Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Syndicate contentRSS

So, when are we invading Kyrgyzstan?

The pro-war liberal left is shamefully silent about the killings there.

The world obsesses over the oil spill off the southern coast of the United States while Osh burns.

From Luke Harding's depressing account in today's Guardian:

It was early afternoon when the mob surged down an alley of neat rose bushes and halted outside Zarifa's house. The Kyrgyz men broke into her courtyard and sat Zarifa down next to a cherry tree. They asked her a couple of questions. After confirming she was an ethnic Uzbek, they stripped her, raped her and cut off her fingers. After that they killed her and her small son, throwing their bodies into the street. They then moved on to the next house.

"They were like beasts," Zarifa's neighbour, Bakhtir Irgayshon, said today, pointing to the gutted bedframe where she had been assaulted. A few pots and pans remained; the rest of the family home was a charred ruin. Zarifa's husband, Ilham, was missing, Irgayshon said, probably dead. Only his mother, Adina, survived the Kyrgyz-instigated conflagration that engulfed the neighbourhood of Cheremushki last Friday.

Such horrific descriptions of the violence and killings plaguing Kyrgyzstan are reminiscent of Kosovo in early 1999, which led to the Nato bombing campaign of Yugoslavia and the subsequent toppling of Slobodan Milosevic. The death toll in and around Osh since fighting broke out on 10 June is believed to be closer to 2,000 Uzbeks, rather than the official estimate of roughly 200. Thousands of refugees have fled across the border from Kyrgyzstan into Uzbekistan.

So where, I wonder, are the pro-war liberal-lefties this time round? I've yet to hear from the likes Johann Hari, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, John Rentoul or Christopher Hitchens on the need to "intervene" in Kyrgyzstan. And David Cameron and Barack Obama, unlike Blair and Clinton in 1999, have not despatched bombers in the direction of Bishkek. (The "latest news" section on the Foreign Office website has only two references to the fighting in Kyrgyzstan, and both relate to travel advice for British citizens in the region.)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating armed intervention by western powers. I'm not one of those lefties who believes the first response to a humanitarian crisis or a civil war should be to launch a Nato bombing campaign. No, I'm just pointing out the double standard; I'm engaging perhaps in what Cohen calls "whataboutery".

Meanwhile, if you want to find out more about the background to the violence, check out the blog of Craig Murray -- our former man in Uzbekistan.

And if you want to know why we in Britain and the west should care about, and feel partly responsible for, what is going on, check out this blog post from the Telegraph's Richard Spencer. Or this provocative piece from the lefty American polemicist Ted Rall.

Spencer writes:

Are not the rapes and killings of hundreds of ethnic Uzbeks at the hands of Kyrgyz mobs, allegedly aided by Kyrgyz troops, just another terrible news story from a faraway place of which we know little?

Well, if I pointed out that just a few months ago the United States agreed to fund and train Kyrgyz troops who were gearing up to fight Uzbeks, that might raise a few eyebrows. And, as it's true, though surprisingly no one else seems to have noticed, point it out I will.

I will also point out that it is no coincidence that the man accused of fomenting the violence, Maxim Bakiyev, son of the leader ousted in a popular revolution in April, was arrested in Britain the other day. It wasn't just because he had, in the way of dubiously rich ex-Soviet princelings, bought a British football club. It was because we were his sort of country.

His father came to power five years ago on a wave of pro-democracy fervour whipped up by our own Tony Blair. George Bush of course had a lot to do with it -- it was his insistence that American power brought with it a responsibility to foment freedom, even in other powers' backyards, that sent a second wave of velvet revolutions across the former Soviet empire, from Georgia to Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan.

Rall writes:

This latest outbreak of violence represents something new. First, it's worse: bigger and more widespread. Second, as most central Asians know, it's delayed fallout from George W Bush's misadventures in regime change.

Bush's military-CIA complex had more than Iraq and Afghanistan on its collective mind. Over the course of six years, they toppled or attempted to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Haiti, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine -- and, yes, Kyrgyzstan.

In March 2005 a CIA-backed (and in some cases -trained) mob of conservative Muslim young men from Osh drove up to Bishkek and stormed the presidential palace. President Askar Akayev, a former physicist who had been the only democratically elected president in the former Soviet republics of central Asia, fled into exile in Russia.

Kyrgyzstan, like so many central Asian nations, is an unlucky country. Save the Children is preparing to send emergency relief to Osh; you can donate to its campaign here.

16 comments

yoctobarryc's picture

So you don't think Liberia is a better place thanks to armed intervention? After all, it was US/Nigerian troops who kicked out Charles Taylor and ended the civil war.

And you don't think Afghanistan is a better place than it was pre-2001? That I find inconceivable.

Iraq has been transformed from an oppressive dictatorship that perpetually threatened world peace and regional stability into a thriving democracy.

Now of course these different conflicts were complex and a comment on a NS blog page hardly does them justice.

But the opposition that you have previously expressed - which has been that the death toll was too high - is of a questionable basis.

Of course any deaths are regrettable. But what if one person dies, does that make the deposition of tyrants and the spreading of liberal democracy morally unjustified?

This is a great question of 'do the ends justify the means'.

I would say as brutal as it can be, armed intervention can put countries and people on the track of progress, and critically, more progress than might be achieved by peaceful methods.

clem the gem's picture

yoctobarryc, whilst not disagreeing with you in most cases, the simple fact is that in the last few months of our occupation of Basra, our troops were pretty much confined to the airport waiting to go home, rather than defending a civil society that was still in tatters.
I was against the war at the start, but after using a little reason rather than emmotion, came to believe that once the US had decided to go in, we had little chance to even slightly affect the outcome without joining in. Sadly, as recounted in Bob Woodwards books, the utter failure of the coalition to build up civil society was something we could have avoided if the neocons had not been trying to do this on the cheap.
I know that Mehdi is a reasonable chap, so could he tell me who it was that opened the gates of Belsen? I'm not sure, but I dont think it was The Peace Pledge Union.
Likewise, it was not the "anti imperialists" of the 1970s who put an end to Pol Pot, it was the Vietnamese Army.
Attacking those who support military action in a knee jerk fashion is just as silly as the hurrahs from The Sun every time we send a bunch of working class youth off to fight someone else...

clem the gem's picture

My brother and his flatmate once had a cat called Chomsky. Went crazy for the nip as I recall...

Chomsky is really not that good once you leave Uni, or didnt ever get a degree. A bit like FR Leavis, overrated in most spheres that his adherents have any sway.

MAKootage's picture

That's because the mantra is not based on principle, but self-interest. Note also how Arab monarchy is preffered to Iranian or Venezuelan democracy.

@michaelpetek, Its difficult to hold Kyrgyz miscreants accountable the way you can hold a (Western backed) government accountable.

clem the gem's picture

Dear Mehdi, I think it was pretty clear that I was not comparing every modern military intervention to World War Two. That would indeed be ludicrous.
Ithink it was pretty clear that I as using one example of a military action generally percieved as good (liberating Belsen), whilst positing that non- interventionism, whilst generally seen as a good thing on the left, can lead to reactionary results.
I thought it was pretty clear, but I stand corrected, after all youre the one with a Degree guv, not me :)

clem the gem's picture

Nice of you to reply though, all the same.

michaelpetek's picture

The first thing that strikes me about this is the absence of any anti-Kyrgyz hysteria on the Arab or Turkish street or at the United Nations, comparable to what Israel got when its commandos shot and killed nine men the other week.

vanrisszcu's picture

Michaelpeterk: I sympathize with your view. See this blog post from me:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/08/muslims-darfur-poi...

David Wearing1's picture

Very important point.

Its not a double-standard though. Its a single standard. The powerful states attack their enemies (citing whatever crimes as pretexts) whilst defending their allies (ignoring often far worse crimes) in the interests of consolidating and/or extending power, with moral considerations irrelevant, except as window-dressing.

In fairness to Johann Hari though, he's since repudiated his previous liberal-bomber tendencies (having had the good sense to start reading Chomsky, as every right-thinking person should).

jie4v7i14's picture

i'm off for my army medical on monday morning, so that we can invade Krapistan - wos it?, Krickistan? Knobistan? one of them countries anyway. Must be loaded with oil, and crap, etc.,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZnw3BZg18

vanrisszcu's picture

David - yes, you're right about Hari. Sorry Johann!

Euan McArthur's picture

michaelpetek: The anger at Israel might have been concentrated on the attack, but there is a widespread feeling, especially among European populations, that Israel has gone too far. By no means was the anger proportionate to the attack (it was too great) or the Israelis' wider oppression (it was too weak).

The difference is that in Kyrgzstan, the violence has a lot to do with the West's influence - http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/balihar-sanghera/why-are-kyrgyzst... . In Yugoslavia, Milosevic was no longer deferent enough, he had become a rogue, and the incorporation of the area into the European economy could press ahead more easily without him. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have economic reasons to intervnene and occupy (the German President recently resigned for commiting the terrible crime of telling the truth). In Rwanda and Krgyzstan, there was/is no such incentive.

vanrisszcu's picture

Clem the Gem - I am a "reasonable" chap which is why I'm not going to go down the road of ludicrously comparing every modern-day military intervention to World War 2.

michaelpetek's picture

Euan, Milosevic might still be alive and in power today if he'd been merely as odious and anti-Western as Hugo Chavez. The fact is that Milosevic unleashed the Serb militias and the Yugoslavian National Army on the most bestial campaign of mass murder, arson, rape and pillage seen in Europe since World War 2.

yoctobarryc's picture

I think if reading Noam Chomsky is suddenly the gold standard of membership of the left, something is terribly wrong with the world.

No, Mehdi, you misrepresent the position of the "pro-war liberal-lefties" (a badge I shall wear with pride).

It is not simply "oh, there's some trouble in the world", as if British Armed forces were some farcical imitation of International Rescue.

The test exists as "is there major and prolonged suffering and will the situation be improved by the deployment of armed forces?". As in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Liberia and yes, even Iraq and Afghanistan, the ultimate response of armed force has been vindicated.

vanrisszcu's picture

"yoctobarryc" - Of your list, only Sierra Leone meets the test. And Iraq? "Vindicated"? You must be living on a different planet to the rest of us. You and Tony Blair.

Latest tweets