Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
May 10 2005
U.S./East: Encouraging The Oppositions
By Robert Coalson
The U.S. and Georgian presidents greet the crowd at Tbilisi’s Freedom
Square on 10 May
10 May 2005 (RFE/RL) — U.S. President George W. Bush’s swing through
the former Soviet states of Latvia, Russia, and Georgia was filled
with lofty rhetoric on the universal human striving for freedom, as
well as with praise for the so-called colored revolutions that have
swept through the region.
“Your most important contribution is your example,” Bush told a crowd
of tens of thousands in Tbilisi’s Freedom Square on 10 May. “In
recent months, the world has marveled at the hopeful changes taking
place from Baghdad to Beirut to Bishkek. But before there was a
Purple Revolution in Iraq, or an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, or a
Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, there was the Rose Revolution in
Georgia.”
In an interview with Georgia’s Rustavi-2 television on 8 May, Bush
said: “I want to go to your country and thank the Georgian people for
other nations to follow.” He added that the wave of revolutions in
the post-Soviet space “was not planned by anybody or any nation. It
was just an inevitable force of human nature because everybody wants
to be free.”
Dangerous Business?
However, encouraging opposition movements in the former Soviet Union
is a potentially dangerous business. In recent weeks, Bush, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials have
spoken openly of their desire to see Belarus follow Georgia’s
“example.” In a 4 May commentary in “The Washington Times,” a
conservative newspaper, Jeffrey Kuhner, communications director of
the Ripon Society, a Republican policy institute, wrote: “With strong
American support, [the Belarusian opposition] may well unleash a
‘White Revolution’ similar to the Rose and Orange revolutions in
Georgia and Ukraine.” Kuhner lauded the Bush administration’s policy
of “helping to bolster the country’s growing opposition movement.””I
want to go to your country and thank the Georgian people for other
nations to follow.”
Belarusian opposition figure Anatol Lyabedzka flew to Georgia in the
days before Bush’s visit for high-level meetings with Georgian
officials, including parliamentarians and Prime Minister Zurab
Noghaideli. “This is a very high level,” Lyabedzka told
obozrevatel.com. “It indicates that Belarus is not a matter of
indifference for Georgia. It is very important. People who think
alike always understand one another.” Lyabedzka also hinted that he
would be seeking a meeting with Bush himself.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told the crowd in Freedom
Square on 10 May that the Georgian government is committed to helping
the United States spread democracy worldwide, including in Belarus.
But the U.S. administration’s rhetoric is being heard beyond the
confines of Belarus. Oppositionists within Russia are also listening.
A group of Chechens living in Georgia demonstrated in Tbilisi on 10
May, calling on the United States to support Chechen independence,
Caucasus Press reported. “We hope that George Bush will use his
influence with Russia and will promote a political solution of the
Chechen people’s problems,” a demonstrator told the news agency.
Likewise, opposition figures in Russia’s Republic of Bashkortostan
have taken inspiration from the so-called colored revolutions, even
taking to wearing orange clothing in emulation of the successful
Ukrainian opposition. According to RFE/RL, an opposition group called
the Tatar Public Center from another ethnic republic in Russia,
Tatarstan, hoped to send protestors to Bush’s speech in Tbilisi,
although it eventually changed its plans.
PanArmenian.net reported on 6 May that an unnamed Bush administration
source had cautioned oppositionists in Armenia and Azerbaijan —
where governments have carried out elections at least as compromised
as those that sparked the revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and
Kyrgyzstan — not to interpret Bush’s support for Georgia as a call
for revolution in those countries. “We welcome reforms in both power
structures and beyond them,” the source was quoted as saying.
“Opposition forces should be engaged in peaceful democratic processes
in Armenia and Azerbaijan.” RFE/RL reported that Azerbaijani
oppositionists were prevented by Georgian police from unfurling a
banner during Bush’s 10 May speech in Tbilisi.
On 3 May, about 100 opposition demonstrators rallied outside the U.S.
Embassy in the Uzbek capital Tashkent calling for Uzbek President
Islam Karimov’s ouster. According to “India Daily,” the goal of the
protest was to “attract U.S. State Department and international
attention.”
Reaction To Washington’s Words
At the same time, the U.S. statements have irked politicians in
Russia and China, as well as the entrenched regimes in countries like
Belarus. Russian analysts in recent days have been speaking more
frequently about a “coordinated campaign” against Russia. Aleksei
Zudin, director of the Political Science Department of the Center for
Political Strategy, added that the recent comments “are undoubtedly
an integral part of the pressure on Russia that began with the
so-called colored revolutions,” politcom.ru reported on 6 May.
The Beijing magazine “Shijie Zhishi” in April published an analysis
entitled “The Background Behind The Color ‘Revolutions’ In The CIS”
that described purported U.S.-led efforts to “fill the political
vacuum in this region.” The magazine charges that over the last
decade, the United States has spent “more than $21 billion” through
the Freedom Support Act to “exert influence on the political- and
economic-development process in these states.” The West “is
continually exerting political pressure and creating a ‘relaxed’
political environment for opposition political forces in these
states,” the article charges.
With opposition groups encouraged by the successes of
anti-establishment revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan
and closely following statements from Washington that seem to be
urging them to follow these examples, the danger of crackdowns —
especially in countries like Belarus and Uzbekistan — has also been
heightened. The United States could find itself in a position similar
to the one that followed the first Gulf War in 1991, when Kurdish
oppositionists felt encouraged to rise up against Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein only to have their uprising savagely put down without
substantial assistance from the West.