WASHINGTON – The workday ended uncharacteristically early for the head of the American Center for International Labor Solidarity in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, yesterday.

At 2 p.m., in the middle of a seminar she was conducting for the heads of Kyrgyz trade unions, she was interrupted. The trade unions chiefs were summoned away for a crucial meeting during which they had to decide on the spot whether they would support the government that would replace the one that had just fallen.

The union leaders decided they would. And in a note sent to its Washington headquarters, the head of the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, who asked that her name not be published, concluded, “The revolution seems to be over, the opposition has taken control.”

That was a far more accurate assessment of the events on the ground than the State Department guidance, which assured reporters here that Foggy Bottom was “monitoring the situation” and “working closely” with Russia and the Kyrgyz Republic’s authoritarian neighbors. Secretary of State Rice denounced reports of violence in the south and the capital, Bishkek, and called for political dialogue.

While the message from Washington yesterday may have been one of caution with an emphasis on keeping order, behind the scenes, successive Democratic and Republican administrations have been making an investment in democracy throughout Central Asia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“When a society is moving towards a point of protest, it takes years of preparation to acquire the information, to develop networks of informal associations and civil society organizations. It is not just the result of one group to bring the people to the streets,” the director for Europe and Eurasia programs at the National Endowment for Democracy, Nadia Diuk, said yesterday in an interview.

Ms. Diuk oversaw slightly more than $600,000 of grants to projects in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2004, including the establishment of the American Center for International Labor Solidarity. Other projects include training for human rights programs, legal aid, and a project to publish a Kyrgyz guide to press freedoms.

The endowment’s sister organization, the International Republican Institute, spent another $400,000 in the last year and a half specifically for training political parties there. Newspapers and Web sites funded by the billionaire George Soros ran stories on the corruption of President Akayev that sparked much of the popular resentment against him. All told, the State Department spent $12.2 million for democracy-promotion projects in the country, $600,000 more than it did on security aid. Compared to the annual foreign aid America gives Israel or Egypt, for example, or that which the CIA provides to friendly countries for counterterrorism assistance, these projects hardly constitute a serious investment. But many watchers of Central Asia say the fact that America is funding these kinds of projects instills hope in the democratic opposition.

“The United States has consistently invested in democratization and human rights in Central Asia,” a Central Asia expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Andrew Apostolou, said in an interview. “These relatively small amounts of money have had a large effect because they are coming from the superpower, and because frankly, few other governments have pushed these issues.”

While similar projects have been pushed by the NED and State Department in Ukraine and Georgia, two other former Soviet Republics whose governments fell to people-power movements, the International Republican Institute’s Stephen Nix warns against drawing too close a parallel.

“This is different than what we have seen in other countries,” Mr. Nix, who oversees Eurasia programs for the institute, said. “Unlike Ukraine, where you had a huge coalition led by an individual, in Bishkek, you have a number of different political forces at work.”

Another difference between the Kyrgyz Republic and its neighbors is that civil society was allowed to flourish. “Akayev is probably one of the better dictators in the region,” Ms. Diuk said. “In the early 1990s, he was welcomed in Washington as the great hope of central Asia.” By way of comparison, she said Mr. Akayev only arrests political opponents, whereas credible reports exist in Uzbekistan of the opposition being boiled alive. Mr. Akayev, Ms. Diuk added, only tried to steal an election. The leader of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, recently declared himself president for life.