When the uprising in Kyrgyzstan broke out, Evgeny Morozov wrote a piece in Foreign Policy describing the revolt as an "analog" revolution. Sarah Kenzdior protests:
'He compares Kyrgyzstan unfavorably to Iran, noting that the Kyrgyz did not use the internet for strategic purposes, but merely to spread information. He notes that Kyrgyzstan did not rate as highly as a â??trending topicâ? in Twitter as did Iran in the summer of 2009 (while failing to mention that Iran has a population more than ten times larger than Kyrgyzstanâ??s). Such an evaluative perspective, in which countries are judged winners and losers by virtue of their search ranking, leads to headlines like Andrew Sullivanâ??s â??This Revolution Will Not Be Tweetedâ? (an article about Morozovâ??s article). This revolution was tweeted. But unfortunately, the significance of those tweets is decided not by the people who wrote and read them, but by observers in the West. As a result of this, Kyrgyzstan becomes relevant only in its relation to other nations and other revolutions. This is the virtual equivalent of the Great Game, with Central Asia but an afterthought to which people can apply their pet theories. [Emphasis mine.]What we make of Kyrgyzstanâ??s internet content may seem irrelevant in light of the enormity of what has happened. But it is indicative of a deeper problem â?? a refusal to consider Central Asia in terms of Central Asia, a refusal to see the actions and ideas of Central Asians as meaningful in their own right.
'
A fair point, but couldn't the same be said about Iran or, in fact, most countries that happen to come into the news? Much of the intense interest over Iran's Green Movement lay in the fact that they may have represented an end-run around our problems with the ruling regime. The actual feelings and interests of the "greens" were relevant to most American commentators only insofar as their struggle was bound up in larger geopolitical issues between the U.S. and Iran.
I think it's right to cry foul on a certain parochial attitude about these events (one I'm certainly guilty of) and it's obviously important to try to understand the Kyrgyz revolt on its own terms. But on the other hand, revolutions and mass protests movements do often intersect with American foreign policy and viewing them in that light isn't illegitimate.
(AP Photo)