The recent crisis and instability in Kyrgyzstan, highlighted the fragility of security and the potential weakness of the political systems throughout the region and exposed new dimensions in the conduct of Kazakhstan's foreign policy that may well prove pivotal for US energy interests in the Caspian Sea region. These complexities, often disguised or downplayed by the national governments in the region, attest to the deep political fault lines running through Eurasia as well as the potential for events in one state to ignite potential cross-border discontent and instability elsewhere.
Indeed, an analysis of the nuances in approach, media coverage, and official statements offered throughout the crisis, confirms how concerned some regimes are about their own internal stability, weaknesses in civil society, and their vulnerability to external influence. While, Kazakhstan's leadership emerged with an enhanced reputation for contributing to defusing a possible civil war in neighboring Kyrgyzstan with the timely evacuation of former President Kurmanbek Bakiyev on April 15 to Taraz in southern Kazakhstan, its underlying motives relate more to personal ambition and geostrategic maneuvering around the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Moscow's efforts to promote a new European security architecture.
Silence in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan
First, the silent regional observers must be identified. Since April 7, and the bloodshed on the streets of Bishkek that signaled the beginning of the end for the Bakiyev regime, drowning in corruption and promoting family interests at the expense of economically and politically developing the state, the governments and state media were predictably silent in both Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
In the latter, only one official statement, through the Uzbek foreign ministry news agency "Jahon" noted that a "confrontation" had occurred resulting in "human casualties." Understandably, since the authorities remain sensitive to the memory of the uprising in Andijan in May 2005 that witnessed a crackdown on civilians which resulted in widespread international condemnation, and in due course was one of the contributory factors in Tashkent's decision to evict the US military later that year from the airbase in Kharshi-Khanabad.
After all, the events in Andijan erupted within two months of the "Tulip Revolution" in neighboring Kyrgyzstan that swept the incumbent Askar Akayev from power and brought promises of democracy and reform from Bakiyev.
Tashkent's official reluctance to comment on the recent Kyrgyz crisis, characterized as "above all an internal affair," did not prevent its government from stepping up domestic security on April 8 in the border areas, and later sending more police officers to patrol the streets of Andijan to prevent the emergence of any instability.
Jahon's website referred to the potential for "destabilizing effects," spreading from its neighbor, yet only made this comment in the Russian language version of the website, and airbrushed it from the Uzbek and English versions. Government and pro-government Uzbek media reproduced this particular statement, but added no further details. Only independent foreign media, based in Uzbekistan, made reference to both the coup in Kyrgyzstan, and the absence of media coverage within Uzbekistan. On April 9, Ferghana.ru stated that Uzbek citizens were almost entirely reliant upon Russian television, limited internet access and foreign media for any information on the evolving Kyrgyz crisis.
Government run media, by contrast in Turkmenistan was entirely silent on these events. Opposition websites did offer some coverage, and again stressed that the state was actively avoiding doing so. The Russian-based Turkmen opposition website Gundogar claimed that Ashgabat had ordered a total ban on any coverage of the coup or the fate of the ousted Kyrgyz leader. The state-run news agency (http://www.turkmenistan.gov.tm) made no reference to these events, nor did prominent pro-government websites, despite reporting by opposition sites.
Openness in Tajikistan
Tajikistan, although demonstrating a more open approach to the issue, proved slow to disseminate information. The Tajik foreign ministry, like its counterpart in Tashkent, referred to the events on April 7 in Bishkek, as a "purely internal affair," before remarkably characterizing it as simply a "change of power." Tajik religious figures criticized the government for remaining largely silent on the Bishkek bloodshed and formation of an interim administration.
However, within 24 hours of Bakiyev's fall from power, the state-run Khovar news agency began to release detailed information and the privately owned Asia-Plus online offered coverage from the outset while unofficial media offered "lessons learned" for the Tajik government ranging from the weaknesses of the Kyrgyz economy, increases to electricity prices, corruption and "forgotten promises."
There was even some speculation on Moscow's link to the crisis, particularly its media campaign against Bakiyev that preceded the protests on April 7 and its support for the opposition. Thus, throughout the region, the governments and state-linked media were very cautious in their reporting or public comment on the events in Kyrgyzstan, reflecting awareness of the fragility of their own political systems and grip on security.
Kazakhstan's Media Campaign: Promoting the Peacemaker
Kazakh media coverage was by far the most open in the region, yet this cannot be divorced from the extent to which the government pushed certain aspects in order to enhance its own image and achieve wider diplomatic objectives. The role of its government, currently holding the rotating chair of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in extricating Bakiyev highlighted more complex factors at play in the crisis. It was a valuable opportunity for the Kazakh leadership to burnish its image, and cast President Nursultan Nazarbayev as peacemaker.
By April 15, Nazarbayev was uncontrollably buoyant in his mood and his more colorful claims, for instance, to have successful averted a civil war in Central Asia. He emphatically stated the crisis had proved that Kazakhstan is a key player in promoting regional stability and security, and claimed, "our country is already facilitating constructive cooperation between the US, Russia and China in Central Asia."
