Analytical Articles

The upheaval in Kyrgyzstan – the second in five years – raises the question whether Kyrgyzstan has any serious prospects of developing into a stable, sovereign state, let alone one with a pluralistic political system. The opposition that has claimed power faces major challenges, including curbing corruption, breaking the links between the state and organized crime, and creating a political order conducive for social and economic stability. Whether the members of the interim government fit this ticket remains doubtful. In case of continued instability, a scenario in which Kyrgyzstan’s sovereignty is effectively reduced cannot be ruled out.  

In 2005, the Kyrgyz “Tulip Revolution” toppled Askar Akaev’s regime and put Kurmanbek Bakiyev in power, opening for what many hoped would become a more just and democratic government, capable of addressing economic and social ills. But five years on, Kyrgyzstan is even further from democracy and a similar fate has befallen President Bakiyev. Events in the country over the recent years have clearly demonstrated the ineffectiveness of government institutions and policies that failed to ensure stable and democratic functioning of the state and, in so doing, threatened its integrity amidst internal pressures and external designs.

Kyrgyzstan’s upheaval was not totally unexpected. Foreign media and observers pointed out mounting disaffection, profound economic crisis, and the possibility that the opposition could actually come to power. Kyrgyz domestic politics had become increasingly authoritarian and nepotistic. Yet Kyrgyzstan also remained at the center of the great power rivalries among Russia, China, its direct neighbors, and the United States. Thus domestic and foreign challenges are interlinked at several points – and that circumstance arguably catalyzed the upheaval – what Eric McGlinchey called the “hijacking” of the Kyrgyz government. Indeed, evidence is now visible that the rebellion or coup was clearly helped along if not actually incited by Moscow.

Chinese government officials in both Beijing and Xinjiang are greatly concerned about the current developments in Kyrgyzstan, but have largely refrained from commenting on the situation. Trade and regional stability are two of the main reasons behind China’s concern. However, possible consequences such as an impact on China’s domestic political discourse, and fears of the crisis leading to a more pivotal U.S. role in the region may be even more important. The unpredictable nature of the changes in Kyrgyzstan and the region is in many ways the most threatening development for Beijing.

The French government’s decision to sell several Mistral-class amphibious warships to Russia has aroused concerns, especially in Georgia and the Baltic states, that the Russian Navy will use the vessels to intimidate or even invade its neighbors. Yet, the ship would add little to Russia’s already substantial military advantage over these countries. The real problem with the sale is two-fold. First, it could help revitalize Russian military shipbuilding. Second, the transaction could divide NATO members, weakening their leverage with Moscow.

Throughout the 1990s, the uranium riches of Central Asia and the existence of nuclear weapons were mentioned only in the context of the denuclearization program that followed the disintegration of the Soviet Union. While international attention is focused mainly on oil and gas, the region is poised to rediscover its uranium resources and the potentially important role to be played by nuclear power in an area with a chronic deficit of energy. The exponential growth of nuclear power worldwide, and especially in Asia, draws attention to Kazakhstan, which seeks to exploit its potential.

Kazakhstan looks set to continue the implementation of a strategy designed to reclaim its national influence in the decision-making over the scale and pace of industrial expansion in significant natural resource development projects. Having achieved such an outcome over several years as regards the restructuring of the consortium that develops the offshore Kashagan oil (and associated gas) deposit, Kazakh government officials last month initiated moves that could bring about a similar result as regards the Karachaganak natural gas deposit.

On March 23-24, President Kurmanbek Bakiev initiated a national civil forum in Kyrgyzstan through the Kurultai of Consent, a traditional form of public gathering, which coincided with the fifth anniversary of the Tulip Revolution. On March 17, the opposition held an alternative Kurultai on the eighth anniversary of the “Aksy- events”, when six people were killed during antigovernment manifestations. The two events signify an emerging type of interaction between government and opposition and a struggle for improving their public legitimacy, a resource clearly lacking for both sides.

The U.S. has started to formulate and implement more comprehensive policies for Central Asia. The deepening involvement in the war in Afghanistan is the principal, but not sole cause for this policy initiative. Russia’s attempts to impose its hegemony upon Central Asia and oblige the U.S. to recognize it have triggered a reaction in Washington. Likewise, China’s completion of the pipeline to Turkmenistan and major investment projects in Central Asia forced the U.S. to devise new ways to enhance its energy and economic profile there as well. As a result, in early 2010, we now see the elements of a new and stronger policy initiative towards Central Asia.

The Turkish-Armenian protocols signed last year in Zurich raised concerns that the perspective of Georgia’s decreased significance as a transit country for Armenia may boost nationalist demands around the Armenian minority in Georgia and cause new instability. While the protocols may not materialize in the foreseeable future, thus never inducing visible change in Yerevan’s policies, developments observed since the activation of Turkish-Armenian negotiations suggest that in case of full normalization Yerevan may attempt more assertive policies to uphold the cultural rights of Armenians in Georgia, without supporting their political demands and calls for autonomy.