On the job for less than a month, it is acceptable that Secretary of State John Kerry mispronounced the name of my country, Kyrgyzstan. George W. Bush and Russian president Boris Yeltsin both regularly mispronounced various country names, provoking jokes at their expense by late-night comedians and foreign-policy wonks alike. It is neither a terrible mistake in itself, nor an indicator of Kerry's level of professionalism as chief diplomat of the world’s most powerful country. In contrast, citing Kyrgyzstan as one of the most dangerous places in the world, where American diplomats would supposedly need great bravery to do their work, does reflect incompetence on the part of Kerry’s team at State. Either U.S. diplomats on the ground are sending distorted information back to Foggy Bottom, or someone at State flubbed the drafting of Kerry’s talking points.
It is understandable that citizens of Western nations developed a blanket phobia related to any country ending with "-stan," what with the ongoing war in Afghanistan and well-publicized troubles in neighboring Pakistan. But it is inexcusable that the chief diplomat not have better and more detailed information than most of his compatriots.
Admittedly, Kyrgyzstan is a politically unstable country--in the last decade it went through two revolutions, expelling two of its presidents--with the additional problem of corruption. Thus any investor, local or foreign, should think twice before investing here. But the internal political drama does not translate into Kyrgyz government hostility towards U.S. diplomats. As for the Kyrgyz population, it is increasingly critical of U.S policies in the region, but there is no outwardly (read: physically) hostile movement against American interests on the domestic front.
In theory, Kyrgyzstan’s proximity to troubled countries in the wider region and the presence of a U.S. military base might increase U.S. diplomats’ vulnerability, but the situation has remained roughly the same for more than a decade without any major incident. It is true that there have been infiltration attempts by Al Qaeda-affiliated groups in the past, but those attempts were intercepted by Kyrgyz forces. Looking to the future, and specifically the 2014 withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan, insecurity may well increase in the wider region. That indeed should make the American diplomats exercise more vigilant, due to poorly protected borders.
Having worked in Afghanistan last year, I admired many western colleagues, especially American diplomats and aid workers, for their bravery in working in that country. Some of them live in poorly protected guest houses and offer training to local counterparts without rigorous security measures in place to protect them. Following the killing of American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, like many others, I too wondered how it was possible that American diplomats continued to work in such a country without proper security. But Kyrgyzstan cannot be compared to those situations.
American diplomats, like other foreign officials and indeed expatriates in general, are routinely seen at public events, conferences, and restaurants and bars in Bishkek. They move freely inside the country and are often welcomed inside local homes like any other foreigners. And they surely can be commended for the good work they are doing in promoting democracy and people's diplomacy. It is hasty, even incompetent, to place Kyrgyzstan among the most dangerous environments for American diplomats. This begs the question: is this because of such incompetent assessments the U.S. has been experiencing some failures on its foreign policy front?
Aidai Masylkanova is a Kyrgyz national, and recent graduate from SIPA of the Columbia University. She has served as OSCE's counterterrorism network officer, UNAMA's political officer, and also advises on elections and democracy.
Photo by Ralph Alswang (cc).
a global affairs media network
“Kyrzakhstan” May Be a Most Dangerous Place, but Kyrgyzstan is Not
March 1, 2013
On the job for less than a month, it is acceptable that Secretary of State John Kerry mispronounced the name of my country, Kyrgyzstan. George W. Bush and Russian president Boris Yeltsin both regularly mispronounced various country names, provoking jokes at their expense by late-night comedians and foreign-policy wonks alike. It is neither a terrible mistake in itself, nor an indicator of Kerry's level of professionalism as chief diplomat of the world’s most powerful country. In contrast, citing Kyrgyzstan as one of the most dangerous places in the world, where American diplomats would supposedly need great bravery to do their work, does reflect incompetence on the part of Kerry’s team at State. Either U.S. diplomats on the ground are sending distorted information back to Foggy Bottom, or someone at State flubbed the drafting of Kerry’s talking points.
It is understandable that citizens of Western nations developed a blanket phobia related to any country ending with "-stan," what with the ongoing war in Afghanistan and well-publicized troubles in neighboring Pakistan. But it is inexcusable that the chief diplomat not have better and more detailed information than most of his compatriots.
Admittedly, Kyrgyzstan is a politically unstable country--in the last decade it went through two revolutions, expelling two of its presidents--with the additional problem of corruption. Thus any investor, local or foreign, should think twice before investing here. But the internal political drama does not translate into Kyrgyz government hostility towards U.S. diplomats. As for the Kyrgyz population, it is increasingly critical of U.S policies in the region, but there is no outwardly (read: physically) hostile movement against American interests on the domestic front.
In theory, Kyrgyzstan’s proximity to troubled countries in the wider region and the presence of a U.S. military base might increase U.S. diplomats’ vulnerability, but the situation has remained roughly the same for more than a decade without any major incident. It is true that there have been infiltration attempts by Al Qaeda-affiliated groups in the past, but those attempts were intercepted by Kyrgyz forces. Looking to the future, and specifically the 2014 withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan, insecurity may well increase in the wider region. That indeed should make the American diplomats exercise more vigilant, due to poorly protected borders.
Having worked in Afghanistan last year, I admired many western colleagues, especially American diplomats and aid workers, for their bravery in working in that country. Some of them live in poorly protected guest houses and offer training to local counterparts without rigorous security measures in place to protect them. Following the killing of American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, like many others, I too wondered how it was possible that American diplomats continued to work in such a country without proper security. But Kyrgyzstan cannot be compared to those situations.
American diplomats, like other foreign officials and indeed expatriates in general, are routinely seen at public events, conferences, and restaurants and bars in Bishkek. They move freely inside the country and are often welcomed inside local homes like any other foreigners. And they surely can be commended for the good work they are doing in promoting democracy and people's diplomacy. It is hasty, even incompetent, to place Kyrgyzstan among the most dangerous environments for American diplomats. This begs the question: is this because of such incompetent assessments the U.S. has been experiencing some failures on its foreign policy front?
Aidai Masylkanova is a Kyrgyz national, and recent graduate from SIPA of the Columbia University. She has served as OSCE's counterterrorism network officer, UNAMA's political officer, and also advises on elections and democracy.
Photo by Ralph Alswang (cc).
