This is the second part of the unofficial transcript of last Friday’s CIC conference. You can read the first part here. Please do not reprint this summary without permission.

I forgot to include links to the most central documents to this discussion in the last post: Here is the OSCE/ODIHR final report on the 4th December 2005 presidential elections and here is the CIC version.

The start of the afternoon session saw a short speech by UK parliamentarian David Ruffley (Con) who was recently appointed Shadow Minister of Welfare Reform by David Cameron. Ruffley started by explaining his personal interest in Kazakhstan. When he entered the political stage, senior mentors told him that a specialisation in Central Asia, especially Kazakhstan with its energy resources, can only be beneficial for him in the future. In this vain, Ruffley said that British politicians could day way more to engage with Kazakhstan in order to protect British economic interests in the country, especially taking into account other European countries’ involvement in Kazakhstan’s booming economy.

Ruffley then went on to briefly talk about the CIC observer mission in Kazakhstan. While he couldn’t join the mission during the elections, he went to Kazakhstan in October in order to monitor the run up to the ballot. He spent a whole day in the British embassy talking to representatives of the opposition and made himself familiar with the political situation. He briefly touched upon the electoral law and the reforms introduced in 2004. He cited Professor Christopher Greenwood of LSE who said that these reforms, if properly implemented, could safeguard fair elections complying with the OSCE Copenhagen Principles.

Ruffley then repeated the points previously made by most of the speakers, talking about the economic progress in Kazakhstan. Astana and Almaty are Western-looking cities, but there is no credit for that from the opposition. The income distribution indicators also give a hint at an equitable growth and overall, the IMF analyses are getting it right. The imbalanced media ownership structures in Kazakhstan could threaten media freedom, and there clearly is a case for improved legislation, as it was stated in the CIC report. That there is no equal broadcast time for the opposition is nonetheless no surprise, Ruffley said.

The next speaker was Kazakhstan’s Foreign Minister Kassymzhomart K. Tokaev, who started on a couple of general points. First, he wanted to make clear that Kazakhstan is a new country with relatively few experiences in democracy. It is generally a very risky task to pursue reforms in Kazakhstan vis-à-vis the complicated political neighbourhood. However, the Kazakh government’s commitment to reform is irreversible.

The December elections saw an unprecedented number of international observers, more than 1,600 of them were accredited. Many of the subsequent assessments were quite biased and revolved around the OSCE findings. It is hard to dispute, though, that the elections were the best ever held in Central Asia. Tokaev said that irregularities existed and violations might have occured. However, it is very difficult to assess this claim made by the OSCE without the very same organisation not supplying an exhaustive list of them [Ed: This was repeated throughout the day: If the OSCE monitored the elections and witnessed gross violations, why doesn't it come forward with a detailed list as to where and when they occured?].

Minister Tokaev then invited questions as he was interested in a debate rather than a lengthy talk. Dr. Shirin Akiner wanted to know in how far Minister Tokaev thought that the recent deaths of two high-profile opposition figures could put at risk Kazakhstan’s international reputation. In response, the Minister said that he himself was absolutely shocked learning about these two tragic incidents. He assured that investigations were ongoing and Kazakhstan was sincere and open to Western support in finding the perpetrators behind these two killings. As far as his country’s international reputation is concerned, he said that it is Kazakhstan’s task to transparently explain what happened. Despite the recent turmoil, Kazakhstan will remain a stable country in the region, Tokaev said.

The Minister then got asked about Kazakhstan’s stance on regional cooperation. He answered that regional cooperation and integration are high up on the agenda of his government. Kazakhstan seeks open dialogue with all other Central Asian countries and other immediate neighbours. Kazakhstan will not try to impose its economic/political model on anyone and the country will treat all bilateral partners as peers. Tokaev then said that it is crucial for Kazakhstan to entertain good relations with Russia and China (mainly through the SCO). Recently, border agreements with both countries have been inked and showcase that very good spirits exist.

Asked about pipelines to export Kazakhstan’s growing oil output, Tokaev said that the general government line is to have as many pipelines as possible. In this light, Kazakhstan will definitely participate in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Another question asked the Minister about his view of non-governmental organisations, to which he again replied that the more NGOs, the better for Kazakhstan. Nevertheless, some caution must be applied with regards to religious organisations as they can become vessels for promoting religious extremism.

Taking up Minister Yertysbayev’s point on a potential EU accession, Tokaev was quick to qualify that statement. He said that he cannot imagine Kazakhstan becoming a full-blown EU member. First, Kazakhstan does not have a common border with the Union and he was also highly skeptical whether the EU itself would want a common border with China. Nonetheless, Tokaev said that he could definitely think of a neighbourhood agreement between the two entities.

Asked about an education strategy, Tokaev said that the Kazakh government line is to only have 8-9 state universities and leave the rest to be private institutions. There needs to be more focus on technical skills like engineering. Also, Tokaev referred to the Bolashak program, under which around 3,000 Kazakh students study abroad.

The next session was intended to scrutinise the OSCE report. The first speaker was Mr. Douglas Townsend. He started by saying that the OSCE approaches its members states in very different ways according to their respective levels of cooperation. He then went on giving a brief history of the OSCE, explaining why the organisation’s focus on election monitoring is becoming ever more important.

According to Townsend, the four dimensions of OSCE activity before the end of the Cold War (then still being CSCE) were the politico-military dimension, the economic and environmental dimension, the human dimension and so-called cross-dimensional activities. Due to the changed realities after the 1991, the economics and security dimensions became somewhat anachronistic and the organisation now focuses on the remaining two.

The OSCE report published on 21 February 2006 [Ed: the final election assessment] was about 30 pages long but did not give any supporting evidence of the claims put forward. Nevertheless, the document provided a tremendous amount of background information. In order to understand the report in its entirety, a sound knowledge of Kazakhstan’s legislation is needed. The OSCE mission was also the largest group of observers monitoring the elections. Dialogue between the OSCE and the Kazakh government has been going on for years, something that should not be forgotten while assessing the organisation’s final verdict.

According to Townsend, the choice of words in the report is also quite telling - e.g. “unduly” [Ed: as in "The Election Law should be amended to remove provisions which unduly limit the rights of freedom of association and of peaceful assembly", p29]. This led Townsend to say that the OSCE is too involved in the Kazakh polity rather than just the elections.

The next speaker to address the diminished audience was Nirj Deva, Member of the European Parliament. Deva started his contribution by recounting experiences he made as the head of the EU election observer missions to Indonesia, Ethopia and Sri Lanka. He said that his first impression reading the OSCE report was that it “was a bit off”. It is sad that the OSCE is avoiding debate and that it does not disclose the evidence behind the allegations of “serious shortcomings” either.

Deva said that comparing Kazakhstan’s elections with others around the world, it becomes clear that when something is not globally standardised, it is easy to alter and modify verdicts. He said that for instance during [Ed: not sure which elections Deva was referring to] Sri Lankan elections, whole parts of the population (i.e. the Tamils in the North) could not vote but the EU still accepted the results. Talking about the actual election day in Kazakhstan, Deva recalled that people were very relaxed and had easy access to the polling stations. He said that the elections were well-conducted, balanced and open. Deva qualified his statement by saying that the campaign leading to the elections was not without problems.

The last speaker to briefly comment on what had been said was Professor Kenneth Minogue of LSE. He explained why, in his opinion, the opposition was not able to garner the support of the middle class and attributed this to a quite Soviet custom of voting for the strongman (”the devil we know”). Minogue then asked whether it is President Nazarbayev’s fault that the opposition is so feeble. Nazarbayev strikes Minogue as a very Soviet leader who puts forward heavy plans and agendas - but does not engage in a discourse with the opposition about them. He sees himself as a benevolent figure. He then said that the transition from a Soviet ’servile state’ to a ‘new nation’ is not yet finished, freedom is not yet integral part of the political system.

But is Nazarbayev still a proponent of democracy, asked Professor Minogue and gave his own answer: President Nazarbayev is not interested in a check-list-democracy put forward by the OSCE and other organisations. It should be everyone’s hope that Nazarbayev is interested in his own political heritage, and that this heritage would be openness and freedom within the Kazakh political system. Professor Minogue concluded by saying “so far, so good” - Kazakhstan is moving towards real democracy.