• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "James F. Collins",
    "Matthew Rojansky"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Central Asia",
    "Kyrgyz Republic",
    "Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Kyrgyzstan: A Test for Mutual Security

The crisis in Kyrgyzstan presents an opportunity for the three multilateral groups working in the area to do real, immediate good while building trust and demonstrating that cooperation is possible in the increasingly interconnected and fragile Eurasian security space.

Link Copied
By James F. Collins and Matthew Rojansky
Published on Jun 15, 2010
Program mobile hero image

Program

Russia and Eurasia

The Russia and Eurasia Program continues Carnegie’s long tradition of independent research on major political, societal, and security trends in and U.S. policy toward a region that has been upended by Russia’s war against Ukraine.  Leaders regularly turn to our work for clear-eyed, relevant analyses on the region to inform their policy decisions.

Learn More
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Source: The International Herald Tribune

Kyrgyzstan: A Test for Mutual SecurityPolitically driven ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan has already claimed more than 100 lives and threatens to erase the country’s progress toward self-government following the April ouster of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

It is an ominous sign that a society which had undertaken impressive reforms aimed at creating the region's first parliamentary democracy is now teetering on the brink of outright civil war and state failure.

With the violence around Osh continuing and a very real possibility that the conflict could expand to engulf parts of neighboring Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, NATO and the United States must immediately engage with regional partners to help restore security.

For two decades, NATO has played the role of policeman in conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo, while Russia has done so separately in Georgia and Moldova. Not surprisingly, what one side has viewed as peacekeeping, the other has labeled bullying occupation.

The crisis in Kyrgyzstan presents an opportunity for three multilateral groups working in the area — NATO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (C.S.T.O., an alliance of seven former Soviet states currently chaired by Armenia), and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (O.S.C.E.) — to do real, immediate good while building trust and demonstrating that cooperation is possible in the increasingly interconnected and fragile Eurasian security space.

Both Russia and NATO maintain military presences in Kyrgyzstan — the only country in the world where this is true — and neither can afford to allow the violence there to destroy the vulnerable Kyrgyz state or plunge the region into a wider ethnic war.

Moreover, responding to this crisis and restoring stability is a responsibility NATO must share with the C.S.T.O. and the O.S.C.E. Where these institutions failed in 2008 to prevent or defuse the Russia-Georgia war, they must now succeed in preventing localized violence in southern Kyrgyzstan from deepening or spreading.

To do so will require the United States and Russia, as leading security partners in these groups, to put aside outdated stereotypes and focus on their fundamentally shared interests in Eurasian security.

Although the Kyrgyz provisional government has called for Russian troops to help maintain order, Moscow has referred the problem to the C.S.T.O., which resolved on Monday to provide “comprehensive assistance.”

In recent years, Russia has sought to expand C.S.T.O. capabilities through a partnership agreement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security forum which includes Russia, China and four of the Central Asian republics, and creation of a standing rapid reaction force, which remains a work in progress. Some in the West have regarded the C.S.T.O. as a tool of Russian expansionism, and are reluctant to see NATO or the O.S.C.E. engage with it directly.

However, the C.S.T.O. does serve Russia's legitimate interests in collective security and stability in the post-Soviet space, which is focused in Central Asia on securing energy supply lines and stemming the flow of narcotics, weapons and human trafficking across Russia's vast porous border. To work around the C.S.T.O. during the present crisis would suggest wrongly that the U.S. and NATO are more interested in rolling back Russia’s influence than in regional security.

But the C.S.T.O. is not the only multilateral security organization that has a mandate to prevent political and ethnic violence in Central Asia from spiraling into wider war.

The O.S.C.E., with 56 member states from Europe, Asia, and North America, binds NATO, Russia and the C.S.T.O. member states to a mission of conflict prevention, border protection and peace implementation.

While the organization has a mixed record since its origin in the 1970s, it has occasionally played a pivotal conflict-prevention and peace-implementation role, such as in the mid-1990s when it took over for the U.N. administration in Bosnia.

With the O.S.C.E.’s rotating chairmanship currently held by Kyrgyzstan’s large northern neighbor, Kazakhstan, there is a clear opportunity for the organization to step up to the challenge of defusing this regional threat.

Now is the time for the United States and NATO — whose presence in the region is part of an ongoing counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan — to look beyond old stereotypes and offer any and all assistance to the Kyrgyz government, in full cooperation and partnership with both the C.S.T.O. and the O.S.C.E.

The point of such assistance must be, first and foremost, to help quell the violence around Osh before more innocent people are killed, so that Kyrgyzstan’s fragile provisional government has the chance to regain its footing on the road to rebuilding self-government.

By holding out a hand not only to the Kyrgyz authorities, but to natural regional partners, including the C.S.T.O., and the O.S.C.E., the United States and NATO can demonstrate the sincerity of their interest in regional security.

The killing in Osh must be stopped, innocent civilians and their property must be protected from further attacks, and tensions must be calmed so that Kyrgyzstan’s provisional authorities can get back on track to self-government.

The tragic events of recent days in Kyrgyzstan are not merely a matter of that country’s political future; they pose a defining challenge for mutual security in the Eurasian region as a whole.

About the Authors

James F. Collins

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program; Diplomat in Residence

Ambassador Collins was the U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation from 1997 to 2001 and is an expert on the former Soviet Union, its successor states, and the Middle East.

Matthew Rojansky

Former Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Program

Rojansky, formerly executive director of the Partnership for a Secure America, is an expert on U.S. and Russian national security and nuclear-weapon policies.

Authors

James F. Collins
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program; Diplomat in Residence
James F. Collins
Matthew Rojansky
Former Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Program
Matthew Rojansky
SecurityForeign PolicyCentral AsiaKyrgyz RepublicAsia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • A boat, with smoke in the background
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Gulf Monarchies Are Caught Between Iran’s Desperation and the U.S.’s Recklessness

    Only collective security can protect fragile economic models.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber

  • Commentary
    Sada
    Duqm at the Crossroads: Oman’s Strategic Port and Its Role in Vision 2040

    In a volatile Middle East, the Omani port of Duqm offers stability, neutrality, and opportunity. Could this hidden port become the ultimate safe harbor for global trade?

      Giorgio Cafiero, Samuel Ramani

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe on Iran: Gone with the Wind

    Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.

      Pierre Vimont

  • An elderly woman walks past a poster at a health centre in Gunwi, some 200 kilometres south of Seoul
    Paper
    Governing Aging Economies: South Korea and the Politics of Care, Safety, and Work

    South Korea’s rapid demographic transition previews governance challenges many advanced and middle-income economies will face. This paper argues that aging is not only a care issue but a structural governance challenge—reshaping welfare, productivity, and fiscal sustainability, and reorganizing responsibilities across the state, private sector, and society.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares

  • Forbidden City on a cloudy day
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows Why

    Arguing that Chinese policy is hung on alliances—with imputations of obligation—misses the point. 

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.