Nationalist Talk in Kyrgyzstan

Amid a rising tide of nationalist propaganda based on little factual evidence, a close observer of the media scene in Kyrgyzstan warns that closure and reconciliation will be difficult to achieve until the truth is told about last year's ethnic violence and those who provoked it.

IWPR asked Swiss journalist André Loersch to comment on prevailing views and prejudices and how they are shaped by politicians with an agenda. A member of the International Alliance of Journalists based in Geneva, Loersch is a frequent visitor to Kyrgyzstan, where he runs training for local journalists.

IWPR: How would you describe the state of ethnic relations in Kyrgyzstan at the moment?

André Loersch: After the conflict that took place there, I only expect tensions in interethnic relations to remain for a long time. I have read several of the investigations produced by several commissions, and articles written about them, and I am trying to grasp the impact they're going to have on the state of relations between the two sides.

I visited the Balkans frequently in the 1990s and 2000s and saw that victims were ready to turn the page, to put aside what had happened and get on with their lives only if they received acknowledgement that they had suffered unfairly. Psychologically, everyone needs acknowledgement of the experience of tragedy. It seems to me this is what is missing in Kyrgyzstan at the moment.

There's a dearth of explanations about the truth of who organised it, and about the responsibility of the instigators.

The independent report [by the international Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission] does not answer these paramount questions at all. The report by the National Commission states that there was a major ethnic conflict between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks, provoked by some leaders of the Uzbek community and by ousted president [Kurmanbek] Bakiev's clan. But without concrete evidence, without confirmation, and without justice administered by an independent judicial system, these are just assertions.

It isn't appropriate to draw direct parallels with Srebrenica, where in Serb forces killed over 7,000 Muslims in 1995. Yet Kyrgyzstan should note that from a psychological perspective, 16 years after the tragedy, ordinary people in Srebrenica are still finding it hard to find peace despite the arrest of those accused of masterminding the genocide.

Many Serb politicians [in Bosnia] insist that there was no genocide, despite the ruling to that effect by the Hague tribunal. That has a major psychological impact on the victims and relatives, as I know from talking to them.

IWPR: Why do you think there is this lack of clarity?

Loersch: There are many reasons for it. One of them is a somewhat irrational attitude to reality, by which I mean that people's views of reality are coloured by stereotypes and slogans.

Several days after the tragic events, I visited Osh and walked through the streets and took pictures. Everyone wanted to know who I was, where I came from and what I was doing. I was struck that practically everyone started talking to me about Kyrgyz and Uzbeks, though I didn't mention it.

I frequently heard the phrase, "Uzbeks should go to their Uzbekistan if they don't like it here." But these countries have existed as sovereign states for only 20 years. And for Uzbeks who have lived in southern Kyrgyzstan for a number of generations, Uzbekistan is not their home. So it's just another slogan – "let them go back", as if they've come from somewhere else.

I was in Osh again last August, and I witnessed the same emotional tone and paucity of facts.

IWPR: How dangerous is the use of stereotypes and slogans at a political level?

Loersch: Talking about the biggest threats to peace and harmony in Kyrgyzstan, the main one is the lack of work and the high population density in areas where there are no jobs.

Building a multicultural state requires educated people who understand what it means to be a citizen of a country where there is rule of law, and the difference between the notions of citizenship and ethnicity. I don't see young people who are like this, or at least enough of them. An education system that's been falling apart over the last 20 years has already had a negative impact.

In the recent past, some politicians from parties with "national patriotic" views have stated publicly that Kyrgyzstan was for the Kyrgyz and all the rest were just tenants. That implies that tenants have fewer rights.

If such phrases are constantly repeated, they will establish themselves in the minds of uneducated young people, who will subconsciously reiterate the slogans they've heard from the political podium in their everyday lives. Unfortunately, they will use them without even thinking what they mean. If a slogan is repeated 1,000 times, it automatically becomes a law.

Another example is a press conference that I attended on June 23 last year, when Prime Minister Almazbek Atambaev announced that the June 27 referendum was to go ahead despite the situation in Osh. He urged the "Uzbek diaspora" not to worry. Yet Uzbeks who hold Kyrgyzstan passports are not a diaspora; they are simply people who live there.

The use of nationalist slogans will strengthen the perception that one group has pre-eminence over others. That is a great risk, because the country is weak.

IWPR: Our journalists in the south say neither Kyrgyz nor Uzbeks are receptive to objective information. Memories of the tragedy are still fresh. Under such circumstances, how can journalists reach out and get their reporting across?

Loersch: I agree that people are not ready to accept fact-based information and analysis. But nevertheless, journalists should try to gradually work towards making them more receptive to objective information.

I understand that it's a difficult time for journalists, as they risk being ostracised if they try to provide neutral coverage. Under such extraordinary conditions, there may actually be a demand for information that isn't objective.

Nevertheless¸ I'm absolutely convinced that Kyrgyzstan has substantial numbers of educated people who need to get objective, impartial and high-quality information. The focus should be on this audience, so that those who don't not share in the nationalist sentiment feel they aren't alone.