Last week in Kyrgyzstan, supporters of former president Kurmanbek Bakiyev occupied government buildings in the south and clashed with government forces before the interim government restored authority. The incident, in which at least one person died, reinforced the fact that the contours of Kyrgyzstan’s new political regime are far from settled. In recent weeks, Eric McGlinchey, Alexander Cooley, and Kathleen Collins have commented on Kyrgyzstan’s political upheaval and U.S. policy toward Bishkek in its wake. Eric McGlinchey, “Running In Circles in Kyrgyzstan,” The New York Times, April 9, 2010
“Concepts like opposition and political parties prove an uncomfortable fit with Kyrgyz politics. The press would do well to drop these terms and begin to analyze the political dynamic for what it actually is — a handful of political elites going in circles — rather than in terms suggestive of what we hope Kyrgyzstan can become, a competitive democracy…. Kyrgyzstan is in Russia’s backyard, and the fact that we depend on our air base there for our Afghan war doesn’t change that. Presenting a united front with Russia, however, would help Washington keep its air base and avoid another bidding war. It would also provide some political equilibrium that might keep those now on the outs in Bishkek from hijacking the Kyrgyz state again.”
Alexander Cooley, “Manas Hysteria: Why the U.S. Can’t Keep Buying Off Kyrgyz leaders to keep its vital base open,” ForeignPolicy.com, April 12, 2010
“To protect Manas further down the road, the United States must convince the Kyrgyz people that it is interested in more than a transactional relationship. For example, the United States can publicly encourage the Kyrgyz interim government to nationalize the distribution of fuel to the base, as it has announced it will do with Bakiyev’s private banks, and to make more transparent base-related payments to the national budget, as opposed to paying out to opaque companies with offshore registrations…. For its part, the new Kyrgyz government would do well to not only clean up the corrupt flow of base-related funds, but, more importantly, work to hasten the day when a U.S. air base is no longer the focus of the country’s foreign relations and domestic political maneuverings.”
Cooley also delivered testimony for a congressional hearing on “Crisis in Kyrgyzstan: Fuel, Contracts, and Revolution Along the Afghan Supply Chain,” House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, April 22, 2010
“[T]he Kyrgyz case…demonstrates that the often-posited trade-off between supporting ‘political stability’ in authoritarian governments and promoting good governance and democracy, is often a false choice. U.S. officials mistakenly came to accept Bakiyev’s authoritarianism as evidence, in and of itself, of Kyrgyzstan’s political stability, yet the cumulative effects of his repression and corruption clearly both impoverished and destabilized the country….[T]he United States needs to take bold and decisive steps to rehabilitate its battered public standing within Kyrgyzstan…. U.S. officials should [also] use the situation in Kyrgyzstan to develop more cooperative ties with their Russian counterparts. Putting an end to the competitive ‘Great Game’ dynamics surrounding Manas – and perceptions on both sides that Russia and the United States are locked into zero-sum struggle for influence in Central Asia – is critical to the stability of any future Kyrgyz government.”
Kathleen Collins, “Will Obama Support Democracy in Kyrgyzstan,” The Christian Science Monitor, May 3, 2010
“The Obama administration has been slow to recognize and cautious in supporting the provisional government whose method and legitimacy in taking power has been widely questioned. To be sure, it was not a peaceful democratic revolution, but this is no cause for the US to remain aloof…. Maintaining stability while pursuing a democratic transition is critical for Kyrgyzstan….By prominently backing the provisional government and actively supporting a democratic transition through political and economic aid, the US will dispel Kyrgyz public sentiment that America cares only about its own geopolitical interests. America stands to regain some of the legitimacy and credibility for promoting democracy that it once enjoyed throughout Central Asia.”
