No, according to the Economist, which just published an article arguing that the costs of relaxing the organization’s democracy standards outweigh the benefits of drawing Kazakhstan further into the Western fold.

The sad truth is that an organisation like the OSCE can function only if its members mostly agree on most principles. That was the case through the 1990s. It no longer holds now. Rather than make shameful compromises in the name of security, it would be better to concentrate on the best long-term bet: promoting freedom.

The article also does an excellent job of framing the debate:

If you believe in realpolitik, it is a no-brainer. Kazakhstan should chair the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 2009. If you believe in the principles of democracy on which the OSCE was founded, the question of Kazakhstan is a no-brainer too: an undemocratic country should not chair one of the continent’s main democracy-promoting organisation.

The OSCE has no good options, unfortunately. Europe and America have few allies in the region, and snubbing Kazakhstan would probably have serious diplomatic consequences.

Anything short of the chairmanship in 2009 will be seen as a severe snub.

True, but changing the constitution to make Nazarbayev potentially president for life is equally a snub on liberal values. Before the recent constitutional changes, the OSCE could allow Kazakhstan the chairmanship without making a mockery of their own principles by pointing to the small progress in political liberalization made there. Those recent reforms to Kazakhstan’s constitution, however, have basically ensured that the OSCE leadership will look like a bunch of hypocrites should Kazakhstan get what it wants.

Articles frequently imply that the OSCE has an important decision to make and one that could lead to political fallout. But Kazakhstan has just as much agency in this matter as the OSCE. Nazarbayev chose to allow those constitutional changes, just as he has a choice about how upset to get when the OSCE makes the only decision it really can given the circumstances.

In short, I think the Economist is pretty much spot on in this instance. Having a Central Asian country chair the OSCE would have been a wonderful step forward for all involved, but compromise has to come on both sides. Hopefully the West can lesson the blow by increasing engagement through other avenues not predicated on democratic principles. I am definitely not arguing against engagement, just hypocrisy.