Kyrgyzstan: An Eyewitness Account of the Uprising (Judah)

Ben Judah writes from Bishkek for Foreign Policy:

Every man knew his place in Kurmanbek Bakiyev's Bishkek. The street sweeper never looked into the eyes of the businessman with a gold watch. If you drove a clapped-out Soviet car, you always let those in shiny SUVs overtake you. The shopkeepers turned their noses up at farmers hawking what they can and everybody pulled back when the Bakiyev clan grabbed what it wanted. Ordinary Kyrgyz were reserved and powerless, not knowing their own strength.

Kyrgyzstan LiveBlog: Latest from the Uprising
Kyrgyzstan Analysis: What Brought On the Colourless Revolution? (Madlena)

This was Bishkek early on Wednesday morning. As people worked and criss-crossed though quiet leafy avenues, nobody knew that Bakiyev's rule might be in its final hours. Nobody would have believed that, for two blood-soaked days and two nights alive with gunfire, they would see society itself eclipsed in the darkness of revolutionary anarchy.

"Freedom or Death!"



A roar of banging metal, screams and shouting is approaching. Passersby stop in their tracks. People had heard rumors of riots in the provinces but their eyes swell with shock as they see what is marching forwards. Hundreds of men are on the move. Their eyes have turned to glares. Men enter this mob as shopkeepers, drivers or factory workers -- only to lose themselves in the surge. They are moving as one body, copying each other as they pick up the rhythmic chants and grab rocks to hurl at police. A man in a gas mask is waving an AK-47. All work has stopped. Shop fronts are being boarded up.

Society is dissolving. The grief of a people who have seen their quality of life slide continuously since the fall of the Soviet Union is turning into a frenzy born of despair.

A middle-aged man grabs me. His hair is grey and his eyes are brown. He wants me to understand. "We are living like Africans now ... we are not blacks ... When this was the USSR there were factories, good factories ... there were sports centers ... good schools."

"There has been nothing since then," he continues. "Only dictators and criminals."

Men in their twenties without any memory of Communism nod in approval. The mob swells and men mimic each other in posture and snarl. At the front are lads that have been bussed in from the countryside. Dressed in drab, heavy clothing, their skin looks sculpted by different forces than the normal Bishkek urbanites. These are destitute peasants that have been offered drink and a free ride, some say, in exchange for violent services by a coalition of opposition factions.

Three commandeered armoured vehicles are being driven toward the seat of power, an imposing Soviet-era edifice known as the White House. Onboard, shrieking men are banging against the green armor in excitement. Traffic has vanished. The main thoroughfare belongs to the rioters. These vehicles have been ripped from Bakiyev's riot police that was sent to quell the rebels as they gathered on the outskirts of town. They mean everything to the mob. The crowd feels their armor on their skin. The tipping point has long been passed. The people have stopped being afraid of the state.

"Today is Revolution!"

Thousands are pouring in to the main square to stand in line. Some cheer but mostly they gawp. Those watching seem confused. "The Russian are behind this," one rumor goes. But "what is going on?" is the most common refrain.

"Is there going to be fighting?" A wrinkled woman clutches her handbag.

I am walking forward in this mob. When you are in a mob nothing else matters but the crowd. Life shrinks to its surge and angry electricity gets under your skin, pulling you in. The isolation of the ordinary seems so far away you can barely remember it. Everyone is a follower of its magnetic living force.

"Freedom or Death!"

Read rest of article....

Middle East Inside Line: US Has No Plan?; Netanyahu Nuclear Snub Played Down; King Abdullah Meets Obama

Washington Has No Plan?: On Friday, responding to reports that Washington is preparing a new peace plan based on decisions reached in Israel-Palestine discussions 10 years ago, National Security Advisor James Jones stated that the Obama Administration has no new proposal but is discussing ways how to jump-start the peace process in the region.

MENA House: How Big Is El Baradei’s Challenge in Egypt?

US-Israeli Ties: Playing down the cancellation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attendance at next week's nuclear security summit in Washington, Jones said Israel's delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, would be "robust". Jones added that relationships between the U.S. and Israel are "ongoing, fine and continuous."


NSC spokesman Mike Hammer declared, "We welcome Deputy Prime Minister Meridor's participation in the conference. Israel is a close ally and we look forward to continuing to work closely on issues related to nuclear security."

Jordan's King to Washington: On Saturday, King Abdullah II of Jordan visited  President Obama to discuss the deadlock in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Latest from Iran (10 April): Look Over There!

1500 GMT: Economy Watch. Human rights activists claim that most companies in Qazvin province will remain closed until end of the current Iranian month of Farvardin.

1445 GMT: Economy Watch. Although five major oil companies, included Shell, have recently suspended imports to Iran, here are the big players who ensure that Tehran doesn’t feel the squeeze quite as much: Petronas (Malaysia), Independent (Kuwait) and Total (France) are Iran’s largest suppliers.

NEW Iran: The Green Movement in Transition (Rafat)
Iran: How I Suddenly Disappeared on Press TV
Mousavi: “Can Repression & Brute Force Solve Iran’s Problems?”
The Latest from Iran: Dialogue or Conflict? (9 April)

1430 GMT: Remembering. Hadi Khamenei, the brother of the Supreme Leader and a reformist, has visited the family of the nephew of Mir Hossein Mousavi, killed during the Ashura demonstrations.



1415 GMT: Corruption Watch. The latest on the alleged corruption ring, including the Fatemi Avenue insurance fraud, inside the Government….

Rah-e-Sabz claims the Government will charge MP Elyas Naderan, who has made the public allegations, instead of the accused First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.

Meanwhile, Khabar Online claims that Rahimi has handed out 18 oil projects to groups close to the Government. And reformist MP Mostafa Kavakebian has asserted that about 100 fraudsters in Iran’s oil water, and sewage ministries and some insurance companies have been arrested recently and has demanded that their names be published.

1300 GMT: Economic Front. Beyond the specific quarrel over subsidies and spending, there is a wider political feud over economic approach amongst conservatives and principlists.

Ahmad Tavakoli, one of the harshest Parliamentary critics of Ahmadinejad, has denounced the “liberal” capitalist approach since the President took office in 2005. (http://www.khabaronline.ir/news-53796.aspx) There is a similar attack in Alef on “Ahmadinejad and the Chicago boys”, a reference to the free-market, monetarist philosophy of University of Chicago economists such as Milton Friedman. The economic failures of the Iranian system are attributed to the US, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and other usual culprits. (http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/67173/)

A much better critique comes from Sadegh Zibakalam in Aftab, as he argues that “many of the Revolutionaries’ accusations about the US are unfounded” (http://www.iran-emrooz.net/index.php?/news1/21873/)

1200 GMT: Round-up….

A new Persian news website, DayPress, has been established.

Rah-e-Sabz is gloating, with more than a bit of anticipating, over the subsidy/spending fight: After Ahmadinejad’s threat to resign, are the Supreme Leader and Majlis going to bow down to him?

There may be a compromise in the works, however, according to Khabar Online.

0545 GMT: We have posted an analysis by Ahmad Rafat of "The Green Movement in Transition".

0535 GMT: Economy Watch. It is being reported that some workers in Iran's state telecommunications company have gone 12 months without wages.

0530 GMT: Detaining the Press. EA correspondents are currently working on an updated list of imprisoned journalists: one of them is photojournalist Babak Bordbar, detained on Ashura, for whom Peyke Iran has published an appeal.

0500 GMT: Not for the first time, we begin the day with the story of a great diversion. Iran's National Nuclear Day was the pretext for an all-day regime show displaying the nuclear issue, and thus Tehran's victory in the struggle against US pressure and duplicity, and hoping no one would notice other developments at home.

And on that stage, the effort was far from a bust. The showpiece announcement was not that dramatic --- an alleged third-generation uranium centrifuge, six times more effective than its first-generation predecssor. (I had expected the President to run with the declaration of "one or two" additional sites for the nuclear programme.) Ahmadinejad's unveiling of one of those centrifuges was more Science Fair than Science Breakthrough in appearance, but it did set a short-term agenda.

Press TV, for example, could herald the great achievement without coming close to practical questions, such as how many centrifuges? Where will they be located? When will they be on-line? Given that more than half of Natanz's existing second-generation centrifuges were not in use, on latest count, where is the assurance that third-generation successors will operate at a signficant capacity?

And, of course, Iranian state media chose the "appropriate" political framing. The steady beat of Iranian right and pride v. US-led pressure swept away other considerations. No one, for example, had to think about Ahmadinejad's continued use of the nuclear and military issues --- remember the mock missile at the regime's 22 Bahman (11 February) rally? --- as props for legitimacy.

And, of course, no one had to interrupt National Nuclear Day with other inconveniences such as the escalating Parliament-President battle, now to the point of Ahmadinejad's threatened resignation, the charges of corruption against First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, and the signs of opposition revival through meetings and statements such as Thursday's Mir Hossein Mousavi statement and yesterday's declaration by Mohammad Khatami. (The last-minute cancellation of a guest on Press TV's News Analysis programme ensured that the standard Punch-and-Judy show --- one guest defending Iran's peaceful quest for nuclear advance vs. another gently suggesting why there might be "Western" concerns --- could proceed.)

Did the international media pull back the screen on the President's wizardry? Well. no. CNN ran with it as "Ahmadinejad: Iran has 'fully mastered' nuclear technology". (There is, however, an intriguing break from the pack in The New York Times, which runs a Saturday Profile on Mohsen Sazegara, the former creator of the Revolutionary Guard who is now a foe of the regime, and his YouTube broadcast.)

The Never-Ending Palestine Dance: Israel, the US, and the Arab States (Khouri)

Rami Khouri writes in The Jordan Times:

The open disagreement and tough words exchanged in public by the United States and Israel a few weeks ago on Washington’s demand that Israel freeze all new settlements in occupied Arab East Jerusalem has now entered phase 2, in which both sides work quietly behind the scenes to harness their political resources, gauge the other side’s intentions and prepare to continue the battle.

The consensus of people I have spoken with in the United States, representing all sides of the issue, seems to see this as a serious clash of positions and perceptions with very little precedent, but we cannot gauge its full significance until three things happen.

These are: the full Israeli response to the American demand to freeze all settlement construction; the Palestinian and Arab response to the situation and what they would do under various scenarios; and the American response to both the Israeli and Arab positions.



We are in the early stages of a drama whose consequences may be more in the realm of political theatre than historic policy shifts. The depressing common denominator on all three fronts is that domestic conditions are totally inauspicious for any resumption of serious negotiations.

The rightwing Israeli government remains firmly committed to expanding its settlements and colonies in Jerusalem and other areas. The Palestinians remain deeply divided between Hamas and Fateh. The United States remains ambiguous and even confused between its role as the ironclad guarantor of Israeli security and military superiority over all its neighbours and the would-be impartial mediator that seeks to nudge Israelis and Palestinians into a serious peace negotiation.

The most interesting and dynamic arena for the moment is in domestic American politics, where the traditional heavily pro-Israeli position of a majority of politicians has been nudged by three intriguing developments. These are: top-level, public and repeated criticisms of Israeli settlement policies by the Obama administration; continued expansion of the impact of J-Street and other more centrist pro-Israel lobby groups that now provide an alternative to the hardline positions of the much older and stronger American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC); a refreshing and rare public debate about whether the impact of pro-Israeli groups like AIPAC on the United States’ pro-Israel policy should give way to a more even-handed approach that would better serve American national interests in the wider Middle East.

These issues are widely and often intensely debated in private these days, but will soon reemerge onto the public stage.

Several dynamics are pushing all sides to shed their ambiguous positions and clarify what they seek and what they will fight for politically. Potentially, the most significant driver of events these days is the American initiative to start the proximity talks between Israelis and Palestinians. The US anticipates that if it can launch the talks, it will be in a position to use its intermediating role to push both sides to define their bottom-line positions and start making “confidence-building gestures” that would shift the momentum in the region from violent confrontation to diplomatic accommodation.

This is an ambitious agenda that also appears slightly fanciful to most people knowledgeable of the Middle East that I have spoken to in recent weeks in the United States and our region. It is fanciful because it repeats the approach that the US tried to use in the past two decades without success, while conditions on the ground have changed radically, notably within Israel and Palestine.

This is why the critical element that also still remains unclear is the American position on what constitutes a fair peace deal. If the US does not clarify what it sees as a fair and realistic peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, all parties will continue to deal with the prevailing US position, which is a heavy tilt towards Israel on the ground, combined with some rhetorical criticism of Israeli policies that does not transcend the realm of rhetoric.

Washington can criticise Israeli settlements and colonies for months and years, but if it does not put bite into its position - by threatening to withhold financial or trade incentives, say - the mediating role of the United States will remain largely docile, symbolic and ineffective.

If the Arab world, for its part, does nothing beyond making statements and issuing hollow threats to suspend the 2002 Arab peace plan offer, there will be no incentive for either the US or Israel to change their positions.

It is not realistic to expect the United States alone to pressure Israel to change its policies. Either the US, Israel and the Arabs move together diplomatically or they remain mired, as they are now, in a deep stalemate that is enlivened by occasional arm-waving drama but no real change in substance

MENA House: How Big Is El Baradei's Challenge in Egypt?

Christina Baghdady looks at hope and reality in the "El Baradei challenge" in Egypt:

Since the return of Mohammad El Baradei, Nobel Peace Prize winner and former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to Egyptian soil, he’s become a popular figure in the political arena.

Well...."popular" might not quite be the correct word. He’s certainly attracted much attention in the media. Journals cover El Baradei’s activities on a daily basis. Questions remain, however. Is he simply another Ayman Nour, the political activist and challenger to President Mubarak who was imprisoned for his efforts? Is he favoured by the US Government? What does el Baradei have to offer?

This week, a number of arrests took place, all connected with support for El Baradei. Ahmed Mahanna, the director of Dawin, a publishing house in Egypt, was arrested because he distributed copies of "El Baradei and the dream of a green revolution". (Mahanna was soon released after "questioning".)


Egyptian state broadcaster ESC made what an exceptional effort not to draw any attention to El Baradei’s attendance at the Coptic Orthodox Easter Mass. The camera focused everywhere else but on him.

Yet if people are being put under a microscope for showing signs of support for El Baradei, even as official media looks away, then surely that is self-defeating for the Government. It indirectly and directly proclaims that he poses some kind of legitimate opposition, that he actually stands some chance of becoming the future president of the land of the Pharaohs.

Is El Baradei's impressive CV enough to bring about extensive change in Egypt’s political, economic and social atmosphere? He told an interviewer, "Change will have to come from within the country.....There is no one coming in on a white horse that is going to [do that] for you." El Baradei still has never openly declared he will run for Presidency anytime in the near future but says instead he just wants to encourage reform from below.

In Egypt's political arena, there is little "legitimate" opposition, hence the desperation from certain sectors of the public to show vehement support for El Baradei. Other opposition movements and figures such as Kefaya, Ayman Nour, and the banned Muslim Brotherhood have lacked that extra factor of global influence, respect, and recogntion, accompanying a persona untainted except in the eyes of American neo-conservatives.

However, problems arise from El Baradei's realistic advice to the nation. The former IAEA chief’s Facebook group and his party, the National Association for Change, are accessible to the public. That supports his theory of bringing about change from below, but in Egypt's political culture, that’s a revolution. No wonder then in the less-than-subtle actions of the police and security forces these days.

El Baradei’s call for "fair elections" is all well and good, backed by supra-national entities such as the UN, European Union, and human rights bodies. but there’s no other political party with experience in government to support him. Al Wafd, Tagammu, and the Democratic Front are all part of an opposition coalition movement which has not established a firm base in the electorate.

That brings us back to Square One. El Baradei claims not to run for the Presidency, but when one promotes what the public want to hear and desperately need, then he has to head for the top job, whether he wants to or not. Yet Dr Amr El Shobaki, political analyst at Al Ahram, points out that El-Baradei's manifesto signals that his decision to contest the presidential election of 2011 ris contingent on guarantees for a fair election being in place:

The manifesto makes it clear that El-Baradei is interested in change and sowing the seeds of political reform and democracy rather than in becoming president of Egypt one day. It is also clear that he hopes Egyptians will rally behind him to achieve change.

Even more intriguing, what is the US opinion on El Baradeii’s current movements in Egypt? When push comes to shove, that is what will make the ultimate difference. In the 2005 elections, the Muslim Brotherhood collected 88 seats in Parliament, a fifth of the legislature. Yet the US made little effort to recognise the largest opposition party. If Washington takes the same approach to the former Nobel Peace Prize winner, there is very little chance that he ever receive the award of Egyptian President.