|
Каспинфо май 2000 |
|
Название: Материалы на английском Главные Пункты: * Многие НПО Туркменистана появляются только для получения гранта и исчезают с его окончанием; грантодатели пытаются разобраться, нужны ли организуемые ими программы в республике. * Письмо НПО Туркменистана послу США в республике. * Политика BP Amoco в области подбора персонала. (10.05.2000) Полный Текст Материалы на английском МАТЕРИАЛЫ НА АНГЛИЙСКОМ *********** Who Needs These Trainings? In Turkmenistan, as in other Central Asian states, there are clear lines drawn between categories of NGOs. There are a small number of grassroots independent NGOs; a slightly more numerous group of quasi-NGOs (masking political and mercantile interests), and a much larger group of government-organized NGOs (GONGOs). The dividing line between the grassroots and quasi-NGOs lies in the motivations of their members. Put bluntly, the first group contains committed activists, and the second group is in the NGO game since financial rewards there can be much larger than in the private sector. Ironically, Counterpart claims credit for "building" new NGOs, but, as should be obvious, quasi-NGOs as a rule usually only form after a source of funding appears, so Counterpart's "victories" are often really just a perversion of civil society that will end when money does. With great frequency, NGOs form for a grant. When the grant ends, so does the organization. Essentially the same group of people then forms a new NGO (since Counterpart prefers "creating" NGOs; that looks impressive in their reports) for a new grant. And so on. So, while Counterpart compiles a list of "new" NGOs and the appearance of civil society blossoming under its tutelage, the reality is thornier. There may be nothing wrong per se about this turbidity and diversity in civil society; one just gets nervous when Counterpart describes it incorrectly and opportunistically. It is such activity that comprises the bulk of what Counterpart calls "civil society building." Almost none of this transient activity has any impact on moving Turkmenistan society itself toward a more participatory civil society model. It may even frustrate other parties' efforts to build true civil society. Even more perverse, Counterpart attacks large NGOs by encouraging cross-sections of members to break off into new NGOs, and telling them that they will get a grant if they do so, but that their proposal will not be funded if they stay in the large, established, successful NGO. But let's not forget the GONGOs. These are things like the NGO named after the President's mother (women's issues), the President's father (veteran's issues), and the Youth Union (which, strangely enough, is not named after the President's son). It is with these organizations that Counterpart now spends much of its energy. That is the safest thing Counterpart can do. That means that the government won't throw up barriers to "civil society building", and that Counterpart can work with NGOs across all of Turkmenistan (through the local offices of these GONGOs). So, Counterpart writes itself up as, counting each local chapter of a GONGO separately, working with a wide range of NGOs in many cities across Turkmenistan. The government is appeased, and Counterpart gets ammunition for its major, principal, and most important work- writing reports to Washington describing its tremendous impact and its need for more money. Conformism NGOs that receive grants from Counterpart run into subsequent serious difficulties during the attendant "conversations" they are called to have with the reformed KGB (KNB). Counterpart provides the KNB with a list of its grant recipients, amounts received, and a copy of the proposal. In the singular conditions of Turkmenistan, this gives the government ammunition against and a means to repress NGOs that it has never had before. No other donor has ever before thought so little of the safety and integrity of grassroots NGOs to do this, and the KNB never demanded it of other donors. Thanks to Counterpart, all other donors are being strong-armed into following Counterpart's example, and the consequences for civil society are predictable. Under Turkmenistan law, receipt of hard currency is itself a felony, and at least one activist not loved by the government has had grant money used as a pretext for prosecution. What's more, Counterpart is a haven for government informers. On many occasions, supposedly confidential information shared by gullible NGOs with Counterpart staff has gone right to security agencies to the unfortunate surprise of these NGOs. And then their projects suddenly become the Counterpart-funded projects of a pro-Counterpart NGO start-up. Likewise, human rights and other activists in sensitive issues in Turkmenistan have suffered when Counterpart's U.S. staff confides in local staff about some information received from U.S. organizations about local activists. On more than one occasion, Turkmenistan's government has uncovered dissenters through this channel. Moreover, Counterpart staff defines its mission quite singularly, and with little reference to Counterpart's USAID contract. When approached about human rights, Counterpart answers, "Go to OSCE. They do human rights. We just conduct trainings." These are the words of the American staff of Counterpart. It seems these Americans are not so well-versed in American democratic values. So, why is this person receiving American taxpayer money to train Turkmenistan's aborigines in democracy and civil society? Counterpart Projects It is a mystery what criteria Counterpart uses to select grant recipients. Not a single specialist of public life or civil society in Turkmenistan is included on Counterpart's grant committee. Grant decisions are made subjectively, or based on ideas taken out of context or founded in the American staff's very limited knowledge of Turkmenistan. The American staff have no connection to Turkmenistan civil society, and absolutely no connection to U.S. civil society, so their basis for evaluating locals is not understandable. There are many examples of Counterpart staff strong-arming NGOs to modify their organizations and projects to make them more palatable to Counterpart. Usually, such changes replace grassroots activist efforts with seminars, trainings, and other questionably effective activities that are nonetheless less likely to elicit displeasure from the Turkmenistan government. Totalitarianism Counterpart tells the world that there are few NGOs in Central Asia and that they are only just now forming. Yet, instead of working alongside Turkmenistan NGOs, Counterpart spends its money on extravagant offices and ridiculous salaries for unqualified expatriates and a huge local staff. Very little money ever makes it to the NGOs that are the raison d'etre of Counterpart's program. Moreover, Counterpart consistently competes with more developed local NGOs. It even itself seeks grants from local donors (like Know-How Fund) that should go to local NGOs. Counterpart plays a two level game. It consistently since 1995 has advertised itself as mega-successful in building NGOs across Central Asia. Yet, when its funding begins to end, it suddenly states anew that "NGOs in Central Asia are only in their beginning stages." Several times already, Counterpart project proposals state that in two years or three years, Counterpart will build NGOs to the level of self-sufficiency. Then, for two years or three years, Counterpart advertises its programs as unqualified successes. And then again states that NGOs are not self-sufficient. In fact, Counterpart will never admit that it has become superfluous. From the beginning, it lied about civil society in Central Asia. It claimed that no NGOs existed before the end of the USSR, although, in fact, several thousand existed, and in many ways these Perestroika NGOs were stronger and more successful than modern NGOs. However, by creating a baseline of zero, Counterpart assures that its reports will be able to claim huge victories. By implication, Counterpart claims credit for "creating" our organization since we exist now, but of course couldn't have existed prior to Counterpart! Counterpart intensely dislikes independent NGOs like us; we might speak up and spoil their party. In order to build its own image, Counterpart regularly arrogates the victories of local NGOs to itself, as well as engaging in meaningless talk of which NGOs it has helped birth. Yet, since 1997, not one single NGO has been registered in Turkmenistan. So what is Counterpart talking about? What is the link between this fact and Counterpart's purported 2000 seminars and trainings in Turkmenistan? What Counterpart is doing is nothing short of fraud. They are cheating American taxpayers and the U.S. government as much as they are tinkering perversely and counterproductively with Turkmen society. The administration refuses to discuss these concerns with those who built Turkmenistan civil society pre-Counterpart. Counterpart also takes great pains to prevent USAID staff from coming into contact with any NGOs who might criticize Counterpart, and it rewards NGOs that sing the Counterpart tune, regardless of whether or not such NGOs actually engage in any work. Conclusions Counterpart has really only done two things during its tenure in Turkmenistan. First, it has pursued a policy aimed at erasing opposition to its claim of speaking for Turkmenistan civil society. Second, it has learned from the government what tactics are useful in Turkmenistan to quell dissent. Sad specific examples of Counterpart actions would fill many pages and constitute the epitaph of more than one NGO that, pre-Counterpart, was cited by USAID and Counterpart itself as examples of successful civil society and why a program in Turkmenistan was needed. The irony is that the groups that served as the basis for justifying Counterpart in Turkmenistan, the groups that were supposed to benefit directly and primarily from Counterpart, are the ones that have suffered most. Having erased almost all opposition over the past three years, Counterpart is now "coordinating" civil society in Turkmenistan. The most recent example was a visit not long ago to Turkmenistan by a high-ranking USAID official. Counterpart only allowed those NGOs to meet with this delegation who agreed to be "trained" by Counterpart on what to say. These NGOs received briefing papers and canned answers in advance, and what they said was geared toward smoothing the way for a renewal of Counterpart's contract this spring. Any NGOs that appeared likely to say anything damaging were kept away. Counterpart, under its original Central Asia contract, pledged to turn its operations over to local hands by 1997. Twice now, it refused to do so, although "localization" remains a jingoistic phrase in Counterpart proposals. What I can't understand is why USAID puts up with this childishness? Why fund anti-civil society activity? Why fund an organization that is, in practice, really little different that the USSR's Komsomol? Why fund a corporatist and parastatal vision of civil society that fundamentally contradicts all American values of freedom and diversity? For now, we don't know why USAID continues this charade. All we know is that it is some measure of comfort that, when Counterpart's funding does end, all traces of this monster will be gone from the civil society landscape in only a few short months. It is some small comfort to know that one adjective that does not apply to any Counterpart efforts is "sustainable." In the meantime, we beg USAID and those whom Counterpart is misleading in Washington to do four things. First, make publicly accessible Counterpart's contracts with USAID. Second, hire real experts on Central Asia and civil society to point out the opportunistic factual errors in Counterpart contracts and propaganda. Third, do not any longer reward Counterpart for its failure to fulfill its contractual obligations; don't reward Counterpart (repeatedly) first for dreaming up wonderful promises easily sold to the American Congress and then again three years later for its artful explanations in explaining why the promises are largely unmet. Fourth, explicitly disallow Counterpart from ruining any chances for pluralism and independence in civil society by forbidding it from pursuing its efforts to establish itself as the mediator, expert, arbiter, and center of any and all civil society assistance. Finally, please ask yourselves why it is that I felt the need to pen this anonymously. I know Counterpart from its grassroots "successes," not its slick website. I fear Counterpart's retaliation for my exercise of free speech more than I fear my government's. Editor's Note: We consider reform of Counterpart to be one of the most important issues of U.S. democracy assistance. In support of Aitakov's comments, we also point out that there are proven examples of Counterpart staff in Central Asia extorting grant funds from NGOs. It is beyond argument that Counterpart trainers, American and local, present an ahistoric and incorrect explanation of U.S. civil society. Relatedly, none of Counterpart's staff in Central Asia has any experience founding or running, much less working in, a grassroots non-profit in the United States. That their program is based on advising NGOs how to form and run an organization is hypocritical and absurd. It is the worst possible foundation for assistance. LETTER FROM TURKMENISTAN NGOS TO U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKMENISTAN (2 MAY 2000) Dear Mr. Ambassador: The undersigned group of Turkmenistan nongovernmental organizations feels compelled to direct your attention to the inappropriate and inexcusable behavior of the representatives of Counterpart Consortium in Turkmenistan. Many of our organizations existed before Counterpart Consortium appeared in Turkmenistan. Our organizations are, in large part, the very organizations whose existence and activities justified the allocation of civil society development funds to Turkmenistan and proved that civil society is possible in Turkmenistan. In lobbying for such an expansion of civil society development programs to Turkmenistan, USAID staff listed several of our organizations by name as the best and strongest NGOs in Turkmenistan. We fully appreciate how difficult it is, in the conditions prevailing in Turkmenistan today, to pursue the democratizing mission for which Counterpart Consortium, among other USAID contractors, has received funding from the United States government. Truly, sincere efforts to build civil society and develop nongovernmental organizations deserve a hero's recognition. However, we are forced to pen this letter since we see no evidence of such a sincere effort on the part of Counterpart Consortium. Instead, we have personally, and with remarkably regularity, witnessed Counterpart staff rudely interfering in the internal affairs of organizations, issuing mandatory directives to organizations, and dictating to organizations what their priorities and methods should be. Given how Counterpart pursues such actions, its work contradicts efforts to build an independent, pluralistic, and innovative civil society; instead, these efforts facilitate the development of homogenous organizations dependent on Counterpart. Furthermore, Counterpart manifests a complete lack of respect for the age, educational attainment, and civic involvement of the nongovernmental representatives it encounters. Accordingly, Counterpart comes across not as an expert organization or an organization with any special insights into Turkmenistan public life, but merely as a neocolonial institution. The ideals of conformism, clientalism, and favoritism embodied in Counterpart's work facilitates the flowering of impressive numbers of pseudo-NGOs in Turkmenistan, but they mask the lack of true or sustainable reform that results from Counterpart programs. What Counterpart has created are a large number of pocket pseudo-NGOs whose efforts center on currying the favor of Counterpart staff in the hopes of some financial reward, but who are demonstrably uninterested in and incapable of developing and strengthening civil society. What especially troubles us are the tendencies displayed by Counterpart's local office to usurp and monopolize Turkmenistan civil society. Often, the Turkmenistan office (or Counterpart in general) deigns to speak on behalf of Turkmenistan NGOs and essays to establish itself as the intermediary between local NGOs and all foreign organizations and donors. Accordingly, NGOs of which Counterpart does not approve are turned into social outcasts and precluded from access to other sources of partnership, funding, and support. Moreover, in its efforts as an intermediary, Counterpart also stunts the growth of actual local NGOs, which should be (and before the appearance of Counterpart, did) represent themselves directly to partners. Yet, what concerns us most directly, and what we view as pure hypocrisy, are Counterpart's repeated efforts to secure grants for itself from organizations such as the United Kingdom's Know-How Fund. Counterpart competes with local NGOs for these grants, which we find nonsensical. Mr. Ambassador, we sincerely hope that our letter will not be interpreted as some sort of an effort to malign the United States' efforts to facilitate the development of democracy and civil society in Turkmenistan. We consider the United States to be one of the, if not the most, important contributor to the development of Turkmenistan's civil society. We mean merely to suggest that Counterpart Consortium has, in its own self-interest and unprofessionalism, strayed far from the goals for which it has received U.S. funding. We have a great number of concerns regarding Counterpart's work in Turkmenistan, and we know of a great number of questionable and perverse actions by Counterpart in Turkmenistan that we do not list here. The exact nature of these questionable actions is not, in our opinion, as important as our belief that USAID's efforts to build civil society in Turkmenistan could still produce sustainable and true reform leading to a pluralistic and independent civil society. Specifically, the program in Turkmenistan requires more knowledgeable and qualified staff, more accountability, and the introduction of mechanisms to restrain Counterpart's independent financial and other ambitions. We would truly like nothing better than to see American programs in Turkmenistan that fully embody the goals and objectives of USAID policies and ambitions as these are developed in Washington, D.C. Counterpart has strayed so far from these goals and objectives that we now feel compelled to inquire how such a disappointment can remain unadressed. Several writers/sponsors of this letter felt compelled to remain anonymous in order to safeguard ongoing projects, avoid financial repression from Counterpart, and not risk efforts by Counterpart staff to punish or discredit them. 1) Amudarya Ecological Club: Yevgeny Agryzkov and Valentina Marochkina 2) Assistance to Craftspersons: Gozel Annameredova (former Counterpart Consortium coordinator) 3) Catena Environmental Club: Konstantin Pavlovich Popov, Galina Leonidovna Kamakhina, and Andrei Aranbaev 4) Charity Without Borders: Selby Abdurakhmanova Akmuradova 5) Chernobyl Association of Turkmenistan: Sergei Leonidovich Vasilenko 6) Dashkhovuz Ecological Guardians: Farid Tukhbatulin and Yevgeniya Zatoka 7) "East" Center to Assist Craftspersons: Alla Shapkina 8) Family and Marriage Trust Center: Natalia Aleksandrovna Yershova 9) Flamingo Public Education Center (Turkmenbashi): Yuri Vladimirovich Vinnik and Vyacheslav Tashlievich Mamedov 10) Elimai-Turkmenistan Kazakh Public Cultural Center: Kania Bisakhanova Sabitaeva 11) Polish Cultural Center: Valentin Tyshkevich 12) Socio-Ecological Union: Andrei Zatoka 13) Turkmenistan Society of Inventors: Bisengul Onaevich Begdesenov UZBEKISTAN'S ATANIYAZOVA AWARDED GOLDMAN PRIZE REPRINTED FROM HTTP://WWW.GOLDMANPRIZE.ORG The Goldman Environmental Prize is the world's largest prize program honoring grassroots environmentalists. Founded in 1990 by Richard and Rhoda Goldman, the Prize awards $125,000 annually to six environmental heroes from each of the inhabited continental regions. Nominated by a network of internationally known environmental organizations and a confidential panel of environmental experts, recipients are chosen for their sustained and important environmental achievements. The Prize seeks to offer these environmental heroes the recognition, visibility, and credibility their efforts deserve. On April 17, Oral Ataniyazova was announced as the 2000 Goldman Environmental Prize recipient from Asia. Women and children are among those most affected by the Aral Sea crisis. In 1992 Oral Ataniyazova, an obstetrician who also holds a doctorate in medical science, established Perzent, the Karakalpak Center for Reproductive Health and Environment, in order to help the women and children of Karakalpakstan, an ethnically distinct and autonomous republic of Uzbekistan. Due to the severity of the pollution in the area, it is believed that its entire population has been exposed to dangerous chemicals over extended periods of time. Public health in the region has deteriorated with the worsening ecological situation. Over the past 15 years, there has been an increase in the rates of anemia, kidney and liver diseases, allergies, tuberculosis, birth defects and reproductive pathologies. In addition to scientific research, family planning and medical assistance, Perzent offers a wide range of educational and community programs that focus on raising public awareness about the region's environmental and health problems. Most of Ataniyazova's activities concentrate on women and how they can improve their lives, including family health and the quality of food and water. Perzent trains local groups in areas such as health and hygiene, sustainable agriculture, as well as women's and children's rights. With branches in several rural districts, Perzent has created a 50-acre organic farm, a women's clinic and a publishing house. To fully involve the local people, Perzent actively solicits ideas from communities for practical solutions to the region's problems. More than 10,000 people have been involved in the organization's activities. Ataniyazova has worked on these issues at the national, regional and international levels. As an expert in reproductive health, she has been a key spokesperson addressing various international agencies, including the United Nations. Despite many difficulties during the past two decades, Ataniyazova has helped improve the health and status of women and children in one of the world's most dramatic ecological hot spots. Undaunted, she continues to speak out about the crisis that is destroying the lives of her patients and the future of their communities. UZBEKISTAN'S NEW DEMOCRACY COMMITTEE On 22 January, Uzbekistan's newly elected legislature convened and created 12 committees and four commissions. One of the current committees is a new one for Uzbekistan, a Committee on Democratic Institutions, NGOs, and Organizations of Citizen Self-Government. Akmal Saidov heads the Committee. Illustrations The beautiful wildlife illustrations in Ecostan News are provided courtesy of the editors of the 1999 revised edition of the Red Book of Turkmenistan, published by the Ministry of Nature Protection and the National Institute of Deserts, Flora, and Fauna. Edited by Kh. Atamuradov, O. Karyeva, S. Shammakov, and A. Yazkulyev, this book describes Turkmenistan's rare and endangered speciesis, suggests needed policy changes to protect these species, and is in Turkmen, Russian and English. For donations to support future publications and information about purchasing the book, contact LEEP. Contact Information: Asia-Irbis International Research Group oasis97@kaznet.kz Counterpart International hosie@counterpart.org http://www.counterpart.org Evgeniy Koshkarev kbraden@u.washington.edu International Snow Leopard Trust islt@serv.net http://www.serv.net/islt Perzent oral@glasnet.ru Tajikistan Ministry of Nature Protection c/o tabiat@sv.tajik.net Youth EcoCenter tabiat@sv.tajik.net http://www.ecostan.org/Ngos/yec * * * * * * Ecostan News reports on the environment of, and challenges to the democratic development of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland or Law and Environment Eurasia Partnership. You are free to distribute this information, but if you wish to publish any parts of Ecostan News, you must receive permission in advance. Please send a request in order to be included in the address list for this monthly report, and indicate the format in which you would like to receive your subscription: a text file or an Adobe Portable Document (.pdf) file. A Russian language version of Ecostan News is also available upon request to "aranbaev@ecostan.org". Russian and English versions often diverge in content because they are directed at different audiences. Back issues of the English and Russian editions are available from: http://www.ecostan.org ***** http://cgi1.entrypoint.com/cgi-bin/contentsrc.cgi?location=www.businesswire.com&src= BusinessWire http://cgi1.entrypoint.com/cgi-bin/contentsrc.cgi?location=www.businesswire.com&src= BusinessWire Superior Workforce Creates Company Value, Says BP Amoco's Sir John Browne in World Energy Magazine April 20, 2000 9:03 AM EDT HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 20, 2000--Because a company's value is dictated by the quality of its workforce, oil companies must embrace greater diversity and focus more on the needs of workers as individuals, says BP Amoco group chief executive Sir John Browne. "A great company is created and sustained, first and foremost, by great people, working together to make things better," writes Browne in the new issue of World Energy(R) magazine, the voice of the energy industry. "You just need to look at the difference between the market value and the book value of a company and ask where that difference comes from." World Energy publishes articles written by the heads of energy companies, government officials and oil ministers in an unedited format. The articles are available at www.worldenergysource.com, which also contains an extensive database of energy industry information. The site is an energy industry research asset, with a searchable database of information and links to companies, governments, stock exchanges and energy organizations worldwide. A calendar of events which covers all aspects of Energy from oil and gas, to power, a time clock which gives the time around the globe and the appropriate country and city phone codes, and a focus section outlining specific companies in many industries are all available on the source. "The oil industry must respond to the worldwide scope of its operations with more diversity and a greater sensitivity to meeting the human needs of its workers," he added. Browne noted his company made an industry-first commitment to sustainable development because employees want to work for a company that is improving society as well as its own bottom line. BP Amoco will join World Energy, R&B Falcon Corporation, Ultraflote Corporation, The Bilateral Arab-U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of Commerce Commercial Service Middle East Team in hosting a reception for the Arabian Gulf delegates to the Offshore Technology Conference, including representatives from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The reception, by invitation, will be held May 1 in Houston. Also in this issue of World Energy, former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher criticizes the national news media for its one-sided coverage of higher oil prices, and OPEC's Secretary General Dr. Lukman describes his organization's objectives for the new millennium. World Energy's Web site, a service of IBP Corporation, contains a wealth of information in six languages, including all articles written for World Energy, links to company and government sites and travelers' information. © Business Wire. All rights reserved. |