Kyrgyzstan protests

[welsh]

Georgia, Ukraine and now Kyrgzstan-

Apparently mass protests haved forced the government to close and the president to flee. Guess it's hard being a corrupt dictator in a former Soviet Republican.

Kyrgyzstan president flees amid popular uprising
Parliament selects opposition leader to fill interim position
Christopher Pala, Steven Lee Myers, New York Times

Friday, March 25, 2005

Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan -- Protesters alleging corruption, repression and electoral fraud forced the longtime president of this central Asian country to flee his palace Thursday, the third time in the last year and a half that a government of a former Soviet republic has been toppled in a popular uprising.

President Askar Akayev and his family fled Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital, after crowds at a large opposition rally seized control of the presidential palace and began looting it as his security forces evaporated.

Kyrgyzstan's parliament elected a former opposition lawmaker, Ishenbai Kadyrbekov, as the country's interim president. It was unclear whether the decision was legally binding -- in part because of uncertainty over whether Akayev, whose whereabouts were unknown, had stepped down.

Other opposition leaders were appointed to senior posts in an interim government, whose members met to discuss keeping order and conducting a new presidential vote. Kurmanbek Bakiyev, one of the opposition leaders and a former prime minister, called for order and urged the crowds outside to remain calm.

The events follow similar uprisings in Georgia and Ukraine. The reverberations are likely to be felt in the most powerful former Soviet republic, Russia, where President Vladimir Putin has steadily strengthened state control even as he presents himself as a democrat.

In the first decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, democracy took root in most of its former republics in name only. With the exception of the Baltic states -- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, now deeply entwined with Europe -- new political systems and new leaders emerged from the post-Soviet chaos promising freedoms, yet somehow managing to ensure that those freedoms led to the continuation of their power.

But in the last 17 months, popular uprisings have claimed the sclerotic leaders of three former republics. In Georgia in November 2003, in Ukraine a year later and now in Kyrgyzstan, simmering discontent accomplished what not long ago seemed improbable: the peaceful overthrow of governments that ceased to represent the will of the people.

What is most surprising is how quickly those governments fell when faced by protesters asserting the rights their leaders promised but too often failed to deliver.

"No one expected it would happen so fast," Balbek Tulobayev, a government official who was close to the Kyrgyzstan opposition, said after protesters had occupied the palace.

For opposition leaders and even for some of those in power in other republics, the events that began in Georgia with the toppling of Eduard Shevardnadze and continued with the extraordinary challenge to a fraudulent election in Ukraine in the fall have come like a contagion, spreading in fast and unpredictable ways.

"People are tired everywhere," Aleksandr Rondeli, president of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, said in a telephone interview from Georgia's capital, Tblisi, referring to the popular discontent. The uprisings in Georgia and Ukraine, he added, showed what was possible. "They saw how easy it looked on TV," he said.

Like Shevardnadze and President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine, Akayev appeared to believe that the state's authority could dictate the terms of a nominally democratic process to favor chosen candidates.

Putin, who himself is accused of tightening control over what is left of a democratic system, has cultivated ties with the autocratic leaders of the Central Asian states, seemingly indifferent to accusations that their rule amounts to authoritarianism.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned Thursday of "the consequences than can evolve from attempts to come to power by illegal means."

Not coincidentally, perhaps, rumors have swirled in Russia about Putin's own political future in the wake of the recent upheavals in the former Soviet neighborhood. Putin was re-elected to a second and, according to the Constitution, final, term as president last year.

In Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital, waves of protest and spreading for several weeks, particularly since the disputed runoff parliamentary elections earlier this month.

Anger over the vote, together with rising discontent at deteriorating living conditions, especially in the poorer and more religious south of this mostly Muslim country, fueled what has been a largely disorganized yet peaceful opposition movement.

The takeover on Thursday began when two protest marches, held in the face of threats by the government that it would use force to quell unrest, converged on the White House, the main government building where Akayev had his office.

The streams of demonstrators marching from different parts of the capital filled the main square in front of the building, where organizers said they had initially planned to press their demand for Akayev's resignation.

In the small wood-paneled office on the seventh floor where Akayev ruled for nearly 15 years, protesters gave speeches and posed for pictures while others pocketed souvenirs.

A senior civil servant in a blue suit and tie stood in a corner of the office. "The president was here until the crowds gathered," he said. "Tell the world that when he left, he gave orders that no weapons should be used, even though there are plenty in the cellar."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A look at Kyrgyzstan
Geography: 79,400 square miles; bordering China, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. Much of the country is mountainous.

Population: About 5 million; about 65 percent are ethnic Kyrgyz, 14 percent Uzbek, 13 percent Russian, with small numbers of other ethnic groups.

Economy: Largely agricultural, with industrial exports including gold and electricity. Despite substantial reforms, the country remains poor.

Politics: Gained independence after the Soviet collapse in 1991. Under longtime President Askar Akayev, it was widely viewed as being more open and democratic than other former Soviet states in Central Asia, but opposition figures charged his government condoned corruption. Both Russia and the United States have air bases in the country.

Associated Press

 

[Brother None]

Georgia, Ukraine and now Kyrgzstan

What? Pay more attention, welsh, this is not George Mk. II. Kyrgyzstan's stituation is different and not nearly as good. My paper did a hella good indepth report, to sum it all up;

For one thing, the populace generally doesn't care for the West. They distrust the EU, NATO, UN, IMF and most of all they distrust the USA. They consider these powers to be responsible for their former president's ability to stay in power and suck his people dry. This mistrust may end in reactionary countries like Great Britain and the USA taking steps against the new powers.

Understand also that these protest marches are little more than glorified riots. As on Kyrgzystani (?) in Bishkek put it; "About 90 procent of the 'protesters' are just onlookers. A lot of the others seem to be here just to riot. They started smashing in windows and dragging out furniture while others shouted 'no! This is not the way!'."

Importantly, there is no united rebel front. Unlike Georgia and the Ukraine, there is no single rebel leader. The president and premier that the court instated might as well be random people from the street. Every city, every area, every gang, every group has its own hero, its own leader, and there's nobody who has enough influence to drag everything together.

What are we looking at, good or bad? I don't know, I'm guessing good, but not even vaguely similar to Georgia or the Ukraine

 

[The Commissar]

I was typing up a big thing, but Kharn has managed to sum up everything I was going to say. The end results may be good, but its nothing like what happened with Georgia or Ukraine. I think it has more in common with the kind of rioting that took place in Karachay-Cherkessia then anything else.

 

[Jebus]

Who cares? They're semi-Russian and semi-Mongol, and they live on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere.

I fail to see the importance of these events.

 

[Brother None]

Who cares? They're semi-Russian and semi-Mongol, and they live on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere.

I fail to see the importance of these events.

It's another chain in the link of the <strike>Americanisation</strike>democratisation of the world, except that this time they're giving a hearty fuck-you to the Americans whilst picking their own way towards democracy, which makes it stand out from its Slavic counterparts as well as Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[welsh]

Jebus, shut up. I have given you a warning. I will not give you a second one. Your spamming is making you no friends, even from those that sympathize with you. My patience with this is now exhausted.

Frankly, Kharn, I am not yet unconvinced that there isn't something similar.

In the past couple of years we have had rather significant popular riots and demonstrations over election irregularities in three former soviet states.

Ok, Ukraine and Georgia were more organized that in Kyrgystan. But then maybe the riots and chaos that we see in Kyrgstan may have more to do with the local level variations. Better states and a more developed civil society in Ukraine and Georgia may have allowed those protests to be more focused and organized while in Kyrgstan. That said, you still have popular uprising and governments that are essentially rolling over.

But that doesn't mean that this is different from a problem facing many former Soviet States. Likewise when the Berlin Wall fell and East Europe revolted, in some areas it was tense but little violence, in other areas (Romania) it went very violently. But the causes could be generalized across cases even if the actual events were somewhat different.

OK, ok, I will look for that Russian thread.

 

[Brother None]

I was not speaking about a Russian paper, welsh, I was speaking about my own Dutch paper, which gave quite a different perspective. They did the same today

Remember, Kyrgyztan is the axis of China, Russia and Afghanistan, it borders with three completely different powers and is considered one of the most important geopolitically placed countries in the world. The fact that this "democratic uprising" is little more than an empty bit of rioting without clear leaders means very bad news for stability in that region, it is seriously worrying. Heck, it's yet to be seen if it has any democratic tendencies at all.

I'll have to translate an article from the Volkskrant of this morning, all English papers seem to gloat either in happiness or to just be putting Russia down (remember, I have superduper access to all kinds of newspapers now,thanks to a dohickey, teeehee)

HEADLINE: Rebellion in Kyrgyzstan are making alarmbells ring in the region; revolution in Bishkek could cause shockwaves through Central-Asia; Moscow and Washington fear muslimextremism

BODY:
Those who simply call Kyrgyzstan the third domino after the other turnabouts in Georgia and the Ukraine are probably too blinded by the idea that a revoluton by definition only has positive effects.

The looting in Bishkek show that the Kyrgystanis do not harbour purely peaceful intentions, the missing of a powerful leader of the opposition makes the chance of quick recovery a lot smaller and it remains to be seen what political direction the new people in power will choose.

While it is economically of little importance Kyrgyzstan is important because of geopolitical reasons. Wedged in between Russia, China and Afhanistan, Bishkek is seen by worldleaders as a crucial observationpost in the region where economical, military and religious interests come toether

Simply because president Askar Akajev was seen as one of the weakest rulers of Central-Asia, in Kyrgyzstan no fuse could be lit and no bomb could explode.

In the neighbouring countries Uzbekistan, Tadzjikistan and Kazachstan, where the presidents Islam Karimov, Imomali Rachmonov and Noersoeltan Nazarbajev rule in a dictatorial manner, alarmbells will certainly be ringing. In both of the two first countries fraudulant elections (just like those in Kyrgyzstan) have led to large protests in the past few months, but in both cases this was surpressed with brute force. Kazachstan is planning for presidential elections in 2006.

It is interesting to see that Karimov, in an interview in January with the Russian newspaper Nezavisemaja Gazeta, balmed Akajev for having a weak attitude when it comes to the opposition, which could threaten the stability in the region. Uzbekistan, Tadzjikistan and Kazachstan have by now closed their borders with Kyrgyzstan and have mobilized their police- and armyforces.

Also interesting is to see that Russia and the United States are taking a careful position on the sideline, as opposed to their roles in the revolutions of Georgia and the Ukraine. There Moscow chose the side of the seating, friendly people in power (Sjevardnadze and Koetsjma), while Washinting very clearly supported the opposition (Saakasjvili and Joesjenko) [I was in Russia during the second one, it was very interesting to note their opinion on the matters. Russian criticism of the ease with which a proper, democratic and pro-American president was instated while a pro-Russian one would always be met with shouts and protests was indeed interesting - Kharn]. Because both Russia and the US have military bases in Kyrgyzstan, from which they can observe Afghanistan and spy on China, both Putin and Bush kept aloft on this count.

Should the revolutionary virus pass onto Uzbekistan, adzjikistan or Kazachtan, then Washington and Moscow shall almost certainly play no significant roll. Not in the last because these countries posses vast oil-wealths - which is not true for Kyrgyzstan.

For that same reason, 'oil', Moscow and Washington have so far given the presidents Karimov, Rachmonov and Nazarbajev total freedom to do what they wish in their respective countries.

While the oppositional leaders in Kyrgyzstan swear they shall strive for 'freedom and democracy', Moscow and Washington shall remain on the alert for new developments. Partially because Peking might possible not be able to resist the temptation of economical and military expansion, but above all because Kyrgyzstan could be tainted by muslimextremism from Uzbekistan and the nearby Afghanistan [can you say nest of terrorists? I can - Kharn].

Last year in March a series of assassinations were carried out in Uzbekistan (19 killed), to which the Uzbeki army together with the US preformed a counteraction in which 16 muslim-warriors were killed.

Radical muslimgroups are suspected to be hiding in the Fergana-valley, an area circled by high mountainchains that stretch over Uzbeki, Kyrgyzi and Tadsjiki areas. According to the American CIA the terroristgroups Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement Uzbekistan have their base there. Through the valley connections are also suspected to exist with Al Qa'ida-cells in Northern Afghanistan.

Those ingredients could, within the political vacuum now in Kyrgyzstan, gain a momentum that will offset the entire balance in Central-Asia. Possible this will lead to an explosive situation, but it could also happen that in this week the seed of democratisation for the entire region has been planted in Kyrgyzstan.

Attached was this great picture of a Kyrgyztani looting a laundry machine.

 

[welsh]

Indeed, as the article points out, this raises some serious problems for the region. NEither the US nor Russia can be reckless as they both have strategic issues at stake. Considering the instability, the locality of China, the strategic interests- bad things if they misplay it.

But the other problem- weak political systems that are easily overturned can cause for economic development based on the precarious nature of long-term investment.

If there is a systemic cause for these regime transitions that are applicable across former Soviet republics than those regions might have more trouble developing.

A proliferation of revolutions

Mar 25th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

Demonstrations in Kirgizstan have forced the former Soviet republic's government from power. The tremors could be felt elsewhere in undemocratic Central Asia

DOES three make a trend? Kirgizstan has become the third post-Soviet republic in which disgruntled voters, unwilling to accept a fraudulent election, have taken matters into their own hands. On Thursday March 24th, Askar Akaev, president of the Central Asian republic for 15 years, was forced to flee the capital, Bishkek, after protesters took the government headquarters. A new government has been proclaimed, and a court has annuled the elections. Now Kirgizstan’s “tulip revolution” joins Georgia’s “rose revolution” and Ukraine’s orange one. But Kirgizstan’s uprising has been more violent than those other two, and unlike them it has no single leader. The future for the remote republic is clouded.

On Thursday, protests which had begun in the south of the country a few days earlier reached Bishkek, in the north. Demonstrators stormed the “White House”, the government headquarters, making their way past riot police who either melted away or joined the protesters. The defence minister was led from the building under a hail of stones and sticks. Unnamed opposition figures announced the government’s fall on state television.

The turmoil had begun soon after the first round of elections on February 27th, which foreign monitors rated as deeply flawed. During the election campaign, state broadcasters openly supported the government, independent media were harassed and opposition candidates were disqualified from standing for niggling reasons. The second round, earlier this month, was little better. And rather than take it on the chin, as had voters in flawed elections in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan recently, quiet protests turned into full-scale insurrections. Two cities in the relatively impoverished south, Jalal-abad and Osh, were the first to fall. But it was the arrival of unrest in Bishkek that showed the disaffection was no flash in the pan.

After several bloody clashes, and looting and vandalism of the White House, opposition leaders have appealed for calm and promised fresh elections in June. The best-known among the revolution's leaders are Roza Otunbaeva, a former foreign minister, Kurmanbek Bakiev, a former prime minister, and Felix Kulov, a former vice-president, who was freed from prison by the protesters. They and other leaders have formed a “co-ordinating council for national unity”. Mr Bakiev will be interim president and prime minister, and Mr Kulov will run the security ministries. It is not yet clear that they can stop the looting, or potential score-settling between pro- and anti-Akaev groups. The police, for now, seem to have disappeared.

Will it ripple through the region?
Kirgizstan used to be seen as an island of democracy in Central Asia. Mr Akaev, a respected physicist, won a tough fight for the presidency in 1990 against a communist boss, and won popular election in 1991 after the republic gained independence. He reformed the economy and introduced multi-party democracy. But over the 1990s he became more authoritarian. Elections held in 1995 and 2000 were criticised by observers as less than free and fair. Following unrest in 2002, when an opposition member of parliament was arrested on petty charges, Mr Akaev promised reforms. But the result was a dodgy referendum that strengthened the presidency and replaced the party-list system with single-member districts for parliamentary polls. This weakened the parties and handed more clout to powerful individuals. Mr Akaev’s son and daughter both won seats in this year’s elections.

Though the country is small and remote, and lacks the energy reserves of some of the other Central Asian republics, events there are being watched with interest. Both America and Russia have military bases near Bishkek. America moved heavily into Central Asia for the war in Afghanistan, and the two big powers have eyed each other warily in the region ever since. Many have criticised America for tolerating brutal regimes that help it in the war on terror, notably that of Kirgizstan’s neighbour, Uzbekistan. But America’s ambassador in Bishkek, Stephen Young, has been admirably frank with both the press and Mr Akaev’s government about concerns over deteriorating democracy in Kirgizstan.

Russia had good relations with Mr Akaev, and Vladimir Putin, its president, expressed dismay that yet another former Soviet republic has had its government changed “illegally”. But the new leaders are mostly former ministers, people Mr Putin says he knows and can work with. Both America and Russia plan to keep their bases in Kirgizstan. Unlike in the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, foreign policy was not a big point of difference between government and opposition.

Kirgizstan’s neighbours are also watching closely. It has a tricky relationship with Uzbekistan, whose dictator, Islam Karimov, has cracked down heavily on Islamic militants. Uzbekistan even mined the border with Kirgizstan to prevent militants from escaping, to Mr Akaev’s deep annoyance. A new Kirgiz government might show more consideration for ethnic Uzbeks in the south, which could perhaps improve relations with its bigger neighbour.

Events in Kirgizstan are unlikely to have much effect in Turkmenistan, a North Korea-style dictatorship in the region. But Kirgizstan’s other neighbours, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, may feel tremors. In Kazakhstan to the north, the president, Nursultan Nazarbaev, has doled out money and favours (from the country’s mineral wealth) to keep himself in power. But there is a visible and lively, if so far unsuccessful, opposition. Tajikistan, which is poorer and endured a civil war in the 1990s, could be shakier. Recent elections, criticised by international observers, strengthened the party of the president, Imomali Rakhmonov. Might he be the next to succumb to Central Asia's new-found people power?

 

[Jebus]

Jebus, shut up. I have given you a warning. I will not give you a second one. Your spamming is making you no friends, even from those that sympathize with you. My patience with this is now exhausted.

With all do respect; but what's the use of sending me a PM, getting an apology from me, and then insulting me in public?

 

[Murdoch]

Meh. I just don't care. The presence of mountains and the absence of substantial roads makes any invasion or...anything except pipelines a remote possibility. This is a reason why the rest of the world doesn't care much about these areas. That and the lack of a significant population; Stalin got rid of that quite successfully.

 

[Jebus]

That and the lack of a significant population; Stalin got rid of that quite successfully.

Actually, I just did some research on Kyrgyzstan, and it seems like Stalin left them relatively untouched. They were relatively autonomous within the Soviet Union - probably because they aren't really important anyway.

 

[welsh]

Jebus, shut up. I have given you a warning. I will not give you a second one. Your spamming is making you no friends, even from those that sympathize with you. My patience with this is now exhausted.

With all do respect; but what's the use of sending me a PM, getting an apology from me, and then insulting me in public?

(1) The complete joy of an administrator with the capacity to sanction you for acting like a drama whoring noob.

(2) I made a pm to you to be clear that you received the message immediately. You will note that there was more to the message I sent you than discussed here.

(3) To make it clear to other posters on this board of the kinds of messages that are tolerated and those that will stir the ire of administrators and moderators. Your life may have little meaning except to serve as a mistakes from which others can benefit by knowing what to avoid. As an admin, part of my function is to educate the rest of the posters so they don't make similar mistakes and thus your life is not in vain.

(4) You will not tell us how to do our business as moderators or administrators. You have been warned about that as well. Should you have a question regarding the way you have been treated, than feel free to pm me.

Now stop being a drama whore and using these boards to advertise how puny or shallow your ego is. Have some self-esteem and some maturity, and perhaps people might show you more respect.

A rule of thumb, Jebus- no one will respect you because you whine, bitch or complain about it. You get respect because you earn it.

That and the lack of a significant population; Stalin got rid of that quite successfully.

Actually, I just did some research on Kyrgyzstan, and it seems like Stalin left them relatively untouched. They were relatively autonomous within the Soviet Union - probably because they aren't really important anyway.

A lot of that depends on the capacity of states to expand infrastructure and thereby penetrate a region. Russia might lack that power, and the US might be building that power to the South- run a pipeline South. But the Chinese are expanding west because of their energy needs.

That said, the relative lack of infrastructure and state may have something to do with the way society has been protesting.