Kazakh Crimes or Borat's Chimes?

As Kazakhstan's president Nursultan Nazarbayev visited Washington last week, his meetings with top US officials - including president Bush - was overshadowed by the launch of British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen's upcoming movie: "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan."

The British comedian - depicting the fictional Kazakh journalist Borat - has long been a nail in the eye for Kazakhstan's efforts to create a positive international image for the country. Cohen's character instead produces an image of a backward country on the verge of civilisation run by a comic dictator. Over the past years, Kazakh authorities have gone to great lengths to counter the "Borat image" of the country, and its foreign minister has even threatened to sue Cohen in Britain for smearing Kazakhstan. Also, Borat's official website in Kazakhstan has been closed down by authorities, provoking widespread protests internationally, from among others Reporters Without Borders. The issue has grown to such proportions that Kazakhstan chose to publish a four page ad in both The New York Times and Washington Post for Nazarbayev's visit in the US. The only problem was that the ads only served to emphasise the comic image of Kazakhstan by attributing the country's successes to Nazarbayev himself.

Still, the question is if Borat's image of Kazakhstan is the one that an initiated Western audience would like to get across to the general public. It would seem that greater issues are at stake such as human rights and democracy. Several critical voices were raised before Nazarbayev's visit to the US, but they were later largely overshadowed by on the one hand the message the Bush administration wanted to send and on the other by Sascha "Borat" Cohen's media coup. Critical issues were thus largely left out.

One leading analyst, S. Frederick Starr of Johns Hopkins, though succeded in getting access to the media by a column in the Washington Post. The only problem was that Starr joined the crowd of those paying tribute to Kazakhstan's progress in recent years, thus furhter defusing a potentially embarassing situation for the White House wanting to avoid questions on the human rights and democracy situation. It is true that Starr was right in pointing to improvements on many levels, in contrast to a generally dark depiction in the West of post-soviet republics. However, this does not warrant leaving the difficult issues out. Also, Starr's article in the post stands in contrast to the negative story the Post published but little over a month ago.

Kazakhstan is, essentially, a country run as a corrupt company by one family, namely that of president Nazarbayev himself. In June, Nazarbayev's son-in-law became chief of the country's gas and oil company, whereas the presidential daughter is a key stake-holder in one of Kazakstan's largest banks. Another daughter is party leader and MP, with a husband serving as deputy foreign minister. It is in this autocratic climate that little room is left for democracy and human rights, and magnanimous ideas - such as turning the flow of Siberian rivers - are increasingly coming into vogue. This is perhaps no wonder as Nursultan Nazarbayev received 91% of votes in the rigged December 2005 presidential elections.

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly criticised Kazakhstan for severe human rights violations, lack of democracy and persecution of political opposition groups and independent media. Furthermore, authorities keep a close check on all NGOs and registration is mandatory. The freedom of organisation is thus legally circumscribed. Moreover, Kazakshtan was rated one of the most corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International in its 2004 report. It is with such a country that the US has so cordial relations.

Then, what is the White House position on these issues? Meeting Nazarbayev last Friday, president Bush praised Kazakhstan for its "commitment to institutions that will enable liberty to flourish." Also, during his visit to Astana in May, vice-president Dick Cheney declared the country a "key strategic partner of the United States” in its war on terror. Besides the war on terror, oil is the main reason for the Bush administration's cordial relations with Kazakhstan. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC) is a key strategic asset for the West in the future access to oil from Central Asia and the Caucasus, and the BTC is dependent on the inflow of Kazakh oil for long-term profitability.

Therefore, a new Great Game between Russia and the West over the energy resources of Central Asia is played by mighty international commercial interests, in which US companies have a high stake. Earlier this year, Russia won a small victory in this new Great Game over Central Asian resources by being promised increased oil exports by Nazarbayev. This poses a threat to the BTC pipeline, as the very same oil that was intended to flow westwards now instead may go to Russia. With increasingly scarce international oil reserves in the future, now is the time of determination of who will control what resources are left. Here, Kazakhstan plays a key role in Central Asia in view of political stability combined with relative accessability to resources. Consequently, it is very important for the Bush administration to get relations between the US and Kazakhstan back on track.

Then, does Kazakhstan matter? Is it not yet another far away country of which we know nothing? For now, the paradox remains that Kazakhstan matters greatly to the US provided that it stays such a far away country, which the US public cares little about in terms of the basic values forming the basis of American society. In the long run though, the question is if it is in the best interest of the US to end up on the side of the rats of international politics in contrast to supporting the people in its strive for democracy and human rights? As the story goes, "Qui vivra verra" - Who lives shall see. In the meantime, the comedian Sascha "Borat" Cohen may paradoxically be doing Nazarbayev a favour by distracting the American public from the real issues at stake. Following Borat's chimes hides Kazakh crimes.

Putin on surprise visit to Grozny

President Putin yesterday paid a surprise visit to Chechen capital Grozny, BBC reports. The purpose was to attend the opening of the newly elected Chechen parliament. Putin spent a full forty minutes in Grozny, before helicoptering out of the Chechen capital.

Of course, this is yet another propaganda-ploy by the presidential administration, trying to signal a normalisation of conditions in Chechnya. That the war-ridden republic is far from any situation that could be characterised as normal, is a completely different story compared to what the Russian government argues. Instead, since the conflict began back in 1994, it has gained dynamics of its own, propelling it deeper and deeper into a conundrum of hopelessness and desperation for Chechens and Russians alike.

By the actions of Russian army and interior troops as well as Chechen groups, the war has reached a permanent state of criminalisation, which will perpetuate it as long as no real steps are taken for creating a dialogue for peace and stabilisation. That responsibility has increasingly been transferred to the Chechens themselves, has internalised the conflict to a certain degree. Moscow now, instead of active involvement, tries to fight a war by proxy. As e.g. the Beslan tragedy shows, the policy of internalisation appears to be failing, as the Chechen conflict threatens to engulf the entire northern Caucasus into a state of permanent insecurity.

Since Russia resumed the war in 1999, the Putin administration has consistently avoided any attempts at dialogue, and potential counterparts to peace talks have been eliminated by Russian special agencies. Russian vows to combat criminality - regardless of who the perpetrators are - have so far had little or symbolic results. Still, as RFE/RL reported a few weeks ago, some "feelers" for dialogue have recently been made, e.g. suggestions that Chechen pro-Russian president Alkhanov might be willing to meet representatives of the Chechen diaspora abroad. Such a dialogue would, however, exempt any exile groups even remotely involved in the conflict, why it must must be considered merely "gesture without motion." Also, what weight Alkhanov's words carry is unclear, as he merely seems a puppet on a chain for Chechnya's real leader - 29 year old Premier, Ramzan Kadyrov.

As for the 27 November parliamentary elections in Chechnya, there is little doubt that the outcome was pre-arranged to ensure a victory for the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, supporting president Alkhanov. That the Communists came in second, was also no great surprise, as it follows the general setup for the 2007 Russian parliamentary elections. Besides United Russia and the Communists, the liberal Union of Rightist Forces (SPS) gained four seats in the parliament. What relation results have to genuine popular sentiments is unknown, and would, indeed, be of much greater interest than the Kremlin-ministered results. That both the OSCE and the Council of Europe, even beforehand, declared that the elections would be neither free nor fair, hardly needs mentioning.

Finally, as for Putin's surprise visit to Grozny, one might ask what he learnt by it. Indeed, one of the main problems of the Chechen conflict, seems to be that the Russian leadership has no real insight in it. It is obvious that Putin repeatedly has been deceived or misinformed on the situation, creating a basis for misjudgement and errors. However, this seems of little interest for the Kremlin. The policy towards Chechnya is set and the Russian president has no intention to alter it. Responsibility for the continuation of the conflict falls heavily on Putin.

The gravity of misperceptions may be illustrated by a recent visit of a government minister to Grozny. Standing on a main street in the city, he asks why it is a dirt road and why it hasn't been asphalted. Having for years channeled funds for the reconstruction of Chechnya, the minister could simply not grasp that so little had been done, and that money apparently had ended up in someone else's pockets instead. Alluding to a well-known song, the minister might as well have asked: "Where has all the money gone - long time passing?" Of course, the answer is obvious: "When will they ever learn?"