The January 2022 street protests in Kazakhstan which have received considerable Western news coverage seem at last to be calming down. On the one hand it appeared to be a grass roots uprising in protest of surging inflation, fuel prices and (at least in part) frustration with social restrictions on activism and free speech.
On the other hand there is some evidence to suggest it was an
insurrection – something of a coup attempt related to the nation's internal
politics and what is the functional shadow government led by former president
Nursultan Nazarbayev.
As expected, Western media coverage of the events, the nature
of the protests and Russian involvement has been completely biased and often
hypocritical if not misleading. The Trumpites who stormed the US Capitol were terrorists but the insurrectionists in
Kazakhstan are presented as democratic
activists. And thus any attempt to label the violent protestors as anything
that smacks of criminality or beyond-the-pale political aggression (i.e.
terrorism or insurrection) are scoffed at. The Western analogies don't work and
are self-serving.
If the Trumpites that stormed the Capitol were
insurrectionists (and they certainly were), then the same can be said of at
least some of the Kazakh protestors who also stormed and set fire to government
offices, ministries, and arms depots. This is not to justify any of it – the
state apparatus and its response or the actions of the protestors. It's merely
a call to be truthful and to express truth in the face of blatant Western media
bias. The West can't admit they were insurrectionists because to do so would
grant validity to the government's harsh response. Governments are expected to
use force to put down an insurrection.
For Kazakhstan's part, the appeal to Russia (and the Eurasian
CSTO alliance) demonstrates once again the volatile nature of Central Asia's
political order. Caught between the great powers, the various 'Stan' nations
have at different times flirted with Beijing, Washington, Ankara, Brussels, and
given the history of imperial and Soviet Russia – they still retain close
political, economic, and cultural ties to Moscow. The US is outraged the
Kazakhstan government would call in Russian troops to support the state and
regain control of the streets and yet given the historical, cultural, and
political context it makes perfect sense and was (like it or not) completely
legal. The US has behaved in similar fashion in the past – one need only look
to the long history of US interventions in Latin America, its proxies, and its
relationships with the region's dictators. The US protest is utterly
hypocritical but given that the US public is largely ignorant and in other
cases brainwashed (to be blunt) – such accusations and grievances can be aired
with little question.
And yes, there was something of a bloodbath in response.
Authoritarian governments are not going to extend judicial process to street
rioters and they can be harsh – all the more if there's a perceived threat of
coup. There's a cost that has to be weighed by those who would take to the
streets, especially if the movement becomes violent and destructive. The state
will hit back – and that's true even in the United States. In the American
system, the police are limited – all the more given the present political
situation. As such they are increasingly turning to and relying upon
paramilitary forces and tactics. In states like Russia and Kazakhstan, the
police still have a fairly free hand – more akin to what was seen in the
pre-Civil Rights American South. US interventions in Latin America (and we're
not speaking of the death tolls associated with actual wars and proxy wars)
have led to thousands of deaths. That's what happens when the military steps
in.
Returning to Kazakhstan, there is also the question of potential
Western involvement. Both the Kazakh government and Moscow are suggesting as
much and given the US role in the various Colour Revolutions of the post-Cold
War decades, such actions would not be surprising or unprecedented.
At this point there doesn't seem to be any direct evidence of
this. The developments point to internal politics and the struggle for power
between the Nazarbayev faction and the current office holders. It would seem
it's a clash of the oligarchs that has been exacerbated by street unrest.
That said, the West has every reason to intervene, all the
more as NATO continues to follow the unofficial post-Cold War strategy of
Russian encirclement. The US tried to get a foothold in Central Asia in the
aftermath of 9/11, but over the course of the decade (and US policy failures)
it was slowly forced out and the region was essentially ceded to Russia and China.
The US has attempted to stay in the region through business connections and
through proxies such as India and Turkey – the latter of which is now pursuing
a largely independent policy in the region. In recent years, the EU has reached
out and gained some diplomatic ground but this is independent of US interests
and in fact represents a rivalry and challenge to them.
The timing of the unrest is interesting given the current
media frenzy over Ukraine – a hysteria which has intensified in recent days as
the Kazakh situation has calmed down. One gets the impression that Washington
isn't very happy but given the overwhelming barrage of anti-Russia propaganda
in the media it's hard to know what's serious and what isn't. It was clear
though that Washington was rather upset that Russia was invited into Kazakhstan
and Secretary of State Blinken's comments were bitter if somewhat ridiculous
given US standing and actions around the world – as the US has occupied some
countries for decades. Blinken for his part is an old hand in the corridors of
US imperialism, a figure deeply connected to not just the military-industrial
complex but the new generation which incorporates not just Wall Street but the
world of tech and Silicon Valley. In other words he's not just a mouthpiece for
the administration but one who is deeply invested in the larger project.
All can agree that democracy doesn't really exist in Central
Asia. The disagreement comes with regard to the 'why' and whether or not the
conditions exist for it to take root. The activists and true believers in the Enlightenment
ideology believe its claims are universal and thus able to function in any
context. A slightly deeper understanding of what democracy is, how it
functions, and its inherent problems tell otherwise. When these questions are
placed into historical and cultural contexts such as those of Central Asia, its
prospects are revealed to be dubious at best.
These are nations that were largely invented out of thin air
on the basis of the region's ethnic groups. And yet Stalin deliberately drew
the lines to keep them from becoming homogeneous and the tensions of today are
in part related to those decisions made nearly a century ago. These were
regions administered by Moscow and post-1991 the former Soviet Republics
suddenly became modern nation states – and yet without any of the social
foundations required to create such. Further the cultural roots and foundations
required for Western liberal democracy were non-existent. Additionally, in the
1990's there was a major Islamic revival taking place across Central Asia and
the new states sought to crush these movements and yet at the same time these
governments had to find an identity and something of a mandate. Cultural Islam
and ethnic nationalism were embraced in an authoritarian framework and since
that time they've remained essentially frozen.