Response to the Article "Kyrgyzstan: Stalin's harvest" (The Economist, June 17, 2010)

I enjoyed reading the comments on "Kyrgyzstan: Stalin's Harvest" posted by The Economist members. You still have time to contribute to a discussion. Please, take advantage of this opportunity if you have something to say.

In this blog-post, I would like to publish several comments from the mentioned on-line discussion on The Economist website. I think, the comments below shed light on the several aspects of the problem, which The Economist article did not embrace.

The Economist
"Kyrgyzstan: Stalin's harvest
The latest outbreak of violence in the ethnic boiling-pot of Central Asia will take generations to heal"

Comment 3.
Ikarian wrote:
Jun 17th 2010 7:58 GMT

It (Kyrgyzstan) is as much Stalin's as Pakistan was Britain's until the US Big Brother stepped in and armed the first with nukes to keep India in check, and now delves in Indian affairs since she came loose from the Russian or Stalin's influence as you put in, at top Caste level only of course.

Very little is whispered about our reveared nuclear overseer, the US and its continuing and expanding role in the Manat (should be spelled Manas) 'transit' base and the level of undercover involvement in all this destabilization.

US experience not to say severe interference uninteruptedly since 1945, further west, in Turkey, Cyprus, and Greece comes readily to mind, not to mention Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia to the south, without leaving out the ubiquitous proxy and much valued Israel, may something to learn from.

A case of Huntington's decease of the War of Civilizations'?

Comment 6.
pasam wrote:
Jun 18th 2010 9:30 GMT

It is quite in order to blame Stalin or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for not subdividing Kyrgyzstan on the basis of ethnic populations if that was possible BUT what is important is that IT IS NOT LATE EVEN NOW without simply blaming Stalin. We need to appreciate that unlike other imperial powers like Britain, The Soviet Union was divided into Republics on the basis of Nations and Nationalities to a very high degree so much so that WHEN THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED, all the Republics started running their administration very smoothly from day one. I am not quite familiar with the population distribution inside Kyrgystan to suggest new Nations although I have absolutely no objection. WHAT SURPRISES ME MOST is why Britain is not being blamed for for the very much more serious errors in drawing boundaries in its former colonies LIKE SRI LANKA AND A DICTATOR IN SRI LANKA WORSE THAN ANYONE IN CENTRAL ASIA OR ANYWHERE ELSE is being protected by all the democracies in the world. The truth is National Liberation which has been spptessed by traditional imperialist powers as well as Social imperialism like the Soviet Union and now by those Nations who have been given powers of countries drawn by arbitary borders as in Sri Lanka, India and the like, should be allowed to flower INSTEAD OF BEING SUPPRESSED AS FIGHTING TERRORISM. This is not happening because ALL THE CURRENT MULTIPOLAR POWERS want only stability to exploit resources needed for their own development AND DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE NATIONS BEING SUPPRESSED. The need of the hour is completion of National Liberation and for that all Nations without State need to unite AND THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ALL THOSE WHO LOVE CIVILISATION AND HUMANITY

Comment 8.
Mayilone wrote:
Jun 19th 2010 12:17 GMT

The situation in Kyrgystan is something very familiar to any Sri Lankan which land too has experienced a series of pogroms in the past the last of which was in 1983. A temporary halt to that series arose as a result of increasing resistance by the oppressed nationality, the Tamils. The signs are that these pograoms will start all over again with the decimation of the LTTE leadership.

Stability can never be imposed. It should arise naturally with harmony being established among different nationalities. A part of the problem is that world continues to revolve on the basis of borders of nations drawn by colonial and other 'powers' disrespecting individual national identities. For example the Kurds are an ancient nationality. Why are they not having or not being permitted to have a State that they could call their own? Is that being done in the name of 'stability'? Why does Kashmir remain an occupied territory since the dawn of 'independence' to India and Pakistan? Why have the Eelam Tamils in their hundreds of thousands being confined to 'camps' and restriced territories? Why does the Sri Lankan government deny the holocaust it carried out against the Eelam Tamils?

Only a deeper analysis of the issues involved will lead to the correct answer!

My contribution to the discussion was modest. I just wanted to point at the problem with the reference to Stalin. To me, it was a bit of a clumsy approach:

Comment 18.
Svetlana Makeyeva wrote:
Jun 29th 2010 7:03 GMT

I am from Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Currently, I am studying in Germany.

"Stalin's harvest"... One should say, this logical link between Stalin's decision to divide the region into different Soviet republics and the current turmoil in Kyrgyzstan might not be apparent to the citizens of Kyrgyzstan. First of all, we were taught at school that it was Lenin's idea. (In Kyrgyzstan, iron Lenin can be still seen in many places, NOT STALIN). Second of all, we approach the issue from a different angle: a) it was a blessing to become a sovereign republic; b) it is a failure of OUR GOVERNMENT to make the best of our independence! So, it might appear awkward to talk about Stalin's ghost right now. But The Economist makes a good point: we are living our post-Soviet nightmare.