The June Events in Southern Kyrgyzstan 2010 and Reaction of International Community

Abstract

On the 11-14 June 2010 in southern Kyrgyzstan a huge inter-ethnic violence between Uzbek and Kyrgyz local communities had occurred. It killed many hundreds of people and destroyed 2000 buildings. The Kyrgyz Provisional Government that changed the President Kurmanbek Bakiyev in April 2010 in a result of the national demonstrations showed its total ineffectiveness and inability to stabilize the situation. Because of that some international experts still call Kyrgyzstan a failed state. Despite the big interests in Kyrgyzstan that were demonstrated in the past years, the world powers such as USA, Russia, China and the EU did not intervene and try to stabilize the situation that was out of control of the Kyrgyz authorities. This paper will examine the interests of world powers in Kyrgyzstan and their reaction to the June events 2010 in southern Kyrgyzstan. The question to answer through out this paper is “How did USA, Russia, EU and China react to the June events of 2010 and change their foreign policy after this conflict”? This work generalizes and compares different forms of presence of interested world actors in the Kyrgyz territory. The thesis of the work is that the June events are the evidence that Kyrgyzstan’s multilateral policy does not bring dividends and it has happened that Kyrgyzstan is interesting for global actors in the capacity of resting base, transit corridor, “communications centre” that open access not only to Central Asia but also to the heart of Eurasia. Thus, this work consists of four chapters. The first chapter provides the background to the June events and examines the literatures that have been written on theory of realism. The second chapter is devoted to the interests of world powers in Kyrgyzstan. The third chapter describes role and reaction of four great actors in the inter-ethnic violence. The final chapter describes current relations of Kyrgyzstan and the great actors. The study is based on qualitative research method of data collection; in particular, it employed deep interviews of victims of the June conflict 2010 and international experts as well as political leaders of Kyrgyzstan. In conclusion this work states that passiveness of global actors in the June events showed that Kyrgyzstan does not represent any independent significant value for them. It is interesting for global actors in the capacity of resting base, transit corridor, “communications centre” that open access to the whole Central Asia.