I do not believe

Sergey Duvanov

I do not believe that serious political events are accidental. They are usually based on something that is naturally predetermined by all previous events, actions, and tendencies. On closer examination, any seeming accident is, in fact, a law.

On July 13, 1999, Prosecutor General of Geneva started a money-laundering investigation following the discovery of the accounts controlled by high-ranking Kazakh officials and their relatives in Credit Agricole Indosuez. That was the beginning of investigation which Kazakh opposition has called 'Kazakhgate.'

Of seven accounts that attracted the attention of Swiss prosecutors, two belonged to Nursultan Nazarbayev. These are the accounts of Berkut Holdings Ltd and Orel Capital Ltd. controlled by Nursultan Nazarbayev. The money on them is known to have been transferred by the American oil companies working in Kazakhstan. In the course of investigation, those accounts have been seized.

I do not believe the president have no smart advisers. Still Nursultan Nazarbayev lodged an appeal with the Geneva's Federal Tribunal. He insisted that the accounts should be unblocked, arguing that the money was intended for public use and therefore should have enjoyed legal immunity. However, these arguments have not convinced the federal tribunal: the decision to freeze the accounts has remained in force and the investigation continues.

This is practically all that we know about the investigation which Kazakh authorities have been carefully holding back from the public. We don't even know how much money is involved. According to Geneva prosecutor B. Bertossa, each of the accounts contains tens of millions of dollars.

The latter, though, is not really important.

Moreover, it would be more appropriate not to consider the origin of the money. It's the court's task to decide whether the money in question is clean or dirty, was it a bribe or not. Until that moment, we should not voice our worst suspicions regarding president Nazarbayev.

That's why, let's consider all this from a different angle. The president does not deny that the account is his. He tries to convince Swiss law-enforcement agencies that the money belongs not to him, but to the state. He has put the money on that account to keep for some time and intended later, when required, return it to the nation. In other words, the president does not deny that he has kept government money on his personal account.

I do not believe rumors, which is why I would suggest that we proceed from the presumption of innocence. Let's proceed from best assumptions. Let's assume that he did ask U.S. oil companies to transfer the Kazakhstan's oil bonuses to his personal accounts in a Swiss bank so that they could be safe there for some time until Kazakhstan's budget requires the bonuses. As soon as the money is required, he'd return it together with the interest.

Brushing aside any suspicions that undermine the honor and dignity of the president, we are unable to assume that his intention has been to steal the money. However, doubts arise whether the existing Kazakh legislation allows any Kazakh official to store public funds on a personal bank account.

To transfer public funds to a personal account is a crime even taking into consideration the best intention to secure them for the public good. Clearly, if the case had not involved the president, the investigation by Kazakh Prosecutor's Office would have long been in full swing.

I do not believe either General Prosecutor's Office or the Parliament and National Security Committee have been unaware of the investigation carried out by the Swiss prosecutors. The question arises why does not anyone take measures to: a) trace down the origin of the funds on the president's accounts; b) or to protect the honor and dignity of the nation's top official?

Don't you find this silence strange? People not acquainted with our practices do find this strange. Unlike me. Because I know that the General's Prosecutor's Office, National Security Committee and even the Parliament are tightly controlled by the president and, therefore, at no times would do anything that is not approved by their boss. Therefore it's possible to assume that the bodies, whose task is to investigate such cases, has been keeping silence following the president's order.

Such investigation is highly unpleasant for any person, to say nothing of the president of a sovereign state. Not only the reputation of a single person is at stake, but also of the entire nation.

Why should one want to conceal the fact that the money is being kept on a president's Swiss bank account, thus giving ground for suspicion and insinuations?

Is it not more appropriate to openly explain the nature and origin of the money? If all is clean and legal, there is nothing to be afraid of. At the same time, such a move would deprive the ill-wishers of their ace, and they will be unable to tarnish the reputation of the head of state.

I do not believe it is possible to hold back such high-level scandal from Kazakh public. However, the authorities have been stubbornly running their stone up the hill to keep the investigation a secret. This subject has become a taboo for the domestic media. Members of parliament hold their tongues and keep pretending they know nothing about it. The General Prosecutor's Office and the National Security Committee see to it that the information does not leak into the press.

In other words, they have been doing everything to feed the worst suspicions.

The problem, however, is not in the president himself. He has been deeply involved in all this anyway. But what about us? Why does the whole nation keep silence when its president is being suspected of nasty things? No matter we wish it or not, our silence implies us, as he is our formally elected president. We have appointed him to this post, and as our president he has got involved in this story. If we know about it but do not utter a word, it means we approve this. And if we approve this, we appear to be his accomplices.

I do not believe that a law-abiding citizen may keep silent when his elected president is suspected of nasty deeds. Those, who voted against the incumbent president in the elections, should cry out loud that they warned we should not have elected him.

However, those few who are in the know of the investigation, keep silence because they either do not recognize they are implicated, or because their fear is stronger than their moral rules. The others just know nothing at all about this, for citizens are simply being kept in the dark about it.

By the way, I wonder how the newsmen who have been personally involved in concealing from the public the information about president's accounts are going to explain their behavior.

Generally speaking, all of them including the General Prosecutor's Office, Parliament, and the press are accomplices. They do know everything and still keep silent. It's implication. Clearly, the degree of their guilt varies, but it is still the guilt.

Everything, though, is most likely to happen in line with the script used during the dissolution of the Soviet-era communist party. Then, all communists all of a sudden started to argue they had nothing to do with the system, it was the leaders who were guilty. Leaders are always guilty, but they only can act with the connivance of the majority. If it had not been for this connivance, we would have had nothing to be ashamed of.

I do not believe there are individuals in this country who doubt that the president, his kin and cronies have no foreign accounts. In fact everybody suspects this, including those who have never heard of the 'Kazakhgate.' People in Kazakhstan would rather be surprised to learn there are no such foreign accounts.

People know inside out their ministers, akims, and judges appointed by the president, as well as the Parliament, Constitutional Council, General Prosecutor's Office and Central Elections Committee that depend on the President too. Therefore, one could easily form an opinion about the president himself.

If the entire state system is based on protectionism, corruption, personal fidelity and family ties, is it possible to believe that the architect of this totally corrupt system is harmless and innocent?

I do not believe that when opposition leaders of the old democratic party and the new Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan speak about the need of reforms they do not realize these reforms are only possible after president Nazarbayev leaves the scene. Even if this is not explicitly expressed, it is implied, because the president represents the part of the existing system that can't be reformed in principle.

On top of that, the president, as an architect of the existing system, is the main stumbling block on the way of reforms. It is true because any change to the system he has built implies a) imperfection in his system; b) elimination of the principles of political authoritarianism; c) personal responsibility for past actions. Do you think he needs all this?

I do not believe that people do not realize this within Kazakhstan and outside it. Despite the pragmatism so characteristic of the West, Nazarbayev's political odium gives it reasons for deep concerns. With the Kazakhgate scandal added to this, the concern turns into apprehension of the need for some measures that could ensure continuation of the full-scale cooperation with Kazakh authorities headed by such a leader.

There is a feeling that the president and his close associates have begun to apprehend this too. That's why some concrete measures are likely to follow in order to lower the negative impact of the quasi-democratic reforms and the scandal connected with the president's Swiss bank accounts.

The meeting between Nazarbayev and the U.S. president could well be his last chance to improve his image in the eyes of the West. What president Nazarbayev intends to do depends on what he has promised this time. To further democracy? To fight corruption? To promote the Atlantic solidarity? If so, one could expect some actions and initiatives on the part of the authorities intended to maintain a facade of changes and reforms.

I do not believe that hopes of the Americans can come true. I am positive that president Nazarbayev won't take advantage of the chance given to him. Unfortunately, he is unable to embrace democracy. Nazarbayev is a hostage of the political system he has created and, consequently, he just can't put an end to his own authoritarianism. Similarly, he is unable to root out the pervasive corruption he has personally established. This can't be changed, ever.

Clearly, in this connection, we have to admit that president Nazarbayev should go. We have to admit this if we truly want democratic processes start in Kazakhstan instead of their imitation (it's what we have had for the last decade). We also have to admit this if we truly want real steps to be taken to build a democratic political system, which implies division of authorities, independence and probity of courts, respect of human right, and the rule of law in relations between citizens and the state. For the moment, this is the task of nationwide importance.

There is another, a moral side of it. What, do you think, would French or, say, Italian president do if the public learnt about public funds on his personal bank account? The answer is obvious: a person who has an idea of honor would immediately tender his resignation. And the same would do any president of any civilized country.

I do not believe president Nazarbayev would ever do this.