Kyrgyz ombudsman standing for the rights of Muslim community worldwide.
American human rights advocates are probably all grieving at the moment. Kyrgyz ombudsman Tursunbai Bakir uulu called off his participation in the conference of the U.S. Ombudsman Association. The reason for Kyrgyz ombudsman to boycott the event was, in his words, the fact that American president was recently rude and politically incorrect. As Bakir uulu said that George Bush’s recent characterization of Islamist terrorists as “Islamic fascists” was insulting for Muslims worldwide.
“Because of the American president’s use of the ‘Islamic fascists’ expression, I have decided to not participate in this conference,” Bakir-uulu said. “I have also appealed to my American colleagues so that they exert their influence on their president. This is not good to humiliate another people, another religion, another nation in such a way.” (RFERL)
Let us now see. Tursunbai Bakir uulu has always been known as a sweet and caring man. Now he proved that, speaking up for all Muslims worldwide. Indeed, very sweet of him. Plus it’s clear that all participants of the upcoming conference is Iowa will be devastated by the announcement of Kyrgyz ombudsman. I’m sure, he was one of the key participants there, with lots of things to say and lots of experience to share with his colleagues. Or…may be not.
Actually, when I think about human rights activism and people involved in this activity in Kyrgyzstan, Tursunbai Bakir uulu is the last person I can characterize in these terms. This sounds rather strange: Bakir uulu was the first ( and still is) Ombudsman of the Kyrgyz Republic, the one who is supposed to stand up every time basic human rights are violated, which in the case of Kyrgyzstan automatically means that he is supposed to remain this way (standing up, I mean) all the time. It has never been the case, though. It turns out that Kyrgyz Ombudsman chooses to stand up and preach only on specific occasions that are of a special interest for him personally. The one who is supposed to take care of interests of all who are deprived for their rights and freedoms has a very narrow circle of own interests that he chooses to take care of. For instance Bakir uulu is known to be a very religious person. Several times he was even accused in alleged ties with extremist organizations but no one really had a proof for that. With this unmarked reputation and professional record he was appointed an ombudsman of the Kyrgyz republic. Since than ( for a bit less than 5 years for now) Bakir uulu has mainly been active in voicing his dissatisfaction with oppressing religion in the country and, occasionally, in visiting state prisons in order to “inspect the situation with penitentiary system in the country”.
As human rights advocate Edil Baysalov recently described the fact that Bakir uulu denounced American president’s rhetoric:
“He is pleasing his foreign friend-patrons in Tehran and elsewhere and supposedly strengthening his Islamic credentials with the local electorate: Bakir uulu positions himself as the most Muslim friendly Kyrgyz politician as it was visible during his last year bid for presidency.”
Nathan in his recent Registan analyses also points out that Bakir uulu’s decision not to visit the US has less to do with him presenting himself as a defender of Muslims.
I personally have problems with this. As far as I’m concerned the role of the ombudsman in the country is to facilitate the situation with human rights abuse and to invest efforts into resolving problems of ordinary people appealing to the omudsman as to the last resort.
If, to the contrary, an ombudsman is mainly concerned about own political platform and stands, exercises preferences, interests and biases of different kinds he is free to stick to them but not to such a position that presupposes fairness and universalism in treating fellow citizens.
Now it’s a matter of fact that Kyrgyz ombudsman preaching for the rights of Muslims worldwide has never contributed to resolving any problems of his compatriots on the ground.
The question now is whether it helps having such an ombudsman at all?












on August 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Thanks Yulia!
“It turns out that Kyrgyz ombudsman chooses to stand up and preach only on specific occasions that are of a special interest for him personally. (…) Bakir uulu has mainly been active in voicing his dissatisfaction with oppressing religion in the country and, occasionally, in visiting state prisons in order to “inspect the situation with penitentiary system in the country”.
That is possible yes. Politika yest politika.
Yet perhaps we can also look at it from another angle. That, from his personal background as a believer, he found a niche: indeed standing up for the rights of Muslims and Islam in the country. Let’s admit that it definitely takes a lot of courage to do that these days.
Two assessments: 1) those who have their rights most trampled on in the country today are the Muslims; 2) several other categories of wronged already enjoy other protection channels.
I mean, lets’ face it: if, say, one or another dodgy Western businessman, grant-grabbing gaylesb activist or Christian missionnary is being harrassed, Western embassies and the whole pc do-gooders community in Bishkek jump on the case. When Muslims – who represent a far more substantial part of the population – are being harrassed on fabricated charges, humiliated, taking their bread out of the mouth, even assassinated (cf. Imam Kamalludin), then I will not pretend that everything is dead-silent from the same side, but reactions are generally a bit less, shall I say, ‘enthusiastic’.
IMHO, it is also time for the Kyrgyz people – and do I mean the ethnic Kyrgyz majority of Kyrgyzstan – to make a choice: a) will you come forward as Muslims; or b) will you remain neither fish nor fowl and be tossed around/be the dogsbody of/try to imitate the powers (the Kremlin, China, the West) and the karimovites? In the case of b), so be it, but then keep in mind that those who use you will *never* thank and respect you for it (on the contrary).