You’re going to assume you’re going to assume that there is a lot of Turkish there’s a lot of Russian population in DC that there’s a lot Italian, there’s a lot of Europeans because that’s who I am interacting with. So really we interact with, on a daily basis and with the actual percentage breakdowns are often very separate from each other. So I think that’s important just to put that as a framework as we dig down kind of to the second level. I want to go into a little more detail briefly on the 2005 events of what are some key things that drove those what I think was driving it and what was clearly not driving it because that’s a very important to set the stage in our understanding of what’s happening in 2010. So first of all in 2005 as I mentioned there was not significant loss of life. There were a few people that were injured and one or two people died from that but there was not this large scale violence that occurred across the board. Second, it’s was primarily a response to government oppression. The government had de-listed many politicians. So much of what occurred in 2005 was a response to the government less than being initiated by broad scale public opinion. So 2005 was much more about what I would define as reactive dynamics.

The other key player in 2005 that I would refer was a group and I would refer to it as political entrepreneurs. And the political entrepreneurs some of them are in political positions, some of them are not. They are people that are intrinsically important to their local community and they are the ones the access to the government or provide to the other countries or provide access to illegal financing, wide range of issues. They are the ones that actually assist the people in the local community and they are the ones that people go to when there is a problem. They are the ones that actually have the authority. Some of them its official titles some of them its not. So the term I use for term is political entrepreneurs because they are trying to create a space for themselves. Those were the ones that were really leading the events in 2005, and they led them disparately from different regions and it really, the fault of [Akayah]. If you can put it quite simply was he angered everybody at the same time. He got everybody upset at the same time and they were all able to kind of coalesce really magically on one day. That was probably the only time that opposition was in unity was probably 24 hours and that might even be overstating it to claim that they were together for 24 hours. But the opposition was never a unified opposition camp. They came together over a few issues at the last minute and then as soon as the overthrow occurred. They immediately splintered and went into different factions. Separate this idea of some unified opposition group that’s clearly al together against the government that’s not the political dynamic there at all. What were the events in 2005 not about and I think understanding this is very important. I’ll just go through them quickly. Maybe some other people can debate this we can discuss this but I’ll make them as statements. Which is one they were not about. The 2005 protests were not about democracy, they were not about the influence of local NGOs or international NGOs or international governments and they were not really about broad spread public opinion. It was local issues with local dynamics that came together in anger really against the government.

So now if we move forward to 2010. What’s similar what’s dissimilar and what we can learn from those events to try and understand what happened in 2010. I gave you a presentation on March 24th which was exactly the fifth year anniversary this year of red Georgetown. So I was giving a presentation I was there to talk about the fifth year anniversary of the 2005 events and things protests were staring across the country in this summer, that spring and I was asked the question at the end of the form. Well do you think this is going to lead to a presidential overthrow and a little bit? And I said no I don’t and these are the reasons. Two weeks later, Frank calls me up and says heard what said at that form so we always have top be quite careful in the political science world of what we suggest is going to happen but with that caviar, it was looking very different in what was happened in 2010 and I didn’t see the same dynamics, and in my defense I will say that it didn’t happen for the same reasons. It was a different series of events that came together.

Because what was interesting about 2010 what was happening in the January to April was it was regional it was primarily these regional groups that were coming together but you didn’t have the same level of political entrepreneurs taking the leadership that you did. In 2005 you had these individual political leaders that really came to the fore front. 2010 really was very small but it wasn’t coalescing together and I think it’s very important that the protestors on the street in 2010 in April were not representors of political parties. In 2005 you had a whole mix of people that were there in the streets literally and you had people that were there peacefully that were children’s groups protesting that were holding banners and you had this whole kind of rainbow coalition to steal Jesse Jackson’s term. A group of people in 2005 that came together for a day and that was not what occurred in 2010 at all. It was a very specific group of people that were out in the street. They were not affiliated with certain politicians. There’s the reality is and this is coming from direct conversation with some of the politicians that are now in government. They had no idea these people were in the streets. It wasn’t like they had called out their supporter. There was not a connection between them so it was a different. It was already a different fundamental dynamic that was occurring in 2010. The other key difference was the government decided to use force. We won’t resolve the; who fired first question. That’s not something that I’m capable of doing and I’ll leave that to perhaps human rights watch or the others to try and solve that question, somebody was firing on someone both sides in the end were firing on each other its quite clear from footages, you look at it . Clearly protestors in the crowd had automatic weapons. Did they take them just from the police did they bring them there; I’m not going to solve that question. But there was clearly, people were fighting with guns against each other and that did not happen in 2005 at all. You had troops, you had anti personnel carriers. It was a very different dynamic. It was a military dynamic that was occurring in that protest. Which really historically hadn’t happened in the other regions it hadn’t happened in the Kyrgyzstan. So this was a fundamental shift of having people in a crowd using automatic weapons, the only possible corollary was what happened in Abidjan in 2005.