Biden, Kazakhstan, and the OSCE

US Senator Joseph Biden is threatening not to support Kazakhstan’s OSCE chairmanship bid “unless visible progress is attained quickly.” Biden is the chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee. From a recent letter to President Nazarbaev:

I am disappointed, however, that Kazakhstan is not moving more quickly towards becoming a transparent democracy that enjoys full freedom of the press, recognized political parties and the other vital institutions that 15 million Kazakh citizens deserve.

Moreover, I am troubled by recent reports indicating that officials within your government have been interfering with the efforts of political parties to organize, such as in the case of the Atameken party.

Given the tensions and turmoil in the broader Middle East, an open and progressive minded Kazakhstan has the potential to be a bridge between east and west and to play an influential role in diminishing current and potential hostilities. But it can only do so if those who value freedom, democracy and tolerance perceive Kazakhstan as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that Kazakhstan, despite seeming to be generally on the right track, is far from being an open, democratic state. But what is with that last paragraph?

It is not clear what exactly Biden means by “the broader Middle East.” Perhaps he means Central Asia, the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. But then he goes on to talk about bridging between east and west, so maybe he’s talking about something else. Regardless, how is Kazakhstan “part of the problem?” Most of “those who value freedom, democracy, and tolerance” seem to get on with Kazakhstan just fine and come off as generally pleased with how the government is managing the country. He makes the same point a bit more succinctly at the end of his letter, saying that the ability of the US to work with Kazakhstan’s government on Central Asian issues is contingent on it reforming.

In his next paragraph, he says that he will not be able to support Kazakhstan’s chairmanship without quick improvements, arguing that the position should only be held by governments that fully support the organization’s goals and principles. As far as I am concerned, that is a much more valid and fair point than the borderline insult about Kazakhstan being “part of the problem” in the “tensions and turmoil” in wherever the hell the broader Middle East is exactly.

I am personally on the fence about whether or not Kazakhstan should be allowed to chair the OSCE in 2009. We know that it is a pretty big carrot for Nazarbaev and his government, but I am unconvinced that pressure to implement quick reforms will yield anything meaningful or lasting. Of late, Uzbekistan’s government has been the leading practitioner of the hollow gesture in Central Asia, and though I think Kazakhstan generally acts in better faith, I have little confidence that something like the registration of Atameken in response to foreign pressure would translate into a genuinely more open political system in Kazakhstan.

Anyhow, we so far have two US politicians running for president who have made statements on Central Asia policy. (The other was Tom Tancredo.) Neither inspire much confidence that the next US administration will have too good of a Central Asia policy.