This interesting IWPR article talks about new allegations from the Uzbek government about Kyrgyzstan's involvement in what happened in Andijan in May. It is generally agreed by everyone except the Uzbek government that a large number of people were killed and that this wasn't an Islamic uprising. Uzbekistan says less than 200 were killed and that most were armed rebels rather than bystanders and unarmed protestors.
Uzbekistan is saying now that the rebels were trained in Kyrgyzstan and supplied with weapons there. As usual, Uzbekistan thinks its problems stem from other more liberal countries in the area rather than its own policies. The trouble is that Uzbekistan appears to be willing, and has in the past, tried to take matters into its own hands. In 2000, it bombed a village in Kyrgyzstan that Uzbekistan claimed had Islamic militants.
It concerns me that if Uzbekistan does get huffy about things and tries to exert more control over Kyrgyzstan that the West will largely ignore the situation. Sure, they'll say something, but not necessarily do anything about it. But the West has an interest in keeping Kyrgyzstan independent and in promoting liberal policies here. How about helping KG build some hydroelectric plants?
It is interesting to note that the country with the most repressive policies (I'm not counting Turkmenistan here- who knows what's up with them) of the four in the area has the most trouble with Islamic militants. Uzbekistan clearly hasn't hit on an effective way to handle things. Maybe repression doesn't work quite so well? Hmm?