Update on Investigation for the Kyrgyz Republic

OK.  So, the OSCE refused my advice. Again. I'm astonished.

Here comes the investigation to determine why people killed each other in Osh.  Write your own conclusions.  It'll be as good as theirs.

International Investigation in Kyrgyzstan?

Image by dwrawlinson via Flickr

The bloody inter-ethnic fighting in southern Kyrgyzstan, centred for the most part in the city of Osh, remains the subject of conspiracy theorists and confusion. However, I don’t find these arguments that have been put forward for an international investigation compelling.


Was the violence due to third party instigation? Probably, considering that the Kyrgyz Republic has suffered little from ethnic violence since independence. Osh is a predominantly Uzbek city, but there is little to indicate that the majority of Kyrgyz bore any sort of animosity toward the majority. Only in 1990 has the area seen this type of violence which has more to do with culture than ethnicity. The third party may indeed be the Bakiyev family whose removal from power cost their clan a great deal – both in power and money. Bakiyev’s son, who ran a particularly venal and corrupt operation, lost control of his cash generating vehicles of water and hydro-power, not to mention his percentage interest in the casino at the Hyatt in Bishkek. Attempting to destabilize the interim government by provoking attacks against Uzbek’s in southern Kyrgyzstan would be one, albeit short-sighted and ineffective ways of reversing the results of the revolution. Ineffective because, should the violence had continued it almost surely would have provoked a Russian military intervention and Moscow was decidedly in favour of the interim government. Furthermore, Tashkent might have intervened as well, although Russian troops would have likely prevented that from ever taking place.


Would Russia have been so cynical as to incite civil war for the sole purpose of sending troops to assure control over Bishkek? This does not seem plausible for two reasons. The first is that they supported the ouster of Bakiyev in the first place. Not the least because he reneged on the deal to toss out the NATA (read US) airbase in Manas, but also because he was completely unreliable – for anyone. The second reason is that Russia would need an invitation to rescue the interim government, which never came. The last thing Russia needs is another Georgia either politically or militarily.


Finally, it is difficult to follow the reasoning behind the claim of Islamic extremists. There is no evidence of any type of Islamic militancy being behind the events. It is in the interests of Tashkent – who threw the militants out of the Ferghana valley – and Bishkek to share any information regarding Islamic militant activity. The fact that the Uzbek military made no move to intervene makes this scenario exceedingly unlikely.


Which brings me back to the original point. Why convene an international investigation? The threat to stability in the region is certainly a concern – but not to the UN which would take forever to come to a conclusion while simultaneously irritating everyone in Bishkek, Tashkent and Moscow and accomplish, as usual, nothing.

An investigation by the OSCE, currently chaired by Kazakhstan, might be of some use, but to what end? To assign blame? That would be an enormous waste of time and might raise the temperature rather than the opposite. A regional discussion would be useful, behind the scenes and one not aimed at identifying a culprit. In Central Asia issues such as this are not discussed publically. They are addressed in private and in Astana, Bishkek or Tashkent. Keep in mind that the Kazaks treat the Kyrgyz as their little brothers, with more than a little condescension. The Uzbeks are the largest and most powerful country in the region, a fact that causes concern in the Kremlin, and not inclined to be tolerant of bad publicity. The Kyrgyz are fiercely proud and already feel put upon by the US, Russia, China and the rest of their neighbours, except the Tajiks, who are in worse shape.

EU Consolation Prize for Losing Ukraine and Turkey: Georgia

There is nothing really wrong with the recent European Union decision to launch talks with Georgia on an association pact that would strengthen relations, although the title implies otherwise.  It's a little late and the big prizes, Ukraine and Turkey, have already been lost.

No one, of course, will admit to the fact that France and Germany blew it in Ukraine and deliberately removed Turkey from the accession table.  EU foreign policy remains a mystery of logic. But then, if it makes Sakashavili happy, what's the loss?

START and future Tea Bagger Foreign Policy

Since I am on my soap-box of the dangers to the rest of the planet arising out of future US foreign policy should the militaristic racist wing of the Republican Party seize control because of the lazy apathy of progressives in the US (where fortunately I don't have to live if I don't want to), let's look at Mitt Romney's recent Washington Post Op-Ed from two weeks ago.  Aside from the fact that the START treaty has the support of every thinking Republican and Democrat including Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James Baker, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, former National Security Advisers Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Senator Richard Lugar, the ludicrously fact-challenged piece by Romney is wrong on every single point his pathetic ghost-writer attempts to make.

Let's create an index to measure Romney's (and every other race-to-the-crazy-right racist teabagger out there) mendacity. The scale is 1 - 10, with 1 indicating a more or less sane, logical and fact supported approach to developing a policy - in this case, foreign - and 10 indicating a severe case of moronous conservetousness best exemplified by the tea baggers spokesperson, Bachmann.

First, the strap-my-dog-to-the-car-roof ex-presidential candidate seems to believe that the preamble of a treaty is legally binding.  It's not.   And the fact that it allows a party to withdraw from the treaty if it felt national security was in danger is not unusual. It is normal and has been for every previous treaty. Of course, I am assuming the Mittster would not want to waive that right of withdrawal.  On the scale, this merely rates a 5 as it simply shows he needs to study more.

Next, in typical Romneyesque style, he absorbs and regurgitates the perennial uniformed view of the wingers that the US would be prevented from pursuing missile defence strategies. It does not. Rinse, repeat. It does not.  Since this is an outright lie, it rates an 8 on the index.

Amusingly, Romney also asserts that the treaty would allow Russia to build up its bomber based nuclear arsenal.  What color is the sky on his planet?  The entire concept of strategic nuclear bomber systems is a joke and has not be seriously pursued by either the US or Russia in 20 or more years.  Sure, Russia could march down that path. So what? The US could withdraw from the treaty or demand that the treaty be amended.  On the index, this rates a 7.

Finally, Romney asserts that the treaty allows Russia an advantage in warheads. The limitations on each side are the same.  This is an outrageous lie and earns a 9 on the index because it leads to his ultimate conclusion that the START Treaty endangers US security.

His conclusion flies in the face of even Bush's policy on nuclear weapons.  How far right is that. 

So, tell us Mitty - are you as stupid as Sarah?  Are you so desperate that you want to portray the US as the militaristic, racist society it is in danger of lapsing back into?  The failure to ratify START would send a signal to the rest of the world, particularly Russia and China, that the US was re-entering the shoot-first foreign policy choices of the right wing lunatics. 

The planet needs to take note that US foreign policy may take a turn for the worse, endangering others for purely ideological grounds and threatening military adventures which the world needs to think about now so that they can be countered if they come to pass with the rise of the right wing in the US.

Democratic Strategist

For those in the US - here is the warning. And remember Germany 1932.

Democratic Strategist

World Cup Effects

Today is the final.  I happen to support Spain although I will be watching the game surrounded by the Dutch or their descendants in South Africa's Free State just across the border.  Everything where I live is decked out in orange.  If Spain wins - and their ball control performance has been nothing short of astounding - I'll have to run for it.  But I won't be able to run far because, among other things, the approval process for reports on my project go through a Dutch run implementation unit.

Nevertheless, one of the results of this World Cup has been a better view of Africa, and particularly South Africa by the rest of the world.  Yes, crime is awful in South Africa although concentrated in its major cities.  But - no one was mugged. No one was murdered. The vast majority of visitors - and the most came from the United States - had a great time and their eyes were opened to a continent whose public image is not great, to put it mildly. 

The media openly wondered whether South Africa would be ready.  Would the new, state of the art stadiums be finished on time?  What about infrastructure and transport?  What about safety?  What about...whatever? Would Soweto descend with knives drawn on spectators and tourists?  Lions in the streets? Nothing happened - except a hugely successful display of welcome, efficiency and hard work. Very few people in the developed world, especially Europe or the US thought South Africa, a relatively young country, could pull this off.

But then, take a look at Greece. A history of 2,000 years. The construction of the main stadium for the Olympic games was late.  Infrastructure construction and transport were insufficient. They were lucky to pull it off.

It would be nice to think that the roads, stadiums, housing, buses and police services do not need this type of event to be built.  South Africa is a rich country.  Yes, Soweto is still there and should not be given the governments wealth.  South Africa is the economic elephant in the room south of the equator and should be building its infrastructure, erecting schools, eliminating the Soweto's and corruption.  All without the need for a World Cup. 

To be fair, the same can be said of England.  Infrastructure improvements and development in London only started because of the upcoming Olympics.  That should not be the case anywhere.  Governments have the money to do these things - now. 

An Olympics or World Cup should not be the catalyst for improving the lives of people. 

Some other good things happened during this one month celebration.  Germans loudly and enthusiastically supported a great national team composed of largely non-Germans, including players from Africa and Turkey. The US discovered the game by watching and attending in person games played by its strong, it-ain't-over-till-it's-over team which impressed the commentators from Germany, England and South Africa.  FIFA, due to some truly outrageously bad calls (England's denied goal in particularly against Germany) is now discovering "technology" and "electronics" - previously rejected on some vague grounds.

The games were, however, Africa's moment.  Congratulations on a job very well done indeed.

Break's Over

Time to start posting.  And, just to get it out of the way, a comment on the recent Marist Poll indicating a whopping 26% of the US public does not know from whom America won its independence.  In case you think this is just about internal US social and educational problems, think again.

Because the fact that one quarter of the adult population is either unsure or, more alarmingly, named other countries (including China!) may have something to do with the election of some of the most stupendously ignorant people on the planet. 

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R Minn), believes, among other things, that the G20 is a harbinger of world government because economic cooperation and coordination leads to political cooperation and coordination. And that is bad because the US should not surrender its sovereignty to others - a logical leap into the abyss of stupidity.

Governor Jan Brewer (R Ariz) claims that the flood of immigrants from Mexico indulge in beheading (among other things) of Americans. Which is why she needed the racial profiling and fascistic law so that police would be required to say "your papers - let me see your papers" because if they did not, any red-neck could sue the police department for failure to be Nazi-like enough.

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) - claims that Hezbollah is partnering with Mexican drug cartels in the U.S. borderlands and may be planning "Israel-like car bombings of Mexican/USA border personnel or National Guard units."  The last time she poked her head out from whatever rock she lives under, she was exposing Muslim intern spies on Capital Hill and terrorists running convenience stores.

Republican National Chairman Steele claims that Afghanistan is Obama's war of choice and the US should not be there, apparently forgetting all the years from 2001 when Obama was not in power and Steele's friends were.

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) says that the US Constitution, Article 14, is a threat to security because it allows terrorist organizations to send pregnant women to the US, where any child born is automatically an American citizen. Consequently, I suppose, when they grow up they can embark on a terror campaign withing the US.

This list can go on and on.  The trouble is that these people glorify their ignorance in order to appeal to the least intelligent groups in the US and when elected, due to either a bitter, left-behind knuckle-dragging racist majority or the lethargy of those at the opposite end of the spectrum, can and do affect the foreign policy of the US with usually less than beneficial results.  These are the representatives of the 26%. The rest of the world should take note that if they come back into power, life will become much, much worse - for everyone.