Starting Points: Bishkek

Despite parallels with the uprising five years ago that ousted former president Askar Akaev, the new Kyrgyz crisis is more grassroots—and more violent

Some observers are drawing strong parallels with the current instability in Kyrgyzstan and the "Tulip Revolution" of March 2005. While there are definitely some similarities, there are also some substantial differences.

Similar to the Tulip Revolution, the current round of protests stems from the increased authoritarianism of the incumbent regime and regional exclusion. As was the case with the regime of former President Askar Akaev, the rule of his successor, Kurmanbek Bakiev, has sidelined important elites and their constituents. Growing corruption, nepotism, and consolidation of economic and political power in the hands of a small circle of people alienated not only powerful elites but also broader segments of Kyrgyz society.

Also similar to the Tulip Revolution, what we see now is the pervasive weakness of the state's security apparatus to restore order and restrain protesters. We see reports of police officers being beaten or changing sides. And we see reports that suggest that dual-power scenarios are emerging in some parts of the country, where crowds of protesters are appointing governors and regional administrators.

One difference between the 7 April protests and the Tulip Revolution is the level of violence. This week's events were the bloodiest in Kyrgyz history. In confronting protesters, the police relied on live bullets while protesters used stones and Molotov cocktails. Official reports put the number of people killed at more than 60 and those wounded at more than 500.

Another difference was of regional character. While the Tulip Revolution was sparked by protests and government building seizures in the southern regions (Jalal-Abad, Osh), this time the protests erupted mainly in the poor and remote northern regions such as Talas and Naryn, where residents have long complained of exclusion.

There are other remarkable differences between the current protests and those of five years ago.

Triggers for the protests differed. Unlike the Tulip Revolution, when the spark for mass mobilization was the Akaev regime's efforts to block a number of wealthy opposition elites from gaining seats in parliament, the current protests were triggered by simmering anger at the grassroots level.

In particular, three factors served to turn mass dissatisfaction into protests. They were the arrest of several opposition leaders by the Bakiev regime in relation to mass disorder in the town of Talas, where protesters occupied a government building; a steep hike in utility prices, which hit the population in the remote northern regions the hardest; the exclusion of a number of important northern elites in the Kurultai, or informal gathering of all Kyrgyz, by the Bakiev administration in March; and economic sanctions by Moscow such as the introduction of higher prices for gasoline.

That move was seen as Moscow's way of punishing the government for reneging on a 2009 agreement under which Kyrgyzstan would receive close to $2 billion in loans and aid in exchange for evicting U.S. forces from the air base in Manas. Bakiev got some of the Russian money, but then extended the lease for the base under a different status. The Russians were livid. As a result, the Russian media offered negative coverage of the Bakiev regime, a contributing factor to his sagging reputation.

Yet another notable difference between April 2010 and March 2005 were the "engines" behind the change. During the March 2005 protests, demonstrations were organized by wealthy elites who felt that their bids to gain seats in the parliament were threatened by the incumbent Akaev regime. Such elites then mobilized their supporters in their towns and villages, relying on local networks and offers of cash. The protests we saw on 7 April were sporadic and chaotic. In many ways, they appeared to be more an uncoordinated grass-roots revolt by a disenchanted population than an elite-driven and planned campaign.

As a result, the speed with which the protests erupted and spread was surprising, not only to international observers, but also to many locals. The administration and some opposition leaders seem to have not appreciated the extent of popular anger and were themselves taken aback. In other words, because there was no credible information about the distribution of power before the protests, there was little room for opposition factions and the incumbent regime to come to a negotiated settlement.

Neither the government nor opposition factions are in full control of the crowds. Already, there are reports of destruction of property and marauding in Bishkek and the regions that have seen protests. This is a bad sign for opposition factions because it discredits them.

What are the likely scenarios of events?

The most dramatic is that the Bakiev government will fall in the next several hours or days, as it appears to be doing. Because opposition leaders are not in full control of protesters, the country could plunge into anarchy and chaos that would last for a few days if not weeks.

Because Bakiev still retains a large political following in the southern regions, especially in Jalal-Abad, his birthplace, counter-protests may erupt in the south calling for his reinstatement. That would increase the risk of regional confrontation and possibility of civil war. Bakiev, now in the south, has not aired his intentions and this is contributing to tension.

A less dramatic scenario is that the Bakiev administration, while seriously weakened by the protests, could come to a negotiated settlement with opposition factions, and both groups would work to calm protesters. Russia and some neighbors such as Kazakhstan may provide good offices and assistance (not military, largely diplomatic) in this regard. Russia has already recognized the provisional government set up by opposition factions in Bishkek. Bakiev could resign as part of the negotiated deal. This would provide the provisional government some legitimacy as it faces a number of daunting challenges such as restoring order and state institutions and responding to economic and social problems that Bakiev left unaddressed.

Whatever the outcome of the protests, it is clear that Kyrgyzstan has plunged into deep chaos. It will take months, if not years to recover from this. The concern is that instability in Kyrgyzstan is already spilling over to its neighbors. Kazakhstan has closed borders as scores of Kyrgyz are trying to cross the border and find refuge in Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan is most likely to follow suit.

Alisher Khamidov is a consultant and analyst in Washington, D.C., specializing in Central Asian affairs. He can be reached at akhamido@hotmail.com

Image via Wikipedia

By CLIFFORD J. LEVY

MOSCOW — A transitional government in Kyrgyzstan declared that it was in charge on Thursday, a day after deadly protests forced the president to flee the capital. But the president himself insisted that he would not step down, issuing veiled threats from an unknown location that suggested that the country, the site of a vital American military base, could face renewed instability.

The day’s events were dominated by two compelling and contrary figures in Kyrgyz politics: the interim leader, Roza Otunbayeva, a bespectacled former diplomat who once taught Marxist-Leninist theory before becoming embracing Western mores; and Kurmanbek Bakiyev, the gruff, street-wise president, who boasted in an interview last year that he feared “absolutely nothing.”

Ms. Otunbayeva took the stage first, calling a news conference with her opposition colleagues to issue a series of directives that she said would calm the country after Wednesday’s violence, which left 68 people dead and more than 400 wounded.

“You can call this revolution. You can call this a people’s revolt,” she said. “Either way, it is our way of saying that we want justice and democracy.”

Like her colleagues at the new conference, Ms. Otunbayeva — who once backed Mr. Bakiyev before breaking with him early in his tenure — called for the president to acknowledge that he was through and resign.

But a few hours later, Mr. Bakiyev, 60, emerged from obscurity to make clear that he had no intention of stepping down.

Mr. Bakiyev had quit the capital, Bishkek, on Wednesday after thousands of opposition protesters, infuriated by rising utility costs and a government they saw as repressive and corrupt, seized control of important government buildings, including the television stations.

On Thursday, he issued a statement saying that the opposition was solely responsible for the violence the day before. Then he gave an interview to a radio station in Moscow in which he maintained that he had widespread support among the Kyrgyz people, though he acknowledged that he no longer commanded the government.

“In a few days it will become evident that those who imagined themselves the leaders — they are unable to lead,” he said. “They have pushed the country into such an abyss, into such a mess, that they will have to answer for it.”

All the while, Mr. Bakiyev offered no hint as to his whereabouts. Opposition leaders speculated that he had retreated to the south of Kyrgyzstan, where he has longstanding family ties. They said they were worried that he would try to gather supporters and try to retake the capital,– though that seemed unlikely for now — the armed forces, the security services and the police appear to have pledged loyalty to the interim government.

Mr. Bakiyev’s proclamations seemed to fall on deaf ears in Bishkek, where Ms. Otunbayeva announced that the interim government would administer the affairs of state for six months before presidential elections.

Ms. Otunbayeva said the status of the American military base in Bishkek, which plays an important role in supplying the war effort in Afghanistan, would not immediately change, though she warned that the issue was still being debated in the interim government.

In interviews Thursday, opposition politicians said that Ms. Otunbayeva, a former foreign minister and ambassador to the United States and Britain, was chosen as interim leader because she is considered to be a compromiser who is not politically ambitious and does not have a strong base of domestic support, having spent so many years abroad. The politicians, who would speak only anonymously because the situation was in such flux, said they believed she would be unable to amass power, leaving the field open for the presidential election.

Aleksandr Knyazev, a prominent political expert in Bishkek and a former student of Ms. Otunbayeva, said he thought of her as highly conscientious and honest. He said she seemed more European than Central Asian, and that she speaks better Russian and English than Kyrgyz.

“She does not understand the Kyrgyz mentality, and lacks clan support,” Mr. Knyazev said. “I doubt that she will run for president. Judging by her skills, she would make a good parliament speaker.”

While Kyrgyz politicians struggled for control, the United States and Russia on Thursday also seemed to be maneuvering for advantage in Kyrgyzstan, which is the only country in the world that has both American and Russian military bases. The Kremlin has long been bothered by the presence of the Americans in a region it calls part of its zone of influence.

Mr. Bakiyev had repeatedly sought to pit the United States and Russia against each other in order to extract more financial aid from both. Last year he upset the Kremlin when he agreed to evict the American base, then changed his mind after the Obama administration agreed to a steep increase in the rent and other favors.

In recent months, Mr. Bakiyev’s relations with Russia had collapsed, and the Russian government had increased the cost of energy that it provided to Kyrgyzstan. Russia’s state-controlled news media, which is widely followed in Kyrgyzstan, had also been conducting an intense campaign against Mr. Bakiyev, portraying him as a corrupt dictator.

On Thursday, Russia reached out to the opposition, effectively recognizing it as the government. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin spoke with Ms. Otunbayeva, and a senior Russian lawmaker, Sergei M. Mironov, called another prominent Kyrgyz interim leader, Omurbek Tekebayev.

It did not appear that the United States took similar steps, though the State Department said diplomats from the United States Embassy in Bishkek were meeting with opposition leaders.

At her news conference, Ms. Otunbayeva said the interim government was examining the agreements governing the American base.

“We still have some questions about it,” she said. “Give us time and we will listen to all the sides and solve everything.”

Mr. Tekebayev said in a telephone interview that any decisions on the base would be made collectively by the opposition. He said he had a positive attitude toward the United States, but acknowledged that the opposition had lingering resentments over what he said was the willingness of American diplomats to overlook Mr. Bakiyev’s human rights record in order to protect the base.

“The U.S. government does not and did not criticize Bakiyev, or express any negative opinions about him,” Mr. Tekebayev said. “The embassy here was warned several days ago that this would happen. They knew it, and they didn’t do anything about it.”

Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker from Prague, Nikolai Khalip from Moscow, Alan Cowell from Paris, and Elisabeth Bumiller from Washington.

Starting Points

Apr 17, 2010

Kyrgyzstan: No Tulip Revolution Replay - BusinessWeek

Despite parallels with the uprising five years ago that ousted former president Askar Akaev, the new Kyrgyz crisis is more grassroots—and more violent

Apr 8, 2010

Kyrgyz Opposition Group Says It Will Rule for 6 Months - NYTimes.com

By CLIFFORD J. LEVY