In the aftermath of the June 2010 violence in southern Kyrgyzstan, much scholarly attention has focused on its causes. However, observers have taken little notice of the fact that while such urban areas as Osh, Jalal-Abad, and Bazar-Korgon were caught up in violence, some towns in southern Kyrgyzstan that were close to the conflict sites and had considerable conflict potential had managed to avoid the violence. Thus, while the question, “What were the causes of the June 2010 violence?” is important, we have few answers to the question, “Why did the conflict break out in some places but not others with similar conflict potential?” Located in the theoretical literature on “the local turn” within peacekeeping studies, this article is based on extensive empirical fieldwork to explore the local and micro-level dimensions of peacekeeping. It seeks to understand why and how local leaders and residents in some places in southern Kyrgyzstan managed to prevent the deadly clashes associated with Osh, Jalal-Abad, and Bazar-Korgon. The main focus of the project is on Aravan, a town with a mixed ethnic population where residents managed to avert interethnic clashes during the June 2010 unrest. The answers to the question of why violence did not occur can yield important lessons for conflict management not only for southern Kyrgyzstan, but also for the entire Central Asian region.
Uzbekistan played an important role during the June 2010 interethnic violence in South Kyrgyzstan by tightly controlling borders, allowing thousands of Kyrgyzstani refugees to cross into Uzbek territory, assisting in the shipment of international humanitarian assistance to Kyrgyzstan, and collaborating with the osce in the investigation of the causes of the violence. What explains Uzbekistan’s approach to the unrest in South Kyrgyzstan? Some scholars suggest that Uzbekistan’s response was shaped largely by external actors such as Russia. Others posit that domestic pressures account for the response. This article advances an alternative explanation: Tashkent’s response was largely a result of a consensus achieved at two levels: international and domestic. In explaining the impact of domestic level, the article emphasizes the role of bureaucratic politics—competition among various government agencies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.