portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

election fraud | imperialism & war | media criticism

Why the US wants control of Kyrgyzstan

This is a response to a comment on a previous post:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314181.shtml
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.

homepage: homepage: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314181.shtml

I agree with everything you are saying. 26.Mar.2005 14:33

Red neck

It was the first thing that crossed my mind. Yes, the US is determined to dominate Central Asia...But this could be mostly a poplar uprising. Dirt-poor country with a lot unemployment, corruption and ethnic tension. Explosion of pent-up frustration, without a strong center, doomed to failure and could plunge the country into chaos... Not something I'm sure the US wants on the border of Afghanistan. Things don't always go as planned, the 'Tulip revolution' might just be blowback.

Comment and Question 26.Mar.2005 17:13


"why help the enemy in your own backyard keep getting stronger by defeating all those who stand in its way?"

I'm assuming your talking about people such as Saddam Hussein and Ukraine's last president? If so, your perspective is fantasy and privelage, because freedom based, community organized societies will always be finding means to overthrow these "enemys of our enemy" who are in fact different heads of the same chimera.

The rest of your article is appreciated in that it points to the reality of prevalent misinformation networks. Could you post more support for your assertions these groups are the source of "alternative" news stories? Democracy Now is an example of a source suceptable to such falsification.

what's a credible source for information? 26.Mar.2005 19:14

Freedom(tm) breaking out all over

CNN, PBS, or Fox, perhaps? Of course the people cry for FREEDOM(tm). Here comes Walmart! Markets must grow for Freedom(tm) to flourish!

I don't get it 26.Mar.2005 19:26


Let me see. Supposedly progressives support people's right to the government of their choice and certainly do not support authoritarian regimes such as found in Central Asia. So what exactly is the downside in tossing out Akayev, who seemed to be following the lead of his fellow Central Asian "leaders" by turning his country into a family fiefdom?

It's easy to turn around and say, well, there was not really a popular uprising, it was all a CIA conspiracy. Sorry folks, you're just assuming your conclusion and then patting yourselves on the back about your "trenchant" analysis.

Quit assuming that you've got Revealed Truth, and quit patronizing people who try to take control of their political destiny without first consulting with you.

They’ve screwed up more than just one country. 26.Mar.2005 22:28

Red neck

"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" Well said, it has become their cure-all that doesn't cure anything. It starts from the false premise that parliamentarianism is democracy. That it leads inevitably to peace and prosperity. In fact every country and region of the former "Soviet block" has seen its standard of living drop, if not plummet, (Including East Germany) racked with ethnic strife, if not outright combat. It continues seemingly forever 15yrs after the fall..... There is no progress and our platitudes about freedumb and democrazy is just a repackaging of the "old colonial "white man's burden" mentality."
You're writing some very good stuff. I'm just not sure that this one was by the book...But I could be wrong.

Cryptome has US Ambassador assessment 27.Mar.2005 14:47


see the document at:  http://cryptome.org/kyrgyz-secret.htm
the document date is 12/30/2004

"democratic elections"????? 28.Mar.2005 15:56

Bird Dog

Is your statement real or just a load of Diebold????

Redneck has good instincts 29.Mar.2005 00:31


The US has had operatives in Kyrghyzstan since the fall of the USSR. They have been working on this for a long time. Yes, the Kyrghyz people involved in this certainly think they're doing something for their own good. This new government may be better for them, or may not. What is certain is that it will either be good for the US, or it will be toast (just like the government they just overthrew).