Kazaks, Uzbeks Concerned at Kyrgyz Turmoil
Kazaks, Uzbeks Concerned at Kyrgyz Turmoil
The current political crisis in Kyrgyzstan could harm the country’s relations with neighbouring states, say NBCentralAsia analysts, who have noted a sudden flurry of consultations between Kazakstan and Uzbekistan. But neither country is likely to consider intervening in the Kyrgyz crisis.
Leaders of Kyrgyzstan’s Central Asian neighbours have remained tight-lipped about the week-long anti-government demonstrations in Bishkek. They did not even close their borders after the November 6 clash between supporters of the opposition Movement for Reforms and pro-government demonstrators, in which riot police intervened.
When Kazak president Nursultan Nazarbaev paid a surprise visit to Uzbekistan on November 3, on the second day of the Bishkek rally, regional press speculated that he and President Islam Karimov discussed how to coordinate their response to the Kyrgyz events, including a possible military action.
Kazakstan-based analysts interviewed by NBCentralAsia suggest that if conflict in Kyrgyzstan escalated, the neighbouring countries would not wish to intervene in support of either side.
Dosym Satpaev, the director of the Political Risk Evaluation Group, says the two leaders understand that intervention would most likely be counter-productive.
“If there was violent regime change in Kyrgyzstan, as happened last year [March 2005 revolution], both Kazakstan and Uzbekistan would merely seek to tighten border controls and freeze political and economic relations with the country,” said Satpaev.
Regional groupings such as the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, are designed principally to counter external threats and terrorist risks facing member states. In the Kyrgyz case, intervention could only take the form of a peacekeeping operation.
Satpaev believes that Kazakstan’s major concern is the fate of investments in the Kyrgyz economy, whereas Tashkent is worries that it would get less cooperation in dealing with Islamic extremists in southern Kyrgyzstan.
According to political analyst Vladimir Nikitin, the possibility of a link between last year’s “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan and the subsequent uprising in the Uzbek city of Andijan explain why the Uzbek and Kazak presidents are concerned.
“Since southern Kyrgyzstan borders on the over-populated Uzbek part of the Ferghana Valley, and the north is adjacent to Kazakstan, it is clear that neither [president] wants to see the this wave of unrest spilling over onto their territory,” Nikitin said.
Many commentators said at the time that the Kyrgyz revolution gave impetus to the Andijan rebellion, which Uzbek governmentl forces quelled by shooting hundreds of demonstrators.
Political expert Babur Avezov told NBCentralAsia that a repeat of this chain of events was unlikely. “The protests are taking place only in Bishkek, not throughout the country as was the case in March 2005,” Avezov says. “And the number of opposition supporters… is less impressive than last year.”
Avezov is sceptical that unrest could be sparked by events in Kyrgyzstan.
“Uzbekistan has conducted a wide-ranging media campaign to portray the organisers of the Andijan [uprising] as terrorists and extremists. No one is likely to seek a confrontation after the repressive measures taken in Andijan,” he said.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
Leaders of Kyrgyzstan’s Central Asian neighbours have remained tight-lipped about the week-long anti-government demonstrations in Bishkek. They did not even close their borders after the November 6 clash between supporters of the opposition Movement for Reforms and pro-government demonstrators, in which riot police intervened.
When Kazak president Nursultan Nazarbaev paid a surprise visit to Uzbekistan on November 3, on the second day of the Bishkek rally, regional press speculated that he and President Islam Karimov discussed how to coordinate their response to the Kyrgyz events, including a possible military action.
Kazakstan-based analysts interviewed by NBCentralAsia suggest that if conflict in Kyrgyzstan escalated, the neighbouring countries would not wish to intervene in support of either side.
Dosym Satpaev, the director of the Political Risk Evaluation Group, says the two leaders understand that intervention would most likely be counter-productive.
“If there was violent regime change in Kyrgyzstan, as happened last year [March 2005 revolution], both Kazakstan and Uzbekistan would merely seek to tighten border controls and freeze political and economic relations with the country,” said Satpaev.
Regional groupings such as the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, are designed principally to counter external threats and terrorist risks facing member states. In the Kyrgyz case, intervention could only take the form of a peacekeeping operation.
Satpaev believes that Kazakstan’s major concern is the fate of investments in the Kyrgyz economy, whereas Tashkent is worries that it would get less cooperation in dealing with Islamic extremists in southern Kyrgyzstan.
According to political analyst Vladimir Nikitin, the possibility of a link between last year’s “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan and the subsequent uprising in the Uzbek city of Andijan explain why the Uzbek and Kazak presidents are concerned.
“Since southern Kyrgyzstan borders on the over-populated Uzbek part of the Ferghana Valley, and the north is adjacent to Kazakstan, it is clear that neither [president] wants to see the this wave of unrest spilling over onto their territory,” Nikitin said.
Many commentators said at the time that the Kyrgyz revolution gave impetus to the Andijan rebellion, which Uzbek governmentl forces quelled by shooting hundreds of demonstrators.
Political expert Babur Avezov told NBCentralAsia that a repeat of this chain of events was unlikely. “The protests are taking place only in Bishkek, not throughout the country as was the case in March 2005,” Avezov says. “And the number of opposition supporters… is less impressive than last year.”
Avezov is sceptical that unrest could be sparked by events in Kyrgyzstan.
“Uzbekistan has conducted a wide-ranging media campaign to portray the organisers of the Andijan [uprising] as terrorists and extremists. No one is likely to seek a confrontation after the repressive measures taken in Andijan,” he said.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
