Kyrgyz Sec Council bid unsuccessful; might spell future luck

Last week’s voting at the UN Security Council could not have possibly voted for Kyrgyzstan as a non-permanent member for several reasons. For one, the closeness of the political elite of Kyrgyzstan with the Russian leadership. Another reason: rather gruesome human rights records and unstable situation at home. Apparently, what Kyrgyz President Roza Otunbayeva counted on was the fact that Kyrgyzstan was the first country in the Central Asian region to announce and implement the parliamentary form of governance. While there can be many speculations as to how exactly this form is successful, it is still a fact. Another “trump card” the Kyrgyz diplomats might have had up the sleeve was the Russian and the international anti-terror coalition’s (de facto, American) airbases located in Kyrgyzstan. However, even that didn’t work.
Well, why did Pakistan win the vote with the overwhelming majority during the first round? According to Otunbayeva, because “Pakistan is a nuclear state” with some 190m residents and has over 100 embassies around the globe as opposed to some 30 Kyrgyz embassies. Otunbayeva also says Pakistan reached out to Kyrgyzstan directly via diplomatic means asking to withdraw its candidacy.
There has also been an attempt to urge anyone involved in the affairs to block the Kyrgyz candidacy. Neweurasia wrote that the Belgium-based Alisher Navoi Institute counts several “crimes and atrocities” taking place in Kyrgyzstan and sometimes authorities either silently let it happen or are directly involved in them. While this particular call was probably not heard at the decision-making levels at the UN, it nonetheless only echoed the alarms rung the international community, NGOs and individuals in Kyrgyzstan. As recently as September 2011, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the Kyrgyz authorities to meet recommendations in the report filed by the Kyrgyz Inquiry Commission. The Kyrgyz parliament announced the head of the committee, a well-known Finnish politician, is a persona non-grata and banned him from entering Kyrgyzstan for “not objective” coverage of the June 2010 events.
Kyrgyzstan has no oil or any other valuable assets that could lure other powers that be into befriending them. To top it all, Kyrgyzstan owes the world over 2bn dollars that it not only does not possess, but also appears not to be planning to return.
On the other hand, it was a good move for the Kyrgyz diplomacy. Otunbayeva, herself an ex-ambassador, realizes the importance for the tiny nation that this claim can bring. Kyrgyz authorities made an attempt to blur the negative images the international community pictured for itself following two revolutions, the 2010 violence, and an extremely negative report released by an international commission. Therefore, credit must be given to the Kyrgyz diplomats who attempted to challenge a much more powerful nation in this competition. Although Kyrgyzstan’s failure was apparent, competing until the very end was a courageous act, which can now recommend this country for other positions within the UN system.
Therefore, in Kyrgyzstan’s case particularly, while the outcome might be suggesting a failure, I am prone toward thinking making a “loud” statement by a small nation was far more important than actually winning the membership. And as I was putting ideas on paper, the news came that Azerbaijan was voted into the non-permanent membership of the UN SC.