NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7999201
The opposition has overthrown President Akayev, forcing him to flee the country. A new government is in power there.
So, what do you think? I think that this is encouraging. It is another former Soviet Republic to fall in the Orange Revolution. Worse, the president was even elected by the Supreme Soviet when it existed, so he is a communist leftover.
But I also think that this will bring stability to the region. Kyrgyzstan may start a trend of liberalization in the region. If that happens, security will increase, as fundementalism looses its allure. It will also bring the security to allow for full exploitation of natural resources. Combined with a market economy, the region should prosper, and warring clans will feel complacent. But I want your thoughts.

Wait and see again. Who are the new guys, what are they going to do, and will it be good for those ever so mysterious interests? ;)

I wonder what Ali G thinks.

I wonder what Ali G thinks.
I don't think Ali G is aware of Kyrgyzstan. Borat might be because Kasakstan is also a central Asian former Soviet republic. Someone really should ask him.

Wait and see again. Who are the new guys, what are they going to do, and will it be good for those ever so mysterious interests? ;)
Remember, interests are meant to be mysterious. That being said, let me give you an idea of what's at stake. A US-South Korean base is at the airport in Bishkek. About a hundred miles away, there is a Russian base, the only one in Central Asia outside the Baiknour Cosmodrome.

I don't think Ali G is aware of Kyrgyzstan. Borat might be because Kasakstan is also a central Asian former Soviet republic. Someone really should ask him.
Oooh yeah, Kazakhstan. I always mix those stans up.

Oooh yeah, Kazakhstan. I always mix those stans up.
Kazakhstan is the big one with all the resources. Pretty soon, though, they will have a revolution of their own. It'll probably be next year, in time for the presidential election.

Kazakhstan is the big one with all the resources. Pretty soon, though, they will have a revolution of their own. It'll probably be next year, in time for the presidential election.
Well, here's hoping they don't throw the Jew down the well.

Well, here's hoping they don't throw the Jew down the well.
If you mean to hijack this thread and make it about Jews, don't. This is about Central Asia, and its relationship to the world.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/manas-imagery.htm
Here's some information about the base near Bishkek. It's a year old, but that base is still standing. If anything, the base was made larger.

I wonder what Ali G thinks.
He thinks he needs to put season two out on DVD and so do I.

He thinks he needs to put season two out on DVD and so do I.


"hello you are sexy girl!" ....

"do like the ejaculation tasty?"

"WOW your are all sweaty, lets wrestle like in khazistan"

Back on topic, please?

good for them. too bad about the 'new government' thing though.


btw, don't actions like this make the protestors/revolutionaries into terrorists?
http://www.muslimuzbekistan.com/eng/ennews/2005/03/images/2403_2.jpg

If all those former soviet republics just dropped the -stan from their country names, it would make them alot easier to remeber.

It is always good to see another authoritarian government being forced out of power and I hope the people of Kyrgyzstan can finally have a government which cares about their needs and not one which is only run in the interests of a small ruling elite of the President's cronies which is sadly what occurred in most former Soviet republics after the collapse of Communism. I also hope there is a similar revolution in Uzbekistan which is ruled by a far more oppressive government which boils people to death (reported by human rights groups) and is strongly supported by the USA in the "fight against terror" although it is doubtful that there is a real threat from any terrorists in the country.

It is always good to see another authoritarian government being forced out of power and I hope the people of Kyrgyzstan can finally have a government which cares about their needs and not one which is only run in the interests of a small ruling elite of the President's cronies which is sadly what occurred in most former Soviet republics after the collapse of Communism. I also hope there is a similar revolution in Uzbekistan which is ruled by a far more oppressive government which boils people to death (reported by human rights groups) and is strongly supported by the USA in the "fight against terror" although it is doubtful that there is a real threat from any terrorists in the country.

Islam Karimov is the bastard's name, and yes, what you say is true.

It is always good to see another authoritarian government being forced out of power and I hope the people of Kyrgyzstan can finally have a government which cares about their needs and not one which is only run in the interests of a small ruling elite of the President's cronies which is sadly what occurred in most former Soviet republics after the collapse of Communism. I also hope there is a similar revolution in Uzbekistan which is ruled by a far more oppressive government which boils people to death (reported by human rights groups) and is strongly supported by the USA in the "fight against terror" although it is doubtful that there is a real threat from any terrorists in the country.

But I thought you said human rights groups were 'fascist' and were run by the CIA?

But I thought you said human rights groups were 'fascist' and were run by the CIA?

I wasn't saying that about most organisations and I believe groups like Amnesty International provide a fairly unbiased analysis of human rights issues. I was originally referring to some of the allegations against the Cuban government which do often come from right wing groups but I generally trust what AI says and I don't deny that some of the violations they report take place in Cuba.

I wasn't saying that about most organisations and I believe groups like Amnesty International provide a fairly unbiased analysis of human rights issues. I was originally referring to some of the allegations against the Cuban government which do often come from right wing groups but I generally trust what AI says and I don't deny that the violations they report take place in Cuba.

No human rights ogranizations are 'left-wing' or 'right-wing.' They are just as critical of right-wing dictatorships as they are of left-wing ones.

No human rights ogranizations are 'left-wing' or 'right-wing.' They are just as critical of right-wing dictatorships as they are of left-wing ones.

Some groups are undoubtedly biased on certain issues but I agree that most of the larger organisations like Amnesty International usually remain neutral when it comes to things like a government's political ideology.

It is always good to see another authoritarian government being forced out of power and I hope the people of Kyrgyzstan can finally have a government which cares about their needs and not one which is only run in the interests of a small ruling elite of the President's cronies which is sadly what occurred in most former Soviet republics after the collapse of Communism. I also hope there is a similar revolution in Uzbekistan which is ruled by a far more oppressive government which boils people to death (reported by human rights groups) and is strongly supported by the USA in the "fight against terror" although it is doubtful that there is a real threat from any terrorists in the country.
Uzbekistan, while authoritarian, is not as bad as it is hyped up to be at times. Besides, they do have a terrorist threat. Islamic radicals are trying to secede in the southern part of the country, are aligned with al-Qaeda, and did several bombings in Tashkent last year.
If you want really bad, look at Turkmenistan. Power is so centralized there, it is unbelievable. They have been a supporter of the War on Terror, but probably because they fear what may happen if they don't.

Although the population of the stans are mostly Muslim, they don't like extremists of any kind. Then again after a century under extreme secularism and a example of extreme religious fanaticism right next door (Afghanistan), will do that.

I think that what happened in Kyrgyzstan today, was monumental to the world as it showed the strength of that country's people. It also sent the message that said "Hey, we don't need no outside help as we can do it ourselves."

The Stan I'm worried about is Turkmenistan. That guy has done nothing for the people at all and turned the govt. into his own personality cult. He's banned the wearing of gold teeth, long beards and etc, had his own personal writings declared holy right up with the Koran, made it so that in order to get a Turkmenistani driver's license you must memorize the main points of those writings, and had a huge ice palace randomly put out in the middle of the desert.

In case you're wondering about the -stan ending. It means "land" in Arabic or some language like it. So Kyrgyzstan means "Land of the Kyrgyz" and Kazakhstan means "Land of the Kazakh" and so on.

Although the population of the stans are mostly Muslim, they don't like extremists of any kind. Then again after a century under extreme secularism and a example of extreme religious fanaticism right next door (Afghanistan), will do that.

I think that what happened in Kyrgyzstan today, was monumental to the world as it showed the strength of that country's people. It also sent the message that said "Hey, we don't need no outside help as we can do it ourselves."

The Stan I'm worried about is Turkmenistan. That guy has done nothing for the people at all and turned the govt. into his own personality cult. He's banned the wearing of gold teeth, long beards and etc, had his own personal writings declared holy right up with the Koran, made it so that in order to get a Turkmenistani driver's license you must memorize the main points of those writings, and had a huge ice palace randomly put out in the middle of the desert.

Belarus is the same way. IMO, those two countries are probably the most authoritarian of the former Soviet Republics. The worst part about Supermabat Niyazov, however, is that he refuses to develope Turkmenistan's massive natural gas reserves. The Russians shut down their pipeline from the country a few years back, and Niyazov is not allowing a new one to be built. Rebellion will stir there, and we may see a revolution like Romania's, not Czechoslovakia's.

I hope that this "-stan" revolution thing moves to Pakistan. Musharraf is nice and all(for a military dictator, that is), but nothing beats Democracy.

Of course, the difference is, while all these countries have shitty little armies, Pakistan has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. So unless the rioters have large, large numbers....

I hope that this "-stan" revolution thing moves to Pakistan. Musharraf is nice and all(for a military dictator, that is), but nothing beats Democracy.

Of course, the difference is, while all these countries have shitty little armies, Pakistan has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. So unless the rioters have large, large numbers....
More likely, then, is political change. They will negotiate with Musharraf or a successor to gain power. However, I have heard predictions that Pakistan may break apart like Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

More likely, then, is political change. They will negotiate with Musharraf or a successor to gain power. However, I have heard predictions that Pakistan may break apart like Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Not likely.

Of course, Baluchistan may break away, but the rest of the country will stick together. Trust me, I've lived there, and the nations united love of Islam, and wish for a unified Muslim state for South Asia is too strong. Pakistanis are fiercly nationalistic, and while internally some groups think that they're Province is better than others(as in alot of countries), they value their country more.

I wonder what Ali G thinks.
LOL
Borat buys you with a goat! :p

Not likely.

Of course, Baluchistan may break away, but the rest of the country will stick together. Trust me, I've lived there, and the nations united love of Islam, and wish for a unified Muslim state for South Asia is too strong. Pakistanis are fiercly nationalistic, and while internally some groups think that they're Province is better than others(as in alot of countries), they value their country more.
You are more likely right. Still, I doubt that it applies to the Northwestern areas, which is fiercely tribal, backwards, and at this point, counterproductive to the nation.
Edit:
Baluchistan is really, really big. If that breaks away, Pakistan looses a large part of their population, and a great portion of their security to the east. You never know what Iran may do these days.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=613198
Well, a provisional government has just been formed. They have a lot of work to do. Looters are running wild throughout the country. I'm sure that Islamic radicals in the Fergana valley will try antagonizing troops there. And of course, the fate of those two bases of the two regional powers.
It's not unprecedented for either power to withdraw because of a government change. Russia had to do it all the time from the Eastern bloc. The US has done it less often, but has done so in the past. Wheelus Airforce base in Lybia was the largest AF base outside the US. It closed in 1970, one year after Col. Qadafi took power. Apparantly, his anti American rhetoric had something to do with it. :D

screw kyrgyzstan. it's another impoverished country that breeds like pigs. i don't predict competent government for this country within the next century. most likely another class of corrupt strongment characteristic of this part of the world will be voted in.

If all those former soviet republics just dropped the -stan from their country names, it would make them alot easier to remeber.

I suppose so, but it works both ways, The United of America?

screw kyrgyzstan. it's another impoverished country that breeds like pigs. i don't predict competent government for this country within the next century. most likely another class of corrupt strongment characteristic of this part of the world will be voted in.
It's certainly a possibility. But that is not in US interests. Only a democratic government with the proper checks and balances can help stabilize the region, and regional stability is greatly needed there, not just for them but for all of us.

It's certainly a possibility. But that is not in US interests. Only a democratic government with the proper checks and balances can help stabilize the region, and regional stability is greatly needed there, not just for them but for all of us.
democracy won't work properly if the economic conditions aren't right. True stability only comes with economic stability, and democracy can't last long if Kyrgyzstan remains a poverty stricken country. Unlike Iraq which has good resources and a sound economic base making democracy feasible, from what I've read Kyrgyzstan has literally nothing. Their location sucks too, and their neighbors are all more competitive. Unless the US gives them a multibillion dollar gift I don't see how Kyrgyzstan can compete economically. At least China has an interest in Central Asia too, it may not be democratic but China will likely act on its fear of instability and islamic insurgency... that could ensure that things won't get too out of hand.

democracy won't work properly if the economic conditions aren't right. True stability only comes with economic stability, and democracy can't last long if Kyrgyzstan remains a poverty stricken country. Unlike Iraq which has good resources and a sound economic base making democracy feasible, from what I've read Kyrgyzstan has literally nothing. Their location sucks too, and their neighbors are all more competitive. Unless the US gives them a multibillion dollar gift I don't see how Kyrgyzstan can compete economically. At least China has an interest in Central Asia too, it may not be democratic but China will likely act on its fear of instability and islamic insurgency... that could ensure that things won't get too out of hand.
Possibly. Several powers are interested in Central Asia: the US, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey are the biggest. Take the proposed natural gas pipeline. Each has proposed their own route, and naturally, it is whatever is in their best interests. There's a lot at stake in Central Asia.
Still, a resource base is not required for a good economy. The "Asian tigers" of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and most notoriously, Japan, had very little resources of their own. But the right attitude and strong (but not necessarily overbearing) governments made them soar. The arguement can even be made for China. It's main resource is coal, and it is very low quality. Their other natural resource bases are far too small to support their population, even with fresh water. But they are still growing.

Possibly. Several powers are interested in Central Asia: the US, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey are the biggest. Take the proposed natural gas pipeline. Each has proposed their own route, and naturally, it is whatever is in their best interests. There's a lot at stake in Central Asia.
Still, a resource base is not required for a good economy. The "Asian tigers" of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and most notoriously, Japan, had very little resources of their own. But the right attitude and strong (but not necessarily overbearing) governments made them soar. The arguement can even be made for China. It's main resource is coal, and it is very low quality. Their other natural resource bases are far too small to support their population, even with fresh water. But they are still growing.
Definitely parts of central Asia has growth potential. But the majority of that area I'd write off as perpetual failure. The RUssians, Turks, and Chinese already have capitalistic ventures in petroleum in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, it'll probably be hard for the US, Iran, or Pakistan to break into that market any time soon. We might get a pipe through Afghanistan, which would help, but mainly I think the US should focus its resources on building up industry and commerce in Iraq. Investments in Iraq should be far more profitable than in Central Asia which has rough transportation situation and other unnecessary costs that would stretch our military. Leave that part of the world for the Russians and Chinese to squabble over.

The Asian Tiger situation is unique and I think very difficult to pull off in just anywhere. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore all are dominated by coastlines which facilitate trade. These countries already had a historical tradition of secular Confucian work ethic which proved very competitive in a capitalistic setting. Culture in muslim countries tend to be more mystical and religious dominated, which I think is retarding growth there. Long term and revolutionary cultural reforms are necessary to pull Central Asia into the modern world. The very foundations of their culture need to be re examined and reworked. I think Muslim traditionalism also has INdonesia and Malaysia compare unfavorably with the Confucian tiger economies (although things are rapidly improving and we're seeing good economic and social reform in places like Malaysia). There's prejudice against women in many parts of these old line muslim nations. Women are active in the work place in all the Confucian countries - mainland China, Taiwan, Japan, etc. The Asian tigers could mobilize their manpower and resources more efficiently than most countries in the world, and combined with the ample trade routes and coastlines have made them experts at capitalism. A dusty landlocked, mountainous backwater like Kyrgyzstan would need to exert superhuman strength to even think of approaching a Taiwan or a Korea.

Definitely parts of central Asia has growth potential. But the majority of that area I'd write off as perpetual failure. The RUssians, Turks, and Chinese already have capitalistic ventures in petroleum in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, it'll probably be hard for the US, Iran, or Pakistan to break into that market any time soon. We might get a pipe through Afghanistan, which would help, but mainly I think the US should focus its resources on building up industry and commerce in Iraq. Investments in Iraq should be far more profitable than in Central Asia which has rough transportation situation and other unnecessary costs that would stretch our military. Leave that part of the world for the Russians and Chinese to squabble over.

The Asian Tiger situation is unique and I think very difficult to pull off in just anywhere. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore all are dominated by coastlines which facilitate trade. These countries already had a historical tradition of secular Confucian work ethic which proved very competitive in a capitalistic setting. Culture in muslim countries tend to be more mystical and religious dominated, which I think is retarding growth there. Long term and revolutionary cultural reforms are necessary to pull Central Asia into the modern world. The very foundations of their culture need to be re examined and reworked. I think Muslim traditionalism also has INdonesia and Malaysia compare unfavorably with the Confucian tiger economies (although things are rapidly improving and we're seeing good economic and social reform in places like Malaysia). There's prejudice against women in many parts of these old line muslim nations. Women are active in the work place in all the Confucian countries - mainland China, Taiwan, Japan, etc. The Asian tigers could mobilize their manpower and resources more efficiently than most countries in the world, and combined with the ample trade routes and coastlines have made them experts at capitalism. A dusty landlocked, mountainous backwater like Kyrgyzstan would need to exert superhuman strength to even think of approaching a Taiwan or a Korea.

If anything, Confuscianism is a barrier to growth. It's emphasis on collectivity meant that a capitalist society could never be built. In China, for example, it is considered rude to stand out from the crowd, whereas in America and Europe, it is fostered. Confuscianism has more to do with the spread of communism in Asia, not the spread of capitalism.
Kyrgyzstan can make its economy work, but I won't be naive enough to pretend that it doesn't need outside help. It is one of the most inland areas in the world, and is surrounded by richer countries that are just as corrupt and inefficient. Its borders with China don't help, as the Xinjiang region is basically its own country.
Much can and should be done in Kyrgyzstan itself to develope an economy. However, it can never really become prosperous until the economies around it, like Uzbekistan and Kazakstan, liberalize.

http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_273604.php
I don't know this source's reliability, but it reports something that may change the dynamic. Fmr. President Akayev is inside Ganci AF Base, which is under US control. If he is, we all better hope he's just there en route to somewhere else (and not the US).
However, according to Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon has no idea where Akayev is. Most are reporting, however, that he is in Russia, and his family is in Kazakhstan.

Now, in case this happens, I want to give an opinion. The US may decide that it is in their best interests to intervene, and restore Akayev to power. I'll support that under one condition: the US military makes Akayev clean up his act. No more of this authoritarian funny business will be allowed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4383545.stm
The government is appearantly settling in, there. They have recruited volunteers to help police the area, and are making their diplomatic presence known.

You are more likely right. Still, I doubt that it applies to the Northwestern areas, which is fiercely tribal, backwards, and at this point, counterproductive to the nation.
Edit:
Baluchistan is really, really big. If that breaks away, Pakistan looses a large part of their population, and a great portion of their security to the east. You never know what Iran may do these days.

Baluchistan has the population of...my bathroom.

Not really, but hardly anyone lives there. It's friggen huge, though. Think of it as Pakistans Alaska. Just without the snow.

Baluchistan has the population of...my bathroom.

Not really, but hardly anyone lives there. It's friggen huge, though. Think of it as Pakistans Alaska. Just without the snow.
Alaska is very strategic. It has abundant natural resouces (mainly oil and fish), and is a strategic stepping stone in the Pacific. It is less than 100 miles from Russia, and is roughly halfway between the US and Asia. Why did the Japanese try to conquer it during WWII?
On an international scale, Baluchistan is not as important, of course. But it is certainly vital to Pakistan. It helps them secure their northern border. It also allows them to moderate their border with Iran, either for getting critical resources, or defending their borders if need be. If Baluchistan were to break away, it'd be a big headache for Pakistan.

Alaska is very strategic. It has abundant natural resouces (mainly oil and fish), and is a strategic stepping stone in the Pacific. It is less than 100 miles from Russia, and is roughly halfway between the US and Asia. Why did the Japanese try to conquer it during WWII?
On an international scale, Baluchistan is not as important, of course. But it is certainly vital to Pakistan. It helps them secure their northern border. It also allows them to moderate their border with Iran, either for getting critical resources, or defending their borders if need be. If Baluchistan were to break away, it'd be a big headache for Pakistan.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be, I am just saying it'd just loose land.

And then again, Pakistan could use it to it's advantage. It could A. Use it to train it's troops s'more(Baluchistan could never hold up against the Paki Army. It's tried before, y'know), or B. Use it as a buffer state between Iran and Pakistan. Not to mention, if the Baluchistan in Pakistan succeeded, the Baluchis in Iran and Afghanistan(there are alot of them) would also rebel, casuing headaches for all three countries.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be, I am just saying it'd just loose land.

And then again, Pakistan could use it to it's advantage. It could A. Use it to train it's troops s'more(Baluchistan could never hold up against the Paki Army. It's tried before, y'know), or B. Use it as a buffer state between Iran and Pakistan. Not to mention, if the Baluchistan in Pakistan succeeded, the Baluchis in Iran and Afghanistan(there are alot of them) would also rebel, casuing headaches for all three countries.
Good point, but it still may be best if Pakistan did not have to negotiate with a third country to manage Iran or Afghanistan.
What's more worrisome, however, are the northeastern tribal areas, convieniently located between Afghanistan and Kashmiri India. If Pakistan looses control of that area, then its future as a sovereign nation would be in jeopardy.

Good point, but it still may be best if Pakistan did not have to negotiate with a third country to manage Iran or Afghanistan.
What's more worrisome, however, are the northeastern tribal areas, convieniently located between Afghanistan and Kashmiri India. If Pakistan looses control of that area, then its future as a sovereign nation would be in jeopardy.

Yes, that would be bad.

Of course, that's why half of the Pakistani army is stationed there(the other half being on the Line of Control or the rest of the border.)

Yes, that would be bad.

Of course, that's why half of the Pakistani army is stationed there(the other half being on the Line of Control or the rest of the border.)
Well, not enough is being done. It's withdrawing troops from the area that the Taliban may have fled to. It's especially wierd since they have threatened Musharraf's own life.

Now, I just read that a similar uprising is trying to happen in Belarus. Asside from Turkmenistan, Belarus is the most despotic of the former Soviet Republics. It may try to form a formidable opposition, and one day, it will succeed. But it won't be easy in Europe's last dictatorship.

Well, here's hoping they don't throw the Jew down the well.
I love that song.

As for another suggestion, I think that Tajikistan is a wild card here, and must be watched carefully. Ever since their very bloody civil war, Russian troops have been stationed in that country. Since then, many have wondered if they are instead using that as an outpost in Central Asia. The executive branch, while certainly not the most despotic, is not the most liberal thing to exist, either. They need an opposition, and I believe that they can do more to rebuild Tajikistan's miserable economy. As it stands, Tajikistan is almost as in bad of a position as Afghanistan.

The stans could pwn if they all get their act together.

The stans could pwn if they all get their act together.
Kazakstan seems the closest. It has a bright future, and combined with good governance, it will soar. In fact, what I can't understand is that Kazakstan's vast resources were underexploited in the Soviet era.

Yes, If all the -stans got better(including the non-former soviets, which are Afghanistan and Pakistan), then they could be very powerful. All of them have mineral wealth and/or strategic importance, so if they got some democratic reforms done, they'd be almost as powerful as many european states(at least as powerful as the Gulf States, which Pakistan already is.)

Yes, If all the -stans got better(including the non-former soviets, which are Afghanistan and Pakistan), then they could be very powerful. All of them have mineral wealth and/or strategic importance, so if they got some democratic reforms done, they'd be almost as powerful as many european states(at least as powerful as the Gulf States, which Pakistan already is.)
As I said, however, Kazakstan has the brightest future. It has oil and natural gas up the wazoo, becoming very wealthy, and recently, is forming an oposition to bring down their autocratic government. Should it be installed (and I am optimistic that it will), then, with the right checks and balances, it will lead to good governance, making Kazakstan soar. Shedding some Russian influence wouldn't be bad, either. Maybe they might even forced the Russians out of their largest ICBM launch pad: Baiknour.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=616099
Assuming that no irregularities happen, this upcoming election will probably prevent a civil war. Still, those who still support President Akayev are small and divided. They had a protest in Bishkek with less than 10,000 protestors, a far cry from the size of pro-democratic demonstrations there and abroad. Besides, some of them were found to be ambivalient, or even supportive of the new government.

So the stans are on their way to major power.

Excellent...

So the stans are on their way to major power.

Excellent...
Well, if one thinks about it, that can be applied to anywhere in the world. Take the Middle East, or West Africa.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7999201
The opposition has overthrown President Akayev, forcing him to flee the country. A new government is in power there.
So, what do you think? I think that this is encouraging. It is another former Soviet Republic to fall in the Orange Revolution. Worse, the president was even elected by the Supreme Soviet when it existed, so he is a communist leftover.
But I also think that this will bring stability to the region. Kyrgyzstan may start a trend of liberalization in the region. If that happens, security will increase, as fundementalism looses its allure. It will also bring the security to allow for full exploitation of natural resources. Combined with a market economy, the region should prosper, and warring clans will feel complacent. But I want your thoughts.

Knowing full well the after effects of most revolutions, I really dont think this was the best thing that could have happened. It wont be long before the new government descends into either tyranny by the mob (see sans cullotes in 1793) or terror by the government (see Communist Party, Russia, 1917 to 1990). New governments brought about force rarely have staying power and alas democracy rarely brings stability to a nation as frought with problems as Krgyzstan. The one thing that can be said about dictatorships is that they are stable and (if managed well) can prepare the country for democracy at a later stage. Its no good to rush into democracy: you have to evolve towards democracy, taking it steadily step by step. Thats the way Britain achieved both democracy and long lasting stability. It also appears to be the way China wishes to handle the situation within their country.

Knowing full well the after effects of most revolutions, I really dont think this was the best thing that could have happened. It wont be long before the new government descends into either tyranny by the mob (see sans cullotes in 1793) or terror by the government (see Communist Party, Russia, 1917 to 1990). New governments brought about force rarely have staying power and alas democracy rarely brings stability to a nation as frought with problems as Krgyzstan. The one thing that can be said about dictatorships is that they are stable and (if managed well) can prepare the country for democracy at a later stage. Its no good to rush into democracy: you have to evolve towards democracy, taking it steadily step by step. Thats the way Britain achieved both democracy and long lasting stability. It also appears to be the way China wishes to handle the situation within their country.
It's had several successes before. It worked in the US, and it has worked in Eastern Europe. Both methods work, but the revolution method can be extremely effective, provided that the right checks and balances come into place.
We can also trust that democracy doesn't elect anyone truely detestable. As Fareed Zakaria points out, "elected autocracies" exist today, such as Russia or Venezuela. However, they did not have checks and balances as advanced as many democracies.
The only time that a detestable figure was democratically elected into a well-organized democracy was in 1973 in Chile. Salvador Allende holds the distinction as the world's only elected communist. However, he is an isolated case. With the right checks and balances, no other bad figure has come to power, and even if they did, they would have little room to work.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8006842
It seems like the threat of civil war is fading, at least in the short term.

BTW, I erroneously called this the Orange Revolution. They appearantly prefer pink or tulip revolution.

bump

If anything, Confuscianism is a barrier to growth. It's emphasis on collectivity meant that a capitalist society could never be built. In China, for example, it is considered rude to stand out from the crowd, whereas in America and Europe, it is fostered. Confuscianism has more to do with the spread of communism in Asia, not the spread of capitalism.
Not really, success (economic, academic, or otherwise) and outstanding performance is looked upon favorably by Confucians, because it brings glory to the family, which is the fundamental unit of Confucian philosophy. People who have a sense of duty to family have a powerful motivation to compete and succeed, because letting down one's family may feel more painful than letting down oneself. That is why in America Chinese children excel in school, because it would be shameful for not only the child but also the entire family if he or she fails acadmically. But a child's success would rub off on the entire family. People from Confucian cultures are motivated not only by money but by these considerations like honor, family values, and national values/nationalism. During Japan's postwar economic dominance, workers of all types, from lowly factory laborers to managers, put in more hours and more effort into their work than Western counterparts simply because hard work is seen as a duty. Money was secondary to duty and employees rarely unionized, struck, or demanded higher wages. Workers were expected to dedicate their lives toward improving their work and their company. This ruthlessly efficient allocation of manpower made Japanese and other Asian corporations highly competitive, commonly outcompeting American firms.

Kyrgyzstan can make its economy work, but I won't be naive enough to pretend that it doesn't need outside help. It is one of the most inland areas in the world, and is surrounded by richer countries that are just as corrupt and inefficient. Its borders with China don't help, as the Xinjiang region is basically its own country.
Xinjiang is tightly controlled by China... the mosques and preachers are funded by the Chinese government, the area's government is run by the communist party, and most Turks have accepted Chinese rule, because the Turkic uprising has been crushed with force and concessions Beijing gave to the ethnic minorities. In fact half the population of Xinjian are non-Muslim ethnic Han Chinese, who support Chinse authority. Xinjiang also has a strong Chinese military presence, most notably all of the PLA's nuclear testing facilities. China would definitely be interested in keeping anything bad that may happen in Central Asia from spilling over.

Much can and should be done in Kyrgyzstan itself to develope an economy. However, it can never really become prosperous until the economies around it, like Uzbekistan and Kazakstan, liberalize.
Of course it is a challenge to imagine these countries as liberal democracies. Democracy isn't as simple as "checks and balances"... there are unimaginably complex factors to influence the formation of scucessful democracy, from cultural factors to economic factors to plain dumb luck. Ethnic tensions, economic poverty, and radical religious forces make democracy very difficult to achieve in a place like Central Asia. Rapid economic development might have to come before democratic reform in order to make the democracy truly meaningful and stable.

It's had several successes before. It worked in the US, and it has worked in Eastern Europe. Both methods work, but the revolution method can be extremely effective, provided that the right checks and balances come into place.
The establishment of the US was by no means revolutionary. It should be described as more of a secession, and the new country's government wasn't that different from England's. Democracy had been developing in the English speaking world since the 1600s, and all the American colonies experienced democratic government before the American "Revolution." English Common Law was seen as the perfect law for free men, and even after the revolution occurred, English legal theories formed the basis for American law. The American Revolution was a slight modifcation of existing English democracy. This also brings up the point that revolutionary democracy works well only when there is a degree of economic prosperity. The only former eastern bloc nations that have sensible democratic governments today are those that had sound economic foundations, like Czech Republic, Estonia, and Poland. Likewise, the American colonies and later the USA was one of the most educated and prosperous places on earth... the major factor that has sustained American democracy since the establishment of Jamestown was economic affluence. In most revolutions, like in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, existing severe poverty has to this date prevented stable democracies from forming in poor countries. Economic development tends to predate political improvements.

We can also trust that democracy doesn't elect anyone truely detestable. As Fareed Zakaria points out, "elected autocracies" exist today, such as Russia or Venezuela. However, they did not have checks and balances as advanced as many democracies.
The only time that a detestable figure was democratically elected into a well-organized democracy was in 1973 in Chile. Salvador Allende holds the distinction as the world's only elected communist. However, he is an isolated case. With the right checks and balances, no other bad figure has come to power, and even if they did, they would have little room to work.
Actually, the State of West Bengal in India has had an elected communist government for about the past 30 years. The democracy there is stable, and the communist party has repeatedly won regularly scheduled, open, and fair elections. The Communists there have made some sweeping changes, such as collectivization, land reform, and socialist insurance. Of course businesses stay away from the area due to high taxes, but the voters are obviously pleased with communist rule. This is probably the only place in the world where there is a communist government dedicated to democratic principles, and even with the right checks and balances the communists have defiinitely remade West Bengal in its own image and has lots of room and goodwill to work with.

Actually, the State of West Bengal in India has had an elected communist government for about the past 30 years. The democracy there is stable, and the communist party has repeatedly won regularly scheduled, open, and fair elections. The Communists there have made some sweeping changes, such as collectivization, land reform, and socialist insurance. Of course businesses stay away from the area due to high taxes, but the voters are obviously pleased with communist rule. This is probably the only place in the world where there is a communist government dedicated to democratic principles, and even with the right checks and balances the communists have defiinitely remade West Bengal in its own image and has lots of room and goodwill to work with.

while not quite as dominant, they have a similar thing going in kerala on the other end of india

and mongolia has been electing the slightly reformed version of its communist party most of the time since they started having elections. and mongolia is like the bastion of freedom in central asia.

Actually, the State of West Bengal in India has had an elected communist government for about the past 30 years. The democracy there is stable, and the communist party has repeatedly won regularly scheduled, open, and fair elections. The Communists there have made some sweeping changes, such as collectivization, land reform, and socialist insurance. Of course businesses stay away from the area due to high taxes, but the voters are obviously pleased with communist rule. This is probably the only place in the world where there is a communist government dedicated to democratic principles, and even with the right checks and balances the communists have defiinitely remade West Bengal in its own image and has lots of room and goodwill to work with.

Ooooh! I wasn't aware of this! Good! My favorite form of government is being used properly in India. Mad props to West Bengal.

Ooooh! I wasn't aware of this! Good! My favorite form of government is being used properly in India. Mad props to West Bengal.

West Bengal=The land that India stole from the Bengali State of Bangladesh :(.

The thing is, while West Bengal is a communist success story...it isn't full communism. Not everything is controlled by the state, there is a free market, etc. However, it's probably the best communist success story. It's probably due to the fact that West Bengal isn't an entire country, it's a state.