The International Crisis Group has a large report on the Kyrgyz revolution and the post-transition priorities for the new government. I have not gotten a chance to read much, but a quick scan reveals that there’s plenty worth reading, incluing this interesting paragraph on the Western role during the protests:
Following Akaev’s fall there were the usual ill-informed accusations of a U.S. hand. Much of this was in the Russian press but some Western commentators indulged in the same speculation. President Akaev accused Washington, but only a small proportion of the protestors were connected to Western-oriented NGOs or even students. Most of those on the streets were as far as could be imagined from the English-speaking younger generation. They were poor, badly educated and predominantly southern. They had almost no geopolitical agenda but rather a feeling of having been cheated by a corrupt and autocratic regime. The U.S. has funded electoral programs and for years given grants to media and civil society. But in many ways, Western-funded civil society was sidelined by the March events; there was certainly no evidence of foreign funding for the opposition. An opposition leader, who himself provided some money for organising demonstrations, insisted later: “This was the cheapest revolution ever. There was no American money, not a single cent!”
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.