Cai Wilkinson on LGBT rights in Central Asia

In its 2014 Freedom in the World rankings, Freedom House lists four of the five states of Central Asia as “not free.” Kyrgyzstan earned a “partly free” ranking, although a very low one. Indicative of the region’s overall repression of personal and political freedoms is the treatment of the LGBT community.

As Cai Wilkinson, a lecturer in international relations at Deakin University, Australia, explained to The Diplomat, Central Asia’s leaders may take direction cues from Russia, which criminalized  the distribution of LGBT “propaganda” in 2013. But the LGBT community has become a regional scapegoat, targeted by populists and nationalists alike as the ultimate “other” to blame for political and economic woes. Even in Kyrgyzstan, Wilkinson says, LGBT people cannot count on their rights being protected.

What is life like for LGBT people in Central Asia?

Fearful, insecure, and often isolated. Homosexuality is still illegal in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, but despite decriminalization in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, being gay or transgender continues to be highly stigmatized and pathologized. Homosexuality is viewed as unnatural and immoral by most people and as something that is alien and harmful. Popular homophobia is fierce, including from family members and law enforcement officers, with gay men and transgender women especially vulnerable to violence. As a result, most LGBT people are understandably reluctant to be open about their sexuality or gender identity, while the few people who are out are aware that their openness puts both them and potentially their families at risk of discrimination or violence.

The situation is worse outside of major cities, where LGBT people may not be able to find sources of support or, if they do, feel unable to contact them due to fear being outed. Things are better, relatively speaking, in major cities such as Bishkek where attitudes are generally more tolerant and [where there is] a more established LGBT presence in the form of NGOs and community groups as well as a few gay/gay-friendly nightclubs. Even so, there are real risks to LGBT people’s everyday personal safety, and the intensification of homophobic rhetoric over the last year or so has had a significant impact on the community, with reports not only of increased threats and violence but also a rise in the number of suicides amongst LGBT people.

Kyrgyzstan was once held up as a bright spot in the region with regard to human rights; some NGOs & advocate groups were able to openly operate serving the LGBT community. How has this climate changed over the last few years?

At present there are still several groups operating openly in Kyrgyzstan, providing services for local LGBT communities and campaigning strongly for LGBT human rights. That said, the climate has definitely become more hostile in the last 12-18 months for LGBT activists and the community in general and 2014 was particularly bad in this respect. The release of a report by Human Rights Watch in January 2014 into police abuse of gay men sparked a particularly ferocious political and popular backlash: A government spokesman refuted the accounts presented in the report and the Acting Grand Mufti issuing a fatwa against homosexuality, while nationalist youth group Kalys staged a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek. This was followed in March 2014 by a proposed bill to outlaw propaganda of “non-traditional” sexual relations. In the wake of these events LGBT activists reported a marked increase in both threats and incidents of physical violence and this remains a serious issue as debate over the proposed law continues. International reaction to date has been muted, despite efforts by local NGOs such as Labrys to raise awareness. Even if the bill does not pass, in many ways the damage has already been done: LGBT people in Kyrgyzstan are very conscious that they cannot count on their rights being protected and feel extremely vulnerable.

It seems almost axiomatic that anything that happens in Central Asia does so under the influence of Moscow. Of course, it’s more complex than that. Can you describe the interplay between geopolitical shifts emanating from Russia and local socio-political dynamics as they impact LGBT and other vulnerable communities?

I’ve described the interplay previously as Moscow providing the spark, but local socio-political issues provide the fuel for the fire. What I mean by this is that while what happens in Russia undoubtedly influences legislative initiatives in Kyrgyzstan in terms of policy and law makers looking to Moscow for ideas about both problems and solutions, whether or not they are subsequently pursued depends on the extent to which local political actors feel it is expedient for their own ends. Unfortunately Kyrgyzstan’s LGBT community has found itself at the center of a perfect storm of political homophobia that combines government populism in the face of failure to raise living standards with increasingly strident anti-Western nationalism. In this respect, for the government LGBT people are the ideal scapegoat and political diversion to shift the public’s attention away from intractable problems such as fuel shortages and the consequences of the weakened ruble.

For nationalists, meanwhile, LGBT people are the ultimate “other” for their articulation of Kyrgyz national identity, which is Muslim, heteronormative and non-Western. For both the government and nationalists, this scapegoating is particularly effective because they can be seen to be taking action against LGBT people and those associated with them (that is, Western countries and donors), thus providing an unusually effective way to boost their legitimacy with many sections of the electorate by demonstrating strong leadership to protect Kyrgyzstan’s sovereignty and morality. 

In the past year, the Kyrgyz parliament has considered two laws that largely seem to be a reaction to perceived external influences. One targets so-called “foreign agents” and the other would ban “homosexual propaganda.” What linkages are made between “foreign agents” and the LGBT community?

So far the linkage has been more implied than explicit, although if the current “anti-gay” bill fails for some reason, I would anticipate that identifying NGOs working on LGBT issues as so-called “foreign agents” will be the next line of attack. At the popular level, LGBT activism arouses a lot of suspicion not only because it is viewed as advocating for acceptance of morally deviant behavior, but also because being gay or gender variant is thought to be a Western import that is alien to local  culture and traditions. From this starting point it isn’t a great leap to claim that LGBT people and organizations are working against Kyrgyzstan’s national interests, especially when they are supported by foreign donors. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the republic’s NGOs receive funding from overseas sources and the efforts of local activists to demonstrate that it is possible to be gay or transgender and Kyrgyz or Muslim, it’s very difficult to challenge this positioning of the LGBT community, especially in the face of growing nationalism and continued poor living standards.