EurasiaNet Civil Society - Kyrgyzstan: Bishkek Protest Erupts in Violence

CIVIL SOCIETY

KYRGYZSTAN: BISHKEK PROTEST ERUPTS IN VIOLENCE
Daniel Sershen 4/19/07

Kyrgyzstan’s capital of Bishkek erupted in violence on April 19, as security troops used force to disperse anti-government protesters from the area surrounding the presidential palace. The sudden turn of events appeared to leave President Kurmanbek Bakiyev in command of the country’s political system, breaking a long-standing constitutional deadlock.

The confrontation came on the ninth day of a protest mounted by Bakiyev opponents, who had been seeking constitutional changes to reduce his presidential authority. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Riot police moved to disperse the opposition’s protest camp, set up in central Ala-Too Square, after thousands of demonstrators advanced to the gates of the presidential compound roughly 100 yards away, shouting for Bakiyev’s resignation.

Some protesters reportedly threw rocks and other projectiles at riot police guarding the presidential administration building, known locally as the White House. Security forces responded with tear-gas and stun grenades, then charged the protesters, dispersing them. Several shops and cafes around Ala-Too Square suffered significant damage amid the efforts to clear the area of protesters. The eastern portion of the square was littered with rocks, shattered glass and other debris.

Interior Minister Bolotbek Nogoibayev, according to a report distributed by the AKIpress news agency, said four riot police officers had sustained injuries during the confrontation, adding that roughly 100 protesters had been taken into custody. There were no immediate reports on injuries suffered by anti-government protesters.

By the early hours of April 20, few traces remained of the opposition protest camp. Hundreds of riot police were stationed at key intersections in the center of the city, regulating access to the square. Trucks stood by, waiting to cart off the remaining tents and equipment that had been used by the opposition protesters.

The suddenness of the security troops’ action took some witnesses by surprise. One shop owner said the area seemed to suddenly become engulfed in tear gas. "We were trying to protect our property, but went upstairs to hide when the crowds came."

Opposition leaders attempted to deny any responsibility for the sudden spasm of violence. Feliks Kulov, the former prime minister who now leads the United Front opposition movement, said the episode was the work of provocateurs who threw stones at the riot police, thereby giving authorities a pretext to employ force against the protesters. Other opposition leaders claimed that radical elements among the demonstrators refused to follow orders to show restraint. The presidential press service, meanwhile, said Kulov’s United Front was responsible for the breakdown in order.

Whatever the cause of the confrontation, the results are clear: the opposition has lost any leverage that it had against Bakiyev in the constitutional debate. Some observers now say the president has no incentive to enter into deal with his critics that would alter the existing balance of power. If anything, observers now expect Bakiyev to press a political offensive that aims to restore presidential authority to the level that existed before the first round of constitutional protests last November. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Opposition leaders were reportedly meeting to determine their next political move. They had relied on a protest strategy as their main method of bringing pressure to bear on Bakiyev to negotiate. But now that avenue of resistance seems closed to them.

Editor�s Note: Daniel Sershen is a freelance journalist based in Bishkek.

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.