Kyrgyzstan & the Cost of Realism

Kyrgyzstan & the Cost of Realism

For anyone who has witnessed the slow erosion of democracy in Russia over the past decade, seeing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin win the public relations war over the recent revolution in Kyrgyzstan has been nothing short of maddening. Commenting on the violent ouster of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who fled the country last week after violent riots protesting his corrupt and oppressive rule, Putin said he could "remember that when President Bakiyev came to power, he harshly criticized toppled President [Askar] Akaev for nepotism and giving his relatives or friends top economic and political posts at every corner. I have the impression that Bakiyev has fallen into the same trap." Coming from the leader who serves as the 21st-century model for budding authoritarians around the world, laments the collapse of the Soviet Union, and routinely orders the police to break up the smallest of peaceful protests, it's hard to take these sentiments seriously.

However strange this narrative of newfound Russian respect for human rights may seem, however, it has gained currency here in Kyrgyzstan, where it is Moscow that is viewed as a benign force and Washington derided as the imperialist bully. "In the most dramatic days of our lives, we never got any support and words of sympathy," Roza Otunbaeva, the leader of the country's interim government, told the Washington Post about the most recent drama in Kyrgyzstan's complicated relationship with America. It's easy to criticize the U.S. position in Kyrgyzstan as one of hypocrisy and turning a blind eye to authoritarianism. But doing so ignores both the hard choices Washington faces and the reality of American involvement here.

Read Full Article »
Comment
Show commentsHide Comments

Related Articles