Registan.net

In 2010, history will be made: for the first time ever, a former SSR will become the chairman of the organization most recently known for monitoring elections (or not, in the case of Russia) than for doing anything involving security. There is a variety of opinion about the value of such a decision, however.

Ms. Boyd breaks it down like this:

the OSCE member states can make this a win-win for everyone–sticking up for transparency and elections as always and making this a reputational issue for the new chair. At the same time, they could stop talking for a minute and listen to some of the things that Kazakhstan may have to say, and increase their range of knowledge.

Steve LeVine, on the other hand, sees this as a major fumble:

Whichever the case, the OSCE — financed in large part by the U.S. — has played a hard-fought, 16-year role as Europe’s official conscience.

Until now. The OSCE has bafflingly jeopardized its reputation as Europe’s premier human rights watchdog in order to satisfy an understandable if misguided campaign by Kazakhstan for the prized chair of the organization…

If the OSCE states wished an example from the former Soviet Union, why not choose Ukraine? For all its flaws, it has been holding truly competitive presidential elections for some 13 years. Or better yet, how about Georgia? There, Mikheil Saakashvili has actually stepped down from the presidency in order to run in a snap election next month.

There are a couple of reasons to disagree with LeVine’s analysis, starting with his own caveats: By nominating a country not renown for its human rights abuses—Kazakhstan’s, though still bad by Western standards, are by far the least of the region’s worries—the OSCE creates an incentive for the other FSSRs to clean up their acts as well. Similarly, Kazakhstan is the only FSSR that combines a relatively moderate human rights record with a stable government, which is something neither Ukraine nor Georgia can boast. Similarly, Saakashvili’s rather harsh crackdown and emergency rule, however noble his intention in resignation—speak poorly to his country’s trustworthiness as an OSCE chair.

But Ms. Boyd’s take as a win-win is not exactly right either. The OSCE is taking a huge chance on Nazarbayev—Rakhat-gate remains a serious concern, as does the country’s rather violent relationship with its dissidents. Similarly, given that legitimate countries with admirable records of reform, including Ukraine and Georgia (serious and legitimate cases can be made for their inclusion on the chairmanship), have not yet had the chair, the OSCE had a chance for an appropriate half-way solution. Why they chose one of the more controversial candidates remains a bit baffling.

In all, it seems a bit slapdash. With luck, the OSCE chair will provide some good domestic pressure to make Nazarbayev lossen his grip a bit, and perhaps allow a decent parliamentary election sometime. Holding one’s breath until it happens, however, would not be an appropriate reaction.

Stumble it!