EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Protests Continue Despite Government Crackdown in Kyrgyzstan

EURASIA INSIGHT

PROTESTS CONTINUE DESPITE GOVERNMENT CRACKDOWN IN KYRGYZSTAN

Alisher Khamidov 5/20/02

Despite an intensifying government crackdown, protests in Kyrgyzstan are spreading. One international official has portrayed Kyrgyzstan as in a "negative spiral" with potentially serious consequences.

The spark for the demonstrations is two disputed treaties under which Kyrgyzstan will transfer territory to China, but underlying the unrest is a power struggle between President Askar Akayev and his political opponents.

According to local human rights groups, thousands of protesters have taken to the streets during the past week in cities and towns across the country to denounce the Kyrgyz government’s decision to cede about 125,000 hectares of land to China. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives].

Demonstrators also have blocked the main highway between Bishkek and southern regions of the country. Tension is particularly high in the Ak-Sui district, the scene of deadly riots in March. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives]. In addition to the nullification of the treaties, protesters are demanding Akayev’s resignation and an end to government harassment of opposition leaders Feliks Kulov and Azimbek Beknazarov.

The government has responded with large-scale arrests. On May 16 and 17, authorities arrested dozens of protesters. On May 20, the Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights (KCHR) reported that its representative in Naryn, Kachkyn Bulatov, had been taken into custody.

In addition, officials have sought to restrict opposition mass media. For example, security agents confiscated editions of the opposition newspaper Res Publica from a student at Kyrgyz Technical University attempting to distribute them. Agents threatened the student with expulsion from the university if she engaged in further political activism, according to KCHR.

The government remains dismissive of the protestors’ complaints that Akayev acted unconstitutionally in negotiating the territory transfer. The pro-Akayev daily "Vecherny Bishkek" characterized on May 17 the unrest as "anti-constitutional tricks" organized by "populists" in parliament. The newspaper went on to hint that Akayev might feel the need to act against parliament.

"The masterminds of massacres, sabotages and maneuvers � those who are destabilizing the situation � are calmly sitting in parliament," the newspaper said. "Do we need such a parliament?"

International officials now fear that political confrontation can lead to a fresh outbreak of violence. At the conclusion of a visit to Bishkek on May 17, the OSCE’s Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Gerard Stoudmann, called for the opening of an immediate political dialogue. "I am concerned by the negative spiral which seems to characterize the social and political environment," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty quoted Stoudmann as saying.

Akayev’s administration and legislators have long been at loggerheads over the delimitation of the country’s border with China. The confrontation began brewing in May 2001, when legislators found out about the administration’s intention to transfer territory to China.

MPs contended that while the 1996 agreement was ratified by the previous parliament, the 1999 amendment was kept secret by officials. Opposition deputies also maintain that under Kyrgyz law, ratification of such border agreements requires a two-thirds majority of votes.

According to opposition leaders, the May 10 session of Legislative Assembly � during which the lower house ratified the land transfers � lacked the necessary two-thirds majority. They also say the government violated other procedural requirements by not making available to MPs specific information concerning the transfer, including topographical maps.

With land traditionally regarded by Kyrgyz "a sacred legacy of ancestors," the territory transfer controversy generated suspicion among a large number of citizens, especially those in remote areas. The Respublica newspaper helped stoke the public’s ire with a series of stories, published May 13 and 14, with such titles as "The Anatomy of Treason," and "Give Back Our Land and Freedom."

Some local analysts believe that a combination of factors is fueling the protests. The border agreements, they add, serve to enhance the view that Kyrgyzstan suffers from a lack of governmental accountability and an opaque decision-making process that largely excludes public debate of important national issues. Others say declining living standards are helping fuel discontent. A few observers also accuse Akayev’s government of not adequately defending the state’s interests.

Meanwhile, government officials have told local media that Bishkek cannot risk incurring China’s wrath by reneging on the deal. During the May 10 parliamentary session, for example, pro-governmental deputy Turdakun Usubaliev portrayed China as a "sleeping dragon." Akayev, who attended the May 10 session, hinted that China would exert military pressure on Kyrgyzstan in the event that parliament did not ratify the treaties.

However, some analysts say the ratification of the Kyrgyz-Chinese border agreement sets dangerous precedents for Kyrgyzstan’s territorial integrity and national security. Sadykjan Parpiev, an Osh-based analyst and journalist told EurasiaNet: "The recent ratification demonstrated Kyrgyzstan’s growing insecurity and weakness before formidable neighbors. It is very likely that the recent events [ratification of the agreement] will embolden Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and even Tajikistan to pursue their territorial claims to Kyrgyzstan more forcefully."

Editor�s Note: Alisher Khamidov is currently a Muskie Fellow graduate student at the Joan B. Kroc Institute of Peace Studies at Notre Dame University.

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.