Who will chair the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe in 2009? This decision has to be made by the Member States this
year, and so far, only one candidate appeared on the scene: The Central Asian state of
Kazakhstan. It would be the first time that a part of the former Soviet Union would chair
this international institution.
Beside this historic aspect, still one main question is not solved: Will the reputation of
the OSCE suffer when it is chaired by a country with poor records on democracy, human
rights, freedom of press and media, with elections that the OSCE itself stated as not free
and fair? This question has to be answered by the Member States, concentrating on the EU
and the US. The official decision, whether or not Kazakhstan will lead the organization in
2009, will be made this December by the Ministerial Council, but of course unofficially
the West has to decide internally in autumn, otherwise an alternative candidate could not
be found.
Western Europe and the US are now in a position of balancing their interests: The Central
Asian region is of geostrategic importance, the energy resources seem to be immense. As
well, Kazakhstan is able to act as a factor of stability in this area. These pros
contradict with the political reality inside the country, where elections do not meet
OSCE-standards, where members of the democratic opposition and independent journalists are
killed or beaten, where legal authorities are key-players in corruption scandals
(including the President himself), where media is censored, where the society is not
allowed to build-up a pluralistic system.
The Western OSCE-members have to decide, which standards should be most relevant for
choosing the right candidate. When preferring the geostrategic point of view, Kazakhstan
will lead the organization. This could - the hope of Western Europe and the US - stabilize
the region, strengthen the OSCE’s position within the CIS. The dilemma is that probably
at the same time, OSCE would loose its credibility and its positive standing in the West
by electing a Chairman, who seems not able to execute OSCE- and international standards
even in his own country.
At a OSCE Permanent Council meeting on May 16, 2006 the member states hoped to get some
hints that could help them defining the right decision: The Kazakh Government sent Deputy
Foreign Minister Aliyev, step-son of the ruling President Nazarbayev, joined by a small
delegation of so-called opposition parties and a lobby institution, came to Vienna in
order to underline the willingness and ability of the Central Asian state chairing the
OSCE in 2009.
Minister Aliyev pointed out in his statement before the PC, that his
country is ready for 2009. He proved this by underlining the economic strength, the stable
government, the Western-orientated society in Kazakhstan. Also, further democratic
improvements are realized by the new-founded State Commission of Democracy, chaired by the
President. Of course, the Minister did not mention that the majority of its members are
under full control of the authorities.
The Kazakh Government knows very well the position of the Western administrations and
their representatives at the OSCE. Kazakhstan is aware of the fact that EU- and
US-governments are not interested in any public discussion about a possible struggle
inside the organization. That’s why the Deputy Foreign Minister together with the Head
of the Turkmenistan mission at the OSCE made clear that they would not accept a
postponement of Kazakhstan’s Chairmanship for another two or three years, until the
representatives of the country could prove its willingness to transform the state towards
democracy and pluralism. Instead, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan made clear that they could
veto any alternative candidate for 2009’s chairmanship.
One could call this blackmailing. But in fact, the Kazakh Government at the moment has a
clear and realistic strategy: Forcing the EU and the US to accept the country’s bid,
otherwise for the first time in the organization’s history its consensual system would
not work anymore; a lack of power to act would be one mayor consequence.
But there is still time for the EU Member States and the US as the leading partners within
the organization: Giving Kazakhstan the historic chance of a Chairmanship, but only on
condition that deep reforms in the political and civil system of Kazakhstan, a free and
fair dialogue with the democratic movements in the country, a free and open-speaking media
are brought on its way until December 2006.
www.eurasiantransition.org
The Eurasian Transition Group, Vienna, May 21, 2006 |
