KZBlog

Christopher Pala who writes for The New York Times and The Washington Post, has an article summarizing the situation around the OSCE leadership bid. It’s a good summary in a few words but the last paragraphs highlight an issue that I haven’t seen too much discussion of: Kazakhstan’s reaction if it is turned down.

European countries were at first skeptical of Kazakhstan’s bid, but many decided to support it on the grounds that the regime’s pro-democratic forces would be empowered by the chairmanship’s spotlight, while hard-liners would increase their influence if it were denied.
“There will be no more incentive for progress if Kazakhstan doesn’t get it,” said Yevgeny Zhovtis, the country’s leading human rights campaigner.
“If they do, I don’t say they will necessarily behave better, but the context will be better. If not, the anti-American forces will become stronger and more public, Kazakhstan will move closer to Russia, and repression will be worse.”
Another Western diplomat noted that the issue comes after Russia and its former colonies have been demanding efforts to make the OSCE human rights and election monitoring less intrusive — changes the West refuses to consider.
“If Kazakhstan is turned down, there’s a good chance the hard-line countries could make it harder for OSCE missions to operate in their countries, cooperate less with the election monitoring missions and refuse to pass the budget,” the Western diplomat said.

I’m not sure Kazakhstan should be given the chairmanship based purely on the argument that if they don’t, they’ll start to get real mean. It’s a bit akin to giving in to a child who threatends to have a temper tantrum (the metaphor may be unfair). But if there was reason to believe the chairmanship would be a kind of incentive to further freedoms, that would be reasonable. I’m not convinced it would for the same reasons that serious reforms have not been implemented (and I think Mr. Pala is unfair to say that “not even cosmetic reforms” have begun): Kazakhstan is much more interested in the prestige of the office than the meaning of the office. Kazakhstan is looking for a resume booster, something KazMunaiGas can put on its marketing brochures.

I think it is likely that a rejection will have a backlash along the lines of “Well, they’re too strict anyway, who needs all their rules? What does it take to make these intrusive Western countries happy?”. However, I do see a general trend toward more freedom and democracy (though I question what will happen in 2012 when a new President is elected), and while there are many different motives for that, from honest belief in democracy to a desire for prestige or the elusive Euro-standard, I suspect the tide is unstoppable especially as it is being accompanied by business alliances which will demand more openess. My two cents. What do you think?