Binoy Kampmark: Violence and Rivalry in Kyrgyzstan

The Soviet Union, and indeed much of historical Russia, was an ethnic jigsaw held together by the force of arms and a brutally strong executive. When the executive weakened, the temptation to revolt grew. Historical scores needed to be confronted and settled. These began to smolder in the dying days of the Soviet Union, leaving in their wake a register of massacres and continuing instability.

The recent bloody upsurge in violence in Kyrgyzstan is not different from conflicts that have preceded it, shaped by a mixture of ethnic dislikes and geopolitical meddling. Joseph Stalin left his mark on Kyrgyz and Uzbek rivalry, ensuring a long rivalry over scarce resources that have done much to sour relations between the groups. The country is dogged by numerous internal problems, not least of which is the presence of active Islamic militants.

The prominent target on this occasion has been the ethnic Uzbeks. The claim being made now, not without justification, is that they have become the object of a genocidal attack by well organized Kyrgyz groups, some who back the ousted Kyrgyz leader Kurmanbek Bayikev. Another troubling allegation is that members of the Kyrgyz security forces have also participated in the violence. This is the view of some Uzbek figures, and it is not something they wish to back down from.

Kyrgyzstan’s fragile interim government has asked for help from Russian forces. ‘We need the entry of outside armed forces to calm the situation down,’ claimed interim government leader Roza Otunbayeva. ‘We have appealed to Russia for help and I have already signed such a letter for President Dmitry Medvedev’ (Reuters, Jun 12). Shoot to kill powers have been granted to the security forces in the southern areas of Osh and Jalalabad, where the active gangs have ignored curfews. The fact that such powers are available to security forces who might abuse them is not something that will provide comfort to civilians, notably Uzbeks.

The provisional Kyrgyz government is fragile and stands little chance of coping with the violence by itself. The issue then is intervention from foreign forces. This would, most presumably, have to involve the Russians, though their involvement will not be accepted with unanimous approval. Memories of the war with Georgia over the purportedly humanitarian intervention regarding South Ossetia loom large. Moscow is proving wary on this occasion, and insists on intervention as a collective enterprise with other former-Soviet states.

The situation has a delicate strategic dimension to both Russian and US forces, as both have military interests in the central Asian republic. The American presence there is vital for its Afghanistan operations. The intervention by Russia might signal a desire to uproot American influence in it the long run, something Moscow has been pressing for some time.

Whatever the broader tricky issues posed by intervention, the consequences of non-intervention will prove dire. The situation is not improving. Over a million people stand to be affected by the crisis. The death toll is moving into the hundreds. Tens of thousands of refugees have moved into Uzbekistan. Yet again we face the mad dilemma of doing nothing, or doing something with grave consequences. The only truth we can offer in this mess will be to the dead.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

© Scoop Media