|
Council of Europe and Kazakhstan: Yes or no? Rashid NUGMANOV The events, that shocked the world this fall, left the October news practically unnoticed, the news that Kazakhstan was officially denied the status of observer member of the Council of Europe. In the meantime, this is an extremely important political event pregnant with serious consequences for the existing political system now and in the future. Actually, this system was checkmated at its diplomatic chess. The application was submitted two years ago. Numerous negotiations, consultations, business trips and delegations exchange between the applicant and various Council of Europe institutions took place during that time. Representatives of the Forum of Democratic Forces of Kazakhstan kept in contact with European politicians and authorities as well. Those activities started at the large-scale conference "General States of Opposition in Paris" held in December 1999. Trips of delegations to London, Brussels, Strasbourg, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw were taken afterwards. Consultations with almost all major institutions and divisions not just at the Council of Europe, but at the European Union, OSCE, several European governments and parliaments were held. The media has not covered the tremendous job done both the existing authorities and democratic opposition. Occasional reports and articles that appeared in the press from time to time do not give the public a real idea of what's going on. Hence the guesswork, sometimes accurate, sometimes not. For the past two years, I've had a chance to participate in numerous meetings of Kazakhstani democrats in Europe. This obliges me to give answers to the frequently asked questions on the issue as precisely as I can. I am not pretending to put a full stop to the issue, I'd like to try to clarify it, at least in part. Q: I've read somewhere that the major obstacle to Kazakhstan's admission to the European Union is its geography. Geographically we are in Asia. Is that right or not? A: First of all, we need to distinguish between the European Union and the Council of Europe. They are two different institutions. The European Union unites 15 European countries and requirements to its members are extremely high and obligatory in juridical sense. At this point 12 candidates for admission are negotiated: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Malta and Romania. Kazakhstan is not just included into the list of candidates, is not even considered as a candidate. The Council of Europe is a much wider advisory institution with 41 countries - full members including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey, which are Asian countries. Not only such countries as Japan and Israel located pretty far from Europe, but even countries located on other continents, such as the U.S., Canada and Mexico have the observer status at its Council of Ministers and the PACE. We met with all the PACE fraction leaders and none of them even put a question about geography as an obstacle. Kazakhstan does not have any geographical obstacles not only for obtaining the observer status of the Council of Europe (otherwise our application would not be considered in the first place), but for full membership as well, as most of its territory west of the Urals is located in Europe. By the way, the Council of Europe representative Mr. Ivinsky underlined this fact in his report on the application. Q: I am told that Kazakhstan is a young republic in transition from Soviet totalitarianism to democracy and needs time to get the observer status at the Council of Europe. Is that right or not? A: No. Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia were in the USSR as well and their starting conditions were not better if not worse than those in Kazakhstan. But they are already not observers, but full members of the Council of Europe. As to the present President Nazarbaev regime, it is not a secret to anyone, that for a couple of recent years it has been moving not from totalitarianism to democracy, but from democracy to totalitarianism. Despite the declared "multi-vector" development, the vector is just one, it is clear and drawn bold on the political map of the world thanks to the regime's efforts. Q: Some people consider the lack of a moratorium on death penalty as the major obstacle. A: Death penalty is a serious obstacle on the way to the Council of Europe. Each candidate has to declare a moratorium on it. Nevertheless, this is not the major reason for denial as Kazakhstan's official representatives automatically agreed with this requirement when submitting their application and would by all means declare this moratorium in case of a positive decision as did Russia and other countries. Q: I have the information that PACE President Lord Russell-Johnston told journalists in Astana that the reasons for denial were as follows: centralized government, weak parliament, dependent media. Is that right? A: Yes, these are the basic reasons for denial. I was not in Astana and can't quote Lord Russlell-Johnston's words at that meeting exactly, but we had a long meeting with him in Paris. I can assure you that he is an extremely diplomatic, but firm politician strictly following major democratic values and human rights principles. Q: I can't get rid of the feeling that there is something being kept from the public. Are there really other hidden and very important reasons? A: Yes, but they are not too hidden. This is an "open secret" - the corruption of Kazakhstani top officials. In light of the investigations under way in Switzerland and USA, any European politician would hardly be happy about offering partnership to likely criminals. Q: The official media makes it to understand that Kazakhstani opposition members are against Kazakhstan's admittance to the Council of Europe. Is that right? A: Certainly not. We agree that Kazakhstan should become a full member of the Council of Europe, and this position is waiting for it. But we are dead against the lowering of this institution's status. We do not want this institution to open its doors to the authoritarian regimes tramping down fundamental rights of their citizens and shamelessly justifying their dictatorship by spattering its own people and accusing it of "backwardness", "unpreparedness" for a decent life, and a special slavish "mentality". It is tramping down citizens' rights that leads to the nation's degradation and puts serious obstacles on its way to a decent life, and threatens the country's sovereignty itself. Q: So there is no hope whatsoever? As opposition you win on the international arena, but our life does not become better and the power - weaker… A: The present regime stands on fictile legs. Despite all the talk about globalization hazards, it is impossible to survive in the modern world on one's own. This is a reality, no matter you like it or not. Authoritarian regimes do not have any historical perspectives except deep disgrace and for some of them - a trial, both international and national judgment. Specially for the Central Asian Bulletin, 11 October 2001 |
