EurasiaNet Civil Society - Russian Policy Establishment Lauds Kyrgyz Referendum Results

CIVIL SOCIETY

RUSSIAN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT LAUDS KYRGYZ REFERENDUM RESULTS

Igor Torbakov 2/06/03

Russia is welcoming the recent constitutional referendum results in Kyrgyzstan, in which voters provided an overwhelming endorsement of Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev’s administration, according to official tabulations. Russian political strategists view Kyrgyzstan as a lynchpin in Moscow’s Central Asian strategy, and hope that the referendum will ensure political continuity in Bishkek.

According to official referendum results, a new Kyrgyz constitution secured the support of over three quarters of voters in the February 2 referendum. In a second ballot question, a similar majority endorsed Akayev’s leadership. Akayev’s opponents, meanwhile, charge the government with widespread ballot-rigging. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Akayev, in a nationwide address February 5, hailed the referendum as "a historic act" and a "triumph of democracy." The president went on to appeal to the opposition to cease its efforts to force his resignation. "The referendum has sorted out everything," Akayev claimed. "Kyrgyzstan’s people have supported their president and made a high assessment of the current political course."

Political analysts in Moscow tend to be supportive of Akayev’s position. "Constitutional reform is the reaction to the last year’s stormy events," influential Central Asia commentator Arkady Dubnov wrote the Vremya Novostei daily. The political confrontation in Kyrgyzstan in 2002, starting with the Ak-Sui riots last March and continuing with the mass protest marches later in the year, forced the Akayev administration to initiate what it characterized as a "program of democratic transformation." [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Most independent analysts suggested, however, that Akayev’s twin goals in pressing constitutional reform were, from the start, the strengthening of the executive branch and the weakening the opposition’s political influence, especially in the country’s parliament.

The Russian foreign policy establishment doesn’t seem perturbed with such a possible agenda. Russian leaders have long considered Akayev to be among their reliable Central Asian allies. Officials are eager to see the Kyrgyz leader at least serve out his current term, which is due to end in 2005. Akayev’s political opponents tend to be more nationalist in orientation, and likely are less inclined to cooperate with Russia. Indeed, the origin of the ongoing political confrontation in Kyrgyzstan can be traced to the criticism leveled by opposition leaders, especially Azimbek Beknazarov, at Akayev in early 2002 over a decision to cede Kyrgyz territory to China. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archives].

Russian media applauded Akayev and the official referendum results. Even the usually liberal Vremya MN daily published February 4 an editorial titled "The People Didn’t Hear the Opposition" in which it described Akayev as the "person of the day."

"The republic-wide referendum has confirmed that Askar Akayev still enjoys the confidence of the [Kyrgyzstani] public," the editorial added. The plebiscite’s results are "an important victory for Akayev because Kyrgyzstan’s intransigent opposition was in general against the referendum." Russian media at the same time has tended to downplay the reports of Kyrgyz government vote-rigging.

Moscow’s backing of Akayev, regional analysts say, indicates that Russia regards Kyrgyzstan as a bridgehead for the restoration of its geopolitical and economic influence in Central Asia. The recent decision to establish a Russian airbase at Kant, outside Bishkek, underscores Moscow’s geopolitical aspirations. Boosting Russia’s economic profile in the region also remains high on Russia’s strategic agenda. Media commentaries on Russia’s policies in Central Asia, appearing in the days prior to the Kyrgyz referendum, seem to confirm this view.

Writing in the Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper, the organ of the Russian government, political analyst Valery Cherednichenko argues that historically Russia has always regarded Central Asia as one of its key strategic regions. "Today it is evident," the analyst says, "that without the influence in this strategic zone the restoration of Russia’s status as a serious political force is simply impossible."

At present, Russian strategists increasingly tend to distinguish between various Central Asian nations. "Nowadays Central Asia doesn’t represent a certain homogeneous whole," notes Cherednichenko. At least as far as economic policies are concerned, one can discern two different models, he argued. There is "a free economic system of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and an administrative economic system of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan."

Russia, Cherednichenko urges, has to define its priorities in the region and "answer the question: who should we put our stakes on?"

Kyrgyzstan is clearly one of those countries. In the commentary published in Izvestiya and pointedly titled "Russia Returns [to Central Asia]," Deputy Chairman of the State Duma’s Foreign Relations Committee Leonid Slutskii contends that Central Asian states need a close relationship with Russia. In terms of the prospects for trade, water resources management and energy transportation, Slutskii says, Moscow has practically no competitors in Central Asia because "due to geographic factors the Russian Federation is able to offer the Central Asian nations the most advantageous terms [of cooperation]."

Slutskii also stresses the importance of the Kant airbase, the establishment of which is designed to signal to Central Asian states Russia’s willingness to act as a regional security guarantor over the long term. The Kant base is a strategic "contribution into the future," Slutskii said.

Editor�s Note: Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist and researcher who specializes in CIS political affairs. He holds an MA in History from Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He was Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1988-1997; a Visiting Scholar at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC, 1995, and a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University, New York, 2000. He is now based in Istanbul, Turkey.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.