Trouble in Kyrgyzstan

Turmoil in Kyrgyzstan is growing. It was reported today that opposition forces have seized power. The U.S. is concerned. It has a major military base there that is important to the wars it is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unrest in Kyrgyzstan threatens U.S. interests in the region. Apart from its convenient location and usefulness to U.S. war efforts, why should the U.S. be concerned with Kyrgyzstan? What are U.S. interests there? Many will hear about the trouble in Kyrgyzstan, some might even read about it. How many know where it is? Why should a plumber in Houston care what happens in Kyrgyzstan?

Kyrgyzstan has a population roughly 1/5th that of Texas. Its size is roughly 1/5 that of Texas as well. Kyrgyzstan's GDP is less than 1/10th that of Texas. Still, Kyrgyzstan is vital to the U.S. It does not have nuclear weapons even though its neighbors do. Still, Kyrgyzstan is important to the U.S. The loss of its support would hobble U.S. military activities in the region, but would not threaten them. Perhaps one reason for the concern is that it would be one less place on the map where the Pentagon can pin an American flag, and it is important for a U.S. flag to be pinned there.

Kyrgyzstan may be important to the U.S., but the importance of the U.S. to Kyrgyzstan is not so obvious. Despite frequent statements by the U.S. that its only goal in the region is to fight terrorism and advance the cause of democracy, its actions often bely its words. Certainly lip service is paid to "democratically" elected leaders, but in reality, a strong man will do in a pinch, as long as he is our strong man.

The U.S. hydra is such that even a small, landlocked nation of 5 1/2 million in central Asia finds itself entangled in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. claims it is obligated to involve itself in the affairs of nations and people across the globe. But when it comes down to it, we intervene because we can. American involvement is usually heralded as noble and self sacrificing. At times, U.S. interests coincide with regional interests, at least those whose interests we intervene to support. Less often, it is announced that the intervention was done in our interests. But sometimes U.S. interests consist of little more than maintaining its interests. When U.S. interests conflict with the interests and desires of other governments and people, animosity towards the U.S. can be counted on.

If the U.S. throws its lot in with the government in Kyrgyzstan and the uprising is successful, the new government will resent the U.S. for supporting its enemies. If the government prevails, the defeated rebels will resent the U.S. for the aid it provided to the government and we will have earned their enmity. The opposition is already accusing the U.S. of abetting the government. Perhaps even a new terrorist network will take root. If the U.S. supports the opposition and the opposition fails, there will be another nation hostile to the U.S. and its interests in the region.

When the U.S. looks at a map of the world, it sees opportunity and danger. From one pole to the other, there is nothing, no one, and no place outside the interest and grasp of the U.S. Because of this, the U.S. will always find new causes and with them, new foes and enemies. Every once in a while, the U.S. should reflect on what is truly in its interests and what isn't. And, when we identify our true interests, we should mind them and leave the interests of other nations to other nations.

Swiss soldiers are not dying in Afghanistan. Swedish soldiers are not dying in Iraq. U.S. soldiers are dying there. The reason U.S. soldiers are dying there is that it was deemed to be in the interests of the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This decision was arrived at because everything touches on U.S interests, whether in Africa, Asia, or Central America. It would be naive to accept the argument that we invaded two counties and overthrew their governments because of a terrorist attack. That was only one factor. The other, and larger factor, was that it was felt that it would be a good opportunity to establish two new democracies in the region and further expand our interests and opportunities. And we all know how well that is turning out.

Let us hope that for every one's sake, the U.S. does not try to bring democracy to Kyrgyzstan. Military bases are a poor reason to involve oneself in a foreign country's internal affairs. It certainly in is the U.S.'s interest to have a pro western government in Kyrgyzstan. The question remains whether it is in Kyrgyzstan's interest. That question is not for the U.S. to decide. The U.S. says it wants the conflict to end peacefully. The question is whose peace? A peace favorable of the U.S. interests? Or a peace hostile to them? To imply the U.S. has no stake in the conflict is dishonest. The global nature of U.S. interests guarantees that the U.S. will have a stake in almost every conflict.

As inconvenient as the loss of military bases might be to the U.S., it is a problem more easily overcome by the U.S. than having a new antagonist in the region.