About us   Editorial Board   Advisory Board   Subscribe   Contact us  
 


CAUCASUS UPDATE

In this section, we publish the weekly analysis of the major events taking place in the Caucasus and beyond. The Caucasus Update is written by our Senior Editor Alexander Jackson. Click here to subscribe.

Kazakhstan, the OSCE, and the crisis in Kyrgyzstan, CU Issue 68, April 19, 2010

Few anticipated that, just three months into Kazakhstan’s controversial chairmanship of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, it would have to deal with a situation as serious as its southern neighbour Kyrgyzstan faced recently. The April 7 uprising in Kyrgyzstan, which led to the deaths of at least 80 protestors and which forced President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to flee the country, was a major challenge for Kazakhstan and for the OSCE as a body. Unfortunately, neither seemed able to effectively respond.

The violence – which began on April 6 in the town of Talas, but which had roots going back months - seemed to have caught the OSCE off guard. This in itself is concerning, given the organisation’s remit of early warning and conflict prevention.

The very fact of the violence – with armed police firing live rounds into crowds - also demonstrates the failure of years of OSCE efforts to strengthen the country’s security sector, build civil society, and encourage respect for human rights.

In light of the OSCE’s failure to prevent the violence, we could hope that it would respond decisively and swiftly. Unfortunately, the organisation’s reaction has been limited and timid.

Although Zhanybek Karibzhanov, the newly-appointed OSCE Special Envoy for Kyrgyzstan, was in Bishkek by April 9 to meet with the interim government which seized power, his public statements reveal a serious lack of solid policies or ideas. As current OSCE priorities he highlighted “ensuring public safety, reviving business activities and assisting the new administration in strengthening the existing legal system” (OSCE Press Release, April 12).

Nobody could argue with the first of these, but reviving business activities is, under the circumstances, a short-sighted fix which does nothing to address underlying economic issues (utility price hikes, rampant corruption, and the fall in remittances from Kyrgyz working abroad, all of which fuelled serious resentment against the Bakiyev regime). And “strengthening the existing legal system” also seems an odd area of cooperation with a government which has just seized power through a bloody revolt.

The omission of political dialogue in the OSCE’s initial statements was also concerning. The organisation bowed to the inevitable by helping to facilitate Mr Bakiyev’s resignation. However, in doing so it simply followed the lead of the interim government, which had threatened to arrest the former president unless he surrendered. The OSCE acted after the fact, legitimising the interim government’s decision to chase out the legal head of state (OSCE Press Release, April 15). There is no clear indication that Mr Karibzhanov, the Special Envoy, even held direct talks with Mr Bakiyev.

Mr Karibzhanov, the Special Envoy, attempted to acknowledge this by stating, on April 10, that Mr Bakiyev remained President de jure but that the interim government was in charge de facto, and that it was up to the new rulers “to prove the legitimacy of [the] new government” (24 News Agency, April 10). In other words, the OSCE was quite prepared to acquiesce in the uprising, despite the obvious legal and security ramifications, which run directly counter to the OSCE’s mandate and principles. 

Kazakhstan provided sanctuary to Mr Bakiyev before he fled onwards to Belarus (Eurasianet, April 15). It is not entirely clear whether it did so in its capacity as OSCE Chair. If so, it suggests an awkward precedent, particularly since the new government is seeking to extradite several high-ranking former officials from Kazakhstan (RFE/RL, April 17). Does the OSCE want to be responsible for harbouring the deposed officials, with the resultant political complications? Allowing these officials to skulk in exile in Astana would hardly reflect well on Kazakhstan.

As analyst Catherine Fitzpatrick points out, one of the boldest and most active steps the Kazakh chair of the OSCE could have taken, would have been to insist on the deployment of monitors to Kyrgyzstan. As the bloc operates on a consensus model, Russia would have had to agree to this, but other OSCE members and the Chair should have made clear that temporary, unarmed observers were in everybody’s interests. 

OSCE monitors would have helped to stabilise the situation between pro- and anti-Bakiyev groups; prevent ethnic violence of the kind that supposedly flared in the north (RFE/RL, April 9); and ensure that human rights were preserved. A dedicated OSCE team could also support and cajole the interim government into keeping its promise of elections within six months.

The OSCE was designed to respond to these kinds of emergencies. The UN and the EU took a fairly low-key approach to the crisis, as have the ‘Eurasian’ blocs. Both the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation did little more than state their ‘concern’ over the situation, despite both being ostensibly concerned with security in Central Asia (SCO, April 8; 24 News Agency, April 8).

The OSCE may have been more active than either of these organisations. But that isn’t saying much. Given Kazakhstan’s close regional relationship with Kyrgyzstan, and its stated desire to make a success of its OSCE chairmanship, much more could have been done to react to this crisis. The lacklustre response has tarnished Kazakhstan’s chairmanship, and tarnished the OSCE.



"Kazakhstan, the OSCE, and the crisis in Kyrgyzstan, CU Issue 68, April 19, 2010" | 0 comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
PREVIOUS ISSUES

  Caspian Compromise Backfires for Russia and Iran, CU Issue 83, November 24, 2010
  Turkey in a Tight Spot on Missile Defense, CU Issue 82, November 11, 2010
  The OSCE and Kyrgyzstan’s Election, CU Issue 81, October 30, 2010
  Unblocking the US-Azerbaijan Relationship, CU Issue 80, October 07, 2010
  Nabucco Pipeline: Quo Vadis?, CU Issue 79, September 30, 2010
  Russia tightens its grip in the South Caucasus, CU Issue 78, August 23, 2010
  Armenian Politics: Rigidity Versus Flexibility, CU Issue 77, August 10, 2010
  Russia and Georgia: Ready To Talk?, CU Issue 76, July 21, 2010
  Can the US walk and chew gum at the same time?, CU Issue 75, July 9, 2010
  The Kyrgyzstan Crisis – A Qualified Success for Turkish Diplomacy?, CU Issue 74, June 24, 2010
  Brussels downgrades the Caucasus, CU Issue 73, June 07, 2010
  NATO’s New Strategic Concept and the Caspian Region, CU Issue 72, June 01, 2010
  Joe Biden and European Security, CU Issue 71, May 13, 2010
  Behind the US-Azerbaijan row, CU Issue 70, May 6, 2010
  Turkey and Iran: The risks of failure, CU Issue 69, April 30, 2010
  Kazakhstan, the OSCE, and the crisis in Kyrgyzstan, CU Issue 68, April 19, 2010
  The Implications of the Moscow Bombings, CU Issue 67, April 12, 2010
  Iran Manoeuvres for a role in Karabakh, CU Issue 66, April 5, 2010
  The EU and Abkhazia: Between a rock and a hard place, CU Issue 65, March 16, 2010
  Fallout from the US ‘Genocide’ vote, CU Issue 64, March 9, 2010
  Ukraine's elections and future of GUAM, CU Issue 63, February 10, 2010
  Less Democracy, More Security: Kazakhstan and the OSCE, CU Issue 62, January 18, 2010
  Tackling the North Caucasus Insurgency: Development or Rhetoric?, CU Issue 61, January 11, 2010
  The Caspian Region in 2010, CU Issue 60, January 4, 2010
  The Caspian Region in 2010, CU Issue 59, December 31, 2009
  The Turkmenistan-China Pipeline Changes the Energy Balance, CU Issue 58, December 21, 2009
  Russia’s European Security Treaty, CU Issue 57, December 7, 2009
  The ‘Kidnapping War’ in Georgia and its Implications, CU Issue 56, December 3, 2009
  Azerbaijan Shifts its Energy Priorities, CU Issue 55, November 23, 2009
  The South Caucasian States and Afghanistan, CU Issue 54, November 11, 2009
  Is Turkey turning East?, CU Issue 53, November 2, 2009
  What is Russia’s Gameplan for Iran?, CU Issue 52, October 26, 2009
  Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan: Where Next?, CU Issue 51, October 19, 2009
  The Armenians of Georgia: A New Flashpoint in the Caucasus?, CU Issue 50, October 12, 2009
  Turkey’s EU Membership: Will The ‘Armenian Opening’ Help?, CU Issue 49, October 5, 2009
  The Missile Defence Shift: Implications for the Caucasus, CU Issue 48, September 22, 2009
  Rising Tensions in the Black Sea , CU Issue 47, September 14, 2009
  Armenia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan: The Clock Is Ticking, CU Issue 46, September 7, 2009
  The Battle of the Bases in Central Asia, CU Issue 45, August 31, 2009
  Russia, Israel, and the S-300s, CU Issue 44, August 24, 2009
  The motivations behind Turkey's 'Kurdish Initiative', CU Issue 43, August 17, 2009
  The Implications of the Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan Dispute, CU Issue 42, August 10, 2009
  What has changed since the August war?, CU Issue 41, August 3, 2009
  The Internal Dynamics of Armenia’s Karabakh Policy, CU Issue 40, July 20, 2009
  Gazprom’s Baku Triumph, CU Issue 39, July 06, 2009
  Ingushetia: The New Chechnya?, CU Issue 38, June 29, 2009
  Georgias Economy - A Matter for Diplomats, CU Issue 37, June 22, 2009
  ‘Progress’ In The Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process, CU Issue 36, June 08, 2009
  Iran's Azerbaijanis and the presidential election, CU Issue 35, June 01, 2009
  Nabucco and South Stream - The Race Heats Up, CU Issue 34, May 25, 2009
  China and Central Asia, CU Issue 33, May 19, 2009
  Russia, Georgia, and NATO - A Bad Week, CU Issue 32, May 11, 2009
  The Obama Administration’s Emerging Caucasus Policy, CU Issue 31, April 27, 2009
  Integration and Division in the Caspian Sea, CU Issue 30, April 20, 2009
  The Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement - Implications for the South Caucasus, CU Issue 29, April 13, 2009
  Turkey's local elections and Armenian issue, CU Issue 28, April 6, 2009
  Is There Life Left In The Nabucco Project?, CU Issue 27, March 30, 2009
  Problems and Prospects for Russian Military Reform, CU Issue 26, March 23, 2009
  Russia and Georgia: Not back to war, CU Issue 25, March 16, 2009
  Armenia: Heading towards crisis?, CU Issue 24, March 9, 2009
  Drug trafficking in the Caucasus, CU Issue 23, February 23, 2009
  Russian-led military block: A real counterweight to NATO?, CU Issue 22, February 16, 2009
  Are the International Missions in Georgia still relevant?, CU Issue 21, February 9, 2009
  Israel and Azerbaijan: Baku’s Balancing Act, CU Issue 20, February 2, 2009
  The North Caucasus in 2009: A Bleak Forecast, CU Issue 19, January 26, 2009
  The Military Balance in Nagorno-Karabakh, CU Issue 18, January 19, 2009
  Russia, Iran, and Barack Obama in 2009, Part II, CU Issue 17, January 12, 2009
  Looking forward to 2009 in the Caucasus and beyond, Part I, CU Issue 16, January 5, 2009
  The opportunities and the risks of NATO’s new supply routes, CU Issue 15, December 22, 2008
  The Black Sea Ambitions of Armenia, CU Issue 14, December 15, 2008
  Another Small Step for Nabucco, CU Issue 13, December 8, 2008
  Will Saakashvili survive politically?, CU Issue 12, December 1, 2008
  The latest fashion: conflict mediation, CU Issue 11, November 24, 2008
  The Baku Energy Summit, CU Issue 10, November 17, 2008
  Obama and the Caucasus, CU Issue 9, November 10, 2008
  Kazakhstan's oil options, CU Issue 8, November 3, 2008
  Is the Minsk Group being sidelined?, CU Issue 7, October 27, 2008
  Gas and oil developments in the Caspian region, CU Issue 6, October 20, 2008
  Where next for the Georgian peace process?, CU Issue 5, October 8, 2008
  Unrest in the North Caucasus, CU Issue 4, September 29, 2008
  Saakashvili's future, CU Issue 3, September 22, 2008
  Iran after the Georgian War, CU Issue 2, September 15, 2008
  Football diplomacy, CU Issue 1, September 8, 2008
       
 
  © 2006-2010 CRIA
  All rights reserved

Editorial Board
Advisory Board
Our Authors

Back Issues
Caucasus Update
Current Issue

Contact Us
Subscribe
Join us on Facebook