [107] Currenttime, Ex-Deputy Head of Kyrgyz Customs Transferred Almost $ 6 Million to the State in Corruption Case, November 2020, https://www.currenttime.tv/a/matraimov-kazna-6-mln/30956200.html; OCCRP, Kyrgyz Ex-Customs Official Matraimov Pleads Guilty to Graft, Fined $3000, February 2021, https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/13850-kyrgyz-ex-customs-official-matraimov-pleads-guilty-to-graft-fined-3000; Oksana Gut, Matraimova, according to the agreement, will be fined and banned from holding public office for 3 years, vb.kg, October 2020, https://www.vb.kg/doc/393320_matraimova_po_soglasheniu_jdet_shtraf_i_zapret_zanimat_gosdoljnosti_3_goda.html; Radio Azattyk, Matraimov pleaded guilty to organizing corruption schemes at customs. He was sentenced to a fine of 260 thousand soms, February 2021, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/31097620.html

                    [108] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Kyrgyz Activists Rally Against Corruption, RFE?RL, February 2021, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyz-activists-rally-against-corruption/31102170.html

                    [109] Catherine Putz, In Kyrgyzstan, Controversial Former Customs Official Matraimov Rearrested, The Diplomat, February 2021, https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/in-kyrgyzstan-controversial-former-customs-official-matraimov-rearrested/; Catherine Putz, In Kyrgyzstan, Matraimov Placed in Pretrial Detention as Money Laundering Investigation Moves Ahead, The Diplomat, February 2021, https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/matraimov-placed-in-pretrial-detention-as-money-laundering-investigation-moves-ahead/

                    [110] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Sanctions Corrupt Actors in Africa and Asia, December 2020, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1206

                    [111] Lydia Osborne, Kamchybek Kolbayev, OCCRP, June 2018, https://www.occrp.org/en/goldensands/profiles/kamchybek-kolbayev

                    [112] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Reputed Kyrgyz Crime Boss To Be Released From Prison, RFE/RL, May 2014, https://www.rferl.org/a/reputed-kyrgyz-crime-boss-to-be-released-from-prison/25389844.html

                    [113] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, OCCRP, Kloop, and Bellingcat, The Kolbaev Connection, RFE/RL, December 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/matraimov-kolbaev-kyrgyzstan-corruption/30996468.html

                    [114] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Notorious Kyrgyz Crime Boss Detained In Bishkek, RFE/RL, October 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/notorious-kyrgyz-crime-boss-detained-in-bishkek/30906562.html

                    [115] Chris Rickelton and Bekpolot Ibraimov, Kyrgyzstan: Kingmaker lurks behind curtain as politics heat up, Eurasianet, July 2019, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-kingmaker-lurks-behind-curtain-as-politics-heat-up

                    [116] Erica Marat, Kyrgyzstan’s Protests Won’t Keep Corrupt Criminals Out of Politics, Foreign Policy, October 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/22/kyrgyzstans-protests-wont-keep-corrupt-criminals-out-of-politics/

                    [117] Sarah Chayes, The Structure of Corruption: A Systemic Analysis Using Eurasian Cases, Carnegie Endowment, June 2016, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CP274_Chayes_EurasianCorruptionStructure_final1.pdf

                    [118] Open Government Partnership, Kyrgyz Republic, Member Since 2017, Action Plan 1, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/kyrgyz-republic/

                    [119] Yuri Kopytin, Crime boss Kadyrbek Dosonov brought to Bishkek from Osh city, 24.kg, February 2021, https://24.kg/english/183136_Crime_boss_Kadyrbek_Dosonov_brought_to_Bishkek_from_Osh_city/; Kloop, Twitter Post, Twitter, February 2021, https://twitter.com/kloopnews/status/1361950547486646274?s=20

                    [120] Albeit one whose name would often overlap with that used to describe ethnic Kazakhs.

                    [121] Alisher Khamidov, Brewing ethnic tension causing worry in south Kyrgyzstan, Refworld, November 2002, https://www.refworld.org/docid/46cc322dc.html

                    [122] Erica Marat, National Investigation of the Osh Violence Yields Little Results, Refworld, January 2011, https://www.refworld.org/docid/4d469cb52.html; Human Rights Watch, “Where is the Justice?” Interethnic Violence in Southern Kyrgyzstan and its Aftermath, August 2010, https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/08/16/where-justice/interethnic-violence-southern-kyrgyzstan-and-its-aftermath

                    [123]  OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities “Statement on Kyrgyzstan,” Vienna, May 6, 2010, www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/2010/05/45132_en.pdf

                    [124] Erica Marat, National Investigation of the Osh Violence Yields Little Results, refworld, January 2011, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full_Report_490.pdf

                    [125] Todar Pruss, The Fight for the Right to Speak Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan’s Capital, The Oxus Society, November 2020, https://oxussociety.org/the-fight-for-the-right-to-speak-kyrgyz-in-kyrgyzstans-capital/

                    [126] AKIpress, Russian language kept as official language in draft of Constitution of Kyrgyzstan, November 2020, https://akipress.com/news:651503:Russian_language_kept_as_official_language_in_draft_of_Constitution_of_Kyrgyzstan/

                    [127] FPC, Sharing worst practice: How countries and institutions in the former Soviet Union help create legal tools of repression, May 2016, https://fpc.org.uk/publications/sharingworstpractice/

                    [128] Adam Hug, Introduction: The Rise of Illiberal Civil Society?, FPC, July 2018, https://fpc.org.uk/introduction-the-rise-of-illiberal-civil-society/; Asylai Akisheva, “Kelinism” in Kyrgyzstan: Women’s Rights Versus Traditional Values, The Oxus Society, January 2021, https://oxussociety.org/kelinism-in-kyrgyzstan-womens-rights-versus-traditional-values/

                    [129] NDI, Forum of women members of parliament in Kyrgyzstan takes on domestic violence, May 2020, https://www.ndi.org/our-stories/forum-women-members-parliament-kyrgyzstan-takes-domestic-violence

                    [130] The Equal Rights Trust, Kyrgyzstan, March 2018, https://www.equalrightstrust.org/sites/default/files/ertdocs/180330%20ERT%20Submission%20to%20CERD%20on%20Kyrgyzstan%20REVISED.pdf; ECOM News, ECOM, PO “Kyrgyz Indigo” and the LGBT organization “Labrys” informed the UN HRC about the lack of antidiscrimination legislation for LGBT people in Kyrgyzstan, August 2020, https://ecom.ngo/en/kyrgyzstan-unhrc/

                    [131] Valeria Cardi, When Women Rule: Kyrgyzstan’s youngest female MP puts bride kidnapping, attacks on women in spotlight, Reuters, October 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-rulers-kyrgyzstan-idUSKBN1CU01Q

                    [132] Labrys Programs, https://www.labrys.kg/; Pete Baumgartner, Rainbow Rage: Kyrgyz Rail Against LGBT Community After Central Asia’s ‘First’ Gay-Pride March, RFE/RL, March 2019, https://www.rferl.org/a/rainbow-rage-kyrgyz-rail-against-lgbt-after-central-asia-s-first-gay-pride-march/29825158.html

                    [133] Kate Arnold, Curtain Falls On Bishkek’s Lone LGBT Club Amid Worsening Atmosphere, RFE/RL, June 2017, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-lgbt-club-closing-gay-rights-homophobia/28561339.html

                    [134] RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Kyrgyz Voters Back Amendments On Same-Sex Marriage, Presidential Power, RFE/RL, December 2016, https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-constitutional-referendum-voting/28168872.html

                    [135]  Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen et al. (eds.). 2020. World Values Survey: Round Seven – Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. doi.org/10.14281/18241.1 https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp

                    [136] Ryskeldi Satke, Illiberal forces put women’s rights under strain in Kyrgyzstan, Foreign Policy Centre, July 2018, https://fpc.org.uk/illiberal-forces-put-womens-rights-under-strain-in-kyrgyzstan/

                    [137] Asel Sooronbayeva, Kyrgyzstan: Hijab Not an Obstacle to Success, CABAR, February 2019, https://cabar.asia/en/kyrgyzstan-hijab-not-an-obstacle-to-success

                    [138] Ibid.

                    [139] European Baptist Federation (EBF) and Baptist World Alliance, Universal Periodic Review Session 35 Kyrgyz Republic, Freedom of religion or belief Stakeholder Report, https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=7401&file=EnglishTranslation

                    [140] Constitute, Kyrgyzstan’s Constitution of 2010 with Amendments through 2016, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Kyrgyz_Republic_2016.pdf?lang=en

                    [141] Civil Society Briefs, The Kyrgyz Society, November 2011, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29443/csb-kgz.pdf

                    [142] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kyrgyzstan: Draft bill threatens to drive NGOs against the wall, Eurasianet, May 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-draft-bill-threatens-to-drive-ngos-against-the-wall; Civic Solidarity, Civic Solidarity Platform statement on legislative proposals to impose excessive reporting and control requirements on civil society organizations in Kyrgyzstan, February 2020, https://www.civicsolidarity.org/article/1644/civic-solidarity-platform-statement-legislative-proposals-impose-excessive-reporting

                    [143] Labour Start Campaigns, Kyrgyzstan: Stop pressure on trade unions, https://www.labourstartcampaigns.net/show_campaign.cgi?c=4639

                    [144] Human Rights Watch, Kyrgyzstan: Increased Interference in Trade Union Activities, December 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/23/kyrgyzstan-increased-interference-trade-union-activities

                    [145] Asel Doolotkeldieva, Twitter Post, Twitter, December 2020, https://twitter.com/ADoolotkeldieva/status/1336708028859604993?s=20

                    [146] Anara Musabaeva, Responsibility, transparency and legitimacy of socially-oriented NGOs in Kyrgyzstan, INTRAC, January 2013, https://www.intrac.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Briefing-Paper-34-Responsibility-transparency-and-legitimacy-of-socially-oriented-NGOs-in-Kyrgyzstan.pdf

                    [147] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kyrgyzstan: Hundreds rally against constitutional tinkering, Eurasianet, November 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-hundreds-rally-against-constitutional-tinkering; Ayday Tokoeva, “There is no Han Constitution.” Peaceful march to be held in Bishkek against amendments to the country’s basic law, kloop, November 2020, https://kloop.kg/blog/2020/11/18/net-hanstitutsii-v-bishkeke-projdet-mirnyj-marsh-protiv-popravok-v-osnovnoj-zakon-strany/

                    [148] Editorial policies in outlets around the world are influenced by the political persuasions of powerful media owners but this relates to the transactional, ad hoc nature of whom some outlets criticise, which can be shaped by funders outside the companies themselves.

                    [149] ARTICLE 19, Kyrgyzstan: Law “On Manipulating Information” must be vetoed, July 2020, https://www.article19.org/resources/kyrgyzstan-law-on-manipulating-information-must-be-vetoed/

                    [150] Daria Podolskaya, MPs want to push thought controversial law on manipulating information, 24.kg, December 2020, https://24.kg/vlast/176430_deputatyi_hotyat_protaschit_skandalnyiy_zakon_omanipulirovanii_informatsiey/?fbclid=IwAR0USXJ0RVvpRQ16pFIUph8qUUew9XpJIl0DygCNNCqN5LCZjJkZTlt-1nk

                    [151] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kyrgyzstan: Thin-skinned authorities hauling in commentators for questioning, Eurasianet, August 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-thin-skinned-authorities-hauling-in-commentators-for-questioning

                    [152] CPJ, Journalists attacked, obstructed during and after parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan, October 2020, https://cpj.org/2020/10/journalists-attacked-obstructed-during-and-after-parliamentary-elections-in-kyrgyzstan/

                    [153] Highlights from Central Asian Press, Websites 12 Jan 21, BBC Monitoring Central Asia Unit Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, January 2021, https://advance-lexis-com.mutex.gmu.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:61RP-B2W1-JC8S-C51G-00000-00&context=1516831; Aidai Tokoyeva, Ya prizyvayu opponentov obedinit’sya, menshestvo dolzhno podchinit’sya bolshinstvu–Zhaparov, KLOOP.KG – Новости Кыргызстана (blog), January 2021, https://kloop.kg/blog/2021/01/10/ya-prizyvayu-opponentov-obedinitsya-menshinstvo-dolzhno-podchinitsya-bolshinstvu-zhaparov/

                    [154] U.S. Agency for Global Media, RFE/RL Kyrgyz Service investigative reporter receives death threat, April 2020, https://www.usagm.gov/2020/04/07/rfe-rl-kyrgyz-service-investigative-reporter-receives-death-threat/

                    [155] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, New Kyrgyzstan leader vilifying free press, Eurasianet, November 2020, https://eurasianet.org/new-kyrgyzstan-leader-vilifying-free-press?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0qz5Pn_RxN7mB_5N6_gqZoqQIYTf_-ulT_QEgD8LWasQVMs4pu1htj90s; Paul Bartlett, Bleak Outlook for Kyrgyzstan’s Free Press After Japarov’s Landslide Win in Presidential Poll, The Moscow Times, January 2021, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/13/bleak-outlook-for-kyrgyzstans-free-press-after-japarovs-landslide-win-in-presidential-poll-a72594

                    [156] Kamila Eshaliyeva, Real fakes: how Kyrgyzstan’s troll factories work, openDemocracy, November 2020, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/troll-factories-kyrgyzstan/

                    [157] Elvira Kalmurzaeva, Twitter Post, Twitter, November 2020, https://twitter.com/Ekalmurzaeva/status/1330107952271937536?s=20

                    [158] Bakyt Toregeldi, Threats and intimidation in social networks of the Kyrgyz segment, Radio Azattyk, November 2020, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/30964989.html?fbclid=IwAR1JsYHLQsdksWN73HibIdJ1tI-gn0EM4e30gKpxDPCi558ibuJRpGitNwQ

                    [159] An example of the Trusted Partner scheme in a different context: EFHR, EFHR welcomed into Trusted Partner Channel of Facebook, January 2018, https://en.efhr.eu/2018/01/29/efhr-welcomed-trusted-partner-channel-facebook/

                    [160] Adilet: https://adilet.kg/

                    [161] Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic, From November 17, 2020, the draft Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On the appointment of a referendum (nationwide vote) on the draft Law of the Kyrgyz Republic On the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic”, November 2020, http://www.kenesh.kg/ru/article/show/7324/na-obshtestvennoe-obsuzhdenie-s-17-noyabrya-2020-goda-vinositsya-proekt-zakona-kirgizskoy-respubliki-o-naznachenii-referenduma-vsenarodnogo-golosovaniya-po-proektu-zakona-kirgizskoy-respubliki-o-konstitutsii-kirgizskoy-respubliki (As revised in February 2021)

                    [162] Adilet, Report: “The Bar and Lawyers of the Kyrgyz Republic under attack: persecution and external threats”, March 2020, https://adilet.kg/tpost/2i09a01nu1-analiz-proekta-konstitutsii-kirgizskoi-r

                    [163] Adilet, Analysis of the draft Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, February 2021, https://adilet.kg/tpost/escvd3gcr1-doklad-advokatura-i-advokati-kirgizskoi; Bar of the Kyrgyz Republic: http://advokatura.kg/; Official website of the State Enterprise of the Kyrgyz Republic: https://new.prokuror.kg/ru

                    [164] ABA, Trial Observation Report: Kyrgyzstan vs. Gulzhan Pasanova, May 2020, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/human_rights/reports/kyrgyzstan_vs_Gulzhan_Pasanova1/

                    [165] In conversations with the author and for example: Eurasianet, Kyrgyzstan: Will fury around Askarov death end up signifying nothing?, July 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-will-fury-around-askarov-death-end-up-signifying-nothing

                    [166] Human Rights Watch, Kyrgyzstan – Events of 2018, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/kyrgyzstan#e81181

                    [167] JurisPrudence, https://juris.ohchr.org/search/results

                    [168] Human Rights Watch, Adoption of the outcome of the Universal Periodic, Review of Kyrgyzstan, September 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/28/adoption-outcome-universal-periodic-review-kyrgyzstan. For example Russia has passed constitutional amendments that assert the supremacy of its judicial decisions over those of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Trump Administration launched international sanctions against Judges on the International Criminal Court who were investigating potential crimes by US service personnel and the UK has been debating watering down the application of the European Convention on Human Rights or leaving the ECtHR’s jurisdiction for much of the last ten years.

                    [169] Front Line Defenders, Azimjan Askarov Brings Lawsuit Against Government, https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/azimjan-askarov-brings-lawsuit-against-government

                    [170] ACCA, In Kyrgyzstan, every fifth detainee complains of torture, January 2020, https://acca.media/en/in-kyrgyzstan-every-fifth-detainee-complains-of-torture/

                    [171] Front Line Defenders, #Kyrgyzstan, https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/location/kyrgyzstan

                    [172] Hugh Williamson, Twitter Post, Twitter, December 2020, https://twitter.com/HughAWilliamson/status/1333784559314354177?s=20

                    [173] RFE/RL, U.S. ‘Concerned’ Over Fate of Uzbek Journalist Extradited By Kyrgyzstan, September 2020, https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-concerned-over-fate-of-uzbek-journalist-extradited-by-kyrgyzstan/30824802.html

                    [174] Lira Sagynbekova, International Labour Migration in the Context of the Eurasian Economic Union : Issues and Challenges of Kyrgyz Migrants in Russia, University of Central Asia, Working Paper no.39, 2017, https://www.ucentralasia.org/Content/Downloads/UCA-IPPA-WP-39%20International%20Labour%20Migration_ENG.pdf

                    [175] Ryskeldi Satke, Twitter Post, Twitter, February 2021, https://twitter.com/RyskeldiSatke/status/1357704117418885121?s=20

                    [176] Chris Rickleton, Twitter Post, Twitter, November 2020, https://twitter.com/ChrisRickleton/status/1326397172053643266?s=20; TASS, Putin congratulates Japarov on winning Kyrgyzstan’s presidential election, January 2021, https://tass.com/politics/1243317

                    [177] Dirk van der Kley, COVID and the new debt dynamics of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Eurasianet, October 2020, https://eurasianet.org/covid-and-the-new-debt-dynamics-of-kyrgyzstan-and-tajikistan; Chris Rickleton, Kyrgyzstan’s China debt: Between crowdfunding and austerity, Eurasianet, November 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstans-china-debt-between-crowdfunding-and-austerity

                    [178] Niva Yau, China business briefing : Not happy with Kyrgyzstan, Eurasianet, November 2020, https://eurasianet.org/china-business-briefing-not-happy-with-kyrgyzstan; Eurasianet, Kyrgyzstan pleads for more Chinese help in building key infrastructure, December 2020, https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-pleads-for-more-chinese-help-in-building-key-infrastructure; Temur Umarov, Dangerous Liaisons : How China is Taming Central Asia’s Elites, Carnegie Moscow Center, January 2021, https://carnegie.ru/commentary/83756

                    [179] European Commission, EU and Kyrgyz Republic initial Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, July 2019, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2046#:~:text=On%206%20July%202019%2C%20the,Asia%20Ministerial%20Meeting%2C%20in%20Bishkek.&text=The%20seventh%20and%20final%20negotiating,on%206%2D8%20June%202019

                    [180] A list of possible suggestions for, which can be found in this publication’s conclusion and recommendations.

                    [181] European Commission, Recipients, https://euaidexplorer.ec.europa.eu/content/explore/recipients_en

                    [182] EEAS, Kyrgyz Republic and the EU, October 2020, https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kyrgyz-republic/1397/kyrgyz-republic-and-eu_en

                    [183] Tatyana Kudryavtseva, Germany announces reduction in cooperation with Kyrgyzstan, 24.kg, May 2020, https://24.kg/english/152054_Germany_announces_reduction_in_cooperation_with_Kyrgyzstan/; Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, BMZ 2030 reform strategy: New thinking – new direction, https://www.bmz.de/en/publications/type_of_publication/information_flyer/information_brochures/Materilie520_reform_strategy.pdf

                    [184] Foreign Assistance, Kyrgyzstan, https://foreignassistance.gov/explore/country/Kyrgyzstan; Looking at the data via – USAID, U.S. Foreign Aid by Country, https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/KGZ?measure=Obligations&fiscal_year=2020 – it can be seen that the main beneficiaries were US Development and Health NGO FHI 360, the Development Consulting firm Chemonics and health care and health systems consultants John Snow International. The top ten partners were all US firms, NGOs or Government Agencies.

                    [185] Development Tracker, Kyrgyzstan, FCDO, https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/countries/KG

                    Footnotes
                      Related Articles

                       Join our mailing list 

                      Keep informed about events, articles & latest publications from Foreign Policy Centre

                      JOIN