EU and Kazakhstan strengthen relations
The EU and Kazakhstan are seeking to enhance relations in all spheres. The EU has committed itself to backing Kazakhstan in its bid to join the WTO, and may increase joint efforts to combat the drug trade and terrorism.
The EU is taking a very optimistic outlook on the state of affairs in the country. Hugues Mingarelli, European Commission Director for Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia, recently stated, “Our relationships are based on common values and interests including respect to supremacy of law, multisided democracy, observance of human rights and freedom of the press, he noted. We admit progress of Kazakhstan in all directions.”
Ferghana.ru is highly critical of the European Union’s choice to take a non-critical position, given the recent election largely deemed unfair, and the slayings of opposition leaders. Ferghana’s criticisms are not without merit; the EU should not sugarcoat the truth, and it wouldn’t hurt for Europe to remind Kazakhstan of the development areas that remain lacking. However, the EU is wise to pursue a course of engagement, and not to make any economic deals contingent on political reform. As evidenced by recent events, there is significant corruption and injustice in Kazakhstan, but since the situation in Kazakhstan is still quite good by regional standards, the US and EU should remind Kazakhstan about civil liberties and political reform, but nothing more. Unlike its neighbors, Kazakhstan has a chance for meaningful and rapid economic growth, and that opportunity should not be wasted by creating a situation of isolation reminiscent of Uzbekistan. Happily, there are no signs of outside powers going this direction.
More than any other country in Central Asia, Kazakhstan wants itself to be seen as a Western nation, capable of standing next to Europe. The more the West engages, especially economically, the closer this will come to being a reality. And when there is more reason for Kazakhstan to see itself as on par with Europe (read: economic and infrastructure development), its citizens will expect nothing less than political reform to match. Shortcomings notwithstanding, the country is the regional leader, and if it is embraced as such by the EU, meaningful political reforms will follow economic growth.
on April 12th, 2006 at 5:21 am
James,
I am surprised your readers have not reacted to this piece as vociferously as to Peter’s post on the Turkmenistan sister blog. Nobody interested?
Overall, I’d agree that, on balance, the agreement should be of positive value for Kazakstan, though not for the same reasons. I happen to be a believer in free trade and for some reason think that free trade is fair, that when a bigger partner imposes discriminatory trade regime on a smaller partner it is unfair, and that when those restrictions are lifted should be welcomed.
I also find the claims of KZ’s perceived leadership in the region quite funny, just as the self-preaching about KZ’s chances for growth “unlike its neighbors”. In my interactions with the natives of Kazakstan, as well as other countries, I found a negative relationship between their level of comfort and self-confidence and willingness to express “specialness” of their own country and/or chances.
on April 13th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Karakum,
Thank you for your comment. I am more than happy to respond to your criticisms, assuming I understand them correctly. You seem to take issue with two comments I made in the post, so I will clarify as best I can.
First, you take issue with me implying that other countries in the region don’t have the potential for rapid economic growth. I should have qualified what I meant by “potential” in this particular case. Obviously, countries like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are gifted with natural resources and industrious, resourceful populations, but the economic strategies being pursued by their governments are stifling what economic growth may have been possible. This is much less true in Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan might have smart policies in some cases, but their economies are much smaller, and they are not as well endowed with natural resources.
You also seem to take issue with me writing that Kazakhstan is the regional leader (which you point out they would certainly like to believe). If not Kazakhstan, then who, and by what criteria? Kazakhstan quickly seems to be becoming the economic hub of Central Asia, a trend that is only increasing, and as that engine increasingly drives the region, the country’s power will grow as well.
Keep in mind, I’m not trying to advocate for Kazakhstan; many of my posts have been highly critical. In any case, I am interested in your perspective on theses issues in greater detail.