by Kaigyluu
‘Kaigyluu’ is the pseudonym of a longtime TerraNullius reader with broad experience working on housing, land and property (HLP) and legal reform issues in many countries post-socialist, post-conflict or both. Having provided an earlier briefing last year on the aftermath of the 2010 ethnic riots, Kaigyluu yesterday updated TN readers on the local and regional politics of rebuilding Osh, and today addresses the policy choices of international actors involved in humanitarian response and reconstruction.
While housing, land and property (HLP) rights were put on the agenda in the immediate aftermath of the June 2010 inter-ethnic violence in South Kyrgyzstan, the HLP process was complicated (a) by a lack of clear rationale or objective and (b) strategic choices made at the outset.
With respect to the first point, based upon an initial assessment by the Global Protection Cluster (GPC) conducted in the wake of the June events, UNHCR focused first on the construction of shelter and then on legal assistance to restore HLP documents lost or destroyed. The assumption upon which provision of such legal aid was based proved faulty, in that it was soon discovered that over 80% of affected households had never had proper documentation. And so the HLP project concentrated on obtaining documentation for those whose homes were destroyed, as well as registering the newly constructed replacement shelters.
Nevertheless, the justification for securing documentation only for those whose homes were destroyed, whereas the majority of the affected population – and, indeed, the population at large – also lacked such documentation, was undermined. The project might have been realigned – and was, ad hoc, to provide documents to those whose homes were threatened with expropriation – but the follow-up scoping mission recommended by the GPC to conduct a full situational assessment was never carried out.
This leads into point (b) on strategic choices, namely that the international community chose to channel their support through the State Directorate for Reconstruction and Development for Osh and Jalal-Abad Cities (‘SDRD’ – previously, the State Directorate for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction or ‘SDRR’) set up by the central government, and headed by current Prime Minister Jantoro Satybaldiev. The international community decided to bypass the Osh mayor, Melis Myrzakmatov – understandable, given his nationalist (and often erratic) rhetoric.
Myrzakmatov was opposed to anything directed by Bishkek: an opposition entrenched when he successfully resisted the attempt of the interim government to remove him. Unfortunately, in the case of reconstructed (and, indeed, all) housing, the issuance of building permits was controlled at the municipal level. Therefore, in Osh, construction permission was never granted. And so, the majority of the shelters constructed there remain unregistered; whereas, in Jalal-Abad, where the mayor was successfully replaced (twice) by Bishkek, authorities were more cooperative, building permission was issued, and registration proved relatively simple.
More broadly, apart from reliance on the SDRD, there a choice by the international community – perhaps by default – to opt for a ‘rule of law’ approach, as opposed to one driven by the need for a recognition of rights. That is, the reconstruction and HLP process was channelled through the existing domestic land and housing regime. As such, it became vulnerable to the inefficiencies or gaps in the system, as well as any political or personal manipulation of it.
Kyrgyzstan cracks down on the ICG in Osh
In case anyone was wondering why TN guest-author ‘Kaigyluu’ has opted to remain anonymous (or pseudonymous?), a statement by the International Crisis Group (ICG) today may provide some insights. It seems that Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security (SCNS) has not only harassed five people who recently spoke with an ICG analyst in the country but also interrogated the analyst himself.
In their twelve years of presence in Kyrgyzstan, the ICG states that they have “never faced this level of harassment.” They also allege numerous violations of Kyrgyz law in the manner in which their analyst was treated:
For those who have read Kaigyluu’s recent posts (critiquing both local policies and international responses to the 2010 violence in Kyrgyzstan), it will be unsurprising that this harassment took place in Osh, the main city of Kyrgyzstan’s ethnically troubled south. Care will clearly need to be taken to ensure that the ICG’s local interlocutors are not exposed to further perils for having spoken with the Group’s analyst. However, these incidents were clearly meant to tamp down criticism of Kyrgyzstan’s default policy of punishing the victims of ethnic violence. It is to be sincerely hoped that they will have the opposite effect.
2 Comments
Posted in Commentary
Tagged ICG, Kyrgyzstan, minorities