Posted on 03/25/2005 9:41:37 AM PST by Robert Mayer
It's been a big day in Kyrgyzstan. While the protests have been steadily growing over the past month or so, today was clearly a marker event. Even from the beginning of this website, I have always referred visitors to Nathan's Registan.net, where he keeps up on all issues Central Asia. He has always been the guy to go to for everything you needed to know about the Tulip Revolution.
I certainly wouldn't know much about Central Asia if it weren't for him and the news/analysis he brings to the table. I am certainly not as knowledgeable as him, but I have been keeping up with Kyrgyzstan for a few months now. I felt I needed to, before going into detail about this event, take everything in and get my thoughts together. When you read this entry, keep in mind that this is what I gather from my readings, and I will try to put it into the larger context of the other revolutions. Hopefully I can provide some insight and understanding where some things may be displaced by the casual reader.
A long time ago I wrote that while there is always the possiblity of a revolution occuring in Kyrgyzstan, the odds were certainly more stacked against them than in the previous revolutions we have seen. This, and parliamentary elections are also less divisive an issue than a 2-man presidential election. I figured that while it was unlikely now, that certainly something would happen come the presidential election. Well, they certainly beat the odds. The protests culminated for the most part in the south, where protestors demonstrated against the rigged up elections. From there, it spread. Now, Akayev has fled and nobody knows where he is.
Regardless of whether of not Akayev has officially resigned, he is no longer the president of the country. Nobody knows where he is, but I am sure that if they catch him inside the country, he will soon enough be brought to justice (Whatever that may be decided as). If he is out, well, it is of no consequence because the opposition has taken power. They have even elected an interim president by the name of Ishenbai Kadyrbekov.
Russia and the United States are certainly watching the situation closely, as both have military bases there, and both have a foreign policy interest in the country. Russia is especially nervous, but will most likely court the opposition without hesitation as per its recent near-abroad policy change. I don't see any military intervention happening.
The quasi-dictatorships surrounding Kyrgyzstan have something to be more worried about. After the Orange Revolution, these leaders were all engaged in figuring out how to prevent the same thing from happening to them. Now it has happened; and right next door. What will they do? Uzbekistan has been seen tightening its border security. The rulers will have to choose either to liberalize or eventually face their own revolutions, but the last doesn't seem to be on the table anymore. The crimes of the past won't be forgotten, and the accusations will be brought up.
So now they have a different question to answer: "When the revolution inevitably occurs, what will I do?" They could pull a Kyrgyzstan and flee at the last minute. They could pull a Ukraine and peacefully step down. Or they could pull a China, and open fire. My fear, as we move further east and further down the line of totalitarian insanity, is that these dictators will go the way of Tiananmen Square. They know what happened in Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, and now Kyrgyzstan. With the first two options tried and exhausted, communist China's success at suppression may just be the ticket to stay in power another decade.
I certainly hope it is avoidable, though we have already seen the marring of this revolution with spits and spats of violence. Opposition forces got rowdy at times, throwing molotov cocktails, burning cars, looting Bishkek. On the other side, riot police at one point descended and began forcefully breaking up the protests with their batons.
The opposition, in the case of Kyrgyzstan, is simply much more fractured and untrained than that of Ukraine, whose Pora group received funding and training in peaceful activism and democratic thought from the west. Many of us have fallen in love with the activist group KelKel, who have certainly been model in their efforts for peaceful activism. But they are not gigantic as Pora was, so the possibility exists in the power vacuum of untrained oppositionists that some shady characters could take the reins.
Laurence has noted that the new Kyrgyz interim president was described by RFE/RL as "an incumbent communist with more than a decade in the national parliament." He also finds that Bakiyev, the man cited most as a potential presidential candidate, is also a tough guy.
His government cracked down on demonstrators, with his interior minister saying that riots that broke out in Bakiyev’s home region in the south in March 2002 were an attempt to overthrow the government. Police fired into the crowd of 1,500 protesting the arrest of their local parliamentary deputy in Jalal-Abad, and five people died. An investigation found senior officials responsible for the tragedy, and Bakiyev was forced to resign.Also, Felix Kulov, a former deputy interior minister and vice president turned opposition leader, has a shady past as well. Laurence says, even tougher than Akayev.
Kulov, a deputy interior minister in Kyrgyzstan before independence, led interior forces that killed dozens of rioters trying to storm a police station in ethnic clashes that rocked the south during the Soviet Union’s last days.What we must observe very carefully in the coming days, weeks, and even months is not the intentions of the people -- those being for change and freedom -- but the moves of the various leaders. Hopefully they will reflect a new dawn for Kyrgyzstan, despite the difficulties and temptations. I certainly remain optimistic, but as even with Yushchenko, that will only go as far as the leaders can actually bring reform to the country. Stick to the ideals, not the candidate.
At the end of the day, it is certainly encouraging to hear the words of our highly esteemed Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, speak optimistically of the events. There is some debate over whether Bush deserves credit for what has happened in Kyrgyzstan. I will say that it must certainly be encouraging for any group to know that the most powerful country in the world is morally behind them (especially when a military base is there), but to lay everything on the Bush Doctrine would be premature. The events culminating in Kyrgyzstan, as with Georgia and Ukraine, have been brewing for awhile now. The characteristics of the Rose Revolution and the larger Orange Revolution are seen heavily throughout this Tulip Revolution, so it is suffice to say that the mainstay of the inspiration has been drawn from them.
This is something interesting for me to address, because I am often called a Bush Doctrinist (read: Slate.com) while this site was open clearly before the Bush Doctrine was set into place. I think it is actually the ideals of freedom and liberty that drive me more than a particular political candidate. I definitely support what President Bush is doing in the Middle East and elsewhere, and it's readily apparent how thrilled I am with what is happening.
However, I think putting so much weight on U.S. foreign policy toward events in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is not just a misunderstanding of the impact of our foreign policy, but of the actual situations in these countries. Russia, by comparison, has much more influence than the U.S. does over them. That several countries have been able to shed themselves of Russia is much more an inspiration to those aspiring to do the same than what we could relatively do. I think it was important to put that entire picture into perspective so that while we recognize the achievements of the United States, we also recognize that this revolution has flowed more from the banks of the Black Sea than it has from the Persian Gulf.
That said, democracy is certainly a process, and not a sole event. Looking at it as an event makes us lose perspective of what is actually being fought for, and who is really fighting for it. Akayev is gone, and now there is a real chance to start on the right path. Let's hope that the people on the ground are thinking of this in the long term, and that the opposition leadership makes good and keeps its back toward the twisted and corrupt ideology of totalitarianism. The credit today belongs with the people of Kyrgyzstan.
What we have been seeing there isn't a revolution. It's a lawless mob looting whatever they wish.
As opposed to a lawless government holding on to power by illegal means?
Yeah, sure. It's pure coincidence that all this stuff has gone down within a few months.
Well, you're talking to a guy here who supports Bush and what he is doing. Judging by your remarks, I'm not even sure if you read the article. The Rose and Orange Revolutions had much more of an effect on Kyrgyzstan than voting in Iraq did, because these opposition movements have been in the works for several months now. Your misunderstanding is not one of the intent of U.S. foreign policy, but of its bounds and the politics of Central Asia.
I did. The conclusion was based on speculation.
The Rose and Orange Revolutions had much more of an effect on Kyrgyzstan than voting in Iraq did, because these opposition movements have been in the works for several months now. Your misunderstanding is not one of the intent of U.S. foreign policy, but of its bounds and the politics of Central Asia.
Who said that the Iraqi election is the only factor? There also were elections in Afghanistan, which is in the neighborhood. And Kyrgyzstan has been a thugocracy since it split off from the former Soviet Union, and remained such for years. None of these countries underwent democratic reforms until the implementation of the Bush Doctrine.
Then it depends on when you consider the Bush Doctrine went in to place. I have thought of it as since his inauguration speech. But in fact, the first revolution was in Serbia long before the war in Afghanistan and election in the region. Then came Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine this past November.
But you don't address your knowledge of the region. The primary causation of these events has certainly not been the Bush Doctrine as everyone hopes. It's a home grown thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.