Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Who is behind the violence in Kzrgyzstan

When a UN official accuses "outside sources" of being behind the escalating violence in Kyrgyzstan, there are good reasons to conclude that the contention has substance. The "new great game" continues and Kyrgyzstan, where both US and Russian troops are stationed, has a central role to play in it. The question, of course, is who is behind the violence and if we have the interim government head, Roza Otunbayeva, effectively inviting the Russians to invade the country we might be sure that it is not Moscow that is destabilising the country at the moment. Furthermore, with Kyrgyzstan being a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which both China and Russia are members of, it is all the more difficult to imagine why either Moscow or Beijing would want to destabilise the government in Bishkek. Moreover, does Moscow really want more ethnic instability on its borders to add to its problems in the Caucasus and itsnt a stable Kyrgyzstan crucial for Beijing and its thirst for raw materials?

Of course, the evidence is mainly of the Sherlock Holmes variety at this stage. However, a modicum of rational deduction would bring us to the conclusion that the United States is once again responsible for innocents dying thousands of miles from its borders. After all, as was reported in an earlier post, they "were behind the so-called "tulip revolution" in Kyrgyzstan five years ago with Mike Stone, at that time, the project director for Freedom House, a so-called "pro-democracy" foundation that was part-funded by the American government, reported as having said, "mission accomplished,"after the crowds drove out the then President Askar Akayev and his family." Fortunately, it is not to be expected that their shennanigens this time will read to the collapse of Otunbayeva's government. Nevertheless, it won't be for the want of trying and we might not only expect many more civilians to die before the violence is crushed but also a climate where future generations of Uzbeks and Kyrgyz will find it difficult to live together. That, of course, will at least mean a less stable Kyrgyzstan and that alone is enough to make it worth Washington's effort.

No comments: