Why? It’s possible that, amid a tentative US-Russia rapprochement and an apparent pro-Western turn in Russian foreign policy, neither side wants to antagonize the other. The United States, obviously, also is overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan and has little interest in getting in the middle of an ethnic conflict in Kyrgyzstan. It’s possible that the CSTO Rapid Reaction Force isn’t ready for a serious intervention as would be required in Kyrgyzstan. (It’s also possible that Russia’s reluctance is merely a demure gesture to ensure that they don’t seem too eager to get involved; only time will tell.)
Is this hands-off policy good or bad for Kyrgyzstan? It remains to be seen whether the Kyrgyzstan government is able to stop the violence by itself. The fact that the security forces are dominated by ethnic Kyrgyz, and have at least in some cases appeared to take the side of their Kyrgyz kin in the fighting, bodes ill for this. But if it does manage to tamp down tensions by itself, it would give the fledgling government much-needed legitimacy and authority.
And Russian involvement, while it could certainly bring a short-term reduction in violence, carries as much risk as promise for the people of Kyrgyzstan. Russia has intervened in conflicts in ex-Soviet republics before, and it usually results in a long-term Russian military presence, with a corresponding loss of sovereignty. It’s not yet clear if Kyrgyzstan is willing to make that trade. But if the violence continues much longer, a heavy Russian hand will look like a small price to pay to stop the bloodshed that is tearing the country apart.
Joshua Kucera is the editor of The Bug Pit, a blog on Eurasian security.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
