Moscow. (General Director of the Center for Political Technologies Alexey Makarkin for RIA Novosti)
It was not difficult to predict the outcome of the presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan. Once the two favorites, Kurmanbek Bakiyev and Felix Kulov, reached a power-sharing pact, the victory of the former was guaranteed. But the elections were not free of intrigue. It was manifest in the positions of observes from different international structures.
A recent tradition has it that a positive assessment of elections in CIS countries by CIS observers is counterbalanced by the negative opinion of
their colleagues from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the other way round. Thus, CIS observers were content with Viktor Yanukovich being announced the winner of the second round of the Ukranian elections, whereas their OSCE counterparts displayed a markedly negative attitude to the voting procedures.
On the contrary, the third round of the Ukrainian elections after the triumph of the orange revolution received a high assessment from OSCE observers and a very low one from their CIS colleagues.
The Europeans were very pleased with the recent parliamentary elections in Moldova, whereas CIS observers were barred from them altogether.
Likewise, the Europeans thought that the Belarussian elections were phony, whereas the assessment of CIS observers was fairly positive.
But the elections in Kyrgyzstan produced an unexpected consensus. The head of the CIS observation mission Vladimir Rushailo said that the elections were generally conducted in a calm atmosphere and without obvious violations. "There were elements of inconsistency with voting papers some of which were not clearly outlined," he said . OSCE observers were more critical and said that in addition to this problem there were implausible increases in turnout figures. But on the whole they gave a positive assessment of the elections. The head of the OSCE short-term observation mission Kimmo Kelonen said that the presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan were conducted in a positive manner and matched democratic standards.
It is clear that the elections in CIS countries are a site of fierce geopolitical fighting between Russia and the West, in which most priorities have already been set. It is obvious that Chisinau orients itself to the West, whereas Minsk is leaning eastward, that Viktor Yuschenko wants his country to join NATO and EU, whereas his opponents count on Russia's support.
But the situation in Kyrgyzstan is by far more controversial. The local velvet revolution was a change of clans, and the victors are not unequivocally pro-Russian or pro-Western. On the one hand, the Western non-governmental organizations backed the opposition forces in Kyrgyzstan, but on the other hand, any government in Bishkek is bound to consider the traditionally important Russian factor.
The new Kyrgyz authorities will make their policy much more obvious when they express their attitude to the US military base that was set up in the country during the Afghan operation by the US armed forces and their allies in 2001. At the recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization the Americans were told in very polite but no uncertain terms that they will have to decide when they are going to withdraw their troops from Central Asia. The new President Bakiev said immediately after the elections that since the situation in Afghanistan had stabilized, "we can start discussing whether the U.S. need to maintain its military presence (in the country)." He then added: "Time will show when and how this will happen." In other words, he kept some freedom of manoeuvre.
The new leaders of Kyrgyzstan do not want to spoil relations either with Russia, or other partners in SCO, or the U.S. For this reason they are not likely to take any abrupt steps in the near future.
But sooner or later they will have to define their geopolitical preferences. Moreover, they will have to do so in a situation where they are not united and the Bakiyev-Kulov compromise will have to survive many tests (primarily during appointment of new ministers and other high-rankers).
It is not ruled out that different groups in the Kyrgyz ruling elite may appeal to competing global centers of influence and will thereby make the situation even more complicated.
At any rate today both Russia and the West are making advances to the winners of the elections via their observers. This means that the struggle (mostly clandestine and only sometimes visible) for influence on Bishkek and the Kyrgyz political and economic elites will go on.
