How they see us: Kyrgyzstan coup threatens U.S. airbase

For the first time, the U.S. has found itself on the wrong side of a “color revolution,” said M.K. Bhadrakumar in the Hong Kong Asia Times. When Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, underwent the Tulip Revolution in 2005, it was seen as a pro-U.S., pro-democracy event just like the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine—all of which overturned Russian-backed authoritarian regimes. But last week, the Kyrgyz people rose up and ousted an authoritarian regime that was backed by the U.S. The revolt began when thousands of protesters, angry about the wrecked economy and endemic government corruption, called for President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to step down. After troops killed several protesters in the capital, Bishkek, broader riots broke out, overwhelming the police and military; Bakiyev fled to his villa in the south. The opposition appointed Roza Otunbayeva, a respected former foreign minister, to be acting president. She immediately thanked Russia, both for recognizing her authority and for having criticized Bakiyev’s corruption.

This all could have devastating consequences for the war in Afghanistan, said Dan McLaughlin in the Dublin Irish Times. The U.S. military relies on the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan to funnel troops and supplies in and out of Afghanistan. That base has long been an irritant for Moscow, which still sees Kyrgyzstan as within its sphere of influence. Last year, “under pressure from Russia, Bakiyev pledged to kick U.S. troops out of Manas,” but he changed his mind when the U.S. agreed to triple the rent it paid for use of the base. The Russians were furious. Then, a few weeks ago, when Bakiyev announced that the U.S. would build an anti-terrorism center to train Kyrgyz forces to fight insurgents, that was “the last straw for Russia.” It began reaching out to the Kyrgyz opposition.

While Russia didn’t actually engineer last week’s coup, it certainly supported it, said Simon Tisdall in the London Guardian. Russian TV stations, “not usually noted for their concern for human rights,” have been waging a propaganda campaign for weeks, criticizing Bakiyev “for corruption, nepotism, and cronyism.” Since many Kyrgyz speak Russian and watch Russian television, these broadcasts undoubtedly played a role in priming the population for an uprising. And in private meetings, Russian officials assured the Kyrgyz opposition of their diplomatic support in the event of regime change.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The U.S. is now officially on the outs—and has only itself to blame, said Paul McGeough in Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald. Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration never said a word about Bakiyev’s corruption or crackdown on opposition leaders and journalists. That silence gave the U.S. “a reputation locally as the bully backer of a corrupt and abusive leader.” The new Kyrgyz leader, Otunbayeva, was blunt in her critique of America. “You came to us to help us build democracy,” she told The Washington Post, “and then just one day, you put your hands over your mouth just to have a base.” Otunbayeva’s disillusionment with the U.S. doesn’t necessarily mean that she intends to close the Manas airbase. But one thing is clear: “Washington really needs to get its skates on if it is to catch up with Moscow in winning hearts and minds.”