More Ethnic Unrest in Kyrgyzstan
Several months ago, this column reported on the political coup in the central Asian country of Kyrgyzstan. At the time, we illustrated the strategic importance of this country not only to America but also to Russia and neighboring Uzbekistan. American strategic interest is centered on our air base there, used for keeping supplies flowing to Afghanistan. Russia is concerned with keeping America out of its former possession. Uzbekistan sees potential profit from hydroelectric energy sources. You can read that article here.
Recent developments have brought the situation back into the international limelight, and many are focusing on the otherwise insignificant country to see what happens next. Kyrgyzstan is ethnically split primarily amongst a Kyrgyz population and an Uzbek population; both have historical and cultural roots in the region. Last week, violence erupted between these two populations in several places, but it was the worst in Osh, a city in the south of the country which lies close to the border with Uzbekistan. The violence seems to have been carried out largely by the Kyrgyz population, looting, ransacking and torching Uzbek buildings and businesses while leaving Kyrgyz neighborhoods untouched.
So far, estimates suggest that 251 people have been killed and upwards of 2,200 injured. Counts vary widely on the number of refugees, but it could be that more than 100,000 Uzbeks fled the country and 300,000 others were displaced.
This development in the country that only recently went through a sudden, abrupt coup (which, we theorized, could have had Russian influence from the outset) should be noteworthy to Americans for a few reasons. First, why has Russia not sent troops to aid the local government in stabilizing the area? Russia is still an enthusiastic supporter of the new Kyrgyzstan government, yet, when asked for military help in keeping the area under control, the Kremlin merely promised that it would take it under consideration. Could it be that Russia has interest in keeping the region unstable?
As we’ve pointed out before, the country is strategically important not only for America but also for each of Kyrgyzstan’s neighbors. If there seems to be an inability on the part of the government to secure itself, any of its neighbors may move in to claim gains (including territorial gains) that they have wanted for a while. With America’s strategically-important air base still there, we have to be concerned about that.
Of further interest is that a Kyrgyzstan constitutional amendment referendum that has been in planning for some time will be voted on in a few days, their president recently announced. Despite the unrest throughout much of the country and the 400,000 displaced citizens, a constitutional referendum about the new government will continue as planned.
The wise view in any study of national security or international relations is the long view. We should not focus solely on the day-to-day events but wonder at the larger patterns. Is Russia actually happy not to inject military-enforced stability into the region? Could another neighbor be involved in the instability? Keep an eye out for hints of the several external forces in the region taking a greater role in developing events.
The National Security section of the Weekly Political Forecast is written by PAI’s Special Research Assistant to the Director.
