Postcard from Bishkek

One of the questions I am often asked when people discover how long I have been here in Kyrgyzstan is what changes I have seen over the years.

My answer normally takes the following format: first of all the number of vehicles, (especially foreign makes of cars, which reflects the strength of the trade in importing foreign second hand cars from Germany, the Baltic countries and even Japan);  secondly the number and variety of restaurants, (which indicates that there is a certain amount of disposable income here in Kyrgyzstan); and thirdly the amount of construction that is taking place, (chiefly apartment blocks and shopping centres).

The ever increasing number of vehicles on the road has led to an increase in traffic jams here in Bishkek.  I often joke that when I first came here on holiday in 1994, it was possible, (although unwise), to cross the road without really looking – you could hear an approaching vehicle from far off.  These days I wouldn’t even dream of trying to cross the road without using my Kerb drill or the Green Cross Code.

And, there is another problem … a dearth of parking places, especially here in the capital.In the city there are some parking lots, (often just a space at the side of the road), where drivers have to pay a small fee to leave their vehicles whilst they, for example, go shopping.  Often one or two attendants stand at the side of the road to collect the fees and can be seen waiving drivers trying to back out into the stream of traffic when they have finished their business, to indicate when there is a gap in the traffic.

Basically there are no “parking fines”.  The GAI, (the traffic police), are meant to enforce the traffic regulations and they do extract fines from people who break them by, for example, shooting a red light, going the wrong way up a one-way street, speeding, not wearing seat belts or driving without the right documents.On the other hand, there are few restrictions about parking and no parking meters.  There are some signs erected reserving space outside a building for the exclusive use of certain people, (those working in the building, or clients of a shop, restaurant, or office in the building).  However, there is no real enforcement to ensure that they are respected.

In Issyk Kul, it is forbidden to drive within a certain distance of the shore, and I have seen a traffic policeman removing the license plate of one vehicle parked illegally on the beach,  after having waited an hour to see if the vehicle’s owner would return to reclaim it.  However, I have also seen other vehicles parked on the beach with apparent impunity.

The result is that drivers pull up and park wherever it is convenient and they can find a space.  Sometimes, that can mean being inconsiderate to other drivers.  For example, our building, (the one which houses the office), is close to a crossroads and a couple of popular shop.  There is always a crowd hanging around the junction waiting to flag down a passing marshrutka, (minibus), or taxi.  Customers for the shops look for a parking space as near to the shop as possible, park up and disappear – sometimes for just a few minutes, but sometimes for much longer.  Often, this means that someone will park across our driveway, blocking the entrance/exit with their vehicle.  People trying to get to the vehicle have to pull up and wait, possibly blocking other traffic, sounding their horn, getting out of their car and ask passers by if they know who the offending vehicle belongs to.

On more than one occasion we have seen an argument degenerate almost into fisticuffs.  On one occasion the offending, (Kyrgyz), driver told the protesting, (Russian), driver to go back home, “while you still can!”.

Back in Britain, amongst the arsenal of traffic control measures that we have are the dreaded yellow lines which indicate where parking is not allowed, sometimes not even for loading and unloading, and other road marking which mean “Keep Clear” parking meters; Residents’ Parking schemes and Traffic Wardens who patrol the streets to ensure that parking regulations are enforced and which can issue “tickets”which almost inevitably involve having to pay a fine.

In the event of extenuating circumstances, or a disagreement over the facts of the case, it is possible for the driver to appeal, and there is a chance that the resulting judgement will go in their favour.

It’s basically an administrative matter, not a criminal one.  It on;ly becomes a criminal matter if the driver fails to cough and pay the fine.

I think it would be a good idea if the government or local authority looked into the possibility of introducing at least some of these measures here – unpopular as they might possibly be, as a way of regulating and diminishing the traffic chaos that we experience.

.

The other day, on the other hand, I came across an interesting news item from home which suggests that it might not be that effective.  The article concerned diplomats who run up fines for parking offences and then refuse to pay them, claiming “diplomatic immunity”.  My first thought when I saw the report was that “some things never change”; I remember seeing stories on this topic many years ago, when I was still living in the UK, only the countries are different.

In those days, the Nigerians were lauded as the biggest culprits.  This year, it appears that after having being “named and shamed” earlier in the year as the worst offender for unpaid parking tickets in London, Kazakhstan’s diplomats have finally agreed to settle almost USD60,000 for 627 parking violations.  (The report quoted the sum in dollars and not pounds because it was aimed at an international audience.)  But, (and it is a big “but”), that is only a small fraction of the USD300,000 which the Kazakhs’ owe the city, generated from 1,715 parking tickets.   In fact, one diplomat alone was singled out as the most prolific offender; clocking up more than USD85,000 in unpaid fines with 471 tickets.

What’s more, it seems that this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Westminster Council, in the heart of London, is chasing more than one and half million dollars in unpaid tickets from diplomats, and often faced with claims of “diplomatic immunity” as a “defence” for violating parking regulations, (that’s how the article put it).

The report quoted one council official as saying: “No one likes getting a parking ticket but most motorists play fair and either pay the fine or follow the appeals process. It’s time these diplomats started to respect the rules of the road in the UK, and stopped thinking they can do what they like at the expense of our taxpayers.”

It’s not just Britain that is facing this problem.  On the other side of the Atlantic, for example, New York City faces a similar problem.  There, members of the “diplomatic community” apparently owe the city over seventeen million dollars in unpaid fines, and in a bid to address this issue, some lawmakers have proposed a bill to remove diplomatic license plates from offending vehicles and then subtract the fines incurred  from disbursements of foreign aid to countries that do not pay up.

Well, I thought to myself as I read the article, at least it wasn’t the Kyrgyz diplomats that were the cause of this unwelcome attention.

.

Back when the previous articles were being published, (about the Nigerians and others), I found it hard to understand how someone could cite “diplomatic immunity”  in what is basically an administrative matter.  Today, when it’s the Kazakhs turn to be in the limelight, I still find it hard.

I can that there is a question of principle involved, diplomats should be free to go about their business without any fear of “let or hindrance”; without interference.

Diplomatic immunity is, after all, an institution or concept that developed to allow for the maintenance and facilitation of inter-government relationships, (including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict).  When receiving diplomats—who formally represent a sovereign power — the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure that they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis.  Diplomats are considered to enter the host country under safe-conduct and violating them in any way is normally viewed as a great breach of honour, although there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed.

For example, the ancient Greek historian Herodotus tells us that  when heralds of the Persian king Darius the Great demanded “earth and water” (that is, “symbols of submission”) from various Greek cities, they received rough treatment: the Athenians threw them into a pit and the Spartans threw them down a well – suggesting they would find both earth and water at the bottom, (as so graphically and dramatically portrayed in the film “300″).

In Islamic tradition, on the other hand, a messenger should not be harmed, even if coming from an arch-enemy and bearing a highly provocative or offensive message. Even Genghis Khan, who is remembered for his bloodthirsty ferocity , was well-known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats.  The Mongols would often take a terrifying vengeance against any state that violated these rights, razing entire cities to the ground in retaliation for the execution of their ambassadors.  For example, they invaded and destroyed the Khwarezmid Empire in Central Asia after their ambassadors had been mistreated.

Originally, the privileges and immunities granted by one state to the representatives of another, were done so on a bilateral, ad hoc basis.  This sometimes led to misunderstandings and conflict, to pressure being brought to bear upon weaker states, and to an inability for other states to judge which party was at fault when their was a dispute.  A more general basis for the understanding of such arrangements was put in place by the various international agreements which are collectively known as the Vienna Conventions.  These codified the rules and agreements, providing standards and privileges to all states.

On the other hand, amongst the commonly held principles of justice are:  ”no-one should be above the law”, “people should be treated equally” and that “similar cases should be treated similarly”, (allowing for the individual circumstances).

It seems to me that there is enough precedent to say that even if diplomats have a special status, they should not be “above the law”.  If they commit a serious offence, then their home country can decide to waive their diplomatic immunity or agree to try the case in their own jurisdiction instead of allowing prosecution in the host country.

The case of the unpaid parking fines seems to indicate that some members of the diplomatic community are using the system in such a way as flagrantly abuse it, and to show a distinct lack of regard for their host country.

.

Tags: Expat, Life_in_Kyrgyzstan