Benjamen Walker’s Theory of Everything #18 includes an interview with Dr. David Mikosz, IFES’s Chief of Party in Kyrgyzstan. His description of the unplanned nature of Akayev’s fall on March 24 is a good complement to Daniel Kimmage’s latest at RFE/RL.
Mikosz’s description of how the looting began is particularly valuable. Just about everyone seems to have been blamed for it at one time or another. Dr. Mikosz says that while just about everyone seems to have been part of the looting, the “white hats” appear to have been the catalyst behind the descent into chaos.
This post was written by...
Nathan Hamm – author of 2040 posts on Registan.net.
Nathan founded Registan.net in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural factors shape risks and opportunities. Follow him on Twitter or drop him a line.
{ 14 comments }
Nathan, I listened to the interview online, and Dr. Mikosz apparently chooses his words very carefully–in such a way that I don’t believe the “White Hats” actually attacked Akayev’s shops in Bishkek. Which means it may very well have been people from the south, as media interviews with Bishkek shopkeepers indicated at the time. What sounds a little strange in the interview is that Dr. Mikosz doesn’t seem to be outraged or even interested in finding out who was actually doing the rioting and looting…
All I’m really taking from it is that it’s almost impossible to tell who, if anyone in particular, is to blame. I’m having a hard time believing southerners, certain mafias, or “White Hats” should be singled out. I also don’t think there’s a load of value in finding out who in particular can be blamed. There are bigger fish to fry right now.
People need to know who did what, so people can figure out what was really going on — and then move forward based on fact rather than rumor or wishful thinking. Call me an bald empricist if you like, but basing policies on ignorance seems mistaken…
I’m sure Kulov knows who did it, btw. Whether he’ll say or not, depends.
My guess is that some southerners surely may have thought they’d take back some souvenirs from Bishkek, it’s human nature…
Perhaps, but I’m coming from the “forget it and move on” school of thought because there’s no policy response but punishment available. And I’m not sure that is necessarily the best thing when there is still some uncertainty in government – especially if the culprits all come from one particular faction.
I’m sure some southerners were involved, but I would hazard to guess that most big-ticket items were taken by locals.
Well, it’s a small country, and people will probably notice who has new TV sets, iPods, DVD players, and so forth… In Tashkent, the tax police immediately descended on anyone with a new unexplained Mercedes, I seem to remember.
Reports from family in Bishkek were originally that it was folks from the South (is that what’s meant by White Hats), but as days went by, it became apparent that plenty of locals were helping themselves to the bounty as well.
“White Hats” were some locals of indeterminate affiliation that held pro-government protests. They reportedly tried to provoke the opposition protesters into misbehaving.
I’m having a hard time with any of the blanket accusations because I’ve heard them so often in Central Asia reporting. They usually turn out to be false. Perhaps the best was the one I read after the bombings in Uzbekistan last year in which an Uzbek in Samarkand said he knew for certain that Meskhetians, not Islamists, were the real culprits.
Yes, Nathan, of course, but still it is worthwhile to try and figure out who did what, to separate the “mish-mish” from the facts, if possible. I don’t doubt that locals joined in later, but that doesn’t let southerners off the hook.
Which is why this “democracy-building” is a difficult business–riots and disorder give democracy a bad name, there is always a risk of things getting out of hand. And blaming Akayev forces for the disorder in the opposition ranks, rather than admitting problems and correcting them, may turn out to be somewhat counterproductive.
It’s like Chicago in 1968. Those riots got Richard Nixon into the White House, almost everyone now admits…
You’re getting at why I don’t think it’s all that useful to figure it out actually. I don’t think it was so much of a plan as it was taking advantage of the situation. Some people are convinced it was the southerners who started it. Some are convinced it was the mafia. Some are convinced it was pro-Akayev provocateurs. Some are convinced it was locals out to get Akayev-affiliated, Russian, and Chinese businesses. I’m fairly unconvinced that anyone would say “Well, okay, that’s reasonable” and believe a definitive explanation. I’d love to know and I think that whoever was behind it, if anyone, should be punished. But the world is a less-than-perfect place and I can’t see much good coming out of doing anything about it now.
BTW, you seem convinced the southerners started it. Why? Everything I’ve read is hearsay, and I’m not entirely convinced any way in particular. But, maybe I missed something (I’ve felt a little out of the loop lately).
I was in anti-war demonstrations as a high school sophomore–against Richard Nixon, of course. Everytime the Weathermen types got out of hand, the left blamed “provocateurs” from the FBI or the police. A US government commission even came to the conclusion that there was a “police riot” in Chicago in 1968. Of course, later the memoirs by Todd Gitlin and other SDS types contained admissions they conspired to have a riot in Chicago–exactly what the government alleged at the conspiracy trial of Abbie Hoffman et al. at that time…
Still, why the southerners though? There were plenty of locals about.
Because they wanted to take something home with them, that’s why it’s called looting–they were taking loot…
I know, but nothing I’ve read suggests that the protesters that day were solely or even mostly southerners. I’ve seen no good reason to single any particular group out.
Except that’s what the shop owners did at the time, and it can help give an explanation of what went wrong with the “revolution”–it turned into looting by the “revolutionaries” so scared the people of Bishkek, which is why the new Parliament is probably there now instead of the old Parliament, although Akayev is gone.
Ambassador Young, IMHO, is no Ambassador Herbst…