On the occasion of Turkmenistan's 19th year of independence on October 27, President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov was greeted by crowds in national costume bearing his portrait, surrounded with his favorite foreign well-wishers and showered with greetings, presents, medals, and honorary degrees -- all with the expectation that some good for foreign organizations as well as Turkmenistan itself would come of it.
As bad as the meeting went last week, Russia still managed to send First Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov to a reception at the Turkmen Embassy in Moscow. Messages came in from around the world -- from President Barack Obama and President Emomali Rahmon, from Pope Benedict and President Islam Karimov, from Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian National Authority and French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, from Queen Elizabeth of England and President Raul Castro Ruz.
Those actually present at the festivities included long-time friends of Turkmenistan from among the Russian companies that are *not* Gazprom (Sistema and Itera); Turkish construction firms; American oil executives from ExxonMobil; and other foreign companies hopeful about increased business in Turkmenistan.
A somewhat peculiar element of the celebrations was the featuring of awards from little-known organizations -- which, in the course of giving a citation or diploma to the Turkmen leader, also got some notoriety for themselves. These included the Strategic Management Society of India and the Centre for Management Studies of Jamia Millia Islamia University of India; the Institute for Public Management and Community Service of the Florida International University; and Lincoln University of California, all of whose plaques were featured prominently on the government‘s website Turkmenistan: the Golden Age.
Some observers wondered why any educational institution would want to honor President Berdymukhamedov, knowing of his prolonged and arbitrary denial of exit permission for students studying abroad. In part it's because his reputation as an educational reformer -- for essentially only putting back what was disrupted by past dictator Saparmurat Niyazov -- dies hard, despite reports that the education system has not been truly liberalized.
Prof. Allan Samson, who recently traveled to Ashgabat to present Lincoln University's award to President Berdymukhamedov, has a simple objective: getting more Turkmen students to the U.S. to study. In response to a query from EurasiaNet, he said:
One of our intentions in presenting the honorary degree is to increase the number of Turkmen students who will be granted permission by the Government of Turkmenistan to attend Lincoln University and who will also be granted F-1 visas by the American Consulate in Turkmenistan.
Lincoln University, founded in 1919, has about 450 students, most of whom are foreigners studying international business. Lincoln awards a Masters in Business Administration and recently approved a Doctor of Business Administration -- hence the ability to give the Turkmen leader an honorary DBA.
From September 2001 to the fall semester of 2010, Lincoln has hosted 12 students from Turkmenistan.
Most of the 2,000 or so Turkmen students allowed to go abroad have been channelled to Russia and Turkey, where they are steered to the oil and gas, construction and textiles institutes and other more practical studies benefiting the national economy. A smaller number go to Belarus, Bulgaria or other neighboring countries -- even Kyrgyzstan, although there has been reluctance to send students there even before the June violence for fear they would get ideas of revolution in their heads.
Presentations of awards like these opens up the question: does it work to flatter a dictator? Does it undermine the cause of intellectual freedom and human rights to appear to be celebrating an authoritarian figure like Berdymukhamedov? Or is it a short-term tactic that itself ultimately will undermine authoritarianism?
One problem is how your gestures are seen in the official media. To hear the State News Agency of Turkmenistan tell the story, the foreigners happened to speak in exactly the same ecstatic terms as their own docile officials about the president’s world-burning reforms. According to the government's website:
Expressing the hearty congratulations on Independence Day to the leader of Turkmenistan and all those present at the ceremony, Professor Allan Samson on behalf of the scientific community of his country expressed belief that an essential component of resolute advancement of the Turkmen state was the fundamental reform of the national economic system launched by President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov. This had predetermined to a larger extent the fate of the state, the dynamic progress of which exceeded all expectations, the guest said expressing ardent support for Turkmenistan’s economic strategy developed by the Turkmen leader.
At some point in international business courses, there must be a lesson about the importance of transparency of state budgets: the people of Turkmenistan do not know how much their country has in oil and gas revenues, and how these funds are spent as they don‘t have an independent parliament, judiciary, or media.
Even so, increasingly in some quarters, parliamentarians as well as pundits are making the argumentation that yes, flattery works. This position springs from a certain pragmatism or even cynicism and a claim that decades of classic human rights approaches involving "naming and shaming" are not working to change the nature of regimes or even, lately, to solve individual cases. Those with this perspective not only believe cooperation with -- and even cooptation by -- such authoritarians serves a greater cause; they also believe it is the only option, even if it means slower reform.
Crude Accountability and CEE Bankwatch Network are organizations that believe the "naming and shaming" approach still has some merit. They describe Turkmenistan frankly as a violator of human rights, highlighting individual cases of harassment, and try to shame those who prop up the authoritarian government with business and loans -- such as recently the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Parliament, respectively -- into considering the human rights implications of their actions.
These groups also makes the pragmatic argument to businesses that if they care about their bottom line, they will not become mixed up with murky practices in closed societies where the government does not have accountability to the public or the international community.
For some people working in their field, however, it's about trying to make a difference for that one individual who might encounter a life-changing experience, and trying to increase study abroad as a doable, short-term goal. The question is whether these students, unlikely to be autonomous agents if they are permitted by the government to go to the U.S. in the first place, will ultimately benefit, and whether the goal of improvement of their country's well-being will be met. Quite a few Central Asians have enjoyed education abroad, but have gone on to form a new class of cadres loyal to authoritarian leaders -- and enjoy privileges that help maintain that loyalty.
In any event, foreigners may want to bring a long spoon to Ashgabat...
Sign up for Eurasianet's free weekly newsletter. Support Eurasianet: Help keep our journalism open to all, and influenced by none.