Tweet
Former Kyrgyz president Akayev blames Washington for coup - paper
Moskovskiy Komsomolets website, Moscow
4 Jul 05
Former Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev has said that external factors
played a key role in deposing him from power. He also denied that he
and his family had been involved in big business in Kyrgyzstan. The
following is the text of an interview with Askar Akayev entitled:
"Patriots' games/flowers of evil - Victim of the 'tulip revolution'
Askar Akayev: 'Perhaps I should have stayed and died'", published by
the Russian newspaper Moskovskiy Komsomolets website on 4 July;
subheadings as published:
" If I were to say that I was right about everything, people would
simply not believe me!" When they lose power, eminent politicians
usually fall into a deep depression. However, this does not apply at
all to Askar Akayev, the recent leader of Kyrgyzstan. Currently living
in a wooden cottage near Moscow, which is modest by presidential
standards, Akayev is, of course, upset about the treachery of many of
his close comrades-in-arms. But the exiled president at the same time
genuinely radiates friendliness and speaks about his own mistakes
without any self-indulgence.
Washington's revolution
[Interviewer Mikhail Rostovskiy] Askar Akayevich, the refusal to fire
on your own people is, of course, commendable. But how could you
surrender the capital to looting by looters?
[Akayev] I constantly feel a huge sense of guilt towards my fellow
citizens for having permitted such a thing. I simply could not have
dreamt in my worst nightmare that the opposition would allow their
lackeys to subject the city to looting and pogroms after they had
seized Government House. After all, not a single window was broken
during the "colour revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine. If I had known
what would happen, I would of course have taken decisive measures and
introduced a state of emergency.
[Rostovskiy] A president is always responsible for the state of the
country. What was your main mistake, which caused Kyrgyzstan to sink
into a state of anarchy?
[Akayev] In Kyrgyzstan, democratization outstripped the development of
the social sphere and the economy. And this gave rise to heightened
expectations, which eventually led to an explosion. I now understand
the wise Deng Xiaoping, who always called for stability, in order to
achieve success in the long term. My presidential colleagues said
many times: "Askar, you are running ahead of the locomotive!" They
were probably right to a certain extent.
[Rostovskiy] So you now think as well that Central Asia and, possibly,
other CIS countries are not ready for the Western model of democracy?
[Akayev] I have never agreed that a universal formula for democracy
exists, which is suitable for all peoples at all times. I was
convinced that democracy should be constructed, taking into account
national traditions and the specific characteristics of the
development of the country. But the efforts of the West and the United
States, in the first instance, are now impeding a normal evolutionary
development of democracy in Central Asia. It is attempting to speed up
democratic changes without taking into account the specific features
of this region where family tribal and clan relationships are still
strong, plus the Islamic factor. Time and patience are needed for
genuine democracy to be born in Central Asia. But the West has
unthinkingly brought the techniques of the "colour revolutions" into
Central Asia. America has let the genie out of the bottle without
considering the future consequences of such a step.
[Rostovskiy] Do you have any proof that Washington played a key role
in the coup?
[Akayev] Even America is not denying it! Many articles were published
there where leading political figures, amongst others, spoke about
their services in bringing about the "Tulip Revolution" in
Kyrgyzstan. Moreover, a report on this was published by the American
ambassador in Bishkek.
[Rostovskiy] But surely Ambassador Stephen Young stated that it was a
forgery.
[Akayev] Naturally he will not say that it is genuine! The Americans
did a huge amount of work. Those who headed the coup visited America,
Ukraine and Georgia several times last year. Instructors from the
latter two countries came to our country and openly prepared a "colour
revolution", without any attempt at disguise. Of course, there were
also internal components to the coup. Poverty, unemployment and the
extremism of the opposition.
When the coup organizers understood that the Georgian or Ukrainian
versions would not occur in Kyrgyzstan, they resorted to the services
of the drugs mafia. Thousands of guerrillas and criminal elements who
had previously been made drunk and pumped full of drugs were thrown
into the assault on Government House. You must remember the TV
pictures: they proceeded with a bottle of vodka in one hand and with a
stick in the other. But I repeat again: external factors played a key
role, the generous financing of the putsch from abroad.
[Rostovskiy] So you think Stephen Young was a key figure in the coup?
[Akayev] Definitely.
[Rostovskiy] But why did the Americans want to overthrow you? Surely
you were a completely acceptable figure both for Washington and for
Moscow?
[Akayev] I have always thought that Kyrgyzstan, in line with the
ordinances of our forefathers, can only develop successfully in close
alliance with Russia. The Americans did not like this. After they had
established themselves at the air base in Manas, we embarked on
creating a Russian air base in Kant. I think that this exhausted
Washington's patience. They want to see leaders in every country who
are unambiguously oriented only towards America. And they consider the
idea of democracy their monopoly.
[Rostovskiy] You mean that the Americans opposed the opening of a
Russian base?
[Akayev] They very much opposed it! They thought that this was being
done to spite America.
[Rostovskiy] In politics it is very important to leave at the right
time. Do you not think that if you had left power, say, in the year
2000 Kyrgyzstan's history would have followed a completely different
scenario?
[Akayev] I have never held onto power and I was actually intending to
leave. I have stated many times that my term in office would end on
30 October 2005 and that I would hand over to a new president.
[Rostovskiy] But for some reason no-one believed you.
[Akayev] My mistake was possibly that I did not name a successor.
[Rostovskiy] You had a successor?
[Akayev] No. I thought that the people themselves should choose and
that a person should not be foisted on them. If I had named a
successor, the heads of the security structures would perhaps not have
betrayed me.
Roots of the revolt
[Rostovskiy] Why did you not really succeed in improving the economy
during the 14 years of your rule?
[Akayev] I do not agree with your assessment. Kyrgyzstan is a small
mountainous country, which is located in a transport
impasse. Moreover, we are without our share of raw material
resources. Essentially the only thing that we have is a unique natural
environment. But an infrastructure is needed for tourism to become the
leading sphere in the economy. And time is needed to create it.
Several years ago, tourism's share of GDP was less than 1 per cent. At
the beginning of 2005 it was already 4 per cent.
I think that for a country with features like ours we have done
everything possible. We were, for example, the only country where land
was distributed fairly to farmers. Kyrgyzstan cannot be compared with
oil and gas extracting countries. We should be compared with
Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. Kyrgyzstan occupies the
best position among these countries.
[Rostovskiy] I am sorry but in contrast to all the above countries,
you have never had a war.
[Akayev] That is quite correct. And that is why income per head of
population is twice as high in Kyrgyzstan. A sitting of the creditors'
club took place in Paris on 10 March this year. There are seven debtor
countries in the CIS with a critical level of debt: Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova. And
we were the only country, whose debts were written off under
favourable conditions. The explanation was this: over the past five
years Kyrgyzstan has achieved solid macroeconomic stability, steady
economic growth and a reduction in poverty. Over five years we reduced
poverty by 21 per cent. On average by 4 per cent a year. It is not I
who is saying this but the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank!
[Rostovskiy] But the new authorities are giving another reason for the
not too brilliant state of the economy. They are saying that members
of your family and first and foremost your son-in-law, Adyl
[Toygonbayev], have monopolized all the tasty industries.
[Akayev] I am already tired of hearing what they are saying. Read
instead the account by the commission auditing my family's
property. All these rumours about the "domination of the Akayevs" in
the republic's economy collapsed like a house of cards. The commission
did not find anything belonging to me or my wife. It turned out that
all the largest and most successful enterprises on the "Akayev list"
had quite different and absolutely real owners - foreign companies
from Kazakhstan, Russia and Germany like Daimler Benz and Henrich
Glazer [untraced]. The new authorities need all this fuss to bring
about a forcible redistribution of property and spheres of influence
in business.
Yes, my children, my son and son-in-law were in business. But they
were not the largest businessmen in Kyrgyzstan. Several dozen larger
oligarchs can be named.
[Rostovskiy] But you will not deny that Adyl would not have been such
a successful businessman if you had not been president?
[Akayev] Adyl was a well-known and successful Kazakh businessman long
before he got to know my daughter. It would be stupid to assert that
belonging to the presidential family hindered his business. Although,
admittedly, it is quite the contrary today. And in general Adyl had a
completely open and transparent business. And it is easy to prove
this. The main component of his business was supplying aviation
fuel. It was mainly the American base which used this fuel. The
Americans know very well: we did not force them to buy this fuel.
Moreover, there was a competing company; which operated successfully.
[Rostovskiy] But, nevertheless, how many multi-millionaires are there
in your family?
[Akayev] I have never taken any interest in my son-in-law's money. My
son does not have millions. He had a small business. And I personally
still have a flat, which I received when I was still a professor in
1984.
[Rostovskiy] When I was in Bishkek during the years of your rule, many
people explained the failings of your authorities thus: in actual fact
it is not the president who is ruling the country but his wife, Mayram
Duyshenovna. What can you say in answer to this?
[Akayev] That is another myth. I would like to make an analogy here
with Raisa Gorbacheva, who was persecuted when she was alive. And a
normal attitude towards her was only established after her death. In
our countries people generally want women to sit at home. Mayram
Duyshenovna did not manage anything. She worked exclusively for an
international charitable fund. She built two model children's villages
for orphans and a children's sanatorium in Issyk-Kul. She created a
network of children's educational centres throughout the entire
country and equipped them with computers.
[Rostovskiy] It is said that you also share another habit with Boris
Nikolayevich [Yeltsin] - a passion for drinking.
[Akayev] Yes, that myth was also spread. But let anyone cite just one
fact, just one photo! Yes, I like good wine. But I have always been
moderate in everything. Perhaps the only passion where I have been
fanatical is science.
What next?
[Rostovskiy] And in which CIS country is the next "colour revolution"
advancing? People are talking, for example, about Kazakhstan.
[Akayev] Kazakhstan has shown record economic growth over recent
years. This has naturally also had an effect on the population's
income. So this can be ruled out in Kazakhstan in the near future. And
it is unlikely that anything similar will happen in the other Central
Asian countries. The techniques of the "colour revolutions" only work
where there is a "loosened" democratic soil, freedom of speech and a
relatively strong civic society. In Kyrgyzstan, for example, there was
one nongovernmental organization for every thousand citizens. A
Dutchman even said to me: you know, Mr President, our country is
called the "country of tulips", whereas you have a "country of
nongovernmental organizations"! So, in Turkmenistan, for example, a
"colour revolution" is impossible in principle.
[Rostovskiy] But if people are driven to extremism by the discipline
of the rod, they may also riot. Is that not so?
[Akayev] Naturally. But this probably concerns the long-term
prospects. I do not think that the situation in Central Asia has
reached such extremes today.
[Rostovskiy] But is it possible that Islamic extremists could come to
power in Central Asia? Will Karimov, for example, manage to keep
control of the situation in Uzbekistan?
[Akayev] In the immediate future, he will definitely manage to. In the
longer term, it is of course hard for me to judge. But with regards to
the general situation in Central Asia America has greatly increased
the chances of Islamic fundamentalists in the entire region by
embarking on a "colour revolution" in Kyrgyzstan. There is anarchy in
Kyrgyzstan today, the authorities are shaky, everything is resolved by
using force. Who ever can gather the largest crowd wins. Seeing that
it was enough to assemble a crowd of around 10,000 to seize power in
Kyrgyzstan, are the Islamic extremists not going to want to repeat
something similar?
[Rostovskiy] You do not think in connection with this that granting
the Americans the opportunity to create an air base close to Bishkek
was a mistake?
[Akayev] No, I do not think so. At the time, there was a recognized
need. Afghanistan was the main factor of instability in Central Asia
for many years. The threat of terrorism and religious extremism came
from there. There was a heavy flow of drugs. We were forced to fight
gangs of many thousands of guerrillas in the southern regions of
Kyrgyzstan for two years. They were trained in Afghanistan, travelled
through Tajikistan and were trying to cross into the Fergana Valley
via Kyrgyzstan. We did not let a single terrorist through then. But
this inflicted a huge amount of economic damage and we lost many human
lives.
So when America called for terrorism to be ended in Afghanistan in
2001, we consciously decided to provide them with the air
base. Moreover, in the first instance this decision was taken on the
basis of consultations with the Russian leadership. At the time it was
justified.
[Rostovskiy] But what about now? Has the existence of the base not
become a factor strengthening Islamic sentiment in Kyrgyzstan?
[Akayev] It was one of the reasons for the increase in popularity of
the banned party Hezb-e Tahrir. There were even attempts on their side
to commit terrorist acts against the American base, which were
prevented. For this reason it is very important that the accords on
eliminating the base immediately after the situation in Afghanistan
stabilizes should be implemented.
[Rostovskiy] Many people are very afraid that Kyrgyzstan may
disintegrate into a north and south. Do you also fear this?
[Akayev] Of course. The very existence of Kyrgyzstan depends on the
"north-south" relationship. Historically, the north has always been
more developed. So as a northerner I considered the accelerated
development of the south of the country to be my duty. During the
Soviet era there was one pedagogical institute and several technical
colleges in the south. Today there are dozens of universities there.
[Rostovskiy] Most of which are sham... [ellipsis as published]
[Akayev] There are sham ones as well. But we also managed to create
some good ones. I declared the town of Osh the country's southern
capital and you would not recognize it today. Most of the investment
in fighting poverty was directed towards the south. The construction
of the strategic Bishkek-Osh road finishes this year. And the north
and south are now linked in all seasons and in any weather and not
only via Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The people of the south have
appreciated all of this. During the first presidential election I
gained relatively few votes in the south. In the latest election I
gained almost as many as in the north. It is very important that
preventing a split should be the main task of the new president.
[Rostovskiy] Do Bakiyev and Kulov have any chance of returning
Kyrgyzstan to a state of stability?
[Akayev] I welcome the creation of the Bakiyev-Kulov tandem. It is a
tandem of experienced politicians, the leaders of the north and the
south. And if this tandem is maintained, there is a hope that there
will be stability in Kyrgyzstan. But if it collapses, trouble should
be expected.
[Rostovskiy] And how do you respond to statements by the country's new
leaders that trouble should be expected from you. They say that Akayev
is behind the presidential candidate Urmatbek Baryktabasov, whose
supporters recently seized the White House for a short time.
[Akayev] The smell of the tear gas used to disperse the demonstrators
had not yet gone when the current authorities had already declared
that Akayev was behind them. Neither I nor my children know
Baryktabasov and we have no relation to him. He, incidentally, has
stated repeatedly himself that he was pursued during the years of
Akayev's rule and was forced to do business in Kazakhstan for this
reason. So Baryktabasov cannot work for me in principle. It is simply
safe to blame absolutely everything on me now. I cannot defend myself!
Who was actually behind the assault attempt? I think it was a
provocation organized by a third force, which has now arisen within
the current authorities themselves. There are people there who are
afraid of being sidelined if the Bakiyev-Kulov tandem remains.
[Rostovskiy] You mean the major businessmen, the deputy prime
ministers [Daniyar] Usenov and [Adaham] Madumarov?
[Akayev] Yes. But there are others as well, in addition to these two.
Life after power
[Rostovskiy] Many people consider your decision to leave Kyrgyzstan
after the coup to be incorrect. Were you directly threatened by
physical danger?
[Akayev] Two eminent leaders of the country came to me during the
morning of 24 March with an interval of around an hour. They said that
there was reliable information that there would be attempts to deal
with me physically. I was forced to leave about half-an-hour before
Government House was taken. My closest comrades-in-arms - my press
secretary, the deputy head of the presidential administration, the
commander of the national guard - who were my firm supporters, had
already been beaten up by then. One had his skull fractured. He spent
a month in intensive care.
But the reason for my departure was not that I was saving my life. I
understood that my bodyguards, with whom I had worked for 14 years,
would definitely use weapons to defend me. But any blood would split
the country. After all, the majority of those storming Government
House were from the south. This could turn into a civil war. I decided
that power was not worth that. Perhaps I should have stayed and died.
[Rostovskiy] And what will you do now? Do you intend, for example, to
vote for the Bakiyev-Kulov tandem as a voter?
[Akayev] But I have to all intents and purposes been stripped of my
rights as a voter. You know that the current authorities will not
allow me to return to the country.
[Rostovskiy] Well, you can vote at the embassy in Moscow... [ellipsis
as published]
[Akayev] I do not intend to vote at the embassy. The atmosphere there
is too unfriendly.
[Rostovskiy] But if you were to return to the country before the
election, who would you vote for?
[Akayev] Unfortunately, history does not know the subjunctive mood.
[Rostovskiy] Do you believe it is possible that either you or one of
your children might come to power again in Kyrgyzstan?
[Akayev] I have already been saying for several years that I would
finish my political career in 2005. And there are of course no changes
to my plans. As for my children, the English say never say
"never". Anything can happen. But the main thing is that Kyrgyzstan is
our homeland and we will definitely return.
Moskovskiy Komsomolets website, Moscow
4 Jul 05
Former Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev has said that external factors
played a key role in deposing him from power. He also denied that he
and his family had been involved in big business in Kyrgyzstan. The
following is the text of an interview with Askar Akayev entitled:
"Patriots' games/flowers of evil - Victim of the 'tulip revolution'
Askar Akayev: 'Perhaps I should have stayed and died'", published by
the Russian newspaper Moskovskiy Komsomolets website on 4 July;
subheadings as published:
" If I were to say that I was right about everything, people would
simply not believe me!" When they lose power, eminent politicians
usually fall into a deep depression. However, this does not apply at
all to Askar Akayev, the recent leader of Kyrgyzstan. Currently living
in a wooden cottage near Moscow, which is modest by presidential
standards, Akayev is, of course, upset about the treachery of many of
his close comrades-in-arms. But the exiled president at the same time
genuinely radiates friendliness and speaks about his own mistakes
without any self-indulgence.
Washington's revolution
[Interviewer Mikhail Rostovskiy] Askar Akayevich, the refusal to fire
on your own people is, of course, commendable. But how could you
surrender the capital to looting by looters?
[Akayev] I constantly feel a huge sense of guilt towards my fellow
citizens for having permitted such a thing. I simply could not have
dreamt in my worst nightmare that the opposition would allow their
lackeys to subject the city to looting and pogroms after they had
seized Government House. After all, not a single window was broken
during the "colour revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine. If I had known
what would happen, I would of course have taken decisive measures and
introduced a state of emergency.
[Rostovskiy] A president is always responsible for the state of the
country. What was your main mistake, which caused Kyrgyzstan to sink
into a state of anarchy?
[Akayev] In Kyrgyzstan, democratization outstripped the development of
the social sphere and the economy. And this gave rise to heightened
expectations, which eventually led to an explosion. I now understand
the wise Deng Xiaoping, who always called for stability, in order to
achieve success in the long term. My presidential colleagues said
many times: "Askar, you are running ahead of the locomotive!" They
were probably right to a certain extent.
[Rostovskiy] So you now think as well that Central Asia and, possibly,
other CIS countries are not ready for the Western model of democracy?
[Akayev] I have never agreed that a universal formula for democracy
exists, which is suitable for all peoples at all times. I was
convinced that democracy should be constructed, taking into account
national traditions and the specific characteristics of the
development of the country. But the efforts of the West and the United
States, in the first instance, are now impeding a normal evolutionary
development of democracy in Central Asia. It is attempting to speed up
democratic changes without taking into account the specific features
of this region where family tribal and clan relationships are still
strong, plus the Islamic factor. Time and patience are needed for
genuine democracy to be born in Central Asia. But the West has
unthinkingly brought the techniques of the "colour revolutions" into
Central Asia. America has let the genie out of the bottle without
considering the future consequences of such a step.
[Rostovskiy] Do you have any proof that Washington played a key role
in the coup?
[Akayev] Even America is not denying it! Many articles were published
there where leading political figures, amongst others, spoke about
their services in bringing about the "Tulip Revolution" in
Kyrgyzstan. Moreover, a report on this was published by the American
ambassador in Bishkek.
[Rostovskiy] But surely Ambassador Stephen Young stated that it was a
forgery.
[Akayev] Naturally he will not say that it is genuine! The Americans
did a huge amount of work. Those who headed the coup visited America,
Ukraine and Georgia several times last year. Instructors from the
latter two countries came to our country and openly prepared a "colour
revolution", without any attempt at disguise. Of course, there were
also internal components to the coup. Poverty, unemployment and the
extremism of the opposition.
When the coup organizers understood that the Georgian or Ukrainian
versions would not occur in Kyrgyzstan, they resorted to the services
of the drugs mafia. Thousands of guerrillas and criminal elements who
had previously been made drunk and pumped full of drugs were thrown
into the assault on Government House. You must remember the TV
pictures: they proceeded with a bottle of vodka in one hand and with a
stick in the other. But I repeat again: external factors played a key
role, the generous financing of the putsch from abroad.
[Rostovskiy] So you think Stephen Young was a key figure in the coup?
[Akayev] Definitely.
[Rostovskiy] But why did the Americans want to overthrow you? Surely
you were a completely acceptable figure both for Washington and for
Moscow?
[Akayev] I have always thought that Kyrgyzstan, in line with the
ordinances of our forefathers, can only develop successfully in close
alliance with Russia. The Americans did not like this. After they had
established themselves at the air base in Manas, we embarked on
creating a Russian air base in Kant. I think that this exhausted
Washington's patience. They want to see leaders in every country who
are unambiguously oriented only towards America. And they consider the
idea of democracy their monopoly.
[Rostovskiy] You mean that the Americans opposed the opening of a
Russian base?
[Akayev] They very much opposed it! They thought that this was being
done to spite America.
[Rostovskiy] In politics it is very important to leave at the right
time. Do you not think that if you had left power, say, in the year
2000 Kyrgyzstan's history would have followed a completely different
scenario?
[Akayev] I have never held onto power and I was actually intending to
leave. I have stated many times that my term in office would end on
30 October 2005 and that I would hand over to a new president.
[Rostovskiy] But for some reason no-one believed you.
[Akayev] My mistake was possibly that I did not name a successor.
[Rostovskiy] You had a successor?
[Akayev] No. I thought that the people themselves should choose and
that a person should not be foisted on them. If I had named a
successor, the heads of the security structures would perhaps not have
betrayed me.
Roots of the revolt
[Rostovskiy] Why did you not really succeed in improving the economy
during the 14 years of your rule?
[Akayev] I do not agree with your assessment. Kyrgyzstan is a small
mountainous country, which is located in a transport
impasse. Moreover, we are without our share of raw material
resources. Essentially the only thing that we have is a unique natural
environment. But an infrastructure is needed for tourism to become the
leading sphere in the economy. And time is needed to create it.
Several years ago, tourism's share of GDP was less than 1 per cent. At
the beginning of 2005 it was already 4 per cent.
I think that for a country with features like ours we have done
everything possible. We were, for example, the only country where land
was distributed fairly to farmers. Kyrgyzstan cannot be compared with
oil and gas extracting countries. We should be compared with
Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. Kyrgyzstan occupies the
best position among these countries.
[Rostovskiy] I am sorry but in contrast to all the above countries,
you have never had a war.
[Akayev] That is quite correct. And that is why income per head of
population is twice as high in Kyrgyzstan. A sitting of the creditors'
club took place in Paris on 10 March this year. There are seven debtor
countries in the CIS with a critical level of debt: Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova. And
we were the only country, whose debts were written off under
favourable conditions. The explanation was this: over the past five
years Kyrgyzstan has achieved solid macroeconomic stability, steady
economic growth and a reduction in poverty. Over five years we reduced
poverty by 21 per cent. On average by 4 per cent a year. It is not I
who is saying this but the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank!
[Rostovskiy] But the new authorities are giving another reason for the
not too brilliant state of the economy. They are saying that members
of your family and first and foremost your son-in-law, Adyl
[Toygonbayev], have monopolized all the tasty industries.
[Akayev] I am already tired of hearing what they are saying. Read
instead the account by the commission auditing my family's
property. All these rumours about the "domination of the Akayevs" in
the republic's economy collapsed like a house of cards. The commission
did not find anything belonging to me or my wife. It turned out that
all the largest and most successful enterprises on the "Akayev list"
had quite different and absolutely real owners - foreign companies
from Kazakhstan, Russia and Germany like Daimler Benz and Henrich
Glazer [untraced]. The new authorities need all this fuss to bring
about a forcible redistribution of property and spheres of influence
in business.
Yes, my children, my son and son-in-law were in business. But they
were not the largest businessmen in Kyrgyzstan. Several dozen larger
oligarchs can be named.
[Rostovskiy] But you will not deny that Adyl would not have been such
a successful businessman if you had not been president?
[Akayev] Adyl was a well-known and successful Kazakh businessman long
before he got to know my daughter. It would be stupid to assert that
belonging to the presidential family hindered his business. Although,
admittedly, it is quite the contrary today. And in general Adyl had a
completely open and transparent business. And it is easy to prove
this. The main component of his business was supplying aviation
fuel. It was mainly the American base which used this fuel. The
Americans know very well: we did not force them to buy this fuel.
Moreover, there was a competing company; which operated successfully.
[Rostovskiy] But, nevertheless, how many multi-millionaires are there
in your family?
[Akayev] I have never taken any interest in my son-in-law's money. My
son does not have millions. He had a small business. And I personally
still have a flat, which I received when I was still a professor in
1984.
[Rostovskiy] When I was in Bishkek during the years of your rule, many
people explained the failings of your authorities thus: in actual fact
it is not the president who is ruling the country but his wife, Mayram
Duyshenovna. What can you say in answer to this?
[Akayev] That is another myth. I would like to make an analogy here
with Raisa Gorbacheva, who was persecuted when she was alive. And a
normal attitude towards her was only established after her death. In
our countries people generally want women to sit at home. Mayram
Duyshenovna did not manage anything. She worked exclusively for an
international charitable fund. She built two model children's villages
for orphans and a children's sanatorium in Issyk-Kul. She created a
network of children's educational centres throughout the entire
country and equipped them with computers.
[Rostovskiy] It is said that you also share another habit with Boris
Nikolayevich [Yeltsin] - a passion for drinking.
[Akayev] Yes, that myth was also spread. But let anyone cite just one
fact, just one photo! Yes, I like good wine. But I have always been
moderate in everything. Perhaps the only passion where I have been
fanatical is science.
What next?
[Rostovskiy] And in which CIS country is the next "colour revolution"
advancing? People are talking, for example, about Kazakhstan.
[Akayev] Kazakhstan has shown record economic growth over recent
years. This has naturally also had an effect on the population's
income. So this can be ruled out in Kazakhstan in the near future. And
it is unlikely that anything similar will happen in the other Central
Asian countries. The techniques of the "colour revolutions" only work
where there is a "loosened" democratic soil, freedom of speech and a
relatively strong civic society. In Kyrgyzstan, for example, there was
one nongovernmental organization for every thousand citizens. A
Dutchman even said to me: you know, Mr President, our country is
called the "country of tulips", whereas you have a "country of
nongovernmental organizations"! So, in Turkmenistan, for example, a
"colour revolution" is impossible in principle.
[Rostovskiy] But if people are driven to extremism by the discipline
of the rod, they may also riot. Is that not so?
[Akayev] Naturally. But this probably concerns the long-term
prospects. I do not think that the situation in Central Asia has
reached such extremes today.
[Rostovskiy] But is it possible that Islamic extremists could come to
power in Central Asia? Will Karimov, for example, manage to keep
control of the situation in Uzbekistan?
[Akayev] In the immediate future, he will definitely manage to. In the
longer term, it is of course hard for me to judge. But with regards to
the general situation in Central Asia America has greatly increased
the chances of Islamic fundamentalists in the entire region by
embarking on a "colour revolution" in Kyrgyzstan. There is anarchy in
Kyrgyzstan today, the authorities are shaky, everything is resolved by
using force. Who ever can gather the largest crowd wins. Seeing that
it was enough to assemble a crowd of around 10,000 to seize power in
Kyrgyzstan, are the Islamic extremists not going to want to repeat
something similar?
[Rostovskiy] You do not think in connection with this that granting
the Americans the opportunity to create an air base close to Bishkek
was a mistake?
[Akayev] No, I do not think so. At the time, there was a recognized
need. Afghanistan was the main factor of instability in Central Asia
for many years. The threat of terrorism and religious extremism came
from there. There was a heavy flow of drugs. We were forced to fight
gangs of many thousands of guerrillas in the southern regions of
Kyrgyzstan for two years. They were trained in Afghanistan, travelled
through Tajikistan and were trying to cross into the Fergana Valley
via Kyrgyzstan. We did not let a single terrorist through then. But
this inflicted a huge amount of economic damage and we lost many human
lives.
So when America called for terrorism to be ended in Afghanistan in
2001, we consciously decided to provide them with the air
base. Moreover, in the first instance this decision was taken on the
basis of consultations with the Russian leadership. At the time it was
justified.
[Rostovskiy] But what about now? Has the existence of the base not
become a factor strengthening Islamic sentiment in Kyrgyzstan?
[Akayev] It was one of the reasons for the increase in popularity of
the banned party Hezb-e Tahrir. There were even attempts on their side
to commit terrorist acts against the American base, which were
prevented. For this reason it is very important that the accords on
eliminating the base immediately after the situation in Afghanistan
stabilizes should be implemented.
[Rostovskiy] Many people are very afraid that Kyrgyzstan may
disintegrate into a north and south. Do you also fear this?
[Akayev] Of course. The very existence of Kyrgyzstan depends on the
"north-south" relationship. Historically, the north has always been
more developed. So as a northerner I considered the accelerated
development of the south of the country to be my duty. During the
Soviet era there was one pedagogical institute and several technical
colleges in the south. Today there are dozens of universities there.
[Rostovskiy] Most of which are sham... [ellipsis as published]
[Akayev] There are sham ones as well. But we also managed to create
some good ones. I declared the town of Osh the country's southern
capital and you would not recognize it today. Most of the investment
in fighting poverty was directed towards the south. The construction
of the strategic Bishkek-Osh road finishes this year. And the north
and south are now linked in all seasons and in any weather and not
only via Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The people of the south have
appreciated all of this. During the first presidential election I
gained relatively few votes in the south. In the latest election I
gained almost as many as in the north. It is very important that
preventing a split should be the main task of the new president.
[Rostovskiy] Do Bakiyev and Kulov have any chance of returning
Kyrgyzstan to a state of stability?
[Akayev] I welcome the creation of the Bakiyev-Kulov tandem. It is a
tandem of experienced politicians, the leaders of the north and the
south. And if this tandem is maintained, there is a hope that there
will be stability in Kyrgyzstan. But if it collapses, trouble should
be expected.
[Rostovskiy] And how do you respond to statements by the country's new
leaders that trouble should be expected from you. They say that Akayev
is behind the presidential candidate Urmatbek Baryktabasov, whose
supporters recently seized the White House for a short time.
[Akayev] The smell of the tear gas used to disperse the demonstrators
had not yet gone when the current authorities had already declared
that Akayev was behind them. Neither I nor my children know
Baryktabasov and we have no relation to him. He, incidentally, has
stated repeatedly himself that he was pursued during the years of
Akayev's rule and was forced to do business in Kazakhstan for this
reason. So Baryktabasov cannot work for me in principle. It is simply
safe to blame absolutely everything on me now. I cannot defend myself!
Who was actually behind the assault attempt? I think it was a
provocation organized by a third force, which has now arisen within
the current authorities themselves. There are people there who are
afraid of being sidelined if the Bakiyev-Kulov tandem remains.
[Rostovskiy] You mean the major businessmen, the deputy prime
ministers [Daniyar] Usenov and [Adaham] Madumarov?
[Akayev] Yes. But there are others as well, in addition to these two.
Life after power
[Rostovskiy] Many people consider your decision to leave Kyrgyzstan
after the coup to be incorrect. Were you directly threatened by
physical danger?
[Akayev] Two eminent leaders of the country came to me during the
morning of 24 March with an interval of around an hour. They said that
there was reliable information that there would be attempts to deal
with me physically. I was forced to leave about half-an-hour before
Government House was taken. My closest comrades-in-arms - my press
secretary, the deputy head of the presidential administration, the
commander of the national guard - who were my firm supporters, had
already been beaten up by then. One had his skull fractured. He spent
a month in intensive care.
But the reason for my departure was not that I was saving my life. I
understood that my bodyguards, with whom I had worked for 14 years,
would definitely use weapons to defend me. But any blood would split
the country. After all, the majority of those storming Government
House were from the south. This could turn into a civil war. I decided
that power was not worth that. Perhaps I should have stayed and died.
[Rostovskiy] And what will you do now? Do you intend, for example, to
vote for the Bakiyev-Kulov tandem as a voter?
[Akayev] But I have to all intents and purposes been stripped of my
rights as a voter. You know that the current authorities will not
allow me to return to the country.
[Rostovskiy] Well, you can vote at the embassy in Moscow... [ellipsis
as published]
[Akayev] I do not intend to vote at the embassy. The atmosphere there
is too unfriendly.
[Rostovskiy] But if you were to return to the country before the
election, who would you vote for?
[Akayev] Unfortunately, history does not know the subjunctive mood.
[Rostovskiy] Do you believe it is possible that either you or one of
your children might come to power again in Kyrgyzstan?
[Akayev] I have already been saying for several years that I would
finish my political career in 2005. And there are of course no changes
to my plans. As for my children, the English say never say
"never". Anything can happen. But the main thing is that Kyrgyzstan is
our homeland and we will definitely return.