Kyrgyzstan 2010: Conflict and Context
Kyrgyzstan gained independence at the end of 1991 and immediately embarked on an ambitious program of economic reform. This was underpinned by a commitment to democratic ideals and the emergence of a thriving civil society. The international community was impressed and regarded Kyrgyzstan as an exemplary model for regional development. There were many Kyrgyz, especially among the educated, urban sector of the population, who shared this positive view. Consequently, it came as a shock when, in 2010, the country was engulfed by a terrible series of violent clashes. It was tempting to seek “instant” culprits and readily comprehensible “causes.” The easiest solution was to present the conflict as an internecine struggle between rival ethnic communities. However, as those with long first-hand experience of the region pointed out, this explanation was too simplistic.
Some commentators suggested that a “third force” was responsible for the violence, variously identified as supporters of ex-President Bakiev, Islamist groups, criminal gangs, foreign powers – or a combination of these elements. Such allegations may indeed have contained a grain of truth, but they were at best only partial explanations.
Looking back at the country’s recent history, it is clear that the conflict took place against a background of social tension, disaffection and increasingly anarchic tendencies; external factors, especially the rivalry between the United States and Russia, did not help matters. This paper argues that the events of 2010 ought not to be examined in isolation but should be set within the systemic and structural “anatomy” of Kyrgyzstan, as well as the wider geopolitical environment. In retrospect, was the 2010 conflict a turning point that allowed the country to make a fresh start – to address inherent problems? Or was it just another episode in a series of upheavals that shocked society, but failed to bring about real change? There are still no definitive answers to these questions. Nevertheless, it is worth revisiting the events of that year to try to identify key developments. Firstly, what were the “conflictogenic factors” that created the preconditions for violence? Secondly, what happened – what was the sequence of events, the role of the protagonists and the damage that resulted? Thirdly, what are the post-conflict trends within Kyrgyzstan, and how has it responded to the changing geopolitical environment – especially the growing influence of China and other Asian states? Finally, through the prism of the conflict, it is important to try to understand the challenges that Kyrgyzstan faces today.
The Revolt of 1916 in Russian Central Asia
Marking the centennial of the 1916 Revolt in Russian Central Asia, the Central Asia Caucasus Institute releases a new edition of Edward Dennis Sokol's pioneering book, originally published in 1954, now with a new foreword by S. Frederick Starr.
The International Politics of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict
This book frames the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh in the context of European and international security. It is the first book to focus on the politics of the conflict rather […]
Russia: an Enabler of Jihad?
Russian officials have had to contain their glee in monitoring recent political events in America and Europe. They appear to think their days in the cold may soon be over. […]
Toward a Crimea Scenario? Russia’s Annexation Policies in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Their Implications
Since independence, the conflicts over the secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have constituted troublesome challenges to Georgia’s sovereign interests. Tbilisi’s lack of control of 20 percent of its […]
Putin’s Grand Strategy: The Eurasian Union and Its Discontents
Bringing together a group of leading American and European experts, this is the first book-length study of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s effort to create a Eurasian Union.
Turkey is Expecting a Restart with the U.S.
The Kurdish question has, once again, complicated Turkish-American relations. The rhetoric of anti-Americanism remains useful to whip up and mobilize nationalist opinion. Yet, Erdoğan’s Islamists are not any aspiring anti-imperialists. […]