Comments on: EU lifts Uzbek sanctions

By: Ahad_Abdurahmon

Ahad_Abdurahmon — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:19:29 +0000

Still, this does not make faith-based NGOs somehow ‘better’ than secular NGOs.
They are both simply the means of penetration and they are both, in principle, against the status quo, which is the interest of the ruling party in country A. Both both seek to empower (either prostitute-lovers or religious bigots) a certain group and want them take over the driving seat.

By: Turgai Sangar

Turgai Sangar — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:16:57 +0000

It’s not a matter of Jesus/Isa (pbuh).

“but it is still better than others who (intentionally or not!) create interfaith hatred and destabilization.”

Those who create interfaith hatred are the urban kafir elites and the international organisations who privileged and protected Protestant missionaries as happened in Kyrgyzstan during the nineties for example.

Others who create social destabilisation are, for instance, foreign-supported ‘liberal’ organisations who support and advocate prostitution, again prevalent in Kyrgyzstan where the vulnerability of the population is being exploited in order to make the country serve as a social laboratory and its people as guinea pigs.

By: Ahad_Abdurahmon

Ahad_Abdurahmon — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:44:21 +0000

@ Turgai: Are you suggesting that some NGO are inherently better than others just because they believe in Jesus?
Anyway, my opinion was expressed with an assumption that all NGOs are perceived as potential trouble-makers in the South and secular NGOs tend to be less troublesome in that sense because they may (equally as religious ones!) have too big operational costs but it is still better than others who (intentionally or not!) create interfaith hatred and destabilization.

By: anan

anan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:55:18 +0000

“Secular NGO’s are generally perceived to be donor money grabbers and structures that serve certain urban elite groups and their clans or entourage (which a sizable part of them actually are).” Nicely put.

By: Turgai Sangar

Turgai Sangar — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:18:39 +0000

“Secular NGOs tend to have relatively better reputation than missionary ones.”

I would not take this for granted. Secular NGO’s are generally perceived to be donor money grabbers and structures that serve certain urban elite groups and their clans or entourage (which a sizeable part of them actually are).

By: Ahad_Abdurahmon

Ahad_Abdurahmon — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:43:08 +0000

Foreign NGO are (intentionally or otherwise) means of penetration and they should not expect the governments of target nations to be friendly to them (the only exception might be liberal democratic societies).
Secular NGOs tend to have relatively better reputation than missionary ones. But there is not such thing as free lunch, everyone knows this.

By: Ahad_Abdurahmon

Ahad_Abdurahmon — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:38:36 +0000

This should become a classic counter-example to those who claim that ‘shaming’ and ‘soft measures’ work.

By: Ekspeditsya

Ekspeditsya — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:40:43 +0000

Wow, this is the understatement of the year. No Western journalists have any accreditation in Uzbekistan, and only AFP have a local reporter.
What few local journalists try to conduct any independent coverage are routinely intimidated and sometimes attacked. This is not gossip or speculation; it is a fact.
Western rapprochement with a vicious and isolated backwater tinpot dictatorship will do nobody any good, but it will make a mockery of any attempt to pretend that the EU’s foreign policy is nothing but cynical and feckless.
As for the remarks about NGOs, where to start. The few Western aid organization left in Uzbekistan _ that haven’t been arbitrarily expelled _ work in the health sector, and yet one continues to hear informal reports about how they are being squeezed.

By: guest from UZ

guest from UZ — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:52:10 +0000

anan,
I believe in a crucial role of NGOs in development of civil society. However during Andijan events NGOs appeared to be fueling social unrest, rather than helping civil society.

By: guest from UZ

guest from UZ — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:39:33 +0000

I would say Uzbek government does a really bad job not having an access to western media. Fine job for UZ government would be if they managed their voice to be heard in media as that of Amnesty International.