Tweet
Moscow feels threat of creeping revolts
BY ALEX RODRIGUEZ
Chicago Tribune
March 26 2005
BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan - (KRT) - The latest democratic uprising to
claim a former Soviet republic had Moscow buzzing with trepidation:
How many more dominoes can fall? On Thursday, Kyrgyzstan's regime
toppled. Could Kazakhstan be next? Uzbekistan? Belarus?
With Kremlin ally Askar Akayev ousted from power in Kyrgyzstan,
a debate in Russia has ensued over whether the fever for democracy
can take root in the rest of Central Asia or reach harsh, autocratic
regimes such as Alexander Lukashenko's in Belarus.
Analysts say the Kremlin is finding itself increasingly powerless to
stanch the creep of democracy into former Soviet republics it still
covets. Russian President Vladimir Putin made his frustration clear
Friday during a visit to Armenia.
"It's unfortunate that yet again in the post-Soviet space, political
problems in a country are resolved illegally and are accompanied by
pogroms and human victims," Putin said in Yerevan, Armenia's capital.
The upheaval in Kyrgyzstan was watched closely by Moscow and
Washington, both of which regard the small, mountainous republic as
having vital strategic value. The regions surrounding Kyrgyzstan are
home to several Islamic extremist groups, some of whom have alleged
ties to al-Qaida, and the United States and Russia maintain military
bases in the country.
For the United States, the Kyrgyz uprising could potentially provide an
anchor of democratic stability in the volatile Central Asia region. But
for Russians, the swift revolt that forced Akayev to flee Bishkek,
Kyrgyzstan's capital, has reinforced deepening concern that recent
regime changes in Russia's back yard are not anomalies but part of
a pattern.
In a little less than a year and a half, three former Soviet republics
- Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan - have undergone revolutions seeded
by anger over rigged or flawed elections. In each case, regimes that
had perfected the formula for power through suppression of civil
society found themselves routed by citizens fed up with Soviet-like
governance long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Experts say the thirst for genuine civil society in the remaining
former Soviet republics is powerful and enduring.
"I think there are strong chances that the opposition might succeed in
countries neighboring Kyrgyzstan," said Zeyno Baran, a Central Asia
affairs analyst for the Washington-based Nixon Center. "I would say
the chances are highest in Kazakhstan, then followed by Tajikistan
and then less in Uzbekistan, which is a much stronger state and much
more repressive than the others."
Indeed, in the former Soviet republics that make up most of Central
Asia, dissent is often silenced with torture, imprisonment, or both.
Kyrgyzstan may have inspired its neighbors much the way it had been
inspired by Georgia and Ukraine, but it is less certain whether it
can serve as a model for change in those countries.
"In all other Central Asian states, the regimes are much more
repressive. They don't even allow the opposition to emerge," said
Vyacheslav Nikonov, head of the Moscow-based Politika Foundation. "So
the chances of a similar event happening elsewhere in Central Asia
are very poor."
In Turkmenistan, where Saparmurad Niyazov has declared himself
president for life, political opposition virtually does not exist.
Niyazov's administration echoes North Korea's government in its
isolation and authoritarian rule.
Tajikistan, just south of Kyrgyzstan, remains scarred by a brutal
civil war that killed thousands of people between 1992 in 1997. Weary
of conflict, its citizens are considered unlikely to rise up against
President Emomali Rakhmonov, a strongman who reinforced his grip on
power with parliamentary elections this year. Those elections were
criticized by international observers as rife with fraud.
Uzbekistan's president, Islam Karimov, heads a virtual police state
with a history of jailing political opponents and suppressing religious
freedoms. Edil Baisalov, head of the Bishkek-based Coalition for
Democracy and Civil Society, said an uprising in Uzbekistan could
occur, but it likely would be spearheaded by Islamic fundamentalists
who allege Karimov has jailed and tortured scores of followers.
Oil-rich Kazakhstan is an unlikely venue for change for a different
reason: Though regarded as authoritarian, President Nursultan
Nazarbayev has made strides modernizing and improving his country's
economy.
"Many young Kazakhs are busy making money and building their career,
and they would prefer to not think about politics right now," Baisalov
said. "Stability is much more important."
Kyrgyzstan has been regarded as the most democratic of the
Central Asian republics. For years, Akayev enjoyed a reputation
as a reformer. Western-funded non-governmental organizations were
permitted to operate. U.S. democracy advocacy organizations like
the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic
Institute were allowed to train opposition candidates.
Given a small measure of democracy, Kyrgyz opposition leaders and
thousands of impoverished citizens craved more. When they saw the
uprisings that ushered out Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and Leonid
Kuchma's handpicked successor in Ukraine last year, they convinced
themselves regime change was possible in Bishkek, analysts said.
"Kyrgyz opposition leaders were in contact with Ukrainian opposition
forces," the Nixon Center's Baran said. "If it weren't for the lessons
learned from Ukraine and Georgia, I don't think the Kyrgyz opposition
would have been able to have the courage to do what they have done."
Russia's reaction to the Kyrgyz uprising contrasted sharply with its
handling of the Orange Revolution, when Putin firmly backed Kuchma's
candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, despite evidence
that Ukrainian authorities had conspired to rig the election in
Yanukovych's favor.
Though Putin publicly criticized the unrest that led to Akayev's
ouster, he also said the Kremlin would work with Kyrgyzstan's new
leadership.
"Russia, for its part, will do all it can so that the current level
of our relations are preserved," Putin said.
Analysts said Putin took the right tack, but his options were
limited. If he sharply criticized Kyrgyzstan's new leadership, said
Moscow-based political analyst Viktor Kremenyuk, he risked pushing
Kyrgyzstan even further away.
"Russian leadership is without a doubt deeply vexed and irritated
at the latest events and considers them to be the infringement of
Russia's interests," Kremenyuk said. "But what can Russia do about
it? I think the events in Ukraine showed there is practically nothing
Russia can do."
BY ALEX RODRIGUEZ
Chicago Tribune
March 26 2005
BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan - (KRT) - The latest democratic uprising to
claim a former Soviet republic had Moscow buzzing with trepidation:
How many more dominoes can fall? On Thursday, Kyrgyzstan's regime
toppled. Could Kazakhstan be next? Uzbekistan? Belarus?
With Kremlin ally Askar Akayev ousted from power in Kyrgyzstan,
a debate in Russia has ensued over whether the fever for democracy
can take root in the rest of Central Asia or reach harsh, autocratic
regimes such as Alexander Lukashenko's in Belarus.
Analysts say the Kremlin is finding itself increasingly powerless to
stanch the creep of democracy into former Soviet republics it still
covets. Russian President Vladimir Putin made his frustration clear
Friday during a visit to Armenia.
"It's unfortunate that yet again in the post-Soviet space, political
problems in a country are resolved illegally and are accompanied by
pogroms and human victims," Putin said in Yerevan, Armenia's capital.
The upheaval in Kyrgyzstan was watched closely by Moscow and
Washington, both of which regard the small, mountainous republic as
having vital strategic value. The regions surrounding Kyrgyzstan are
home to several Islamic extremist groups, some of whom have alleged
ties to al-Qaida, and the United States and Russia maintain military
bases in the country.
For the United States, the Kyrgyz uprising could potentially provide an
anchor of democratic stability in the volatile Central Asia region. But
for Russians, the swift revolt that forced Akayev to flee Bishkek,
Kyrgyzstan's capital, has reinforced deepening concern that recent
regime changes in Russia's back yard are not anomalies but part of
a pattern.
In a little less than a year and a half, three former Soviet republics
- Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan - have undergone revolutions seeded
by anger over rigged or flawed elections. In each case, regimes that
had perfected the formula for power through suppression of civil
society found themselves routed by citizens fed up with Soviet-like
governance long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Experts say the thirst for genuine civil society in the remaining
former Soviet republics is powerful and enduring.
"I think there are strong chances that the opposition might succeed in
countries neighboring Kyrgyzstan," said Zeyno Baran, a Central Asia
affairs analyst for the Washington-based Nixon Center. "I would say
the chances are highest in Kazakhstan, then followed by Tajikistan
and then less in Uzbekistan, which is a much stronger state and much
more repressive than the others."
Indeed, in the former Soviet republics that make up most of Central
Asia, dissent is often silenced with torture, imprisonment, or both.
Kyrgyzstan may have inspired its neighbors much the way it had been
inspired by Georgia and Ukraine, but it is less certain whether it
can serve as a model for change in those countries.
"In all other Central Asian states, the regimes are much more
repressive. They don't even allow the opposition to emerge," said
Vyacheslav Nikonov, head of the Moscow-based Politika Foundation. "So
the chances of a similar event happening elsewhere in Central Asia
are very poor."
In Turkmenistan, where Saparmurad Niyazov has declared himself
president for life, political opposition virtually does not exist.
Niyazov's administration echoes North Korea's government in its
isolation and authoritarian rule.
Tajikistan, just south of Kyrgyzstan, remains scarred by a brutal
civil war that killed thousands of people between 1992 in 1997. Weary
of conflict, its citizens are considered unlikely to rise up against
President Emomali Rakhmonov, a strongman who reinforced his grip on
power with parliamentary elections this year. Those elections were
criticized by international observers as rife with fraud.
Uzbekistan's president, Islam Karimov, heads a virtual police state
with a history of jailing political opponents and suppressing religious
freedoms. Edil Baisalov, head of the Bishkek-based Coalition for
Democracy and Civil Society, said an uprising in Uzbekistan could
occur, but it likely would be spearheaded by Islamic fundamentalists
who allege Karimov has jailed and tortured scores of followers.
Oil-rich Kazakhstan is an unlikely venue for change for a different
reason: Though regarded as authoritarian, President Nursultan
Nazarbayev has made strides modernizing and improving his country's
economy.
"Many young Kazakhs are busy making money and building their career,
and they would prefer to not think about politics right now," Baisalov
said. "Stability is much more important."
Kyrgyzstan has been regarded as the most democratic of the
Central Asian republics. For years, Akayev enjoyed a reputation
as a reformer. Western-funded non-governmental organizations were
permitted to operate. U.S. democracy advocacy organizations like
the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic
Institute were allowed to train opposition candidates.
Given a small measure of democracy, Kyrgyz opposition leaders and
thousands of impoverished citizens craved more. When they saw the
uprisings that ushered out Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and Leonid
Kuchma's handpicked successor in Ukraine last year, they convinced
themselves regime change was possible in Bishkek, analysts said.
"Kyrgyz opposition leaders were in contact with Ukrainian opposition
forces," the Nixon Center's Baran said. "If it weren't for the lessons
learned from Ukraine and Georgia, I don't think the Kyrgyz opposition
would have been able to have the courage to do what they have done."
Russia's reaction to the Kyrgyz uprising contrasted sharply with its
handling of the Orange Revolution, when Putin firmly backed Kuchma's
candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, despite evidence
that Ukrainian authorities had conspired to rig the election in
Yanukovych's favor.
Though Putin publicly criticized the unrest that led to Akayev's
ouster, he also said the Kremlin would work with Kyrgyzstan's new
leadership.
"Russia, for its part, will do all it can so that the current level
of our relations are preserved," Putin said.
Analysts said Putin took the right tack, but his options were
limited. If he sharply criticized Kyrgyzstan's new leadership, said
Moscow-based political analyst Viktor Kremenyuk, he risked pushing
Kyrgyzstan even further away.
"Russian leadership is without a doubt deeply vexed and irritated
at the latest events and considers them to be the infringement of
Russia's interests," Kremenyuk said. "But what can Russia do about
it? I think the events in Ukraine showed there is practically nothing
Russia can do."