Igor Kaminnik (Russia)
The last days of summer 2010 in Kyrgyzstan saw two events that can confidently be called crucial. The first event occurred when the international community began massaging information. On August 23, the International Crisis Group published a report and recommendations on its official website concerning events that occurred in the southern part of the country. The 39 pages of the report examined the events that took place during June 1990, the social and political situation during 2010, the events in Jalalabad and Osh and the chronology of the June riots.
The organization’s website used that report to provide recommendations to the Kyrgyz authorities and to the international community, specifically to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE’s High Commissioner on National Minorities.
We will not evaluate the quality and fairness of the report. Let the politicians and pundits argue about that. Everything would have been fine had not Louisa Arbour, the past UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and current head of the International Crisis Group, voiced the basic thesis with which her organization began its activities in Kyrgyzstan on the pages of the British newspaper, The Guardian. In her article, Louisa Arbour argued that it may unfortunately no longer be possible to prevent the country from falling apart.
The second important point of her propaganda message was “to support an investigation into the June events with central roles assigned to those with suitable expertise, such as the UN high commissioner for human rights and the OSCE high commissioner on national minorities. And it should be made clear that further aid to the Kyrgyz government will be conditional on such an investigation.”
That recommendation indicates that the plans to partition the country have entered their final phase. In light of that statement, how can we forget the main point of the International Crisis Group’s January 2005 report, which said Kosovo is more dangerous than Iraq?
The media did not cover the second event, but it was also crucial: the plan is to involve Martti Ahtisaari, “the architect of Kosovo independence” and destroyer of Yugoslavia, in Rosa Otumbayeva’s government to solve the “Kyrgyz problem.”
Martti Ahtisaari is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and is best known for his success in splitting Kosovo off from Serbia. World-famous film director Emir Kusturica made a telling comment during a visit to South Ossetia after George’s aggression: “The Nobel Prize went to one of the founders of Kosovo’s independence, Martti Ahtisaari, who initiated the bombing of Serbia. I have questioned the validity of the Nobel Peace Prize ever since.”
The quality of work done by the Nobel Laureate has been simply amazing. The Ahtisaari Plan was presented to the UN in early 2007, and by February 2008 Kosovo had declared its independence. The separatists and the secession of the independent state received support in Europe. How much faster will the “Ahtisaari Plan for Kyrgyzstan” be implemented in Central Asia? The reports of the International Crisis Group played a huge role in shaping public opinion and preparing the US government for aggression against Yugoslavia.
These two landmark events once again confirm the view of many analysts: the successful partitioning of Yugoslavia into many small states would accelerate the final fragmentation of the USSR into the former Soviet republics, or more precisely into the newly independent states that emerged on their territories.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was a strategic objective—if not an idée fixe—of many of the West’s political leaders. And these political forces did not finish the job 20 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed. In many respects, the collapse of the post-Soviet republics, those new states, was foreordained when they were established. The administrative and territorial partitioning of the Soviet republics was an integral part of Stalin’s empire building, with all of the consequences of Rome’s “divide and conquer.” It created internal territorial and national conflicts and prevented the regions from being economically independent. All of these precautions succeeded as part of the USSR’s large international empire. But the conflicts that Stalin had built into the system surfaced as soon as the imperial and international organizational principles of state control were abandoned.
Parochial nationalism has become one of the main methods used to destroy these post-Soviet fragments, and it is highly effective. It came into use during the concluding stages of perestroika. It was evident in the Moldavian Gagauzia campaign of 1990, the Sumgait events that preceded the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the ethnic clashes in Kyrgyzstan and the Meskhteian Turk genocide.
After the Białowieża Accords of 1991 dissolving the USSR and the final transformation of the Soviet empire into the amorphous CIS, nationalism became the main reason the human, economic and cultural links formed during the Soviet era were destroyed. The form that nationalism took is unimportant. It might be a ban on the use of the Russian language, denial of rights to Russian speakers in the Baltic states and Ukraine or aggression against Transdniestria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Political nationalism heated up and then took on “democratic” forms again. The problem is endemic in all of the national republics of the former Soviet Union: the almost European Baltic republics that joined the EU; Ukraine, Moldavia and Belarus, which are suspended between Asia and Europe; and the republics in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Stalin knew what he was doing when he established the national Soviet republics within their current borders. He understood very well that fragments of the Soviet empire could not survive on their own. Their nationalism would destroy them. So 20 years later we see that the process of destroying the fragments of the Soviet Union has entered its final phase, and the main instrument of that destruction is nationalism. The color revolutions in Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia are the best proof of Stalin’s geopolitical genius. Democratic leaders in those countries seized power by exploiting the discontent of the people with the post-Soviet reality. Nationalism was the main political tool used by those democrats. The primary outcome of the color regimes has been the real threat that the countries where color revolutions took place would lose their integrity.
Orange President Yushchenko ultimately split society into Western and Eastern Ukraine and established a legal precedent by ceding part of Ukrainian territory to Romania.
Saakashvili’s nationalistic madness caused Georgia to lose Abkhazia and South Ossetia for good—a significant chunk of its territory. Bakiyev’s government in Kyrgyzstan exacerbated the separatist aspirations of some nationalist diasporas. The political “failure” of the color revolutions is forcing the United States and its allies to employ the methods proven in the Balkans. The situations in Kosovo and in southern Kyrgyzstan are following the same script.
The Americans achieved three main objectives in Kosovo:
– The undermining of Europe as a global competitor with the risk that Kosovo will unite with Albania and become a center around which Europe’s increasing Muslim presence can consolidate. With Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo today is already forming an “Islamic belt” that cuts off Serbia and Montenegro from Western Europe.
– The recognition of Kosovo and the partitioning of Iraq became important steps toward the ultimate destruction of the postwar system of international law.
– Kosovo is a major drug transshipment hub. Afghan heroin makes up a large part of the drug trafficking that supports the region. Heroin production increased 40 times after the United States and NATO intervened in Afghanistan in 2001.
There have been numerous reports about the use of US military transport aircraft to ship drugs—possibly through the air bases in Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and Lithuania. The UN Office for Drug Control and Crime (UNODCCCP) has indirectly confirmed that reporting. According to it, the heroin distribution centers in Europe include Ramstein (Germany) and the American Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. Goods are transferred from Afghanistan to US Air Force bases without undergoing a customs inspection.
Alexander Anderson, the International Crisis Group’s Kosovo Project Director, confirmed in an interview that Kosovo is one of the largest drug trafficking corridors, and he said that organized crime there has even increased under UN administration.
Martti Ahtisaari probably has a personal interest in Kosovo’s independence. The German media got hold of an intelligence report from the German intelligence service, BND, which said UN Special Representative Martti Ahtisaari, who proposed the plan for Kosovo independence, received about 40 million euros from Albanian billionaire politician Behgjet Pacolli. No one refuted the report, and the scandal was quickly hushed up.
By partitioning Kyrgyzstan, the United States is achieving virtually the same kinds of objectives:
– Undermining a global competitor in the post-Soviet space. Dispersing those involved in the political process of integration with Russia. Establishing zones of instability and American influence supported by military bases in southern Kyrgyzstan and the Manas airport.
– The final destruction of the political remnants of the Soviet period and the establishment of preconditions for a new redivision of the world.
– Full control of drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Control over southern Kyrgyzstan and the establishment of a state there that is “independent” as far as the world is concerned, but dependent on the United States will make it possible to further boost the amount of heroin sent to Russia and the European Union.
– The problematic administrative and territorial partitioning of the Ferghan Valley that was a legacy of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which laid the foundation for permanent ethnic and territorial conflicts.
Marti Ahtisaari and the International Crisis Group should probably also achieve these objectives. All of the components for implementation of this plan are already in place:
– Efforts have begun to shape public opinion, which is concerned about the ethnic conflicts in Kyrgyzstan. If the International Crisis Group’s recommendations that it participate in an independent study by the OSCE and the UN are adopted, those conflicts will obviously be considered ethnic cleansing.
– The existence of areas densely populated by national minorities that are subject to “ethnic cleansing” and which the international community is forced to protect.
– Elections to Kyrgyzstan’s parliament scheduled for October 10, 2010, which will obviously not be recognized by one of the opposing sides—the pro-American (opposition) parties that came to power after Bakiyev, and the parties funded by Bakiyev politicians. The separation of the Kyrgyz themselves into southerners and northerners also contributes to implementation of the Ahtisaari Plan.
International Crisis Group Head Louisa Arbour accurately described the situation in her Guardian article: “In the process [of the June riots] the government lost whatever control of the south it once had. Melis Myrzakmatov, the ruthless and resolute nationalist mayor of Osh, the largest southern city, emerged from the bloodshed with his political strength and extremist credentials strengthened. Now caught between a humiliated provisional government on one hand and the renegade mayor on the other, southern Kyrgyzstan is a serious security risk in the region and beyond.” As noted by Ishenbai Kadyrbekov, leader of the Kyrgyz political party Union of the SSR, people are under the impression that the parties are preparing for the Battle of Stalingrad, not for parliamentary elections. There is a chance that this battle will be a battle for the integrity of the country.
Source: New Eastern Outlook