Recently, two Russia blogs we admire, Sean????????s Russia Blog and Vilhelm Konnander????????s Weblog, have leveled harsh charges of anti-democracy at Kazakhstan, charges that unfortunately tell only half that country????????s story and fail to give a fair sense of the broader geopolitical context. The charges were apparently prompted by a recent comment by U.S. President George Bush while hosting a state visit by the nation????????s leader that Kazakhstan was a ???????free country.???????

Sean and Vilhelm argue that Kazakhstan is run by a dictator who should be actively confronted, rather than supported and encouraged, by the Bush administration. To be sure, Kazakhstan has much work to do before it can call itself a fully fledged democracy; its democracy index from Freedom House classifies it is ???????not free??????? — just like Russia and China, which it is sandwiched between. But is it really fair to refer to ???????Kazakh crimes??????? as Vilhelm does, or to characterize U.S. President Bush as an ???????idiot??????? because of his Kazakhstan policy, Sean????????s approach? This article will argue in the negative. There????????s no indication from either Sean????????s or Vilhelm????????s posts that either one of them has ever spent any appreciable amount of time in Kazakhstan and neither one relies on first-hand accounts from those on the ground in-country; apparently, they are willing to base their conclusions on what they????????ve read in the papers ???????? as well as, perhaps, their instinctive antagonism to the current U.S. president. Let????????s try to look past the anecdotal evidence of Kazakh corruption and autocracy and see the full picture. Doing so illuminates an interesting and important debate about how to foster the growth of democracy around the world. Hopefully, readers will continue this debate in the comments section.

There are three main points that Sean and Vilhelm seem to overlook, or certainly undervalue, in their analyses: (1) Kazakhstan????????s shocking legacy of abuse as a victim of Russian imperialism; (2) Kazakhstan????????s scores on progressive policy from international agencies, which in many cases are far higher than those of Russia and therefore show considerable cause for hope of improvement; (3) Kazakhstan????????s willingness to be a bulwark against the expansion of Russian imperialism in the former USSR and to be an ally of the United States in this regard. It????????s the conclusion of this analysis that, unlike Russia, Kazakhstan shows great promise as a potentially free society and that Western policy should be one of accommodation, understanding, engagement and encouragement rather than confrontation. Ironically, the West has so far chosen engagement where Russia is concerned, a policy that cannot possibly succeed because Russia shows none of the positive signs indicated by Kazakhstan. By no means is the author skittish on the politics of confrontation; rather, she is an unrelenting advocate for it where Russia is concerned. But Kazakhstan is a different case entirely, for the reasons explained below. By no means is the author an overzealous fan of President Bush, whose policy towards Russia has caused her much disappointment. But he is right on Kazakhstan, and deserves a fair appraisal of his policy.

1. History of Imperial Abuse

Vilhelm has harshly accused Kazakhstan of being ruled over by a ???????diverted mind??????? because its leader proposed diverting the flow of some Siberian rivers into his desert country for purposes of economic development. Vilhelm believes that the project is untenable for practical reasons, and he might be right, but offers readers no better alternative for improving the lives of the Kazakh people, and without such ideas at hand the nation????????s leader can hardly be blamed for exploring all options. Vilhelm is perhaps not sufficiently sensitive to the nation????????s plight, which is stark indeed.

If you visit the official website of the Embassy of Kazakhstan, you will find a feature called ???????Kazakhstan????????s Nuclear Nightmare.??????? You can read about the horror story of Semipalatinsk, tragic victim of cruel Soviet abuse. As the Embassy states:

For exactly 42 years, from August 29, 1949 to August 29, 1991, hundreds of thousands of people in Kazakhstan were subjected to one of the most horrific treatment a human being can inflict on another. They were used as human guinea pigs during almost 500 nuclear explosions the Soviets carried out at Semipalatinsk nuclear test site in their push to compete with the United States for global domination. The cumulative power of those explosions, both above ground, on the ground and underground, is believed to equal 2,500 Hiroshima bombs.

The plight of the people living in this region of Kazakhstan has been documented in the Times of London, on Radio Free Europe, in USA Today, and elsewhere. One Times of London article reveals:

One village looks at first sight less desolate than some blighted collective farms we’ve seen, where the few remaining families live in filth and deprivation that make Indian slums seem prosperous. It is peopled, for a start. With children characteristically clad in electric colours -Kazakh dress compensates for the wintry monochrome of the Steppes. With the thin cattle every family keeps within the walls of compounds that have no running water, and where the septic tank is an unheard of underpinning to the precarious rotting floorboards over the redolent latrine pit. The school functions. So, exceptionally for a place this size, does the clinic -for the good and terrible reason that every family in Sarjal contains, or has already buried, victims of radiation poisoning.

The current government of Kazakhstan had absolutely nothing to do with this abhorrent crisis, and because Russia refuses to provide the necessary resources to care for the population it destroyed, the Embassy is reduced to begging for international aid and assistance. The radiation crisis is only one of many serious handicaps that Kazakhstan faces in seeking to crawl out from under the crushing weight of Russian imperialism. Disappointingly, neither Sean nor Vilhlem have done anything to bring this situation to the attention of their readers, much less to cut Kazakhstan any slack because of it. The burden of Soviet imperialism (of which Russia was the beneficiary) is an extremely harsh one for Kazakhstan, and many other former Soviet slave states, to bear, and to its great discredit the West is not doing nearly enough to help them carry it. Quite simply, it is unreasonable to expect perfection in areas of democratic progress when a country is laboring under so large a burden not of its own making.

And Russia????????s imperial desires remain active. As Marat Yermukanov of the Jamestown Foundation explains, though Russia is famous as a storehouse of oil and gas resources it nonetheless ???????has swung from being an electricity exporter to become dependent on imports??????? and faced a disastrous series of potential blackout situations last winter, a situation expected to get worse this year. As a result, it is now actively seeking to subvert Kazakhstan????????s sovereignty in an effort to gain control over the country????????s vast potential for electricity generation. Yermukanov writes:

Moscow intends to increase investment in Kazakhstan????????s efforts to construct additional power generating facilities at the Ekibastuz-2 hydroelectric power station, near the southern border of Russia. But the generous gift from Russia could turn into a Trojan horse. West Kazakhstan and Aktobe regions are dependent on Russian electricity suppliers, because the power lines from northern Qostanay region to western parts of the country pass through Russia. On October 1 the Russian electricity supplier, Inter RAO EES, announced a 9.5% rise in electricity prices for businesses and state enterprises in Aktobe region. Electricity bills for residents of Aktobe region increased by 21.3% between 2005 and 2006. The Russian electricity company claims that West Kazakhstan region owes $20 million for consumed electricity. Aktobe region, where electricity rates are the highest in the country, needs government subsidies of 30 million tenge to keep residents supplied with Russian electricity until the end of the year.

Yermukanov concludes: ???????Astana????????s growing independence from Russia in shaping its energy strategy is bringing that country nearer to the EU, and eventually, Astana will have to make a choice between Europe and Russia.??????? If Russia????????s recent behavior in poisoning the pro-West candidate in Ukraine????????s presidential elections and attempting a coup d????????etat in Georgia are any indication, Russia will go to great lengths to see that Kazakhstan makes the ???????right??????? choice, something Kazakhstan has every reason to fear.

2. Kazakhstan????????s Report Card

Vilhelm complains that Kazakhstan has censored the British comic Sacha Baron Cohen, who as his alter ego Borat mocks all things Kazakh, and it????????s certainly true that the country could be more liberal where freedom of expression is concerned. But it could be a lot more conservative, too. In a recent post announcing the fact that Russia had earned a ranking of 147 for press freedom from Reporters Without Borders, Sean failed to mention Kazakhstan????????s much better rating of 128 — better than Mexico or Singapore and 13% higher than Russia. Only 21 countries out of 168 surveyed had a lower score than Russia for press freedom, and that????????s not surprising given Russia????????s horrifying string of dozens of murders of journalists since the fall of the USSR, culminating most recently in the slaying of hero reporter Anna Politkovskaya. Yet, Sean felt the need to put Russia????????s ranking in context, reminding readers that the rating for press freedom of the U.S. and many European countries was also shockingly low. Sean wrote that this meant Russia????????s declining press freedom might be viewed as merely part of a ???????global process.??????? Unfortunately, he didn????????t show any similar mercy for Kazakhstan when writing about it.

There have been many other global studies where Kazakhstan has come out ahead of Russia, which has a seat on both the Security Council and the G-8. In its most recent ranking for societal corruption by Transparency International, Kazakhstan ranked tied for 107th while Russia was tied for 126th (Kazakhstan led Russia by 16% this time). When Foreign Policy magazine identified the world????????s sixty ???????failed states??????? based on stability criteria, Russia was #59 on the list and Kazakhstan was not present. When the World Economic Forum surveyed economic competitiveness, Kazakhstan ranked 56th while Russia was 62nd. If Russia, which is increasingly showing itself to be a strident foe of both democracy and U.S. national security, deserves those seats on the Security Council and G-8, then how can it be wrong to extend an olive branch to the regime in Kazakhstan? Neither Vilhelm nor Sean have called for Russia????????s ouster from those lofty forums. Given the imperial legacy Kazakhstan must struggle with, its current performance is actually quite impressive.

In short, although we see anti-democratic events in Kazakhstan that we????????d rather not, we simply don????????t see the kind of horror stories coming out of Kazakhstan that are commonplace in Russia, so although the current regime may not be what we????????d ultimately like to see in place, it????????s not nearly the same basis for concern as is the case in Russia. Kazakhstan hasn????????t elected a proud KGB spy as its president, it isn????????t playing the music of the Soviet national anthem as its own, and it isn????????t seeking to destabilize and de-democratize its smaller neighbors the way Russia is doing in Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltics.

To his credit, Vilhelm at least makes vague allusions to Kazakhstan????????s recent progress (Sean virtually ignores this), but Vilhelm doesn????????t flesh it out while making his case for confrontation. An article he cites, but does not discuss in detail, from the Washington Post states:

So far Kazakhstan has shown remarkable success in addressing the social conditions that can feed extremism. The Asian Development Bank reports that the poverty rate has been cut by half in five years. A large middle class is rapidly forming, thanks in part to a revised tax code that favors small and mid-size businesses. The government now spends a respectable 4 percent of gross domestic product on modern, Western-style education and pays the full cost of sending its top 3,000 high school graduates for study in the United States, Europe, Japan and other developed countries. Graduates of this program are accustomed to modern freedoms and expect their country to embrace them.

Vilhelm critiques this article as ???????in contrast to a negative story??????? that the post ran earlier, and the article he refers to does contain critical information. But the earlier piece also states: ??????????????I really do think ÄKazakhstan????????s presidentÅ has learned how to be clean,???????? said Martha Brill Olcott, a Kazakhstan specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ???????He has learned a lot more about how you can promote to some degree divestiture Äof assetsÅ. Most of his holdings are, I wouldn’t say transparent, but they’re more so.??????????????? Given this, it is hard to justify America pursuing a confrontational policy that would risk driving Kazakhstan into the waiting neo-imperialist arms of Russia. After that, the country????????s human rights picture would only darken and the U.S. would lose a vital ally, as explained below.

Similarly, Vilhelm claims that Human Rights Watch has ???????repeatedly criticized Kazakhstan for severe human rights violations,??????? but, while certainly there are many points of criticism, the report he references also states: ???????The government of Kazakhstan has made some preliminary moves to improve its poor reputation with respect to media freedoms. For instance, in January 2004 it paroled Sergei Duvanov, an independent journalist and fierce government critic convicted in 2003 on questionable rape charges. President Nazarbaev also vetoed a highly restrictive media law after it was widely criticized abroad and deemed unconstitutional by the country????????s Constitutional Council The U.S. government certified in 2004 that Kazakhstan had complied with the human rights standards on which military and other assistance is conditioned. In May 2004, the U.S. State Department announced that Kazakhstan had made ???????significant improvements in the protection of human rights in the last six months.???????????????

If Kazakhstan????????s report card already exceeds that of its former oppressor, Russia, then can????????t we hope for even greater progress in the future by nurturing, rather than confronting, its nascent democratic impulses?

3. Bulwark Against Imperialism

Kazakhstan is a vital strategic ally of the United States, not merely in the region but in the world, as it seeks to encourage the development of democracy in the former USSR and struggle against terrorism, and there????????s nothing wrong with stroking such an ally from time to time. In fact, from the perspective of U.S. interests, it would be criminal negligence not to do so. Sean himself points to an LA Times editorial which states: ???????There are few nations more strategically important to the United States than Kazakhstan. Its mineral resources are vast; by 2015, it is expected to account for nearly as much oil production as Iran. It is a stable U.S. ally in a region marked by shaky friends, rivals and foes, such as Russia, China, Afghanistan and Iran. It is a majority-Muslim country that sent troops to Iraq and opened its airspace to U.S. flights during the invasion of Afghanistan. It is a model for nuclear disarmament, having agreed to destroy the missiles it inherited from the former Soviet Union.??????? While Sean and Vilhelm don????????t dispute this fact, because they can????????t, they seem to seriously underestimate its importance (or perhaps they simply don????????t have U.S. interests primarily at heart; it????????s difficult to imagine, though, that they could possibly wish to see Russian influence in Kazakhstan increase, something that certainly wouldn????????t lead to more democracy there). Sean heaps scorn on President Bush for pursuing praising Kazakhstan????????s progress with relatively moderate rhetoric. He calls the President of the United States an ???????idiot??????? for referring to Kazakhstan as a ???????free nation??????? and classifies Kazakhstan as merely a nation ???????we have to deal with??????? ???????? apparently while holding our noses. Is this really the best way to deal with a country that can feely choose the Western or Russian camps? If so, Sean gives no convincing explanation.

4. Conclusion

Like it or not, there????????s a gigantic difference from the American point of view between an ???????unfree??????? state like Kazakhstan which is friendly to the U.S. and its interests and which may be amenable to inside pressure and one, like Russia, that is hostile and obviously incapable of self-initiated reform. It????????s perfectly reasonable, and in fact essential, for U.S. diplomats to adopt a ???????catch-more-flies-with-honey??????? approach to Kazakhstan, in the hopes of winning leverage that will lead to further reform. Exactly this idea explains why Russia, in abject defiance of logic, sits on the G-8. But in Russia????????s case, things have only gotten much worse after trying it, not better, because Russia has never manifested any genuine desire to change its Soviet attitudes. When we also consider Kazakhstan????????s vast strategic importance, it becomes a no-brainer. It????????s simply incorrect to conclude that pursuing highly cordial relations with Kazakhstan means we are ignoring its opportunities for reform. We????????re not. As the Post article noted above states: ???????The American Bar Association, Freedom House, Counterpart Consortium and the U.S. Agency for International Development have made much headway in this regard.???????

Moreover, it????????s simply not reasonable — in fact, unfair — to expect Kazakhstan to embrace a fully relaxed political climate with the threat of Russian imperialism literally dangling over its head. How can the Kazakh ruler view with anything other than trepidation Russia????????s blatant efforts to take control over internal politics in Ukraine and Georgia? How can Kazakhstan????????s non-white population not be terrorized by the pandemic racism now sweeping Russia? It????????s only natural that the leaders of states threatened by Russia will be reluctant to fully embrace democracy when it could leave them vulnerable to Russian encroachment. The key to fully advancing the development in these countries is not confronting them but insulating them from the Russian threat. Only once that is accomplished will harsh attacks like those leveled by Sean and Vilhelm be proper, should Kazakhstan then fail to complete its journey to democracy.

Also unfair is the knee-jerk hostility that President Bush and the Republican Party seem to inspire in their critics. Sean recently went as far as to opine that in light of their governance ???????anyone still believing that there is still democracy in America is still stuck on gazing at the trees despite the forest.??????? To Secretary of State Rice, in response to her criticism of Russia????????s unfree media in the wake of the Politkovskaya murder, he wrote: ???????Take a look in the mirror, sister.??????? You have to feel for America in general and President Bush and the Republicans in particular when issues of this kind arise. If he adopts a confrontational posture towards a given country, a chorus of voices call for him to be conciliatory and accuse him of ???????unilateralism??????? and ???????arrogance.??????? When he????????s conciliatory, those same voices call for confrontation and accuse him of supporting autocracy. The world calls for America to be less unilateralist, yet unilateralism seems to be the order of the day in dealing with President Bush and his country. Is calling the president an ???????idiot??????? really likely to lead him to take notice of suggestions (leave us not forget that this ???????idiot??????? graduated from both Harvard and Yale, was elected governor of Texas and re-elected president with a majority of the popular vote while holding a majority for his party in both houses of Congress for six years)? Isn????????t it possible that a constructive dialogue moving Kazakhstan further in a positive direction was pursued by President Bush behind closed doors, the appropriate venue for such discussions with a vital ally, and, lacking a pipeline to the Oval Office, Sean simply knows nothing about them?

Where is the respect that the world demands from America when the world deals with America? Where is the thoughtful, careful dialogue that the world demands from President Bush when it speaks about him? That????????s a paradox for the ages. It is not helpful, however, to make impulsive judgments about Bush????????s policies based on personal antipathy towards him.

Kim Zigfeld publishes the Russia Blog La Russophobe.