Towards a global perspective . . .

Apparently, the OSCE, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, will soon be sending Peacekeepers  to Kyrgystan to police the upheaval that has followed the recent coup that deposed a corrupt and unpopular President Bakyev.   Though Kyrgystan is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is China and Russia’s regional platform,  China and Russia have stood down.   Not only have they not rushed to the aid of their beleaguered member state, but they have  turned away from formal pleas for assistance from the new government, which, we are told is more sincere, less corrupt and more popular than the deposed President Bakyev.    It appears that they have given over a corner of their world to the West.   Why?  Is it evidence of  internal weakness or weakness within the SCO?  Is it due to a conciliatory political pragmatism that defers to the real power in the world?   Maybe they think they are giving a bone to the wild dog pack?

I am sure there are all kinds of complex regional currents in the conflict.   It is true that Kyrgystan is a member of the SCO, and for purposes of local trade and regional solidarity, that makes sense.  However, the explanation for Russia and China’s reticence is very simple.  The US has it’s largest supply base for the Afghan war located in Kyrgystan.   The US has spent a fortune unconditionally supporting deposed President Bakyev to maintain this base, as they did with the corrupt government before him.    In that light, this base has most likely been a thorn in the side of the leaders of the SCO all along, so their boundaries are already compromised.   Now, if they go in to assist the new government in regaining order, their efforts will ultimately fall in one of two directions.  Either they will be expending their resources to protect US interests in the region, or they will be drawn into a proxy war against the US and it’s pawns.

Let me explain.   The government deposed by the recent coup was on the US payroll.  They were abusing their power within the country, but the US wasn’t concerned about that, as long as the base was secure.  Now, they are disgruntled at losing power, and using asymmetric warfare (terrorism) in an attempt to regain it.   The new government has said that they will continue to host the base, but hinted, I think, that they might review that decision when things settle down.   I don’t know if they are already on the US Payroll, but given that they asked China and Russia for help, I’m going to assume, they weren’t at that point.  So, if China or Russia goes in to support this new government under these circumstances, the US has a ready made insurgency in play, already on the payroll,  to undermine their efforts.

If, on the other hand, the new government buys into the US scheme and takes the money to keep the base open, then maybe the disgruntled opposition will find supporters around ethnic issues and local concerns and keep the fight going anyway.  If, in that case, Russia and/or China comes to the aid of the new government, they will basically be doing the dirty work of the US, defending US interests instead of their own.   So, as irritated as Russia and China must be, to see more western soldiers closing in on their periphery, this is not a fight they want to join.  It is lose/lose for them.   And Kyrgystan wouldn’t likely benefit either, as assistance from regional powers might trigger a long term, low intensity conflict there.     Better to hope that the US and their allies will come in, and become even more deeply mired in an extension of the Afghan war, a conflict they can’t win because they buy the leaders, but they don’t understand the region well enough to vision any goals that are meaningful to the local population.  From their standpoint, that would most likely be worth the cost of letting go.