Of course they don't flare up out of nowhere, there is always a cause if not more than one. Case in point, the pogrom of Armenians in baku and surrounding region were in large part due to the Armenians of Karabakh (Artsakh) wanting to reunite with Armenia. Not only because Karabakh is Armenian land but also since stalin had placed Karabakh within azerbaijan in the 20s against the will of the majority in the enclave.

The case in Central Asia, is that Uzbeks have been traditionaly distrusted by the other ethnic groups in the region and partly because they are the most populous. Kyrgz are the closest with the Kazakhs both politically and genetically.

Bakinets, you may have all the upper-hand insight in the Nagorno-Karabakh situation, but your take on the Central Asian situation is more than that of an amateur.

Nobody here trusts Uzbeks any less than any other nationality in the region. Perhaps, all the ethnic groups somewhat distrust each other--and yes, there have been some historical minor disagreements between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (and their respective people) regarding the border lines, but Uzbeks and Kyrgyz have coexisted (if not in perfect friendship, then at least in peace and solidarity) for tens of years on the territories of all Central Asian states, so no--this is NOT a sheer, natural and spontaneous interethnic clash.

It is precisely what most people now in Kyrgyzstan understand it is--it's brutal provocation of both sides to incite ethnic genocide and hatred to achieve a third party's political ambitions (namely, Bakiyev's bloodthirsty revenge for being overthrown in April). There's nothing more to it. People of all ethnicities (Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Russians, Tatars, etc.), who have lived together for years in the South, are now barricading their villages/houses together, sharing food and shelter, the Kyrgyz and Russian are hiding Uzbeks from the bandits, etc. The local populations of different ethnicities are NOT fighting against and with one another. It's the hired mercinary bandits and killers from who knows where; Locals say they don't know any of these people who come in and shoot and burn everyone and everything--without regard to who it is--steel and burn the belongings and go on crazed/drugged/drunk rampages, raping and killing. By now they've instigated enough of Kyrgyz and Uzbeks youth against each other and are now reaping the desired results.

It's wrong and dangerous to make such broad and uneducated statements because most unenlightened people will believe you when you say that this is a long-standing ethnic war. It's anything BUT that. Trust me.

My preceding response was addressed not to you, but to AR (above).

"The previous riots resulted in the ascendancy of today's interim government have started a mere week after the U.S. bases were banned from the country and its servicemen were made to leave within a 10-days term."

This is absolutely not true. No decisions regarding the US base (there is only one) were made in the days leading up to the coup at the beginning of April. And, certainly, no news organization that's been reporting on the events in Kyrgyzstan has reported that (in English or Russian.)

Ethnic tension in Kyrgyzstan is nothing new. Previous ethnic conflict in Osh, while Kyrgyzstan was a part of the Soviet Union, was only brought under control after Soviet troops arrived on scene. Just recently, there was trouble in Jalalabad at the end of May. Before that, there were attacks against other ethnic minorities in the north of the country in April. In recent years, there has been ethnic violence against Kurds and Dungans in the north of the country. I could list numerous other examples. This didn't come out of nowhere.

February 15, 2006
Economic disparities driving inter-ethnic conflict
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=33728

April 26, 2009
http://www.rferl.org/content/Eighty_Detained_Following_Interethnic_Tensions_In_Kyrgyzstan/1616297.html

The more I think about what you've written about the events in Kyrgyzstan since Bakiev was forced out, the more I think that you are being played. I recently read a book that a foreign service officer wrote about the events in Taiwan after the end of WW2. In it, he describes an incident that the Nationalist government used to give the impression that they had "face" (power, respect). They knew an American diplomat was due to rotate out, so the Nationalists put out the story that they were displeased with this diplomat, had complained to Washington, Washington agreed, and the diplomat was being recalled. The embassy denied it, but the guy left (as planned), so the denial seemed fake. When I read that, I immediately thought of what you'd written.

I don't know the American ambassador, so I don't know if she's as incompetent as you made out, but she has been there a while. Also, you don't have enough to get that story published in a forum where an editor would demand confirmation, but since you wrote it, others can (and have) repeated it ("It's been reported that ...").

So much of what you've written recently about Kyrgyzstan seems to be the equivalent of "So, Mr. Senator, how long have you been cheating on your wife?" You don't have proof, but now you can write the headline, "Senator Denies Affair".

You were so gung-ho about how the US should have been supporting the opposition (now the provisional government), but look at them now. Don't you think you should start questioning the veracity of your source(s)?