Category: Central Asia

Kyrgyz politician sees Turkey as democracy model in Turkic world

Kyrgyzstan’s ex-deputy PM said that Turkey proved that a modern democracy could be established both in the Turkic and the Islamic world.

Kyrgyzstan’s former parliament speaker and deputy prime minister said Saturday that Turkey proved that a modern democracy could be established both in the Turkic and the Islamic world.

Omurbek Tekebayev, leader of Kyrgyzstan’s Ata Meken Party, held a press conference in the Turkish capital following his talks with Turkish officials including Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Parliament Speaker Mehmet Ali Sahin and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

Turkey pledged support to Kyrgysztan to help establish a parliamentary system in the country, Kyrgyz officials said.

Speaking at the press conference, Tekebayev said that recent riots that led to ousting of Kyrgyz government has brought a historic change in the country.

Bloody street riots ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev in April. Violence in the country killed hundreds and displaced thousands. Kyrgyzstan is set to vote for a parliamentary election on October 10.

Tekebayev said the country was ruled by only one family since 1990s, the post-Soviet era, which he described as a period of “criminal system.”

Two Kyrgyz presidents have been ousted after unrests in last five years, Tekebayev said, adding that it was because Kyrgyz people did not want a dictatorship in the country.

Speaking as an advocate of democracy, Tekebayev said, “democracy is a life style. It is untrue to say that democracy cannot be established in Central Asia, Turkic and Islamic countries.”

“Turkish parliamentary system proves that a modern democracy can be formed in the Turkic and the Islamic world,” he said.

AA

, 21 August 2010

August 22, 2010
The great mediator

Sometimes Turkey really is a bridge between west and east

Turkish foreign policy

How can Mr Davutoglu help you?

IN JUNE 2006, days after a young Israeli private was captured by Hamas, Israel’s ambassador to Turkey paid a midnight visit to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister. Gilad Shalit was feared to be gravely ill, perhaps even dead. Could Turkey help? Phone calls were made and favours called in. Mr Shalit turned out to be alive, and his captors promised the Turks they would treat him respectfully.

Turkey’s relations with Israel, once an ally, have worsened of late, and hit a fresh low in May, when Israeli commandos raided a Turkish ship carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza, killing nine Turkish citizens. Yet Turkey continues to lobby Hamas for Mr Shalit’s release.

Turkey’s falling out with Israel has sparked a flurry of anguished commentary in the West about its supposed eastward drift under the mildly Islamist Justice and Development party, which has governed the country since 2002. Concern over its cosy relations with Iran, despite that country’s refusal to suspend suspect nuclear work, has run particularly high. Yet nobody complained in April 2007 when Turkey brokered the release of 15 British Royal Navy sailors who had been seized by Iran. Similarly, France was delighted in mid-May when a personal intervention by Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, secured the release of Clotilde Reiss, a French teacher being held in Iran on spying charges.

Turkey is the first stop for thousands of political refugees from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Central Asia. These include Mohammed Mostafei, an Iranian lawyer who took up the case of Sakineh Ashtiani, a woman facing death by stoning in Iran for alleged adultery. Mr Mostafei fled to Turkey earlier this month after receiving death threats (he has since gone to Norway). Now Turkey has discreetly taken up his client’s case (although Iran has turned down a Brazilian offer of asylum for Ms Ashtiani). It is also pressing Iran for the release of three American hikers who were arrested, on suspicion of “spying”, near the Iraq border a year ago and who have been rotting in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison ever since.

Turkey’s mediating skills have even aroused excitement in Africa. Mr Davutoglu recently revealed that Botswana had sought his help in fixing a territorial dispute with Namibia. Flattered though he was, however, Mr Davutoglu confessed that, for once, he was stumped.

http://www.economist.com/node/16847136?story_id=16847136&fsrc=rss, Aug 19th 2010

August 22, 2010
Foreign Business in Turkmenistan: to be or not to be

By Merdan Shakhnazarov

Open Door policy announced by Ashkhabad strongly increased the flow of foreign investors, hoping either to enter new market with their product or to profit from work contracts in formerly closed Turkmenistan. Evidently the power sector attracts the most foreign interest. But experts of oil and gas market often underestimate the risks of their business in Turkmenistan, and after first taste of the local reality give up their plans of conquering the market. Among the factors that influence the decision not to come to Ashkhabad are the following: imperfection of laws, corruption and lawlessness of public servants, financial difficulties, non-disclosure of information about failure of foreign investors on the local market. We shall consider some of these.

Corruption

International nongovernmental organization Transparency International regularly includes Turkmenistan in the list of most corrupted countries. This estimation should be some kind of indicator for foreign investors, wishing to start their business in that central Asian republic.

Evidences of corruption are to be traced not only in the state structure but in all the spheres of life. On one hand it seems to ease the process of getting contracts, while bribery makes communication with paper pushers easier. But it often turns out that businessmen spend a lot of money to establish contact with Turkmenian authorities but finally back at the bottom of the ladder.

In some cases foreign investors who came across with local reality are no more capable of doing business in such conditions. According to a businessmen from UAE, who planned to invest in development of Avaza resort, before he even started his activity he faced severe retaliatory measures of local law-enforcement authorities, who confiscated his immovable property.

At meanwhile the nephew of the President under cover of the name of G. Berdimukhamedov started to squeeze money from the Arabian businessman. These circumstances forced the businessmen to refuse from his plans in that country.

It is difficult for a western businessmen, used to transparent and open business to negotiate with Turkmenian partners, who are vivid representatives of eastern civilization with its contrivances and half-words. There have occurred some cases, when Turkmen representatives of authority agreed to sign a contract with foreign company, but the procedure of signing extended for an indefinite period.

Ashkhabad financial difficulties

Despite of launching Turkmenistan-China pipeline, expending gas pipeline in Iran, cutting down the volume of gas sales in Russia caused decrease of revenue side of the state budget. In that regard Ashkhabad tries to decrease the budgetary gap, cutting down the expenses for second-term projects, and in some cases putting them on hold at all.

For instance according to one of the employees of “Sekhil”, Turkish company, many of his nationals experience problems with financing in Turkmenistan now. For that reason the project of recreational resort in the resort area Avaza, developed by Sekhil by the order of Turkmenbashy complex of oil refinery plants is at risk.

Some other companies, including Ozaylar and Ichkale experience same problems. Of course the management of Turkish companies is strongly unsatisfied with arrears in payments by Turkmen authorities, for it forces them to carry on the works at their own cost or take credits.

Another indicator of financial difficulties, experienced by Ashkhabad, is borrowing funds from strategic partners. For instance in may of the previous year during his visit to PRC President Berdimukhamedov negotiated a grand from Beijing in the amount of $ 10 Mln.

This amount even though granted on non-repayable basis and without any interest, still has its aim to secure economical preferences and to strengthen PCR’s position on the national market.

Financial difficulties also force Turkmenistan to pay back foreign companies, carrying out important projects in Turkmenistan, by gas supply contracts. For example investments of the Iran Railways into construction of the a section of the railway Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan –Iran is to be repaid by Ashkhabad by supplying liquefied gas for 4 years.

Non-disclosure of information about failures of foreign investors

For foreign business considers the power sector to be the most attractive, it is important to notice, that investment into hydrocarbon field development is not always self-liquidate.

For example in 2002 American ExxonMobil decided to stop works in Turkmenistan and close representative offices in Balkanabad and Ashkhabad. This was due to failed drilling in Garashsyzlyk, one of Turkmenistan’s biggest minefields. American company was operating the «Garashsyzlyk-2» project, the respective production-sharing contract for 25 years was signed in 1998. Low commercial impact of the block forced Americans to cancel the contract halfway in spite of the discontent and pressure of the Turkmenistan party.

It’s also known, that in the beginning of 2000s TPAO, Turkish corporation experienced failure on one of the blocks, it had to scale down its activity and live the country.

Therefore only those foreign companies shall obtain a place in the hot Turkmen sun near gas jets, who are ready to make immense material and moral investments, fight the pressure of the «guardians of law» and to fall on hard times. At the same time they have to be ready to patiently wait for repayments and possibility of inefficient Turkmen field development.

July 7, 2010
Why Russia’s Medvedev is blasting ally Kyrgyzstan
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev unexpectedly criticized a government reform vote in Kyrgyzstan that passed Sunday with 91 percent support.

Kyrgyzstan's interim leader Roza Otunbayeva (front l.) greets a group of ethnic Kyrgyz citizens at a polling station on the day of a referendum in the city of Osh Sunday.

Sagyn Alchiyev/Kyrgyz Presidential Press/Reuters

MoscowTurbulent Kyrgyzstan's weekend referendum on reforming its political system has won overwhelming support from the population. But Russia, Kyrgyzstan's closest ally, has unexpectedly criticized the effort. Skip to next paragraph

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev arrive in advance of the G8 and G20 Summit at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, Thursday.

Gerry Broome/AP

Enlarge

Related Stories

To make progress on Afghanistan and Russia, Obama must get Kyrgyzstan right

Kyrgyzstan riots led to ethnic cleansing; government blames Bakiyev

All Russia news coverage

Speaking to journalists at the G-20 meeting in Toronto, President Dmitry Medvedev poured cold water on the referendum's goal of changing Kyrgyzstan's Constitution from a president-dominated system into one in which a popularly-elected parliament holds the lion's share of power. He also warned that the tiny central Asian country faced the "threat of breaking up" and being overrun by "extremists." The referendum passed Sunday with 91 percent of voters backing the government's reform plan. International observers, led by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, praised the polling. Others in the international community have expressed hope that the referendum, to be followed by parliamentary elections in October, would help Kyrgyzstan recover and rebuild after devastating ethnic riots killed around 2,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands in the country's volatile south earlier this month. Experts say the vote marks a major step toward legitimizing the fractious interim government in Bishkek, which came to power in a Moscow-backed coup d'etat that was thinly disguised as a popular revolt in April. Now Moscow is expressing disenchantment with the government's big win. "Taking into account the fact that even now the authorities are unable to impose order, that the legitimacy of the authorities is low and its support creates a host of questions, I do not really understand how a parliamentary republic would look and work in Kyrgyzstan," Mr. Medvedev said. "Will this not lead to a chain of eternal problems – to reshuffles in parliament, to the rise to power of this or that political group, to authority being passed constantly from one hand to another, and, finally, will this not help those with extremist views to power?" he said. "This concerns me."
Analysts confused by Russian move
Analysts say they are unsure what Medvedev might have been hoping to achieve by trashing the plan, since Russia's only hope of restoring stability in the region appears to ride with interim government head Roza Otunbayeva, whom it has supported since she came to power in April. But Russia dithered while riots shook Kyrgyzstan this month, and then decided against intervening in the turmoil, despite Kremlin assertions that the former Soviet Union constitutes a Russian "sphere of influence." Some analysts say Medvedev was voicing his frustration with what Moscow sees as a deteriorating situation in central Asia, which it seems increasingly incapable of dealing with. "In Moscow they are deeply disappointed with the interim government in Bishkek, which they had hoped would be stronger," says Alexei Malshenko, an expert with the Carnegie Center in Moscow. "But Russia's inaction reveals it as impotent to affect events in the region. It's a tragedy for Russian foreign policy, and this appearance of helplessness will encourage all of Moscow's enemies to be more active." Others argue that, while Medvedev's remarks may have been unhelpful, they merely expressed the traditional Russian skepticism about parliaments, which have always been seen as too fractious and divisive to impose decisive rule. Russia's own Kremlin-centered Constitution – which leaves parliament with mostly ornamental functions – was authored by former president Boris Yeltsin, after he dispersed his freely-elected but disobedient legislature with gunfire in 1993 "In Russia there is mistrust toward the very idea of a parliamentary republic," says Leonid Gusev, an expert with the official Institute of World Economy and International relations, which trains Russian diplomats. "Medvedev just said what he was thinking."
Reforms aimed at stability
Ms. Otunbayeva has championed the constitutional reform as a means of breaking Kyrgyzstan's repetitive cycle of corrupt all-powerful presidents, whose excesses have triggered two street revolts in barely five years. On Monday Otunbayeva said that popular support for the measures means that Kyrgyzstan is now on the path to "a true government of the people... this is a very important, historic day for the country. The people have put a stop to the epoch of authoritarian and nepotistic government," she said. But many analysts fear that Kyrgyzstan may face more disruptions, including attempts by supporters of former president Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who went into exile in Belarus after being deposed in April. Mr. Bakiyev is accused of stirring up the ethnic animosities that led to the deadly upheavals in southern Kyrgyzstan this month, a charge that he denies. But in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel today, Bakiyev pours scorn on Otunbayeva's democracy plans, saying they are "leading the country into a dead end", and warns that Kyrgyzstan's powerful political clans may soon turn against the interim president. "The referendum may be the beginning of a process of legitimizing the new authorities, and if we get to the parliamentary elections it will be strengthened," says Alexander Knyazev, a Bishkek-based analyst. "The crisis does appear to be over for the moment, but we don't know what Bakiyev and his supporters may be up to," he says. "Another crisis looks fully possible." RELATED STORIES:

To make progress on Afghanistan and Russia, Obama must get Kyrgyzstan right

Kyrgyzstan riots led to ethnic cleansing; government blames Bakiyev

All Russia news coverage
June 29, 2010
Turkish Government Criticized for its Policy on Kyrgyzstan

Turkish Government Criticized for its Policy on Kyrgyzstan

June 25, 2010—Volume 7, Issue 123

Eurasia Daily Monitor

Saban Kardas

On June 21, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, paid a visit to Kazakhstan. Davutoglu met his Kazakh counterpart, Kanat Saudabayev, and President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, to discuss the situation in Kyrgyzstan as well as bilateral relations. The two nations agreed to coordinate their assistance to Kyrgyzstan. They announced their agreement on a joint action plan, which would be put into effect following the constitutional referendum on June 27. They sent a letter to the Kyrgyz interim leader, Roza Otunbayeva, expressing support for her plans to hold a referendum and readiness to assist the nation’s reconstruction. Although no details of the roadmap was announced immediately, Davutoglu said that upon consultation with other friendly nations, they would form the contents of the action plan. Davutoglu and the Kazakh leadership underscored that long-term stability in Kyrgyzstan depends on the formation of a workable and self-sufficient political system in the country (Anadolu Ajansi, Cihan, June 21; Zaman, June 22).

The declaration follows Turkey’s earlier diplomatic efforts during the recent crisis. When the first signs of violence were reported in the region, it caught Ankara by surprise, as the government was preoccupied with other international crises. Turkey established crisis desks at the foreign ministry in Ankara and its embassy in Bishkek. Ankara initially committed to provide humanitarian aid through the Turkish Red Crescent and undertook measures to ensure the safety of Turkish citizens living in Kyrgyzstan. Turkey dispatched planes to evacuate Turkish citizens in the two cities that were affected the most by the conflicts, Osh and Jalalabad. Davutoglu and Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Recep Erdogan, contacted the interim Kyrgyz government and conveyed their readiness to take all steps required aimed at contributing to regional stability. Turkish leaders urged their Kyrgyz counterparts to avoid provocations and maintain calm in the crisis (Anadolu Ajansi, June 13, June 14).

Meanwhile, Turkey sent a special envoy to Bishkek who met with the Kyrgyz interim government officials to gauge their expectations from Turkey. Prior to his departure for Astana, Davutoglu stressed that Turkey’s utmost priority was to maintain a neutral position in the conflict and ensure that the country would not split into two separate parts (Today’s Zaman, June 18). The joint declaration with Kazakhstan reflects Turkey’s desire to realize those objectives.

Several factors explain Turkey’s attempts to address the crisis in cooperation with Kazakhstan. First, the two countries’ current tenure in regional organizations has naturally pushed them to the forefront in efforts to address the unrest in Kyrgyzstan. Kazakhstan holds the rotating Chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Turkey has also assumed the term presidency of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) from Kazakhstan. The two countries, thus, will seek to implement the joint road map on behalf of their respective organizations, which might enhance the effectiveness of such action.

Moreover, Kazakhstan occupies a key role in Turkey’s Central Asia policy. As part of its recent efforts to revitalize its presence in Central Asia, Turkey has sought closer coordination with Kazakhstan. During a June 18 security conference in Istanbul, a representative from Turkish foreign ministry labeled Astana as the lynchpin of Ankara’s Central Asian policy and maintained that the Turkish-Kazakh axis could serve as the best guarantor of regional stability. Nonetheless, Turkish experts expressed reservations, arguing that the rapprochement with Kazakhstan was hardly based on realistic calculations and Ankara might find it difficult to sustain.

Nonetheless, a growing volume of bilateral contacts is apparent. During the Kazakh President, Nursultan Nazarbayev’s, visit to Turkey last year, both sides agreed to deepen their “strategic partnership” in economic and political affairs, especially in energy cooperation (EDM, October 26, 2009). In May, the Turkish Chief of Staff, General Ilker Basbug, also visited Kazakhstan to foster closer bilateral military cooperation (Anadolu Ajansi, May 21). Turkish President, Abdullah Gul, visited Kazakhstan in the same month, during which he emphasized that Turkey was watching closely the rising power of Kazakhstan in the region. The parties signed various agreements intended to carry bilateral relations to higher levels (Anadolu Ajansi, May 24). Gul is also scheduled to visit Kazakhstan next month.

However, the Turkish government was still criticized by opposition parties and many civil society organizations, alleging it had failed to respond adequately to the crisis in Kyrgyzstan on the one hand, and having ignored the Turkish speaking countries in Central Asia due to its excessive involvement in the Middle East, on the other. In support of their arguments, for instance, critics pointed to how Turkey wasted the opportunity provided by the recent CICA summit in Istanbul, where Turkey assumed the chairmanship of the organization. The meeting was overshadowed by Israel’s attack on the humanitarian aid convoy, which resulted in the deaths of several Turkish activists (www.cnnturk.com, June 7). For government critics, the fact that Ankara invested time and energy in persuading the participating nations to issue a declaration condemning Israel’s attack, instead of addressing the volatile security situation in Kyrgyzstan was a sign of neglect on the government’s part (Hurriyet Daily News, June 18).

In his address to parliament on June 16, and during his Astana trip, Davutoglu defied critics, referring to the various high-level contacts Turkey established with the region in recent months. Davutoglu also pointed to several projects being carried out by Turkey’s state-run development agency, TIKA, in Kyrgyzstan, in particular and more widely within Central Asia (Anadolu Ajansi, June 21).

Davutoglu might be correct to highlight the recent Turkish activism, while defending his government’s Central Asia, policy. Nonetheless, it is also difficult to deny that, in the first few years of the Justice and Development Party government, Turkey’s involvement in the Central Asian Turkish-speaking republics remained rather limited. Only in recent years, has Turkey refocused its attention on the region, owing largely to President Gul’s efforts and Davutoglu’s appointment as foreign minister last year. It remains to be seen if the newly found Turkish interest may make a modest contribution to stability in Central Asia, or whether its role will prove “too little, too late.”

https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-government-criticized-for-its-policy-on-kyrgyzstan/

June 25, 2010
Big Powers May Not Save Kyrgyzstan
If Kyrgyz-style violence should radiate across borders in Central Asia, the result could be a rise in Islamic militancy that would directly threaten Russia and the United States.

Diplomatic Memo

Value to Big Powers May Not Save Kyrgyzstan

Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Roza Otunbayeva, the head of the provisional government in Kyrgyzstan, landing by helicopter in the southern city of Osh on Friday, after days of ethnic fighting there.

By ELLEN BARRY

Published: June 18, 2010

MOSCOW — A year and a half ago, the world’s great powers were fighting like polecats over Kyrgyzstan, a landlocked stretch of mountains in the heart of Central Asia.
Related

Some Refugees Begin Returning to Kyrgyzstan (June 19, 2010)

Times Topic: Kyrgyzstan
The United States was ferociously holding on to the Manas Air Base, a transit hub considered crucial to NATO efforts in Afghanistan. Russia was so jealous of its traditional dominance in the region that it promised the Kyrgyz president $2.15 billion in aid the day he announced he was closing Manas. With the bidding war that followed, Kyrgyzstan could be forgiven for seeing itself as a global player. And yet for the past week, as spasms of violence threatened to break Kyrgyzstan apart, its citizens saw their hopes for an international intervention flicker and die. With each day it has become clearer that none of Kyrgyzstan’s powerful allies — most pointedly, its former overlords in Moscow — were prepared to get involved in a quagmire. Russia did send in several hundred paratroopers, but only to defend its air base at Kant. For the most part, the powers have evacuated their citizens, apparently content to wait for the conflict to burn itself out. The calculus was a pragmatic one, made “without the smallest thought to the moral side of the question,” said Aleksei V. Vlasov, an expert in the politics of post-Soviet countries at Moscow State University. “We use the phrase ‘collective responsibility,’ but in fact this is a case of collective irresponsibility,” he added. “While they were fighting about whatever — about bases, about Afghanistan — they forgot that in the south of Kyrgyzstan there was extreme danger. The city was flammable. All they needed to do was throw a match on it.” He referred to the city of Osh, which suffered days of ethnic rioting. Kyrgyzstan might have unraveled anyway, but competition between Moscow and Washington certainly sped the process. To lock in its claim on the base after the threat of expulsion, the United States offered President Kurmanbek S. Bakiyev $110 million to back out of his agreement with Russia, which had already paid him $450 million. Congratulating itself on its victory, Washington raised the stakes by announcing the construction of several military training facilities in Kyrgyzstan, including one in the south, which further irritated Moscow. This spring, the Kremlin won back its lost ground, employing a range of soft-power tactics to undermine Mr. Bakiyev’s government. Mr. Bakiyev was ousted by a coalition of opposition leaders in April, and conditions in Kyrgyzstan’s south — still loyal to the old government — hurtled toward disaster. “Let’s be honest, Kyrgyzstan is turning into a collapsing state, or at least part of it is, and what was partially responsible is this geopolitical tug of war we had,” said Alexander A. Cooley, who included Manas in a recent book about the politics of military bases. “In our attempts to secure these levers of influence and support the governing regime, we destabilized these state institutions. We are part of that dynamic.” Last week, as pillars of smoke rose off Osh and Jalal-Abad, citizens begged for third-party peacekeepers to replace local forces they suspected of having taken part in the violence. Roza Otunbayeva, the head of Kyrgyzstan’s interim government, asked Moscow for peacekeepers, and when that request was denied, for troops to protect strategic sites like power plants and reservoirs. She asked Washington to contribute armored vehicles from the base at Manas, which she said would be used to transport the dead and wounded, she told the Russian newspaper Kommersant. So far, Moscow and Washington have responded mostly with humanitarian aid pledges — late on Friday, Russia’s Defense Ministry said that Ms. Otunbayeva’s request was still under consideration. The United States, overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq, has neither the appetite nor the motivation for a new commitment. Russia, the more obvious player, sees the risks of a deployment outweighing the benefits. Russian troops would enter hostile territory in south Kyrgyzstan, where Mr. Bakiyev’s supporters blame Moscow for his overthrow, and Uzbekistan could also revolt against a Russian presence. Mr. Vlasov, of Moscow State University, said: “Who are we separating? Uzbeks from Kyrgyz? Krygyz from Kyrgyz? Kyrgyz from some criminal element? There is no clearly defined cause of this conflict. It would be comparable to the decision the Soviet Politburo made to invade Afghanistan — badly thought through, not confirmed by the necessary analytical work.” If the explosion of violence was a test case for the Collective Security Treaty Organization, an eight-year-old post-Soviet security group dominated by Russia, it seems to have failed, its leaders unwilling to intervene in a domestic standoff. In any case, neither the Russian public nor the county’s foreign policy establishment is pressing the Kremlin to risk sending peacekeepers. “If you send them, you have to shoot sooner or later,” said Sergei A. Karaganov, a prominent political scientist in Moscow. “Then you are not a peacekeeper, but something else.” Though it seems that the worst of the violence has passed, great challenges remain. Beyond the immediate humanitarian crisis is an unstable state at the heart of a dangerous region. The Ferghana Valley, bordering Afghanistan, is a minefield of religious fundamentalism, drug trafficking and ethnic hatreds. If Kyrgyz-style violence should radiate across borders in Central Asia, the result could be a rise in Islamic militancy that would directly threaten Russia and the United States. The failure of international institutions last week should alarm both capitals. President Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia began their relationship with the crisis over the Manas base, and as they grope toward tentative collaboration in the post-Soviet space, Kyrgyzstan has dominated their conversation. Now, Kyrgyzstan needs help building a stable government that knits together the north and the south. Dmitri V. Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, suggested that NATO should be working with the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization to develop a mechanism for collective action. The next time a Central Asian country is wobbling at the edge of a precipice, he said, someone must be prepared to accept responsibility. “You can abstain from a local conflict in Kyrgyzstan,” Mr. Trenin said. “You can close your eyes to it — it’s bad for your conscience — but you can live with it. If something happens in Uzbekistan, you will not be able to just let it burn out.”
June 19, 2010