Quiet American behind tulip revolution

I would be intersted to see how a more progressive media source then the Telegraph spins this story. Nonetheless, make of this what you will.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/02/wstone02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/02/ixportal.html

Whenever revolution sweeps through Russia's back yard, there are whispered accusations of interference by shadowy American organisations. Now it has happened again in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan - although this time the "evil genius" blamed for fomenting the relatively peaceful uprising has a face - and he looks like Father Christmas.

"Mission accomplished," said Mike Stone, the pudgy, bearded American in question, in his office outside the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, where just over a week ago a crowd drove out President Askar Akayev and his family. Mr Stone is project director for Freedom House, a pro-democracy foundation part-funded by the American government.

It set up Kyrgyzstan's only independent printing plant, publishing the opposition newspapers that fuelled popular discontent in the weeks prior to the so-called tulip revolution. But he denies promoting the government's overthrow. "We printed newspapers. The intention was to assist media development. It wasn't to create a revolution."

Nevertheless, Washington is keen to describe recent events in Kyrgyzstan as part of a wave of democratisation - and it is happy to take some of the credit. Aid workers admit that Freedom House and other organisations raised an awareness in Kyrgyzstan that things could be done differently. US involvement in the small, mountainous country is higher proportionally than it was for Georgia's "rose" revolution or Ukraine's "orange" uprising.

Three down how many to go?

Living in the US it is hard to image how a society can
be so fragile as to be knocked over by some times comical
destabilization operations.

I remember hearing tapes from Guatemala in the 50's or 60's
and finding it totally amazing that these tactics worked.

What is more amazing is that they still work 50 years later.

Makes you wonder how far back we'd have to look to discover the first country in whose internal affairs we meddled, using, without our awareness, taxpayers' hard-earned money, and lying to the people through anyway possible, about their governments. Of course, if they DON'T overthrow their governments, then we have to go to step 2 and wade in and start killing them, under some flimsy excuse.

From the article:

Nevertheless, Washington is keen to describe recent events in Kyrgyzstan as part of a wave of democratisation - and it is happy to take some of the credit. Aid workers admit that Freedom House and other organisations raised an awareness in Kyrgyzstan that things could be done differently. US involvement in the small, mountainous country is higher proportionally than it was for Georgia's "rose" revolution or Ukraine's "orange" uprising.

Brian Kemple, a lawyer who runs a project working with the Kyrgyz government reforming the legal system for USAid, the development arm of the US government, said internal dissatisfaction with a corrupt regime was what motivated the protests.

He said: "There's a perception among many of the leaders of these countries that the people are idiots, that they couldn't possibly do these things on their own. But they did."
(snip/...)

Does THAT sound familiar to anyone, or is it just me? Seems like an echo, in my view. (I believe we heard it a LOT from _Bush's propagandists about Democratic administrations, Congresses, etc.)

You might want to study the photos the Telegraph offered, for whatever reasons: ~~~~ link ~~~~

I guess I'm in the minority here at DU but I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing that some of the former Soviet republics are apparently throwing off their corrupt, post-Communist governments (which were full of former Communists who became skilled kleptocrats...) Just because they happened on *'s watch doesn't mean his administration can take credit for them, and in the case of Kyrgyzstan I'm not sure they're entirely pleased it happened (among other things it creates instability and raises the possibility of increased Islamic fundamentalism in a country where we have a strategic military base)

And I find it surprising that some DUers don't consider that the people of Georgia might like to try out a new government, one that might possibly lower the crime rate or provide them with electricity for 24 hours a day, or that the people of Ukraine might like to have a fair election free of massive vote fraud. To me it seems patronizing for some people to assume that people in those countries couldn't possibly have legitimate reasons for wanting to change their governments, after 10+ years of economic and social stagnation in the post-Soviet era.


:shrug:

-SM

has been returned to power by this revolution.

Would it be out of line to ask that my tax dollars not
be spend on over throwing governments all around the world
based on the policy objectives of a regime here that I
believe to be proto fascist wanna be theocrats.

Let all people "try out a new government" on their own
without Bush and Necropolis's help and my money.

...we give to countries to prop up unpopular, undemocratic governments (the billions and billions we give to Egypt and Pakistan, for starters...) Fair enough. I wonder if any American money was used, during the early years of the Clinton administration, to help extricate South Africa from aparteid. I'd much rather have my tax dollars spent supporing a peaceful government transition for an eager populace than on the type of debacle going on in Iraq.

I guess I'm not one of those people who see something as bad just because it isn't entirely incongruent with Bush Administration policies. And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the people in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan didn't take to the streets simply to make Condaleeza Rice happy, and they're probably too busy wondering if their new governments are going to improve their difficult lives to worry about whether their hope and exuberance might upset some people on the American left.

-SM

about Egypt and Pakistan but comparing these nickle and dime
"revolutions" encroaching on the former USSR to the
transition of South Africa from apartheid is a real over
step of reality.

These small states are being brought under the US military
garrison one by one to gain control of the oil routes between
Russia, China and the middle east.

I don't buy the happy happy democracy democracy crap that the
MSM and the neo-cons are selling. First off I don't think
they give a rat's ass about democracy except when it lets
one more pawn move on the grand chessboard.

I do want all people to have self determination and never
support propping up dictators or new style authoritarian
neo-liberal democracy that make the world safe for sale
to the highest bidder.

They can be as exuberant and hopeful as they want but why
should I pretend that they are not tools in a game played
for oil, power and global hegemony. A game that is be
funded by stealing from the health, education and environment
of my country and it's future generations.

1) Assuming your premise that Akayev's removal was part of a nefarious scheme to bring Kyrgystan under our heel, what does the US actually gain from his ouster? He already granted us a military base to use for our operations in Afghanistan (and as a thorn in Russia's side...) As far as I know Kyrgystan isn't part of any oil pipeline route, and if anything, Akayev's departure may have increased the chances of instability, ethnic unrest, and Islamic fundamentalism in Kyrgystan. What exactly do we gain here that we didn't already have?

2) Exactly how much money are we talking about here? A few hundred thousand? I'd be happy to spend that much to peacefully get rid of Uzbekstan's Karmiov or Turkmenistan's Niyazov. And I'm guess I don't find it so troubling that we're spending some money to nuture alternative media in a country where it didn't exist before. Plus, we're already promoting American interests and culture in Central Asia and the Caucasus, as most of those nations have been crawling with Peace Corps volunteers for some time. The means (target funding of alternative media) may be different in this case but the end is the same.

I don't buy the happy happy democracy democracy crap that the
MSM and the neo-cons are selling. First off I don't think
they give a rat's ass about democracy except when it lets
one more pawn move on the grand chessboard. The neo-cons and the MSN probably don't, but those people who are actually trying to improve their harsh lives and empower themselves certainly might. In the case of Georgia, given the unprecedented lack of violence for that country that accompanied the "Rose Revolution", it's hard to argue that the majority of Georgians weren't ready for a new government.

I just find it interesting how often complex world events are filtered through an America-centric lens. It's not always all about us. Just because the Bush administration claims to be pleased about those events, it doesn't mean they actually are or that they can legitimately take credit for them. :shrug: And, heretical as it might sound, as far as I'm concerned it might be nice to have governments in those countries who are favorably disposed to America and the EU, for the next time we have a Democratic president who needs allies in that region.

If it makes you feel any better, the Bush administration has sufficiently weakened us militarily and economically that the "strategic pivots" on the grand chessboard will probably be able to play us off against Russia, China, and Iran for years to come.

-SM

1) I don't know why. Why is it we needed 750+ military bases
around the world at the cost of half of our nations budget?
I imagine to gain leverage to open markets for corporations
or maybe support future military adventures in the area.

2) "spending some money to nurture alternative media" that is rich.
Most people call that setting up propaganda assets. What are
"American interests" in Central Asia? For someone who doesn't
like to see the world "filtered through an America-centric lens"
you certainly have an expansive idea of our interests.

If the Georgians were ready for revolution great have at it
just don't use my money to fund it.

It is very nice that you support empire building because some
future Democratic president will have willing puppets ...
I mean allies. I don't except the view that the whole
world is a game and that we need to maximize our position in it
via obscene military expenditures on soft propaganda and
hard military presence throughout the world. You can
have a very successful economic life by actually making
and selling things that people want and need without a
big stick backing up every transaction.

You are probably right about Bush's blundering but I think
we will have to disagree that this whole obligation to
rule the world for it's own good trip has any merit.

(2) "spending some money to nurture alternative media" that is rich.
Most people call that setting up propaganda assets. Well, before we helped the Kyrgyz "set up propaganda assets", they apparently had recourse to one (or a very limited number) of media sources. Now some Kyrgyz have the tools to produce their own media and offer an alternative viewpoint from that of the government - I don't see how that's a bad thing - at least it gives the Kyrgyz the opportunity to experience multiple opinions, rather than only government propaganda. (Isn't that what ALL media is - propaganda?) I personally have faith that the Kyrgyz, given time and exposure to multiple media sources, are thoughtful enough to hold the same kind of political discourse that occurs in every other open society.

What are "American interests" in Central Asia? For someone who doesn't like to see the world "filtered through an America-centric lens" you certainly have an expansive idea of our interests. Well, I'd say that our interest in Central Asia and the Caucasus is to nurture stable, democratic governments that are committed to a) human rights, b) improving the welfare of their people by whatever means are appropriate for those particular countries and c) cooperate with the rest of the world in reducing the threat of Islamic terrorism.

If the Georgians were ready for revolution great have at it
just don't use my money to fund it. I guess my definition of liberalism is differnt than yours - I always thought the United States should use its resources to improve the lives of other less-fortunate people in the world.

It is very nice that you support empire building because some
future Democratic president will have willing puppets ...
I mean allies. I don't except the view that the whole
world is a game and that we need to maximize our position in it
via obscene military expenditures on soft propaganda and
hard military presence throughout the world. Unfortunately, the governments of the worlds' most powerful nations (all nations, actually) don't share your idealism, and are likely to continue to act in their own self interest for the forseeable future. I guess I don't see helping people in developing nations to empower themselves to enact a more accountable government and better standard of living as "empire building", but both sensible foreign policy and the essense of liberalism. Your milage may vary...

If any of these three revolutions had happened in the second term of the Gore administration would you still find them as objectionable?

-SM

Yes, I think we differ here.

I consider what you are calling "liberalism" imperialism.

I have always thought that the US should use it resources
to educate, feed, cloth, house and protect it citizens.

Uplifting the world should be done through building
the UN system to deliver care, aid and development
assistance in cooperation with other nations.

I don't know about the Gore question I probably would be
less cynical about the motives of these people if I was not
100% sure they were lying, cheating war criminals. So
I might buy swampland in central Asia from Al but not
from Bush.

I guess you give them the benefit of the doubt.

However many interventions soft and hard including "liberal"
ones have been complete fictions to hide raw power in action
for people who like to believe the best about their country.

So far I don't think we've done anything in Georgia, Ukraine, or Kyrgystan that comes close to my definition of imperialism (Iraq is a completely different story, though...) Those three revolutions were supported by a number of external entities both government and private, but all seem to reflect the will of a majority the people. So I'm willing to give the people of those countries the benefit of the doubt, for now, that they really want a new government. And to be honest I'd rather spend a bit of money to help the citizens of those countries become better organized and communicate with each other, with the hopes that those modest expenditures will all those citizens to nurture more open and uncorrupt governments. (I'm not sure what the UN has to offer developing nations like Kyrgystan and Georgia, which are poor but do not suffer famine and therefore aren't in need of immediate relief aid - medical assistance, perhaps...)

I'm not giving Bush, et al., the benefit of the doubt here - as I mentioned I'm not entirely sure they're pleased about Kyrgystan, even if they're going to pretend they are. Georgia was fed up with Shevrednadze and is turning towards the west anyway - they're happy to cozy up to the US/EU to spite Russia. Ukraine is thornier, if only because it is more divided and deeper within Russia's sphere of influence than the other two. But would that every government who tries to rig an election go down in flames so dramatically. I'm not willing to condemn the citizens of those countries to poverty and corruption just because their revolutions might be a boon to Bush and his retinue.

I don't have any illusions about our government (or any other, for that matter) having charitable intentions. We have and continue to support all sorts of dictators to serve our own political purposes (cf. Karimov of Uzbekistan or the Aliyevs, Senior and Junior, of Azerbaijan). However these three recent revolutions by all appearances have popular support, so I'm willing to give the new governments a chance. I'm not willing to disparage what appear to be legitimate popular movements just because they are getting outside help, and their ends happen to be congruous with our foreign policy goals. If we land troops into Tblisi because Saakashvili won't let us build a pipeline, or into Bishkek because Kyrgystan won't give us favorable trade conditions, on, um...wool, or whatever they produce, then I'll concede your point.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the US is being coercive to any of the new regimes? Should we never ever use soft influence to help people who legitimately seem to want our help, or at least are enthusiasic about accepting it? Didn't something similar occur in Eastern Europe, with both governmental and non-governmental organizations working, with popular support, to undermine Communist regimes? Peace-

-SM

Look at that long southern border and then think of the convenience of having a safe, US-sponsored haven for Uyghur separatists operating in Chinese territory.

That's as far as question #1 goes.

As far as the rest of the discussion goes, viewing the situation in the FSU through the prism of American imperial ambition is certainly more productive than treating the various revolutions as spontaneous expressions of popular desire for democracy. Look at the new faces of democracy in the republics - former party bosses, corrupt oligarchs and US-trained neo-liberal shills.

...although China tightly controls the Toguart pass over the Tien Shan mountains so I'm not sure how easy it is to travel overland between the two countries.

As for your second point, I don't think that the two "prisms" you described are mutually exclusive - it's not an either/or situation. The events in Ukraine and Georgia certainly suit US (and EU, for that matter) foreign policy interests, but I honestly feel that the sentiment for reform expressed by those citizens is genuine.

It remains to be seen how the new governments work out. If they're as corrupt and unproductive as the ones they replaced then hopefully they will be voted out in fair elections.

-SM

... and reality ...

but you can't group all former soviet republics together. I try to follow all news out of former Soviet Republics closely, as I grew up in the Soviet Union and the transition of former republics to independent countries is interesting to me. In my opinion Georgia or Ukraine where the election-stealing is like an insane crime novel narrative complete with poisonings is one thing. And if the revolution happened in Turkemnistan where the Bashi has a huge gold statue of himself that revolves all day in the direction of the sun and dissidents are terrorized that would be another thing. But Akayev was by far the most educated, intelligent and non-despotic leader of the former Soviet republics. Unlike most of the neighbouring leaders he had never even been a KGB man. Of course, his government was hardly utopian, but no government is. The overthrow was a rapid escalation of mob outrage. The people were pissed off about government corruption that definitely took place--but it seems to me that the revolution was more about looting and grabbing "for me" rather than any kind of plan for democratization. Unfortunately most former Soviet republics still run on the old infrastructure and that does not lend itself to a default streamlining of democratization. Akayev was not a bad leader, comparatively. This revolution did not happen with a plan to truly change the infrastructure, which means that most likely in a few months someone else will take Akayev's place who may very well be less intelligent and more corrupt.

Seems to me this is a thing that has been moving around the world since 1945, Most likely before as it may go back to both USA and Fr.Rev. When I grew up their were still many Kings around. Can any of you think of a country run by a King? We do have a few Figure heads only. It is like I have lived through a great world wide Rev. Almost all life is different.From every day things to govt. I think this is also what is so scary to the Red states and they wish it back where they do not need to understand new stuff. This is really a change for any one that was in the USSR. They have never ruled them selfs.

Like creating a truly national independent opposition newspaper exposing the administration's evil deeds.
Sure people don't read newspapers anymore but I'm sure that if the product was attractive enough and even free, that people would learn to use those measly skills they learned at school to try and educate themselves some more.

Or a series on what life's like "After the Island".

Murkans are too jaded to respond to anything more cerebral than Bread and Circuses.

Would Murkan sheeples take to the street in Orange Scarves? only if Oprah or Martha appeared in one on Teeee-Veeee and told them how "IN" orange was this season.

Shrubby's "Culture of Life" took life #1535 this morning? Is that the right number?

Craig S. Smith, New York Times

BISHKEK, KYRGYZSTAN -- Shortly before Kyrgyzstan's recent parliamentary elections, an opposition newspaper ran photos of a palatial home under construction for the country's deeply unpopular president, Askar Akayev, helping set off widespread outrage and a popular revolt in the poor Central Asian country.

The newspaper was the recipient of U.S. government grants and was printed on a U.S. government-financed printing press operated by Freedom House, a U.S. organization that describes itself as "a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world."
. . .


Most of that money came from the United States through the Freedom Support Act, passed by Congress in 1992 to help the former Soviet republics in their economic and democratic transitions. The money earmarked for democracy programs in Kyrgyzstan totaled about $12 million last year.

Hundreds of thousands more filters into pro-democracy programs in the country from other U.S. government-financed institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy. That does not include the money for the Freedom House printing press or Kyrgyz-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5325756.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1451935,00.html

The president of Kyrgyzstan, Askar Akayev, who fled his country last month after demonstrators stormed his offices, has formally resigned in a move likely to help restore stability in the central Asian nation, it was reported today.

Mr Akayev signed the agreement at the Kyrgyz embassy in Moscow after meeting officials representing Kyrgyzstan's interim leadership. The resignation will come into effect tomorrow, the delegation said. Mr Kereksizov said Mr Akayev had recorded a statement to the nation, the tape of which would be played to a session of the Kyrgyz parliament tomorrow and then broadcast on television.

Mr Akayev's resignation is likely to be a significant step toward restoring political order to the former Soviet state, which was plunged into uncertainty on March 24 when an anti-Akayev demonstration exploded into a clash outside the presidential administration building. Riot police guarding the building fled and protesters rushed inside. Mr Akayev surfaced in Russia several days later.

By stepping down, he removes the last major obstruction to holding new presidential elections, which the interim government has tentatively scheduled for June 26.