Kyrgyz-US relations: the ‘real’ story
Speculation over the state of relations between the Kyrgyz and American governments is nothing new in the media, especially where the US Ganci airbase at Bishkek’s Manas International Airport is concerned.
What is unusual, however, is for one of the more well-known sources of news and analysis, in this case The Jamestown Foundation, to get accused of inaccurate reporting - by the US Department of State.
In a press statement issued on July 12, US Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic, Marie L. Yovanovitch, and Evan A. Feigenbaum, Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State South and Central Asian Affairs, stated that
We are writing to convey our deep disappointment with three successive articles on Kyrgyzstan by Jamestown Foundation writers in the Eurasia Daily Monitor. Recent articles by John C.K. Daly, Roger McDermott, and Erica Marat on U.S.-Kyrgyz relations and Manas Air Base contained significant factual inaccuracies, misleading statements, and false conclusions. And unfortunately, the resulting misrepresentation of the situation in the Kyrgyz Republic has since been repeated in several other media outlets.
The articles in question are John C.K. Daly’s May 4 article “U.S. Airbase at Manas at Risk Over Shooting Suspect?”, Roger McDermott’s May 8 article “U.S. Plans to Attack Iran From Manas Denied” and Erica Marat’s May 17 piece, “Public Anger Against U.S. Military Base Grows in Kyrgyzstan”.
The press release details a considerable number of factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations in relation to the three articles, including selective use of quotations and outrightly false assertions about U.S.-Kyrgyz cooperation and unfounded assertions about U.S. intentions in the region.
In some ways, this press release simply reflects the fact that media outlets naturally “spin” events to suit their own agenda, which in the case of The Jamestown Foundation, is conservative and hawkish. Nonetheless, as Yovanovitch and Feigenbaum rightly point out, there are certain protocols that are expected to be followed by publications:
Of course, journalists have every right to express their opinions, but this article was not an opinion piece but presented by Jamestown as a piece of factual reporting. And whether reporting or offering their personal opinions, journalists are obliged to report the facts accurately and completely. Jamestown should stand as a beacon of journalistic integrity for media outlets in Central Asia and across the world.
In these cases, it appears Jamestown’s integrity flickered a fair amount. At the same time, I’d be the first to note that the press release is unlikely to be “objective”, particularly given the very standard diplo-speak conclusion:
The United States and Kyrgyzstan have a clear legal framework for moving forward. We have worked closely with our Kyrgyz partners within that framework, and we will continue to do so. Our government is committed to working with the Kyrgyz people in a common effort to ensure that U.S. operations at the Base are as safe as possible for the people of Kyrgyzstan and retain full public and political support.
Once again - and I firmly believe this can never be repeated too often (and, indeed, both this blog and Registan have said it before when discussing criticism of Central Asia Caucasus Analyst - 3 posts over on Registan) - it is up to the reader to read behind the stories and the spin and draw their own conclusions: it is only by challenging information outlets, whether journalistic or academic, that they can be kept more accountable and encouraged to be more transparent about their own agendas and those of their authors. Critical readers required.
UPDATE: Jim Langley (see comment below) rightly points out that I missed Jamestown’s response to the criticisms made. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I’m still a little concerned that hawkish voices such as McDermott’s are able to make statements such as “Moscow is the key driving force behind attempts to drive a wedge between the host and the United States, this much is clear: using the Iran card is merely another way of doing this” as though it is an indisputable truth (although it may well be in his world), as well as claiming that Ambassador Yovanovich’s press release was a “politically motivated attack on Jamestown analysts” - a case of attack being the best form of defence? One more question on which the reader must decide.
on July 24th, 2007 at 2:53 am
You must have missed Jamestown’s own press release in response to the State Department’s claim:
Monday, June 11, 2007
Note: A recent series of articles published in EDM (May 4, May 8 and May 17) by Jamestown analysts John C.K. Daly, Erica Marat, and Roger McDermott provoked a strong reaction from the U.S. State Department. Below, the Jamestown Foundation reprints the State Department response to these articles and rejoinders from the Jamestown analysts.
MANAS AIR BASE: CORRECTING THE RECORD
[original press release from Yovanovitch & Feigenbaum - see link in post]
John C.K. Daly
The communications from the State Department about Jamestown’s recent series of articles about the U.S. airbase at Manas, Kyrgyzstan, allege, at the very least, that the authors of the pieces are guilty of slipshod research techniques, overlooking items that portray alternate perspectives.
My piece was written using Russian, Kyrgyz, and U.S. sources available at the time of research and publication. I can state with confidence that that every single point alluded to in the Yovanovitch/Feigenbaum letter — with the clear implication that it was publicly available knowledge — is untrue, because among other things I used the www.firstgov.gov website, searching for multiple variants of “Manas, Kyrgyzstan, Hatfield, Ivanov, 2006, 2007,” etc.
I note with interest that nowhere does the Yovanovitch/Feigenbaum letter mention that the Main Directorate of Investigations of the Kyrgyz Interior Ministry filed charges in the incident under Article 97, Part 1, of the Criminal Code. Instead, the letter purveys a number of assertions unsupported by a single item of documentary evidence about the status of the case, in a blatant attempt to besmirch not only Jamestown’s commitment to the highest standards of research and authorship but impugning the Foundation’s motives as well.
In my opinion the articles written by Dr. Marat, Dr. McGregor and myself represent the tradition of The Jamestown Foundation, which is one of using indigenous sourced information to analyze events in Eurasia that are important to U.S. interests. As an independent institution, it does not promote an agenda but rather, has experts survey the information publicly available at the time and, after reflection, discuss the implications of an issue. Jamestown authors are all specialists in their field, and they survey the open access material available at the time of authorship, from the local press to U.S. government publicly posted materials.
As authors deal with materials available at the time of writing, it is most disingenuous for government officials to subsequently request revisions based on materials that were not available when writing, but rather, to acknowledge such an effort at post-publication revisionism compromises the Jamestown Foundation’s commitment to true scholarship on important contemporary issues.
On the issue of Manas, for example, should the U.S. embassy in Bishkek wish to make available for public perusal and dissemination any materials on its discussions with the Kyrgyz government on the issue of Hatfield’s departure from Kyrgyzstan, the current status of Washington’s SOFA agreement with Kyrgyzstan, or any subsequent materials relating to the base that can be quoted, as all EDM articles provide their open source materials, then I would be quite willing to write an “updated” article on Manas for EDM based upon the materials openly provided by the embassy and U.S. government officials.
Otherwise, the current complaints seem to be an effort to muddy the waters of open source research in a possible effort by government officials to evade responsibility for flawed policies, and such a masking of failure is anathema to the concept of a free press, much less the publishing branch of a renowned research and analysis organization such as Jamestown. If the arguments cited in the complaint had been available anywhere in the open press prior to the publication of the articles in question, they would have been cited, and to suggest otherwise is to demean the integrity and expertise of the authors. That Jamestown’s series of articles apparently uncovered shortcomings in the Bishkek embassy’s policy issues is not a shortcoming of Jamestown.
As things currently stand, the assertions of inaccuracy in this communiqué are unsupported by “open source” documentation, unlike the EDM articles currently being asserted to be inaccurate, which provide detailed source material. Again, “on the record” material of such items such as Ambassador Yovanovitch’s discussion with President Bakiyev or indeed, any other supporting materials beyond those available to the authors at the time of their writing would be most gratefully received. In the absence of publicly available materials supporting these assertions of inaccuracy, the credibility of the current administration must remain somewhat questionable. The fact that the U.S. embassy in Bishkek has posted only one press release to its website on the Hatfield controversy since December 2006 only confirms our conclusions.
Erica Marat
The Yovanovitch/Feigenbaum letter asserts, “The airman has not been tried, much less convicted,’ by any court. The U.S. investigation continues. And no matter who has jurisdiction, the airman is presumed innocent until proven guilty.” However, Hatfield was convicted of deliberate homicide by the Kyrgyz Prosecutor-General and Ministry of Interior on May 7, 2007. Kyrgyz law-enforcement officials claim they had conducted an investigation prior to convicting the airman. But neither the Prosecutor-General nor the Ministry of Interior were able to bring the airman into court. Therefore the only decision both institutions are left with is derived from their investigation. More information can be found here http://www.24.kg/community/2007/05/07/52877.html or by contacting the Ministry of Interior.
The letter further asserts, “Jamestown Foundation and the author were reckless to repeat a clearly biased and sensationalistic comment that the airman ‘intentionally hunted down’ the truck driver out of ‘anger and low personal character.’ No American or Kyrgyz with knowledge of this case has suggested that the airman did any such thing.”
I intentionally presented one Kyrgyz civil rights activist’s view of the Ivanov incident to show the magnitude of local public anger towards the U.S. military base. Not only is this anger largely irrational, but it is also easily manipulated by political actors speaking against the U.S. presence in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia. Importantly, both Kyrgyz civil society actors and politicians have possibilities and skills to express their opinion and interests through organizing protests and publishing in local mass media outlets. In my previous articles I showed that Kyrgyz civil society activists are by far more mobilized around Ivanov’s incident compared with similar cases in the past. Finally, the ambassador notes, “The United States has since offered, and Mrs. Ivanova accepted, a final goodwill payment of $55,000, an amount that reflects the specific factors of this case and takes into account Kyrgyz custom.” At the time when the May 17 article was published, Mrs. Ivanova had received only $1,000. In my n ext article, published on May 24, I note that she was paid $50,000 on May 21. I referred to an article by Tazar.kg published on March 12 that claims that U.S. Air Force’s regulations recommend $100,000 for cases similar to Ivanov’s. Several other Kyrgyz newspapers discussed even larger sums. This is also the belief shared by many Kyrgyz citizens.
I recognize I erred in stating $50,000 as a goodwill payment to Mrs. Ivanova when in fact it was $55,000.
Roger McDermott
I disagree completely with the assertion that my article does “not meet the standards for which the Jamestown Foundation is known.” The State Department critique is founded on a fundamental misreading of the work. The article itself was thoroughly prepared, well referenced, and brought to the attention of readers an angle and range of issues not widely reported. Indeed, the focus of the article, for instance, was on the growing bilateral relationship between Kyrgyzstan and Iran. This was also placed in the context of Iran developing closer defense relations with Tajikistan. The import of this being that Tehran is becoming more active in the region, and the potential for military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran at a later date is being used to further undermine the credibility of maintaining the U.S. military presence in Kyrgyzstan.
Note that my article began with the clear denial issued by Ambassador Yovanovitch, which speaks for itself. I clarified, again by citing her own words, that the Manas base is in fact only used in relation to operations in Afghanistan. My article in no way gave credence or tacit support to the far-fetched view that Manas could be used for future use of U.S. air power against Iran. The reader can decide from the opening paragraph:
“On May 3 Marie Yovanovitch, U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, denied reports that the Manas base near Bishkek is being used to store nuclear weapons for a possible attack on Iran. Yovanovitch commented on the “ridiculous” nature of these allegations, which suggested that the U.S. military could use low-yield nuclear weapons to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, should military action prove necessary. She reiterated that the base is used exclusively for transferring humanitarian supplies to Afghanistan.”
The article does not “misattribute a quote from Interfax.” Let me clarify, I was, in fact, drawing attention to the source of the information. The fact that a denial was issued is irrelevant. What I was exposing was the fact that the Kyrgyz official had leaked this into the media, and I raised the issue of what the motive was for doing so; clearly intended to generate speculation about Manas. It should also be noted how specific he was in this “leak” suggesting that cargo into and out of the base cannot be adequately checked. It is not the issue as to whether this is true, or not, what is significant is that the assertion was made in the media.
I drew attention to the wider context of the ongoing controversy surrounding Manas in the conclusion of the article. Moscow is the key driving force behind attempts to drive a wedge between the host and the United States, this much is clear: using the Iran card is merely another way of doing this. As the article stated: “Such controversy surrounding Manas intermittently surfaces, but it also serves Russia’s interests, since the Russian defense community is increasingly hostile toward any U.S. military presence in the vicinity of Russia’s borders. Iran offers another way for Moscow to exert pressure on Washington to withdraw its forces form Central Asia.”
The whole basis of this article was the available open source information in the Kyrgyz and Russian media. There were no open sources available at this time, from official Kyrgyz officials to support the line taken by Ambassador Yovanovitch in her politically motivated attack on Jamestown analysts. It is evidently incorrect to cast aspersions on the article, since within days the Kyrgyz parliament had commenced a review into the bilateral agreement between the United States and Kyrgyzstan concerning the Manas base.
on July 24th, 2007 at 11:03 am
‘critical readers required’
your own blog erred on July 14 with information that ‘very limited compensation (approximately USD 1,000) was offered to the driver’s family’
http://kyrgyzstan.neweurasia.net/2007/07/14/update-on-the-missing-major/
on July 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Edil: Arguably we erred, but we (I) did provide a link to the source of our information (the RFE/RL link in the previous clause), which was one of the complaints made about the Jamestown coverage. We are also not claiming to be a thinktank inputting into U.S. policy. “Critical readers” here means that readers must draw their own conclusions about what they read - including about our coverage.
Jim Langley: I have edited your comment by removing the full text of the original press release, since a link is provided in the post and it is extremely long. Many thanks for providing a copy of Jamestown’s response. I have added a link to the bottom of the post as well.