http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041204169.html
This article brought to us by our friends at the Washington Post concerns the deliberations of the current president of Kyrgyzstan. Currently, the court system in Kyrgyzstan is debating whether or not the President should be exiled or arrested. The debate has impaired international attempts to resolve the issue and has brought the future of aid in Kyrgyzstan into question. Furthermore, the future of a US base in Kyrgyzstan is questionable, due to the instability of the transition government. Currently Kyrgyzstan officials are concerned that arresting and trying the president might result in bloodshed. Although the it would most likely come at great cost, the trial of the president would most likely create solidarity within the opposition party. Complicating the issues, both Russia and Kazakhstan support the proposed exile of the Kyrgyz President.
This situation could be interpreted through several different International Relations lenses. First is realism. The situation seems to be recognizing that certain things can and can't be done and that such decisions are made based on objective power assesments. The country of Kyrgyzstan recognizes that if it doesn't have the capacity to oust the President relatively peacefully then it probably won't do so. This acts as a blow to liberalism, because Kyrgyzstan might abandon liberal policies and ideals in favor of what it can and can't do as defined by the constraints of anarchy on the world stage.
That is not to say that normative considerations are not being made. Again, if we think of the situation of constitutive thinking, we can come to some interesting conclusions. Leaders (although they have always been exiled) have only in recent history been tried and convicted. Mostly if they are killed at all, it is the product of a power transition and not viewed as a symbolic act of justice. However, the fact that it is considered "ok" to try and convict a person at all speaks to the liberally normative evolution of the international community away from execution as a purely political means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I disagree with your argument that this situation may be analyzed through a realist ideology. According to IR theory states do not concern themselves with the individual, but concern themselves with other states and the balance of power between themselves. Therefore I believe that realist is unable to explain whether or not the president ought to be put on trial. Realism however, would be able to explain the relationship between Kyrgyzstan and the other states (Russian and Kazakhstan. This is because a change of power may have caused there to be a decrease in the countries power, that the other two may have benefitted from.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, feminist theory may be able to explain the reservation that the country has with incarcerating the former president. It is suspected that doing so would cause bloodshed, and because women and children are generally thought of the be the "most vulnerable" it may be referring to these particular groups.
I agree that realist theory is only applicable to the effect this decision and deliberations would have on Kyrgyzstan's relationships with other countries. However, I'm not sure how feminist theory is relevant. It is more likely that they feel exiling or killing the former president would divide the people and weaken their internal unity, making their state more unstable. This would weaken their position on the international stage, especially if the new government is not able to control the unrest quickly after the decision is made. Therefore, I don't think that feminism is playing a role in the situation.
ReplyDelete