Kyrgyzstan's Felix Kulov: "A Trip to Moscow Doesn't Mean a Meeting in the Kremlin"

Felix Kulov in his Bishkek office on November 12. (Photo: David Trilling)

Though he was no friend of the former regime, veteran politician Felix Kulov has also been critical of Kyrgyzstan's interim government since it seized power in April. The chairman and face of the Ar-Namys (Dignity) party, Kulov ran for parliament on a law and order platform and criticized the new constitution approved in June, saying the country needs a strong, centralized leadership. 

Kulov, 62, used his popularity in northern Kyrgyzstan and among ethnic minorities to lead Ar-Namys to third place in the October 10 elections. A high-profile meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during the campaign also boosted his popularity, with billboards around the country featuring the two shaking hands. 

When Kulov flew to Moscow shortly after the polls, the trip prompted widespread speculation the Kremlin had selected him as its favorite for prime minister, a position he held after 2005’s so-called Tulip Revolution and one that has been strengthened by the new constitution. 

Yet as parties close to the interim government discuss forming a ruling coalition, the charismatic Kulov – a career police official who served as interior minister, Bishkek mayor and prime minister – now looks set to lead the country’s opposition. 

Kulov spoke with EurasiaNet’s David Trilling and Natasha Yefimov in his Bishkek office on November 12. This interview has been edited for length. 

EurasiaNet: Yesterday, President Roza Otunbayeva appointed the Social Democratic Party (SDPK), headed by Almazbek Atambayev, to form a majority coalition. Most likely, that will leave you in a minority. Do you think she is right to appoint what was formerly her own party – a party that came in second in the October 10 polls – as the coalition leader?

Kulov: The proposal that she give first dibs in forming the government [to SDPK] came from me personally – primarily to uphold the authority of our president. She’s in a tough situation, where she has to choose from among several factions, whom to appoint, and so for her not to experience difficulties, I proposed that she nominate her allies.

However, we cannot say with 100 percent certainty that Mr. Atambayev will be able to form the [ruling] coalition. Because creating a coalition is always a complicated, painful process when positions and platforms have to be sorted out and aligned.

EurasiaNet: Could you say specifically what might be standing in his way?

Kulov: There are always personal reasons. When the question of who gets what position crops up, it’s not always possible to reach agreement. You know that a minimum of three factions must make up the coalition and each faction stakes its own claims, has its own desires. It’s hard enough to do with two; with three it’s even harder. So will they manage to reach an agreement within the two-week time frame? It’s not 100 percent certain.

EurasiaNet: After the election results became known, the common wisdom was that SDPK would pair up with Ata-Meken and your Ar-Namys party would pair up with Ata-Jurt. Did you and Ata-Jurt try to lure Respublika to your camp and why didn’t that work out? 

Kulov: Before the official results were determined, we had certain agreements about creating a coalition with a number of parties, including Ata-Jurt, Respublika, Ata-Meken, Butun Kyrgyzstan, Ak Shumkar and some others. The list did not include SDPK. So if we were asked to create a coalition, I think we would quickly come to an agreement – because we offer a different option than Mr. Atambayev. He was asked to form a government and he sees himself as prime minister and, in forming a coalition, already announces that he is prime minister.

EurasiaNet: Some have said that one of the problems forming a coalition has been personal antipathy between you and Atambayev. Could you comment on that?

Kulov: I’ve never had any personal frictions with Atambayev. It would be correct to say that he’s the one with the problems – his inability to control himself and his, shall we say, lack of culture. He doesn’t criticize flaws, for example, in someone’s work; he gets personal. That’s his problem. He sees detractors where there aren’t any. 

EurasiaNet: Last week, the Pentagon announced it will continue to use the same controversial company to supply fuel to US troops at the Manas Transit Center despite an ongoing Kyrgyz government investigation into possible improper business practices concerning fuel operations there. How does this bode for the future relationship between Bishkek and Washington? And what do you see as the ideal solution?

Kulov: There’s been a lot of scandal surrounding the fuel supplies. And I believe this has damaged the United States’ reputation in the eyes of the Kyrgyz public. Everyone’s heard about the size of bribes for high-placed officials from the families of the two [former] presidents, but at the same time everyone sees that the US administration is trying to hush this whole thing up.

EurasiaNet: Should Kyrgyzstan challenge the award? And if so, who should get it instead?

Kulov: We know that certain political forces have a vested interest in continuing the [fuel-supply] arrangements that existed before in order to have money that will then be used for political battles against their political opponents. Anyone deeply involved in these arrangements will defend them by any means necessary in order to avoid criminal prosecution. This will be a hotbed of political instability. So I believe there should be maximum transparency and public hearings, which result in concrete conclusions about who should handle these supplies. But without official results of investigations into corruption under the two former presidents, it’s impossible to say that the [fuel-supply] arrangements will be clean.

Since there have been no official investigation results yet, and since this [new contract] is being done without public hearings, I think the government will have to challenge it. At any rate, in parliament, the issue will definitely be raised.

EurasiaNet: Many have suggested that Moscow would like to see the Manas base closed. Is Moscow worried about an American presence in the region and would it really want to close the Manas base, when it’s used for fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, a threat to Russia?

Kulov: I’ve met with representatives of various [Russian] security-related bodies – in the past, as prime minister, and as head of the party – and I’ve never heard anyone say outright that the base should be closed. Moreover, Russia has allowed transit of cargo to our base. Personally, I believe the status of the base should be more transparent than it is today. Take, for example, the Russian base in Kant, which simultaneously fulfills the function of defending our airspace: Every plane that lands at that base and takes off from there is met and accompanied by our border guards and customs officers. What gets brought to or taken out from the American base we don’t know. Kyrgyzstan has no customs or border officials there. So various rumors crop up, from al-Qaeda prisoners being brought there to drug smuggling – in short, all sorts of rumors that we can neither deny nor confirm. The Americans, naturally, don’t pay much attention to Kyrgyz press reports.

EurasiaNet: Kyrgyzstan voted for a parliamentary system in June’s referendum. You say you want to return to a presidential system. However, the past two presidents turned into greedy tyrants. Why do you think a third time could be any different?

Kulov: We support a presidential-parliamentary system of government. Our aim is not to give the president absolute power; our aim is that the president have rights equal to his duties, including responsibility for security in the country. Put it this way: Today, we have a weak president, a strong prime minister and government, and a strong parliament. We want there to be a strong president, strong prime minister and strong parliament. We don’t want to grant the president enormous powers. The only additional powers we want to give the president are determining domestic and foreign policy; that he be accountable for ensuring the country’s security; and also create an independent judiciary. And [he should] not interfere in the government’s work on the economy. The president’s powers would be enhanced just a bit, while the former presidents weren’t accountable for anything and at the same time had unlimited power. Of course, we don’t want authorities like that.

EurasiaNet: You campaigned on a law and order platform. Has the trial of the Alfa troops accused of unlawfully killing protesters during the April 7 uprising hurt the morale of the security forces? And has low morale affected their functioning during this year’s instability?

Kulov: To some extent, it has. […] The most frightening thing is that the people [of Kyrgyzstan] no longer fear anything or anyone, not the law, not anything. They believe mob rule now ranks supreme. That’s the most frightening thing – for the state, for democracy.

EurasiaNet: What role has Moscow played in the coalition building in Kyrgyzstan?

Kulov: Absolutely none. And Moscow can’t facilitate this process in any way. It’s unrealistic. In terms of Moscow’s influence, I think its role in this gets greatly exaggerated. How can Moscow determine or make peace between people with rocky personal relationships? If someone’s been insulted by someone else, is Moscow really going to say, “But you’ve got to form a coalition with him”? It’s unrealistic for Moscow to influence anything. We know each other better than any advice Moscow can give.

EurasiaNet: You said you went to Moscow for personal reasons after the elections, but it’s no secret you have met with very highly placed officials in the past. Did you have a chance to meet with them again? If so, what did you discuss? How did you and two other party leaders -- Respublika’s Omurbek Babanov and top vote-getter Ata-Jurt’s Myktybek Abdyldayev -- end up on the same flight?

Kulov: I’ve really got nothing to hide. It was a personal trip, to see my friend who was recovering from an operation. A trip to Moscow doesn’t necessarily mean a meeting in the Kremlin. […] Someone else was on that flight with me. I don’t remember who. Oh yes! It was Mr. Abdyldayev. He was going to visit his spouse’s relatives. They live in Moscow. His wife is Russian. And the reason we all flew at the same time is very simple: Up until then, we had all been busy. Once the election campaign ended, we got some free time. That’s it. Unfortunately, there’s no other way except through Moscow. I always raise this issue! We need direct flights to Europe. Talking about investment when investors from Europe can’t fly here is nonsensical. Now I’m going to Kiev through Almaty and I’ll be returning through Moscow. And then everyone will ask, “What were you doing in Moscow?”