Military base is to stay in Kyrgyzstan
The long awaited results of the negotiations of the Kyrgyz and American sides on the Gansi military base finally got announced. It didn’t become a great surprise that America never accepted the terms Kyrgyz authorities insisted on. Though it still sounds like a bargain for both parties. According to RFERL the annual rate for keeping the base near Bishkek after the 2 rounds of negotiations went as high as 20 million $ per year. Before the hassle with the base got started Americans paid around 2 million. In the course of negotiations Kyrgyz side was demanding the rate to go as high as 200 million $.
Now everyone seems to be satisfied. Besides additional 18 million per year Kyrgyzstan also gets 150 million as an aid and compensation package. American side can take a deep breath finally being assured that its military presence in Central Asia is somehow secured for the time being.
Talking about consequences, people on the ground can be generally happy about the fact that the clash of financial interests that, to be precise, had more to do with politics and the powerful opinion (read the pressure) of the leading countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, never turned into a big fight. To have America as an ally is more than essential for Kyrgyzstan nowadays in the light of the growing danger produced by the movement of radical Islamic organization “Hizb-ut-Tahrir” aiming to turn the region into Islamic state.Hopefully with this prospective being appealing neither for Central Asia nor for its strategic partners in the West the practice of geopolitical bargaining will be left aside in the nearest future. It’s obvious that while facing an evil it’s worth being united. After all noone can be willing to be forcefully purified in the name of whichever religion.
on July 22nd, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Thanks for the post Yulia.
“To have the US as an ally is more than essential for Kyrgyzstan nowadays in the light of the growing danger produced by the movement of radical Islamic organization “Hizb-ut-Tahrir” aiming to turn the region into Islamic state.”
This is naïve.
If the US are in Kyrgyzstan it is not to «protect Kyrgyzstan against the Hizb ut Tahrir» and whatever caliphate fantasy that might fly around. It is to have a military foothold against China and Russia. That is not US-bashing — the other two try to do similar moves — that is just how things are since a number of years; obtain optimal strategic positions for maximum control over raw materials, trade routes, cheap labour, limit the competitor’s sphere of influence etc. etc. so as to increase their respective chances of survival in the global economy.
That being said: do you really believe yourself that the Hizb ut Tahrir is so big of a threat?
I know that many ethnic Russians and other «Bishkekers» believe it is. Some even told me that they are convinced that, I quote, «more than half the adult population of the south are sleeper ??????????» and that Batken, Osh and Jalalabad are already de facto already taken over by the Hizb ut Tahrir. In my opinion, and having lived and worked in Osh and Batken for quite some time, this tells more about a deep distrust and fear of «the civilised people from the city» against «the hillbillies from the kyshlak» than about the Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
I do not deny that the Hizb, or structures associating themselves with it, exists in Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere. It probably has a couple of thousands of members and sympathizers. Some splinter groups may turn violent. The question is, how much capacity and how much of an impact they have or will have.
One can of course reply: «yes, but look what happened in Batken and Jalalabad the other day» (see http://www.iwpr.net/?p=rca&s=f&o=322279&apc_state=henprca ).
I have to things to say one that:
1) First, blaming «??????????» for every violent incident and planting Hizb evidence is a mothballed manipulation technique. It has happened before: e.g. the bombings in a Bishkek bazaar and an exchange office in Osh a couple of years ago that were immediately ‘linked’ to the Hizb ut Tahrir and Uighur radicals to eventually turn out to be ordinary mafia score settling. The reality is, that some *want* the Hizb ut Tahrir and other Islamist groups to be a threat: certain rogue regimes – that in Tashkent in particular – because cultivating paranoia is their only raison d’être and a way to get legitimacy, foreign loans and military aid; the Russian and local neo-KGB to enforce their position; and the Russian and local boulevard press.
2) Second, let us assume that the recent havoc in Batken and Jalalabad was indeed the work of Hizb cells. Let’s ask ourselves then what kind of Islamist militants need to do a messy attack against a remote customs and border post in Batken in order to get a couple of AK-47s?! Certainly not members the allegedly well-organised, regionally widespread and narco-funded terror networks that some claim they are.
on July 22nd, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Thanks for the comment Ataman. First of all, regarding the naivity. Probably you failed to sense the context of what is happening on the ground. It’s not suggested the Gansi base has a sole aim ( or, for that matter, has this aim at all) to protect Kyrgyzstan from invasions of fundamentalists. It’s not much of a revelation when you say about counterweighing Russia and China and geopolitical claims that are being currently expressed. But the issue is that in the current situation all means are good in the strive to maintain at least some security in Kyrgyzstan.
I do believe that Hizb ut Tahrir is on the position of making waves and jeopardizing the situation. One, who is a bystander, can be sceptical about that but you need to have a local experience and undertanding of everyday challenges to realize what kind of threats are out there.
It’s a popular rhetorical technique nowadays to say that religious movements are just scapegoats for “skilled” politicians to manipulate but I personally not a great admirer of such “theoreticians’.
That’s just short ideas in reply to your comment
on July 27th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Thanks Yulia.
“It’s not much of a revalation when you say about counterwighting Russia and China and geopolitical claims that are being currently.”
Did anyone said it was? It’s just repeating a reality to put things in context.
“One, who is a bystander, can be sceptical about that but you need to have a local experience and understanding of everyday challenges to realize what kind of threats are out there. It’s a popular liberal rhetorical technique nowadays to say that religious movements are just scapegoats for “skilled” politicians to manipulate with them but I personally not a great admirer of such “theoreticians’.”
Never thought that I’d be called a ‘liberal’ one day.
It’s also a popular rhetorical technique nowadays to bluff that ‘bystanders’ and foreigners ‘can not grasp the reality’ and ‘everyday challenges’ on the grounds. The typical Western expat will, of course, not. Yet there are now a fair number of ‘inostrantsi’ (several of whom you find on blogs like this one) who speak Russian, lived and worked several years on the grounds, and maybe grasp a number of things much better than many locals do (I mean, nothing personal, but let’s face it: many ethnic Russians or westernised-russianized Kyrgyz from Bishkek are as much ‘foreigners’ in a mahalla or kyshlak in Osh or Jalalabad).
To come back on the original topic: how many ‘Hizbutovsti’ do you met/know *personally*?
on July 27th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Besides, another question: assuming that you are of ethnic Russian background (though I may be wrong), how many cases of *religiously motivated* threats/intimidation/agression by Muslims against non-Muslims do you know of in Kyrgyzstan or neighboring countries?
on August 1st, 2006 at 9:46 am
Kyrgyz government, as any other Central Asia governments, like to inflate the problem of radical Islam. However, one has to notice radical Islamists’ arguments are being supported by the common people because of the economic and social injustices. So, I do think that radicalization of groups not happy with their governments is happening already.
Regarding the issue of Russians in Central Asia thinking, talking, and living like foreigners, I would agree with Ataman. Yulia, forgive me, but since you are Russian, I bet you my monthly salary that you do not speak Kyrgyz or any other Central Asian language for that matter. I have only seen a handful of Russian speaking either Kyrgyz or Uzbek. I am myself from Bishkek and have to say that most of the Biskekers (including many ethnic Kyrgyz) do not really know what is happening in the rural areas. What do you expect of the youth in the villlages who do not have a good education, most of the villagers they know are alcoholics, have no prospects of finding a decent job?
on August 2nd, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Rakhmat Almaz.
“However, one has to notice radical Islamists’ arguments are being supported by the common people because of the economic and social injustices. So, I do think that radicalization of groups not happy with their governments is happening already.”
It depends how one defines ‘radicalization’. If part of the population (and a growing one at that) find dignity, direction and become better people thanks to Islam, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. So what of people drink less, or stop drinking at all? So what if people pray, fast, give zakhat? So what if girls wear headscarves instead of going half-naked?
That a number of people become ‘more Muslim’ does means that they are ‘violent radicals’ (btw, Muslims have the right to defend themselves against aggression; that is not ‘terrorism’).
Besides, let’s be serious: the results of the main alternatives in CA and the Muslim Caucasus (neo-Sovietism, Western import concepts) are not particularly brilliant to say the least…
This is why I am convinced (see my op-ed http://neweurasia.net/?p=532 + comments) that an Islamic-*inspired* way is maybe not the best then at least not a bad solution. If some ‘Bishkekers’ feel that their lifestyle is being threatened by that, bad luck for them.
As for the HuT in the ex-USSR: imo, it’s like a yeti, about whom many *talk* but which nobody has actually ever *seen*! Also, Islam is absolutely not limited to the HuT (and the IMU for that matter), nor have those a ‘monopoly’ on Islam. It’s important to make that distinction.
on August 10th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
PS: “That a number of people become ‘more Muslim’ does means that they are ‘violent radicals’”, should, of course, be:
“That a number of people become ‘more Muslim’ does *NOT* means that they are ‘violent radicals’”
Scuzi