Why the US wants control of Kyrgyzstan
1. Kyrgyzstan can serve as a wedge between the former Soviet countries and China, which have been rapidly deepening military ties and cooperation together in the past year as a response to US expansionism. Control of Kyrgyzstan also helps encircle Russia, together with other countries in which recent coups have occurred (Ukraine, Georgia) and existing opponents in NATO and Japan. Keeping Russia and China physically separated is a major strategic military goal of the United States in maintaining a global supremacy of power.
2. Kyrgyzstan's President Akayev made the same mistake former Ukrainian President Kuchma and former Georgian President Shevardnadze made: he tried to accomodate the United States at times while trying to carve out a measure of autonomy and keeping close relations with Russia. The US airbase was established immediately after 9-11 not only with Akayev's backing, but also with that of Russia and their allies in Central Asia, because they correctly predicted that US intervention against the Taliban in Afghanistan would strengthen the position of the pro-Russia Northern Alliance there (the "warlords" the Western corporate media talks about). However, ever since the Iraq war the Central Asian republics have been refusing requests by the US for expansion of operations, and President Akayev had made some statements in 2004 that essentially the US base was no longer necessary. When confronted by the US, he backed down and clarified that they could stay. Why? Because the collapse of the post-Soviet economy had weakened his position to such a point that he was aware of the risk of a US-backed coup. As we can see, the government crumbled rapidly when the coup was launched this past week. Note that the countries that have maintained the tightest security and allowed the least amount of penetration by the US and Europe - Belarus and Turkmenistan - have been able to prevent every coup attempt thus far.
3. "Progressives" in the US and Britain need to be more careful about their news sources. Many in the so-called alternative press regurgitate what the coup organizers themselves are saying: for example, two of the three sources - IWPR and Eurasianet - posted by Andrew on the previous page ( http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314181.shtml) both state prominently on their websites that they receive funding from George Soros' Open Society Institute, which openly helped organize the overthrows in Ukraine and Georgia (and tried in Belarus); Eurasianet says their website is actually operated by OSI and IWPR even has a big logo stating that they receive funding from President Bush's US Department of State! Are these neutral, objective sources? Of course not.
The US and Britain create echo chambers among progressive groups by having nonprofits/NGOs that appear independent of the government do the CIA's and MI-6's dirty work of spreading misinformation and convincing progressives that "human rights" are at stake in unfamiliar places like Yugoslavia (anticommunism), Zimbabwe (anticolonialism), Sudan (oil), Sierra Leone (gold/diamonds), Belarus (anticommunism), Myanmar (oil), and Tibet (anticommunism), as a few examples. Just because a particular view is on ZNet or The Nation and that it is somewhat more nuanced than the corporate media does not necessarily make that information accurate.
Occasionally, they don't succeed in fully shaping public opinion against the target, as with President Aristide of Haiti (collaboration with Cuba) and President Chavez of Venezuela (collaboration with Cuba & oil), but even on those the US/British governments and the nonprofits who serve their interests have been able to create enough confusion among progressives to prevent a major mobilization until after the coup attempt has taken place.
The sources in the original posting - ITAR-TASS and Interfax - are both Russian; that does not mean they are objective either, but they do offer a different point of view, one that comes from those being targeted by Bush and his allies for "regime change."
In general, before rushing to adopt the world view of the Western corporate media or of George Soros and the nonprofits funded by billionaires like him, one should hear what the other side, the people they are targeting, are saying too.
4. For most activists in the US and Western Europe, the idea of "democratic elections" is more important than anything else, but for people in other parts of the world, survival and preventing invasion (whether economic or military) often takes precedence. Living standards and life expectancy have dropped dramatically, both in the former Soviet Union, whose economic policies were essentially hijacked by US advisors like Jeffrey Sachs during the 1990s, and in countries actually invaded by the US, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, and Yugoslavia, to name four recent examples. At a broader ideological level, not everyone agrees that elections are the only acceptable means of organizing societies, particular when those systems have been developed in such ways that they serve to protect the rights of those who have stolen and privatized property. And if one takes the position that "both the West and East" models are bad, why help the enemy in your own backyard keep getting stronger by defeating all those who stand in its way? The enemy of your enemy might not be your friend, but instead of getting the old colonial "white man's burden" mentality that all other countries should adopt your way of doing things, you should first fix the shit that's going on in your own countries.
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article