A gain for Washington, an embarrassment for Moscow (Kyrgyzstan & Bush's global drive for freedom)

The Guardian via SMH ^ | March 26, 2005 | Ian Traynor

[dfwgator]

I wonder if this might happen in Belarus.

It would seem inevitable.

[dfwgator]

I'm afraid this might be another case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[dead]

The same gesture can mean different things in different cultures.

[Robert Mayer]

Believe me, things are in the works over there :)

[Robert Mayer]

It's already well known that protestors were throwing molotov cocktails, burning cars, looting Bishkek (in fact, they can't seem to control it at the moment). We're just hoping that it will finally calm down and the new opposition leaders won't take their old hard line stance once obtaining power.

[rmlew]

Kyrgystan is not Belarus.
A free Belarus, would only anger the Russians. Kyrgistan in anarchy may lead to Islamist control of the Ferangia valley or Chinese expansion.

[Destro]

The "revolution" had zero to do with being pro or anti-American - in fact the guy that fell from power was pretty pro-American. But simplistic news gets less knowledgable readers attention who want to say "Freedom is on the march" and other sloganeers.

Revolution that came too soon starts to fall apart in chaotic Kyrgyzstan Mary Dejevsky reports from the capital on violent ethnic rivalry and a growing sense that no one is in control - 27 March 2005

The ignominious flight of the president as protesting crowds invaded the presidential compound and government buildings in Bishkek would not have been how Askar Akayev would have wanted to be remembered in Kyrgyzstan. When he came to power in 1990, it was as a mild-mannered nuclear physicist, with a doctorate from Leningrad (now St Petersburg) University, who was chosen from the ranks of the Communist Party in the wake of serious ethnic violence in the southern border areas of the republic. He was chosen precisely because he did not have the profile of a party hack, but that of a liberal and progressive politician rather in the mould of Mikhail Gorbachev, who would be able to keep the country together through turbulent times. This profile endeared him to the West, as did his decision a few months before the break-up of the Soviet Union to abandon Mr Gorbachev and throw in his lot with the Russian leader, Boris Yeltsin.

When I interviewed him in September 1991, he was eloquent in his hopes for his homeland - and confident that he could preside over the modernisation of Kyrgyzstan as a state and an economy.

The test of the "tulip" - or is it the "daffodil"? - revolution will be whether Kyrgyz voters are content with the change they have forced. Or will they, in a few months' time, be wishing they had their old president back?

The guys in power now?

I) opposition leader and former Vice President Felix Kulov, sprung from jail by the "Pink Revolutionaries," was a deputy interior minister in the Soviet era, when he commanded troops who killed dozens of protesters who stormed a police station in southern Kyrgyzstan during the last days of the Soviet Union;

II) former Prime Minister Kurmanbek Bakiyev – under his regime, in March 2002, riots broke out in his home region in the south, protesting the arrest of their parliamentary deputy. Police fired into a crowd of 1,500, and five people died. Bakiyev was forced to resign after an investigation;

III) Ishenbai Kadyrbekov – elected "provisional" speaker by a dubious amalgam of the former parliament and others. Mr. Kadyrbeko is an incumbent deputy leader of the Communist Party, who accused the administration of President Askar Akayev of bugging his telephone (something a Communist would never do!), and a man, furthermore, with a somewhat dubious reputation.

[chiller]

"The Bush Effect" is becoming increasingly embarrassing for Mssrs. Clintoon and Carter. Before long the whole damn world will notice. I'm jacked !

[libs_kma]

"The "revolution" had zero to do with being pro or anti-American - in fact the guy that fell from power was pretty pro-American. But simplistic news gets less knowledgable readers"

Once again you miss the point, my plastic super hero idolizing FRiend. The only one pushing even the idea that this is an anti or pro US Agenda on this situation is you. Most are only seeing (and cheering) that these people are throwing a dictator out on his tail, and they are choosing democracy over a despot.

Go ahead and try your pro-Pooty-Toot spin, but I don't think many even listen to you here. You marginalize yourself even more every time you try to sell this stuff.

This guy was so pro-American right? How "Pro-American" was he? Did he have "Mother, Applie Pie, and Baseball" tatooed on his arm? Or maybe he visited the klintoon Whitehouse? Or maybe Jimmy Carter vouched for his last 99.5% election victory, so he said nice things about Jimmuh?

[Destro]

How "Pro-American" was he? HE ALLOWED AMERICA TO BUILD AN AIRBASE SO WE CAN INVADE AND LIBERATE AFGHANISTAN AND TO CARRY ON THE WAR AGAINST AL-QAEDA.

That answer your question? Do ypu read or do you enjoy being ignorant?

Once hailed as a reformer and the most liberal leader in Central Asia, Akayev has actually been successful only in using state institutions in the name of democracy and political language the West can understand.Kyrgyzstan also hosts a Russian and an America military base.The opposition that has arisen over the past two weeks also has very strong regional and ethnic origins.In the south of Kyrgyzstan, the opposition comprises of many ethnic Uzbeks (14 percent of the country's entire population).Ethnic minorities such as the Uzbeks (others are Russian 13 percent, Dungan 1 percent, Ukrainian 1 percent, Uygur 1 percent, and other 5.7 percent) have clashed with the Kyrgyz majority many times -- and rarely without violence and bloodshed.It is also of importance that the southern towns of Jalal-Abad and Osh were quickly abandoned by the central authorities (even retreating again after a weak attempt to establish control over these cities during the past few days).The central authorities in Bishkek have never really had much control over the south.Since the political crisis began, there has not been any meaningful change on the ground -- only additional evidence of regional differences and the lack of central control.

It is an ethnic divisions thing that ignorant fools think has something to do with "freedom spreading". This is like South-West Americans not accepting election results and their mobs storm Austin or Dallas.

[libs_kma]

Ok, you caught me. Normally I DON'T read your posts because they tend to be verbose and full of conjecture.

So he did allow an airbase. Ok, great, but does that mean he wasn't a dictatorial fool?? I think not. And also, you never said if he has that tattoo.

[Destro]

Yup great - do some reading on your own - learn a little.