The terrible price of protection from Rose Revolutions

 

Alik Bakhshi

 

The terrible price of protection from Rose Revolutions

 

   The Rose Revolution proved highly contagious, and its virus, lethal to the ruling nomenklatura entrenched in the power structures of the former Soviet republics, including Russia, is inexorably spreading across the post-communist space from West to East. In a relatively short time, the virus has struck Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, wiping out the Kremlin-dependent and corrupt party bureaucracy from the annals of power. Judging by the political situation, the virus has penetrated Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. However, it appears these countries do not yet have sufficient fertile ground for its successful pro-democratic activity. The same can be said of Russia, where, despite the presence of democratic parties, the virus is powerless, not because the state authorities hide from the people behind the high walls of the Kremlin, but because a significant portion of the Russian people has a strong immunity to the democratic "infection." This is precisely why there are no representatives of Russian nationality among the leaders of democratic parties. (More on this in my article "The People's Destiny, or Every Cricket in Its Own Place.") This immunity is explained by the traditional Russian servility to officials of any rank and a great-power imperial worldview. And as long as this immunity is present in the people literally at the genetic level, no variety of the democratic virus poses a threat to the Kremlin. Consequently, power in the Russian Empire can only be totalitarian. Empire and democracy are incompatible!

 

  The situation is different in the former Baltic Soviet colonies. There, the peoples of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have acquired national freedom and democracy simultaneously as self-evident and integral components of modern society. The color revolutions that took place in Ukraine and Georgia seem to have permanently brought their peoples within the legal framework of democracy. The only threat to these countries is the loss of territorial integrity, as the Kremlin will not exploit the difficult demographic situation in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, with their large concentration of Russians, and, of course, the extremely complex interethnic issues in Georgia. The democratic breakthrough in Kyrgyzstan, in the very heart of Asia, can be considered an unexpected phenomenon, but how serious it is, contrary to local perceptions, remains to be seen. As for the democratic situation in the remaining newly independent Soviet republics, it has undergone virtually no significant changes, and their democratization is hampered by the clan-based power structure traditional in the East.

 

  What is characteristic of all color revolutions is Moscow's extremely negative reaction. The fact is that color revolutions deprive Moscow of its reliance on corrupt authorities, finally removing former Russian colonies from political influence. Moreover, Moscow's reaction to democratic successes in its neighbors is a kind of test of the state of democracy in Russia itself.

 

  Given the above, the hasty and somewhat unexpected signing of the Treaty on Alliance Relations between Russia and Uzbekistan becomes understandable. In addition to the now-traditional generalities about combating international terrorism, it also provides for the deployment of Russian troops in the event of aggression by a third state. It's difficult to imagine that any neighbor, much less one on another continent, is planning aggression against Uzbekistan. Most likely, any move by the domestic opposition would be interpreted as aggression. The presence of international terrorists in Uzbekistan would immediately be announced, as happened in Chechnya, and a Russian soldier, fulfilling his international duty, would once again occupy the country. History remembers similar mutual assistance treaties between the Soviet Union and the Baltic states, which resulted in the latter losing their independence. But while those treaties were imposed by force, in this case, it represents a mutually beneficial deal between the Uzbek dictator, fearful of losing power, and a country increasingly reclaiming its imperial status. This treaty cannot be called international in any way, as it is an agreement between Russia and one man – Islam Karimov. Fear of an impending color revolution is the main reason that pushed Karimov to commit such a vile act against his people and his country. By signing the treaty, Karimov not only betrayed the Uzbek people but also transformed himself from the president of an independent country into a puppet, from which Putin can henceforth do whatever he pleases. It is no coincidence that, according to the text of the treaty, it remains in force until 12 months from the date on which one party notifies the other in writing of its intention to terminate it. Thus, Russia has ample time to turn the political situation in its favor, even to the point of replacing one puppet with another.

 

  A similar situation could arise in Azerbaijan. But if the Azerbaijani president, like Karimov, seeks to base his power in Moscow, then complications are inevitable due to the Karabakh conflict, in which Russia traditionally supports the Armenian side, and a mutual assistance treaty with Russia, as signed by Karimov, is impossible. And although Karimov's example demonstrates that there is no limit to human baseness, it seems that the son of Comrade Heydar Aliyev will not take such a step. If he loses a fair fight in the re-election or subsequent elections and another clan comes to power, which is most likely for Azerbaijan, then in the worst-case scenario, Aliyev Jr. will end up abroad, perhaps even in Russia.

 

  Regardless of any domestic political events, the most important thing for all former Russian colonies is to maintain their independence. This is precisely what Washington's policy should be focused on, in order to prevent the possibility of a revival of the Russian Empire within its former borders. Alas, the current occupant of the White House is a lousy politician; he doesn't understand that "the East is a delicate matter." The brilliant Winston Churchill once noted a certain political naiveté among Americans in their relations with Russia, for which they later paid with the long Cold War. But while Roosevelt, who relied entirely on the Soviet Union as a sincere ally, can be accused of naivety, Bush Jr., who found an ally in Russia in the fight against the virtual global Islamic conspiracy, an ally that is handing the atomic baton to the Iranian obscurantists, can be called simply a madman.

 

  Instead of addressing the real cause of the September 11 tragedy—namely, actively addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict—cowboy Bush, riding a camel, began racing across the sands of Babylon, shouting "Give us Democracy!" so loudly that he scared the czars in the entire area to death, one of whom, terrified of this very democracy, chose to hide in the lion's mouth.

 

March 29, 2008