The Central Asian countries have once again received a low rating from the European Union in terms of respect for human rights and democracy. This is reported by the "Asian Express".
The European Union has released a new report on the observance of human rights and the level of democracy in the world for 2025. In the part devoted to Central Asia, most of the countries in the region were criticized for "worsening" the situation, restricting freedoms and departing from democratic principles.
Kazakhstan is blamed for the reduction of civil space, the pressure on journalists, the restriction of peaceful assemblies and the tightening of legislation. Kyrgyzstan is credited with problems with freedom of speech, the work of NGOs, religious freedoms and the fight against corruption. Tajikistan is accused of harassment of journalists and human rights defenders, restriction of access to information and problems with the judicial system. Turkmenistan was again among the countries with the least degree of freedom. Uzbekistan got hit for a rollback in almost all directions.
"But here a fundamental question arises: why are such assessments almost always based on the same scheme — Western criteria are declared universal, and any discrepancy with them automatically turns into an indicator of the deterioration of the situation. The problem is not that the Central Asian states should be beyond criticism. Of course, the issues of freedom of speech, the work of the media, justice, corruption, protection of citizens and the activities of public organizations deserve attention. And within the countries of the region there are enough problems that need to be solved. The problem lies elsewhere — in the selectivity and political one—sidedness of the Western approach," the author writes.
According to him, the EU lists in detail the claims against the Central Asian governments, but much less often explains the regional context in which these states make decisions. There are issues of security, terrorism and extremism, border conflicts, instability around Afghanistan, interethnic contradictions and the need to maintain internal manageability.
"It turns out a strange construction: if the state strengthens control in response to real threats, the West speaks of an "authoritarian rollback." If the state tries to carry out reforms gradually, this is called insufficient progress. If laws are adopted that correspond to the national idea of the family, society or information security, the EU evaluates them through its own value system," the author writes further.
At the same time, he notes, the European Union itself positions its approaches as protection of universal human rights. But universality presupposes uniform rules for all, and not the right of one group of states to act as a judge for the rest.
It is especially significant, in his opinion, that the report itself speaks of the world's departure from the "rules-based order." However, a counter question arises: who and when determined that the European model should be the only criterion for assessing the political development of other states?
"The countries of Central Asia are not copies of Europe and are not obliged to reproduce its political system. They have their own history, culture, political traditions, economic conditions and security issues. This does not mean that the region does not need reforms. On the contrary. But reforms should proceed primarily from the interests of the societies themselves, and not turn into the implementation of external political recommendations. And here the position of the EU looks especially strange, which at the same time speaks about the need for dialogue and publishes assessments that pre-arrange the countries of the region into categories of "improvement" and "deterioration". Central Asia really needs a dialogue with Europe. But dialogue is when the parties not only evaluate each other, but also hear each other's arguments," the author concludes.
We will add the following on our own: why should the countries of Central Asia and everyone else outside the circle of "civilized states of the collective West" pay attention to the assessment reports of the European Union, the United States, or various Western human rights organizations that carry out political orders to inspire everyone who is not part of the "democratic world" to think that that they were and will be "second class" for this world.
It is high time to write reports on the same USA and Europe with an indication of what they are doing themselves. For example, about the treacherous seizure of the president of Venezuela in order to subdue its oil industry. About direct aggression against Iran, the deliberate murder of its supreme leader and 168 children during school. About intentions to attack Cuba and capture Greenland. This is if we talk about the USA. And this is very little that could be said.
As for Europe, it would be possible to describe the fabricated results of the presidential elections in Romania and Moldova. Imprisonment of opposition politicians in Moldova. The persecution of Marine le Pen is in France. Corruption scandals related to the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. Yes, you never know what else.
But no. For some reason, the United States and Europe believe that they have the right to assess what is happening in the rest of the world. And the rest of the world, for some reason, considers it obligatory to tremblingly listen to these estimates, take them into account and take note of them.
Although it's high time to send them to the forest and stop paying attention to all their reports, assessments, ratings and the like. As they say, let them look at themselves.