Coverage of Kyrgyz Turmoil Singled Out

Activists, analysts and journalists say they relied on IWPR reporting as a rare, unbiased source of information during the interethnic conflict in southern Kyrgyzstan this summer.

They all pointed to IWPR as one of the few sources that managed to produce calm, balanced and accurate reporting during a period of apparent chaos.

"In IWPR reports there was absolutely no sign of siding either with Uzbeks or Kyrgyz."
Analyst Alexander Sobyanin

The turmoil started in April this year when the authoritarian Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiev was ousted from power.

This was followed by interethnic fighting in and around the southern cities of Osh and Jalalabad in June, which left at least 330 people dead and homes, shops and official buildings ruined by looting and arson attacks.

“When colleagues from abroad turned to me with questions what was happening here in Kyrgyzstan I sent them IWPR reports received via email and told them that this information is the most trustworthy,” said Lira Karagulova, head of the NGO Intercultural Education.

While she also reads Russian and Kyrgyz media outlets, “when it comes to events in the south that were a painful topic for the whole country I would prefer to turn to IWPR reports”.

These articles reflected the reality in southern Kyrgyzstan as described by colleagues who live and work there, she said, adding that she attributed this to IWPR’s neutral, unemotional style of reporting.

Moscow-based Alexander Sobyanin, head of the strategic planning service with the Association of Border Cooperation and also an expert with the analytical group Pamir-Ural, said he found IWPR coverage one of the most objective sources of information on the political turmoil.

“If in other media outlets the tendency was visible to present one side of the conflict as suffering more than the other, in IWPR reports there was absolutely no sign of siding either with Uzbeks or Kyrgyz,” said Sobyanin, who is originally from Osh.

Aida Baijumanova, the executive director of the NGO Citizens Against Corruption, and a regular IWPR reader, singled out the Osh coverage.

“Out of all IWPR articles that I read in your newsletter and receive via e-mail list, I especially liked those about the Osh events,” said Baijumanova.

According to Ayzatbek Beshov, Bishkek-based correspondent for BBC Russian Service, who also covered the interethnic clashes, IWPR’s conflict reporting should be held up as an example for local media.

Beshov said that the reports were well-balanced and gave views of all sides involved in the events, adding, “It seemed to me that, overall, journalists who wrote the reports stood outside the story, without prejudice, the way it should be.”

The aftermath and implications of the inter-ethnic violence was also the central theme of a round-table debate organised by IWPR and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The June 23 gathering, in which participants in Washington and Bishkek were connected via a video-link, discussed a wide range of issues, included relations between Uzbek and Kyrgyz communities; the impact of the Kyrgyz violence on neighbouring countries; how people in Kyrgyzstan feel about outside reaction to the turmoil; and the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

The debate involved Central Asian experts, western scholars, representatives of the US State Department and USAID as well as international organisations.

Discussion participants pointed out that reconciliation efforts between the two communities should be led by the authorities to make sure that they are not dominated by certain groups with religious or any other agenda.

Kadyr Malikov, head of the Religion, Law and Politics Centre in Bishkek, said, “At the moment, the conflict has subsided a bit and there is no direct confrontation, but the problem has not gone away.”

Malikov said some of this anger is fuelled by Uzbek disappointment with the central authorities’ and law enforcement bodies’ failure to catch and prosecute those responsible for the violence.

Speakers also raised the issue of aid distribution by some humanitarian organisations which, in Kyrgyzstan, is seen as favouring the Uzbek community, a perception that does not help reconciliation efforts.

Valentin Bogatyrev, head of the analytical centre Perspektiva, noted that due to widespread corruption among Kyrgyz officials aid was not reaching all the people in the south who needed it.

“It turns out that those Kyrgyz who suffered, who became ... refugees inside the country, are left practically with no help,” Bogatyrev said.

He said the international community’s portrayal of one side as an aggressor and the other as victim had a negative impact on public opinion inside the country.

Malikov agreed, saying that foreign media, including Russian, played a role in presenting a partial view of events in Kyrgyzstan, despite both sides suffering.

As for the impact of the Kyrgyz events on the rest of the Central Asian region, political analyst Mars Sariev predicted that Uzbek and Kazak leaders will become more authoritarian to prevent the same thing happening in their countries.

Analysts also commented on the surprisingly restrained response of the Uzbek leadership to the inter-ethnic conflict, as there was concern that Tashkent might use the instability as an excuse to intervene in southern Kyrgyzstan and strengthen their influence there.

The Uzbek government blamed the violence on outside forces “whose interests are totally remote from the interests of the Kyrgyz people”.