Four boarding houses on the north coast of Issyk-Kul can cost the viability of the new Kyrgyz-Kazakh political union. Prime Minister Almazbek Atambayev made the decision to transfer for 49 years the four resorts on the northern shore of Issyk-Kul, which are de facto owned by citizens of Kazakhstan. The President of Kazakhstan Nazarbayev, during a speech before the elected representatives of the Kyrgyz parliament in Bishkek, linked the settlement of this issue with the further perspective of economic relations between the two countries. But, against the transfer of boarding houses, some deputies of the country's parliament are speaking. According to the information agency "24", he, the head of government, recalled the words of President Nazarbayev: "Do four lousy boarding houses stand for Kyrgyz-Kazakh relations? After all, we are neighbors, and we have always had friendly relations. Why can't you just pass them on to us? ” Such undiplomatic candor of the Kazakhs only strengthened the “patriotic” sentiments in the Kyrgyz parliament and could seriously affect Kyrgyz-Kazakh relations. By the way, one of the residences of the President of Kazakhstan is also located on the northern shore of Issyk-Kul.
It is clear that the Kazakhs want to get these resorts as a guarantee of future cooperation. Apparently these boarding houses are difficult or their owners are not the last people in Kazakhstan, if the head of the neighboring state is worried about them. The Kyrgyz side promised to promise, but does not know how to get out of the situation with dignity. Because President Kurmanbek Bakiyev received unofficial support from Kazakh President Nazarbayev during the official visit of the latter to Bishkek and a bunch of financial promises. It is possible that Astana also promised to contribute to the “decent” holding of the SCO summit in Bishkek. What are four boarding houses in Issyk-Kul, if we are talking about Big Politics. For the ruling authorities, this is the “Minute of Glory” at the foreign policy level. This may explain the foreign policy activity of the government in recent weeks and its desire to resolve all issues in one fell swoop and in favor of the neighbors.
Further we suffered. We did not limit ourselves to Kazakhstan only. A delegation of parliamentarians from Pakistan paid an official visit to Kyrgyzstan. In the course of bilateral parliamentary negotiations, the Kyrgyz side proposed to Pakistan for investment their priority sectors of the economy - energy and transport with communications. In Kyrgyzstan, they have long dreamed of becoming monopolists in the field of energy in the Central Asian region. The idea of selling electricity to the countries of South Asia is not new. In Bishkek, various conferences were held more than once with the financial support of the United States and the United Nations, at which ways and means of transporting Kyrgyz electricity to other countries in the region were discussed. But, further declarative statements the case did not go. Because the whole problem is that we can’t decide whom and how much we want to sell. And most importantly, with whom to do all this? Recall that we already offered the Russians and Kazakhs the project of the Kambartinsky HPPs, each time saying that this is a “unique joint energy project”. Not once talked about the transportation of electricity to Afghanistan and other countries in South Asia. But, the other day the Afghan government closed its diplomatic mission in Kyrgyzstan in order to save! How do you think Afghanistan would close its embassy in Bishkek if it had priority and mutually beneficial economic and political relations with Kyrgyzstan?
The only and real positive moment of the visit of the parliamentary delegation of Pakistan was the opening of the Embassy of Kyrgyzstan in Islamabad. Only by meager official reports is it not clear what was opened, the embassy building or the country's diplomatic representation itself? Because in the same reports it says that credentials to the President of Pakistan from the ambassador of Kyrgyzstan in this country, Nurlan Aitmurzayev, were presented in November 2006.
But, most importantly, we once again welcomed the interest of Pakistan in the SCO. Before that, we welcomed the interest of Iran, and what we can do is welcome. Decisions are all the same, not we will take. Russian President Vladimir Putin, for example, during the last blitzkrieg in Astana and Ashgabat, in passing noted that “Kyrgyzstan is not yet ready for a full-fledged partnership,” practically signing, figuratively speaking, a sentence about the country's professional unsuitability. What is behind this? Maybe the Kremlin is taking revenge on us for our changeable foreign policy? At the last SCO summit in Astana, we were generally faced with a difficult choice when it came to American military bases in the region. Faced with the threat of a possible military conflict between Iran and the United States, the issue of the status of the American military base Manas may emerge again. Moreover, if Iran nevertheless becomes a full-fledged member of the SCO, the very fact of the presence of American military force can put us in a delicate situation.
We do not despair. Because as long as we do not clog our heads with all sorts of political wisdom. We are thinking only about the SCO summit (about junipers who planted along the highway from the airport to the capital of the country, about numerous work days, about where to put so many guests). More about the idea of official Astana, about the Central Asian Union, which we really liked. Now we push it to neighboring countries. Started with Tajikistan. As with a neighbor with whom the least irritable relationship. In Dushanbe, Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Ednan Karabaev proposed that the Tajik side create an intergovernmental council in absolute likeness to the Kyrgyz-Kazakh intergovernmental council. In response, the official Dushanbe suggested that we support the idea of creating a Central Asian water and energy consortium. There was no need to persuade us for a long time. Because with this energy and water, we rush like a written bag, not knowing who to offer it to, as if only we have them. Our foreign policy interests and priorities are built from these relations. Buy, it means friends. It’s not for nothing that the Kyrgyz foreign minister said that "We are water-forming (new word in Central Asian diplomacy - note by the author) of the state, and we see water as a factor of integration, and not as an apple of discord."
There is another interesting result of bilateral negotiations. Dushanbe and Bishkek agreed to create a certain Central Asian "Schengen zone." Given the complexity of border crossing in the region - the abolition of visas is a good solution, only there is one “but”. Why do Tajiks and Kyrgyz need a visa-free regime if they travel to each other without a visa?
The current foreign policy activity of official Bishkek is more like a desperate attempt to save the prestige of the ruling power in the eyes of the SCO partners. For example, the desire to give minor diplomatic activity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan to real diplomatic activity, let's say about the creation of a certain energy-water academy ... Who needs it, this academy? Maybe we should start with the elementary? Settle once and for all border issues with neighbors and end the delimitation and demarcation of state borders. The words that "we have described 482 km. Borders "do not say anything. Because almost every year, the authorities declare some kilometers, but in practice everything is much worse. All these examples, as a rule, indicate that a country's foreign policy does not always take into account the interests of the state, and is sometimes momentary in nature.