KAZAKHSTAN AND THE OSCE CHAIR

“I see double standards in the OSCE” – Alexander Kogan,
Chief Editor, Daily “Mnenia” (Opinions) Web Magazine, Israel

 Kazakhstan views the chairmanship of the 56-member Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the world’s largest regional security grouping, as a big step as it strives for further integration into the international community.

 This year, the OSCE will revisit the issue of Kazakhstan taking the chair in 2009. This follows a meeting in 2006 that did not give unanimous approval despite broad support for Kazakhstan.

 Three members of the OSCE believed the time was not right for such a move. They were led by the United States and included the United Kingdom.

 Kazakhstan says the chairmanship could have a major impact on its modernisation and on the Central Asian region as a whole, encouraging moves towards further liberalisation and openness of political and economic systems.

 Rachid Nougmanov, a Kazakh who is General Director of the UK-based Media Freedom Network, said most members of civil society in Kazakhstan were behind the chairmanship bid but he spoke of problems, including human rights.

 “You can’t impose democracy overnight. But the OSCE is a great school of democracy,” he said. “We see the OSCE as one of the most powerful and strongest organisations to deal with human rights and so on. “

 “It is a great responsibility for Kazakhstan, which requires some reforms. But nobody seems to know what kind of reforms,” he said.

 It is clear that Kazakhstan’s bid still causes the United States some problems. David Merkel, a U.S. Expert on Central Asia and Caucasus and a former member of his country’s National Security Council, said the United States wanted Kazakhstan to be a “successful” OSCE chairman.

 “Perhaps more time should be given before taking such an office. What Kazakhstan has heard is conditionality,” he said. “If Kazakhstan reaches the goal of being chair, it is better it does it not despite the United States, but rather with the United States.”

 A similar view was put by Martha Brill Olcott, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She indicated that more political reforms were needed, that recent elections were not “fully free and fair” and that registration of political parties was slow.

 “Allowing Kazakhstan to take the chair at this point would change the nature of the OSCE. Some people felt it would be a big mistake and that Kazakhstan would not be a strong defender of democracy,” she said. 

 Referring to elections early this year, which returned RK President Nursultan Nazarbayev with more than 90 percent of the vote, Dr Olcott said the OSCE did not “find great fault” with the process.

 She said most criticism was reserved for the fact that the playing field was not always level and a feeling that opposition candidates were hampered.

 Oraz Zhandosov, a former Deputy Prime Minister of Kazakhstan and now a political opposition leader, said he saw the OSCE as an outdated organisation reflecting realities of the world in the 1990s. “But,” he said, “It is probably something that Kazakhstan needs now.”

 “When it comes to the position of the political opposition, we stand united and understand that democratisation is a process, one that will take a lot of time.”

 “Today’s authorities have to show real steps towards democratisation. We see today a flow of words and the intensity increases. However, practical steps are absent, except very small ones,” Zhandosov said.

 Alexey Borodavkin, Russia’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the OSCE, strongly supported Kazakhstan’s bid for the chair but spoke of a “deep crisis” brewing in the OSCE.

 Appearing to speak on behalf of all CIS member countries, he said: “There are those of us who feel as if we are poor students who don’t listen to the teachers. That is more and more acute today… Russia continues to demand reforms in the OSCE so that it becomes an international organisation useful to all of its members.”

 “The United States and the European Union say ‘we have done enough reform and there is no need to do more’. There is talk of a deep crisis,” Borodavkin said.

 He also took a swipe at the United States. “Look at the U.S. in terms of their election procedures. There is no federal election law and many states prohibit international observers from monitoring electoral processes.”

 A strong defence for Kazakhstan – a country with a Moslem majority – came from an Israeli, Alexander Kogan, Chief Editor of the Daily “Mnenia” (Opinions) Web Magazine. “I see double standards in the OSCE,” he said.

 “In 2001 Romania headed the OSCE and in 2004 it was Bulgaria. The leadership of both of these states served in the special services of pro-Soviet agents. But these countries were allowed to chair the organization.”

 “Kazakhstan is the only stable country in the region… Stable states lead to peace and stability, unstable ones lead to war.”

 “I think there are external political reasons that may go against Kazakhstan if it does not become OSCE chairman,” Kogan said. He did not elaborate.

 What are the chances of Kazakhstan chairing the OSCE?

 The former National Security Council member, Merkel, said: “I think the chances are better than not. It has been a very controversial issue. Nobody has wanted to open that box again but the decision of ‘no decision’ has forced us to open the box again.”