EurasiaNet Civil Society - Central Asia: Bush Administration Seeks to Shortchange Region on Democratization Aid

CIVIL SOCIETY

CENTRAL ASIA: BUSH ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO SHORTCHANGE REGION ON DEMOCRATIZATION AID
Deirdre Tynan 6/18/08

A leading democracy watchdog group is calling on the US Congress to block budget cuts proposed by the Bush administration that would hamper civil society development in Central Asia.

In February, the Bush administration proposed a 2009 budget of $1.71 billion for democratization-related activities worldwide � an increase of roughly 20 percent over the fiscal year 2008 figure. Freedom House, in an analysis of the Bush proposal for democratic development, generally welcomed the administration’s intent to boost expenditures. But several aspects of the budget allocation were seen as detrimental to promoting responsible government in several trouble spots, including in former Soviet states.

"The government appears to have other regional priorities at this time," Jeffrey Goldstein, Freedom House’s Senior Program Manager for Central Asia, said in an interview with EurasiaNet.

Overall, the administration’s proposed spending blueprint reduces funding for government entities that facilitate democratization projects, and it potentially cuts funding in two vital spheres � human rights and press freedom.

The Freedom House report released in early June, titled A Legacy of Support for Freedom? An Analysis of the Bush Administration FY2009 Budget Request for Democracy and Human Rights, warns that the Bush budget is not sufficiently transparent, thus raising the possibility that funding will not be applied in an efficient way.

Among the recommendations the report makes is a call for greater transparency and increased funding to critical countries, including Russia and Kazakhstan. "Freedom House is concerned about the 9 percent overall cut in funding for civil society coming at a time when the threats to civil society activists are growing. Diminishing funding for civil society at this critical time sends the wrong message" the report states.

The report focuses on budget allocations for "Governing Justly and Democratically" (GJ&D). Until 2007, spending within this sector of the International Affairs Budget was clearly indicated to include categories such as human rights, media, rule of law and civic participation. However, changes to how the Office of Foreign Assistance formats its requests have fudged the picture, the report says. "The FY09 budget submission no longer provides specific detail on the level of support requested for human rights and press freedom. Both areas are traditionally under-funded and Freedom House is concerned that this lack of transparency will make it more difficult for appropriators to effectively allocate funding."

The report adds that "broad headings of �Good Governance,’ �Political Competition and Consensus Building,’ �Rule of Law and Human Rights,’ and �Civil Society’ [...] makes it nearly impossible to discern precisely where the Administration would place priority."

Describing Russia as sliding "towards increased autocracy," the report asserts that the Kremlin is asserting a "negative influence over its former Soviet neighbors." As a result, the Freedom House report argues that the need is growing for funding increases that promote civil society in Central Asia. "Entrenched regimes in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan [have] continued to repress democratic activists and human rights defenders," the report says.

Among Central Asian states, only Turkmenistan stands to see an increase in funds allocated to GJ&D in FY2009, with an additional $265,000 within that amount being earmarked for the civil society sector. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan collectively face cuts amounting to millions of dollars across the GJ&D category including provisions for funding Rule of Law and Human Rights and Civil Society.

In Kazakhstan’s case, the civil society request for FY2009 is $2.9 million, down 27 percent on the previous year. Freedom House recommends Congress "restore funding for Kazakhstan’s civil society sector to $4 million in order to enhance their ability to monitor the government’s track record on democracy and human rights."

"Civil society activists need international support to monitor the government’s progress towards commitments on democracy and human rights," the report continues. "The administration’s request does not adequately acknowledge this challenge, and Kazakh activists deserve better."

Goldstein, the Freedom House Central Asia specialist, added; "The program for Kazakhstan that we [Freedom House] received this year was for less than a half the amount of money that was originally advertised as being available. So I can certainly say the human rights and democratization groups that we work with will be getting less money than we were hoping to be able to provide them."

In Uzbekistan, the report notes, the Bush Administration strives to cut GJ&D funding for the second straight year, "despite mounting challenges for democratic activists in the country." Freedom House wants to see Congress increase the Uzbek GJ&D funding level to $4 million, $2.5 million of which should be dedicated for civil society.

Even the higher commitment to Turkmenistan, when considered in a broad context, is miniscule, Goldstein asserted. "The request for Turkmenistan is up by a significant amount percentage wise, but in terms of actual dollars, it’s less than a million dollars difference," he said.

Congress, he says, must continue to act in the interests of Central Asia. "If you look at Central Asia over time, usually what happens is that the executive branch puts in a request that is below the amount that Congress appropriated the previous year and Congress winds up putting the money back in," he added.

"It also shows that political support exists in Congress for these types of programs and there is still interest among key members of Congress when it comes to the region," Goldstein said.

Editor�s Note: Deidre Tynan is a freelance journalist specializing in Central Asia.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.