Open Dialogue Project (ODP), Uzbekistan
Kate Oja (right) with a member of her host family |
I'm working for the Institute for New Democracies (IND), which is an NGO based in Washington, and is USAID-funded. The Open Dialogue Project (ODP) is IND's project, or field office, you could say, in Uzbekistan.
The Open Dialogue Project is a capacity-building initiative, which aims to assist Uzbekistan in addressing human rights issues by developing a stronger and more open relationship between the government and local civil society. There is currently no formally established relationship of dialogue between these actors, and so ODP is, at this stage, working to provide training, separately, for both human rights defenders and government officials, in order to better equip them with the skills in communication, conflict management and negotiation that are the foundations for a trusting and constructive relationship in the future.
This area of work in Uzbekistan is endlessly complex, and I've been spending a lot of time just listening and absorbing information. One of the major contextual factors for this complexity are the events that occurred in Uzbekistan's eastern city of Andijan in 2005, and the reaction of the international community and media that followed. I'll try to give a concise explanation of what is now emerging as the most accurate account of this series of events. In the spring of 2005 there had been a peaceful demonstration for several months in Andijan, in response to the pending trial of 23 businessmen. On May 13, 2005, there was an armed uprising in the town, in which insurgents attacked a police station and a military barracks, seizing an arsenal and then attacking Andijan's prison, where they released several hundred inmates and armed them. During these attacks, according to reliable sources, a dozen government personnel were killed and hostages were taken, who were later used as human shields against the government forces sent to the square in Andijan where the insurgents/demonstrators had gathered. Accounts vary as to whether the government or the insurgents opened fire first, but to make a long and very complex, and hotly debated, story shorter, both sides opened fire, resulting in the death of armed insurgents, unarmed demonstrators, government officials taken hostage, and armed government forces (the final death toll has never been known and estimates range from the hundreds to the thousands). I do not mean to give a comprehensive or necessarily accurate account of what happened here, largely because what happened exactly is still not entirely known.
The way the events in Andijan were portrayed by the international media was predominantly as a 'massacre' by government officials of 'peaceful demonstrators'. This was definitely the impression I was given from my (somewhat limited) research into Uzbekistan before I came here. Evidence shows that the situation was much more complex, and in fact did involve violence on the part of the insurgents prior to the arrival of government forces in Andijan. The international reaction to Andijan has had very serious, and I think very damaging, effects on the relationship between Uzbekistan and the international community, and has been a big setback to progress in the field of human rights and dialogue here. Since 2005, the country has retreated into a kind of isolation, and almost all international NGOs in the country have been forced to shut down. The Institute for New Democracies' Open Dialogue Project is one of only two US-funded NGOs left in Uzbekistan (the other being the National Democratic Institute (NDI)).
Possibly the most significant reason the Open Dialogue Project has been allowed to remain in Uzbekistan is the approach taken by the organization. ODP's approach is collaborative, based on the belief that constructive dialogue requires the participation of both the government and human rights activists. I've been learning that this is the big difference between a capacity-building organization and a 'watchdog' organization, which takes a confrontational stance and focuses mainly on assigning blame. The aftermath of Andijan has shown that watchdog groups, although they may play an important role on the international stage, have not been able to provide constructive assistance within this country, simply because the Uzbek government has not allowed them to continue to operate.
So that's the background to the work I've been involved in here. On a practical note, ODP is currently working on developing training sessions for local human rights activists, focusing on group dynamics and communication skills. We have been working very closely with a handbook published in part by CIDA, UNDP, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) and the Organization of American States (OAS), called Democratic Dialogue: A Handbook for Practitioners. The handbook is largely based on experiences with dialogue in Latin America and the Balkans, so I've been starting to draft ideas for a smaller, similar handbook, based on the lessons learned by this organization in Uzbekistan, and taking into account the particularities and sensitivities of this country's culture and history (Uzbekistan was a part of the USSR until 1991, and so in that sense, is a very young country). ODP also has a close working relationship with some very senior officials from Uzbekistan's law enforcement agencies, and so I've gotten a chance to meet with them and get a sense of their perspective.
On a more legal note, Uzbekistan is currently involved in some major legislative changes regarding the abolishment of the death penalty and the introduction of habeas corpus, and although ODP is not, at least at this time, involved directly with these issues, I've been asking a lot of questions about the structure of the criminal justice system here and learning about the concerns and obstacles that accompany these kinds of changes. These issues raise a lot of questions about what the rule of law means in the context of a transitioning country that is still very much developing its own legal system.
All in all, my summer so far in Uzbekistan has been a bit like a crash course in ADR and conflict resolution, which is essentially the field I'd like to go into after law school. As a side note, I've also been improving my Russian: I have an hour and a half of lessons every day, in addition to living with a family that speaks very little English. My Russian is now at a basic conversational level, which I hope to continue to improve upon over the next school year, in light of my growing interest in former Soviet states and my hopes of returning to work in the region.
