NGO SITUATION IN TAJIKISTAN - REREGISTRATION

C O N F I D E N T I A L DUSHANBE 000070 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/CEN E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/10/2018 TAGS: PGOV PHUM TI SUBJECT: NGO SITUATION IN TAJIKISTAN - REREGISTRATION PROCEDING, SKEPTICISM ABOUT FUTURE ¶1. (C) Summary: As we begin 2008, international and local NGOs have reregistered with the government, a process which has been full of difficulties but which many organizations have been able to complete successfully. Looking at the past year, some NGO contacts have seen backsliding by the government in the area of human rights. They do not believe that civil society organizations can reverse this trend, and criticize foreign donors for not being more effective in this area and for poor coordination of their democracy related projects. End Summary. NGO Reregistration Winnows out Many =================================== ¶2. (SBU) On January 7, the Ministry of Justice announced that 1,040 NGOs had applied for or reregistered successfully by the January 1 deadline set by the Government, out of three thousand five hundred NGOs officially operating in Tajikistan in 2007. The Ministry said that of 110 foreign NGOs, "more than fifty" had reregistered. The Ministry threatened that any NGOs not reregistered would be closed down, but it is not clear when it will begin to enforce this decision or whether authorities will enforce the rules impartially or target specific organizations. Members of the NGO Forum have commented to us on many occasions that about two-thirds of NGOs in Tajikistan exist only on paper, and the reported failure of the majority of Tajikistan's NGOs to reregister bears out this assertion. But not National Democratic Institute, so far ============================================= ¶3. (C) We met with National Democratic Institute Director Harry Bader on January 3, to review National Democratic Institute 's position in Tajikistan. The Government denied the Institute long term visa extensions, blocked it from registering and conducting any program activities over the past two years, and harassed staff members. Bader said that he and his staff had not experienced any harassment from Tajik security services for the past two months. Bader's local program manager, often the target of harassment and intimidation in the past, recently had a chance run-in with one of his regular State Security contacts, and was told "we're not interested in you any more." Bader said that National Democratic Institute had received good cooperation from the Tajik Embassy in Washington on processing and notarizing its registration application packet, including helpful advice on avoiding procedural problems. However, he noted, while National Democratic Institute has submitted all relevant documentation, it still has not received final word from the Ministry of Justice that it has actually been registered. ¶4. (C) Bader said that other members of the "NGO Forum" were moving through the registration process at a good pace. Internews, which had faced repeated problems with authorities, received formal registration. According to Bader, the main predictor of an NGO's speed in successfully reregistering was whether the NGO used the services of a particular lawyer, who offered bribes to speed up the process. He did not feel that the type of activity an NGO engaged in was the deciding factor. Bader also pointed out that National Democratic Institute has funding to operate only until mid-February, and the organization is seeking an Qonly until mid-February, and the organization is seeking an "emergency infusion" of money from the National Endowment for Democracy. Bader personally hoped to get National Democratic Institute's political party training program off to a strong start with an off-site training program in Turkey, then turn over the operation to a country director from the former Soviet Union who would presumably be better attuned to local culture. Atmospherics at NGO Roundtable - Skepticism =========================================== ¶5. (C) We further discussed the challenges facing the NGO community on January 4 with three representatives of Tajik NGOs: Victor Kim, from the NGO Harmony; Nuriddin Kharshiboev, from the Independent Association of Mass Media in Tajikistan (NANSMIT); and Nigina Bakhrieva, Program Director of the Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law. The NGO representatives told us that they observed a general decline in the Government,s respect for human rights during the year, and they expected to see more legislation and policies in 2008 that would challenge civil society. ¶6. (SBU) They said that Tajik NGOs cannot serve effectively as advocates for the public good; they have been unable to consistently raise grassroots issues to a higher level and press for change. In 2007, the public response to restrictions on civil liberties was muted. The representatives cited government controls on NGOs as one reason for this situation, but they also said that the international community has had only a limited affect on improving the environment. ¶7. (SBU) The representatives said that the international community generally does not coordinate very well in its support for civil society. They noted the multitude of funding sources, but said that there is a lot of overlapping of projects, with little focus on the more fundamental issues ) social and economic rights, reform of the justice sector (including access to justice),and institutional capacity building. ¶8. (SBU) Our interlocutors implied ) at our roundtable and on other occasions ) that they do not have a great deal of confidence in the major international organizations ) particularly the OSCE and the UN. They have attended numerous conferences sponsored by these organizations, but have seen few significant developments in civil society as a result of their programs. They were in particular skeptical about the human rights ombudsman, which the Government of Tajikistan will soon establish. They see the ombudsman as yet another opportunity for internationals to expend time, money, and energy on an institution that will likely function as an ineffective arm of the government. ¶9. (SBU) We asked for specific comments on U.S.-funded projects. They offered that many U.S. efforts are well intentioned, but that there is often little follow up. They mentioned a U.S. funded civil society support program, implemented by IREX. The program lasted for a few years, was very beneficial for local NGOs, and then closed. Despite the initial positive results of the program, no one continued the work, making the decision to stop funding appear arbitrary. The United States provided funding for NANSMIT to monitor violations of free speech rights against journalists. Once U.S. funding stopped in 2007, so did the monitoring reports. ¶10. (C) Comment: We took these comments in context. There were reasons why the U.S. funding for the programs they mentioned stopped. However, there is merit to many of their observations, especially those about coordination. We anticipate working closely with our colleagues in country, as well as our colleagues in DRL, EUR/ACE, and USAID to ensure that funding goes to well-thought out programs. Good programs should include elements of community buy in, capacity building, and sustainability, so that international funding is not needed in perpetuity. Besides funding from international sources, these Tajik NGOs did not properly credit the international community for its leadership role. For example, international NGOs are the driving force behind the umbrella "NGO Forum." Also, the diplomatic corps was responsible for getting the Tajik government to remove some of the most onerous provisions of the new NGO law. Tajik Qof the most onerous provisions of the new NGO law. Tajik civil society is still a long way from taking on these roles without international help, and the current attitude of the Government toward NGOs does not help. End Comment. HUSHEK