"Geopolitical Setting"

Kazakhstan-the U.S.A.: no adjusted line

Vladislav Yuritsyn

The state administration steering wheel is being completely transferred to the new Republican administration. How will this affect the American-Kazakh relations? Will they change? We asked one of the first-rate political scientists in the country, Professor Nurbulat Masanov, to comment on these questions.

Strategic non-strategy

For the first year or two, the White House is unlikely to develop a consolidated foreign policy, as there will be some different vectors of force in foreign political establishments in the U.S.A. On one hand, there is the department of the US Secretary of State, Colin Pawel, whom Mr. Masanov ascribes to the category of true (practical) politicians. Of course, the continuity of the administrations' practices concerning staff issues will be preserved, yet nevertheless, a department with a big number of new employees will need time to determine its own priorities. On the other hand, there is the department of the Secretary of National Security, Condoleezza Rice. She is an expert on the USSR, hence she will try to realize her ideas, views and projects. Now we are eyewitnesses of the fact that Condoleezza Rice's influence is getting stronger. This is evident in George Bush's recent statements. He said the policy toward relations with Russia and the post-Soviet entities must be more careful, rational and pragmatic. It is also supposed to closely connect it with decisions concerning freedom of the press, institutional construction of democracy and so on, which are being taken by NIS (newly independent states). In Professor Masanov's opinion, Kazakhstan is not a strategic partner of the U.S.A. Nor does it present an independent strategic interest for this country. This statement is true for geopolitics, political field and economics. That is why, beside competition between the two departments, other factors will affect the policy toward Kazakhstan. One of these factors is determined by the form of relations of Washington and Moscow that may be shaped now. Kazakhstan can be used here as a kind of counterbalance, a means to blackmail, to press, to balance, and as a lobby structure. Although this is a very complex issue, yet on the part of the U.S.A., the situation policy will prevail. Of course, certain conceptual principles will remain. Nurbulat Masanov said, the US policy toward the country "would be the policy of responses to the situations and challenges of the time." It could be characterized as indefinite; yet flexible policy. If the policy toward Russia is definite, then Kazakhstan will act as a change card in the big political game. There will be no adjusted line toward Astana, exactly. As far as the US relations with China are concerned, Mr. Masanov supposes that Kazakhstan cannot be an important factor. In this issue, everything is settled in the Pacific region; here Washington has Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and finally, Vietnam. Considering all the above-mentioned facts, the political scientist does not think that the policy towards Kazakhstan will greatly change in comparison with the one followed by the Americans earlier. It was a situation-determined policy under Clinton.

The word "republicans" means the economy

Nurbulat Masanov believes the principal difference between Republicans and Democrats lies in the fact that in politics the first ones stake on economic methods, while the latter - on political ones. Of course, they both combine these levers, yet the priority choice remains the same. Until 1995 to 1996, Americans were interested in helping the former Soviet republics "raise to their feet" from the institutional, financial, economic and political points of view. This was done in order to prevent the restoration of the Soviet Union and reintegration of the post-Soviet space (regardless of on what principles). They have achieved this goal, as NIS have their political and economic elite, and the authoritarian power institutions have been formed. They, naturally, will not allow any reintegration. Professor Masanov reminded that authoritarian states never integrate. Only parliamentarian states can do this. After the bipolar world collapsed, actually, there is no the global world policy at all. The U.S.A., the superpower does exist. It sets up its relations only on the bilateral basis. We have the US regional and local policy, yet no global one. It depends on situations and is different everywhere, depending on circumstances. We should hardly expect the emergence of the multilateral political vector soon. As far as Washington's interest in the Caspian is concerned, in particular, in the project of the oil pipeline Baku-Ceyhan, the political priority will be, most probably, shifted to economics here. It is necessary to consider the circumstance that gigantic petroleum companies traditionally cooperate with Republicans. The idea of the project, in Nurbulat Masanov's opinion, appeared as a way to press OPEC. The concentration of a half of the world's discovered oil reserves in the Persian Gulf, makes Americans press the regional states in different ways. However, we will soon see and feel how the White House will be using economic methods, as it has the biggest potential.

The Globe, 23 January 2001