[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 9 (Monday, February 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S389-S392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               KAZAKHSTAN

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, last November, Akezhan Kazhegeldin, 
who served as Prime Minister of Kazakhstan from 1994 to 1997, was the 
featured speaker at the City Club of Cleveland. His remarks summarize 
the many challenges and struggles in Kazakhstan and how the United 
States can be a partner for progress and democracy in Central Asia.
  I have a copy of Mr. Kazhegeldin's remarks, as well as a copy of the 
story on his visit that appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and I 
ask that both appear in the Record following the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The material follows:

              Remarks of the Honorable Akezhan Kazhegeldin

       Ladies and Gentlemen!
       First of all, I would like to thank those who arranged this 
     radio forum and asked me to appear before you. This is not 
     only an honor for me, but also a great responsibility. At 
     this rostrum I have been preceded by many respected 
     politicians, among them presidents of the United States. Now 
     the chance to be heard here, in Ohio--the very heart of the 
     United States, has been given not only to me, Akezhan 
     Kazhegeldin, economist and politician, but through me to all 
     of Kazakhstan.
       My country lies in the very center of Asia between Russia 
     and China, between Siberia and the great deserts. Poets say 
     that Kazakhstan is the very heart of Asia. For me, therefore, 
     this appearance before the citizens of Ohio represents a 
     conversation between two hearts, a true heart-to-heart talk.
       American society needs first-hand knowledge about what is 
     happening in the countries which were formerly parts of the 
     Soviet Union. American corporations, working in Kazakhstan, 
     may have knowledge and understanding of geological resources, 
     but no more

[[Page S390]]

     than that. I am sure that the oil companies which worked in 
     Iran under Shah Pahlevi had the most detailed and accurate 
     geophysical maps. But these maps could not have predicted 
     that the Shah would be replaced by the Khomeini regime.
       In many of the former Soviet republics one can clearly see 
     the possibility or the actual threat of new anti-democratic 
     regimes arising. They are not necessarily linked to religious 
     extremism. And even less to Islam. The Serbian leader 
     Milosevich is not an Islamic extremist. He is a Christian 
     extremist, a nationalist. But that does not make him any less 
     dangerous.


                            ABOUT KAZAKHSTAN

       My country has been in existence as an independent state 
     for only eight years. I am not surprised that not everyone 
     can find it on a map. And yet in recent times American 
     newspapers have been writing about Kazakhstan more 
     frequently. So it is harder nowadays to miss Kazakhstan. Some 
     may say that Kazakhstan is simply a splinter of the former 
     Soviet empire. If so, it is a very large splinter. The 
     largest if one does not count Russia. The territory of 
     Kazakhstan covers 2.7 million square kilometers. This huge 
     territory is inhabited by fifteen million people. This is a 
     bit more than the population of the greater New York 
     metropolitan area. I suspect that it will be a long time 
     before we enter the international discussion of world 
     overpopulation. Imagine the reaction of Japanese businessmen 
     during a four-hour flight from Almaty, our southern capital, 
     to Atray, the center of the oil production region in the 
     western part of the country, when they are told by the 
     stewardess that on their way they will pass over all of 
     three towns. On the other hand, Kazakhstan businessmen are 
     equally stunned when they find out the size of the assets 
     of Japanese and American banks. The total annual state 
     budget of Kazakhstan is somewhere in the area of six 
     billion dollars. That sum passes through a New York bank 
     during one week. And I am not specifically speaking of the 
     Bank of New York.


                       THE RESOURCES OF DEMOCRACY

       When I speak of money, I have no intention of asking for a 
     donation of a certain number of millions to Kazakhstan. This 
     in spite of the catastrophic lack of funds for everything and 
     anything, from formula for the newborn to pensions for the 
     aged. The envoys of the current president regularly come to 
     Washington to ask for credits and donations. But we, the 
     opposition, expect a different kind of aid from America. You 
     probably know the ancient saying that one can give a hungry 
     man a fish or one can teach him how to fish. This holds true 
     not only for Kazakhstan but for all other newly independent 
     states. People in those countries do indeed need the means to 
     exist, but what they need even more is the ability to earn 
     these means within the framework of a unified world market.
       God has not been ungenerous to Kazakhstan when He 
     distributed natural resources. Oil is far from being our only 
     treasure. Kazakhstan possesses deposits of almost all metals, 
     including gold, aluminum, copper, titanium, uranium, zinc and 
     others. All of these resources were being used in one form or 
     another under the Soviet regime. Kazakhstan was then one of 
     the key regions impacting on the growth of the military and 
     industrial might of the Soviet Union.
       When I entered the government in 1993 after having held the 
     position of President of the Entrepreneurs' Union, I 
     considered it my main task to attract foreign investment 
     capital. I traveled the world meeting with businessmen and 
     touting our mineral resources, our highly qualified labor 
     force and engineers, and the possibility of unlimited new 
     markets.
       During the four years that I held the position of prime-
     minister we were able to attract to our country hundreds of 
     Western, primarily American, companies. Their investments 
     totaled 9 billion dollars. We not only managed to avoid 
     defaulting on the multi-billion debt incurred by the previous 
     regime, but we created gold and hard currency reserves of a 
     size remarkable for a country such as Kazakhstan.
       But I have to confess that during my tenure I failed to 
     achieve the most important goal--that of creating a 
     sufficient reserve of democracy in our society. Parallel with 
     the development of a liberalized economy an authoritarian and 
     anti-democratic regime was emerging in Kazakhstan--the regime 
     of President Nazarbaev.
       And, unfortunately, I myself helped solidify it. As a young 
     politician and, more accurately, a technocrat, I believed 
     that everything would develop on its own as it should. 
     Together with my reform-minded colleagues I thought that once 
     a market economy was established, democracy would follow; 
     once Western investments started coming, society would 
     automatically become transparent; once a middle class had 
     emerged and defined its interests, a multi-party system would 
appear.

       We were wrong. Even while still in the position of prime-
     minister I began to notice that foreign investors would 
     frequently find themselves in conflict with local 
     administrations and would always lose in the end.
       The courts and media controlled by local officials 
     invariably took the side of their bosses. Foreign investors 
     and ambassadors applied to me and in each specific case I was 
     forced to use my authority as prime-minister.
       Our own businessmen found themselves in an even worse 
     situation. They became hostages to the officials. They did 
     not have embassies on their side, and their complaints were 
     not being heard by the international arbitration board in 
     Stockholm. Without the administration's patronage they were 
     unable to conduct their business.
       At the same time more and more positions in government were 
     being occupied by the President's relatives. Other positions 
     went to nephews, to fellow-villagers and former colleagues in 
     the Communist Party.
       Combining business holdings, obtained without investment or 
     qualifications, with power, they created a unique sort of 
     capitalism profiting an oligarchy determined by clan and 
     family ties. It was futile to expect of these people either 
     democratic views or even professional managerial conduct.
       At this point I left the government and dedicated myself to 
     political activity. I became the head of the Union of 
     Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Kazakhstan and later the 
     chairman of the Republican National Party of Kazakhstan. 
     These organizations formed an opposition to President 
     Nazarbaev, and I personally was forced to leave my country 
     and seek temporary asylum in Western Europe.


                              AMERICAN AID

       I recently read in the New York Times a commentary by Tina 
     Rosenberg on the work of one of the specialists of the 
     Carnegie Endowment for Peace dealing with the effectiveness 
     of America's ``export of democracy''. I have not as yet seen 
     the book myself, but I noted the following figure: Seven 
     hundred nineteen million dollars were spent last year on US 
     government support of democracy in other countries.
       Thomas Carothers attempted to estimate the effect of such 
     investment in democracy. This is an extremely important 
     question. In the case of Kazakhstan, I see how often such aid 
     is being used by anti-democratic forces for their own 
     purposes. I will give you an example: The International 
     Financial Corporation -opened the printing house ``Franklin'' 
     in Almaty. At first it printed a number of newspapers 
     expressing different viewpoints, among them ``Karavan'', the 
     most widely read and independent of the newspapers of 
     Kazakhstan.
       However, just before last year's presidential elections the 
     authorities forced the owner to sell the newspaper together 
     with the printing house to a relative of President Nazarbaev. 
     Since then the facility has printed nothing but pro-
     government publications, and the opposition has been forced 
     to print its materials a thousand miles away in Russia and 
     ship them secretly into Kazakhstan.
       As you know, barely a month ago parliamentary elections 
     were held in Kazakhstan. They were carried out with massive 
     violations of voting procedures and false vote counts. As a 
     result, the majority of the seats in parliament went to the 
     candidates of the powers that be and to government officials. 
     This happened in spite of the fact that sociological polling 
     and the monitoring of voting precincts on election day 
     indicated that the opposition candidates were in the lead 
     across the country.
       It is not surprising that all this falsification was 
     carried out and later covered up by the Central Electoral 
     Commission. The Commission was created and is controlled by 
     President Nazarbaev. It is, therefore, understandable that 
     local electoral commissions composed of government employees 
     and controlled by local administrators and governors added 
     fake ballots and issued false election returns.
       What is amazing is the fact that on the eve of the 
     elections international organizations conducted serious work 
     of ``educating'' the members of these electoral commissions. 
     Dozens of experts from Western Europe and the United States 
     lectured on the subject of how ballots must be handled and 
     counted correctly and honestly. Members of the Central 
     Electoral Commission went abroad for training. Instructions 
     and methodological materials were printed, seminars 
     conducted. I do no know how much all of this cost, but I 
     suspect that millions were spent. We, the citizens of 
     Kazakhstan, watched all this as a performance of the theater-
     of-the-absurd.
       Why were all these efforts and funds, among them those of 
     the American taxpayers, expended in vain? As recently as in 
     January of this year, these very same electoral commissions 
     had falsified the results of the presidential elections. The 
     free press had been annihilated and many members of the 
     opposition had been denied their civil rights. I was one of 
     them.
       The Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe, a 
     number of Congressional committees and the Administration of 
     President Clinton have condemned those elections as 
     incompatible with democratic norms. The authorities of 
     Kazakhstan never intended to hold honest elections or to 
     admit opposition candidates to parliament. Could the 
     Administration and the agencies involved in foreign aid have 
     deemed it possible that, having falsified the presidential 
     election, Nursultan Nazarbaev would allow honest 
     parliamentary elections? That is hard to believe.


                    THE SECRET STRATEGY OF DICTATORS

       It seems to me that after the dissolution of the Soviet 
     bloc and the Soviet Union, the West was caught in a trap set 
     by crafty post-Soviet leaders. These people have learned the 
     lesson of history, they have understood that one cannot 
     openly reject democratic principles. They determined that it 
     is much better to verbally acknowledge common

[[Page S391]]

     human values, to proclaim them loudly at every turn, to 
     promise to stop all violations of human rights, and--most 
     of all--to abstain from polemics with the West.
       Then one can pay yearly visits to Washington, make speeches 
     before members of the various think tanks about progress 
     towards democracy, and acquire the reputation of being ``our 
     man''. And meanwhile in one's own country one can destroy the 
     free press, quash the opposition, and prevent any possibility 
     of a transfer of power by constitutional means.
       At the same time, these leaders, trying to preempt 
     criticism, are asking the West for help in building 
     democracy. They say that because of long years of Soviet 
     dictatorship, their citizens are unable to absorb such 
     concepts as equality before the law, freedom of speech, 
     political competition and the division of power.
       Thus in April of this year, President Nazarbaev during his 
     appearance at the Carnegie Endowment asserted in all 
     seriousness that America had needed two hundred years to 
     build its democracy and that, therefore, no demands in that 
     respect could be made on Kazakhstan.
       Had I been present at that meeting, I would have answered 
     my president by saying: ``Had American presidents allowed 
     themselves to rig elections and prolong their terms in office 
     at will, even five hundred years would not have been enough 
     for building democracy in the United States.''
       It is hard to say how many American consultants have 
     visited Kazakhstan and how many proposals and memorandums 
     they have written for the government. All of them were 
     qualified experts, all of them believed that the government 
     was just waiting for their recommendations to make one more 
     step toward genuine democracy. But none of these 
     recommendations are implemented if they go contrary to the 
     preservation of power by the new ``nomenklatura''.
       You must realize that the elective nature of local 
     government has been abolished in Kazakhstan. All regional 
     governors and local mayors are appointed by the President. 
     There is a Ministry of Information and Social Concensus which 
     controls the media and printing. What kind of recommendations 
     can one give to these institutions? All this reminds one of a 
     discourse between a cannibal and dieticians. The members of 
     the rubber-stamp parliament have frequently visited 
     Washington on the invitation of their colleagues, the US 
     legislators. They pretended to admire the perfection of the 
     American system of division of power and then returned home 
     to vote for granting President Nararbaev additional powers 
     and authority and extending his term of office from five to 
     seven years. There is a Russian proverb ``The oats were of no 
     profit to the horse''. I think it fits the situation.
       A year ago a ban was placed on the publication of my book 
     ``The Right to Chose'', which exposed the true nature of the 
     current regime. More than three hundred thousand copies 
     published in the Kazakh language were destroyed. For the last 
     two years the authorities have been denying registration to 
     the newspaper ``Respublika''. During the presidential 
     elections twelve opposition papers and two radio stations 
     were closed down. Three printing houses were confiscated 
     and have not been returned to their owners. Quite recently 
     the owner of the independent radio station RIK was forced 
     to leave for Canada.
       I was outraged when I heard the testimony of Kazakhstan's 
     ambassador to Washington Nurgaliev at the hearings before the 
     Congressional Committee on Cooperation and Security in 
     Europe. He was trying to convince Congress that democracy was 
     indeed evolving in Kazakhstan, that it was becoming an 
     accomplished fact. As proof thereof he cited the cooperation 
     of his government with international organizations and 
     American consultants.
       And this at a time when it is clear to any objective 
     observer that Kazakhstan is moving swiftly away from 
     democracy and mutating towards a classic dictatorship. What 
     is encouraging is that US legislators do not allow themselves 
     to be duped by such litanies of ``good deeds'' and continue 
     to condemn the anti-democratic practices of the current 
     regime.
       Does this mean that the United States should abandon their 
     efforts to export democracy to post-Soviet states? Not at 
     all! But it would be useful to analyze the correlation 
     between cost and effect.
       When viewed from that perspective, the most effective aid 
     turns out to be that which is given not to governmental 
     bodies, but to specific opposition groups, to independent 
     newspapers to intellectuals, to unofficial trade unions. It 
     is such aid that proved to be decisive in Poland. A simple 
     Xerox machine in the hands of ``Solidarity'' proved to be a 
     more powerful weapon than the guns and clubs of the secret 
     police.
       But one must remember that the new dictators are extremely 
     resourceful. For the benefit of the West they create a large 
     number of seemingly non-governmental and quite democratic 
     organizations: ``pocket'' trade-unions, environmental 
     movements, women's movements, fake political parties.
       It would seem, that a foreigner would be incapable of 
     telling a genuine human rights advocate from a false one, a 
     real democratic movement from a fictional one. But in 
     actuality, it is all quite simple: There is only one 
     criterion and it is well known to your journalists and 
     diplomats who work in Kazakhstan: Does this or that 
     opposition group allow itself to criticize the President?
       All the ``pocket'' dissidents and fictional opponents are 
     permitted to severely criticize and expose regional governors 
     and even government ministers, but will never dare to point 
     out that, if corruption has pervaded the highest levels of 
     government, the President is obviously aiding and abetting 
     it. Once you identify the ``upper limit of criticism'', you 
     can determine whether the organization in question is really 
     independent of the government and the secret police.


                THE VOICE OF AMERICA MUST BE TRULY HEARD

       The credit for the fact that the Soviet Union crumbled of 
     its own accord without anybody coming to its defense belongs 
     to a greater degree to the radios ``Liberty'' and ``Voice of 
     America'' than to the Pentagon and the CIA. I hope that the 
     workers of those two venerable agencies will not feel 
     offended.
       But it is precisely from those broadcasts that I myself 
     gained my basic understanding of a free society and of a 
     market economy. At that time the broadcasts were being 
     heavily jammed, but we listened anyway. We did so because man 
     has, among other instincts, the very basic instinct, the 
     unquenchable desire to know the truth. The great Russian 
     writer and the great dissident of the Soviet era, Nobel Prize 
     Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn proclaimed that ``God is to 
     be found in truth, not in might''. It is because of this that 
     Brezhnev feared him more than any other of his enemies.
       This is why, when I meet with members of Congress and the 
     Administration in Washington, I ask them again and again not 
     to cut down on broadcasts to the former Soviet republics, but 
     to create broadcast services for each of the new states of 
     Central Asia. My people need information as much as they need 
     bread.
       You cannot imagine to what length my fellow-citizens will 
     go to obtain truthful information. Because of the difference 
     in time zones, they watch Russian TV broadcasts deep into the 
     night trying to find out what is really happening in 
     Kazakhstan. Early in October the New York Times published an 
     article about the fact that the Swiss police had frozen the 
     personal bank account of President Nazarbaev in the amount of 
     eighty five million dollars. As soon as reports about this 
     event began to be broadcast by Russian television stations, 
     all Russian TV channels were blocked for three days in 
     Kazakhstan.
       I am sure that you find it hard to believe. But this is 
     indeed so. Try to imagine it. Try to imagine how hard it is 
     for people to live not only in poverty but surrounded by 
     lies. Help people in all post-Soviet states to turn from mere 
     populations into civic societies. The broadcasts of the Voice 
     of America and of Radio Liberty must not be curtailed.
       Full-fledged programs for each of these states in its own 
     language must be created. One should not economize on truth 
     and freedom of information. The United States, as the last of 
     the superpowers, bear the responsibility for maintaining not 
     only peace but truth. I repeat the words of Solzhenitsyn: 
     ``God is to be found in truth, not in might''.


                         THE THREAT TO THE WEST

       No one can say that Kazakhstan and other states of Central 
     Asia are being ignored by American diplomats and non-
     governmental experts. But this is so mainly because of their 
     oil and the question of its delivery to Western markets. The 
     bloody conflict in Chechnya and the armed religious movements 
     in these countries are viewed merely as arguments pro or con 
     for one or the other route the future gigantic pipeline might 
     take.
       I am convinced that world history is driven not by oil, but 
     by blood. The danger of terrorist movements lies not in the 
     fact that they may hinder the building of this or that 
     pipeline, but in the fact that they disrupt and destroy 
     human lives. Remember Bosnia and Kosovo. There is no oil 
     in the Balkans, but the threat to peace which arose there 
     forced the United States and NATO to send their troops.
       If after the passing of Tito the West had not abandoned 
     Yugoslavia to the tender mercies of Milosevich, if the 
     democratic movements there had received support in the 
     nineteen eighties, the dissolution of that state would not 
     have been as tragic and prolonged. If a radio ``Free Serbia'' 
     had begun broadcasting early enough, Milosevich would have 
     left the scene five years ago. Instead, just as the 
     presidents of some of the CIS countries, among them President 
     Nazarbaev, had done, he placed his daughter at the head of 
     state television and radio. The Serbian people became the 
     victims of nationalist lies and have suffered for it.
       Nationalism and religious extremism are the two main 
     threats to a happy and prosperous future. Do they threaten 
     Kazakhstan? To a great extent they do, unless the opposition 
     forces and world opinion counter them with a democratic 
     alternative. Otherwise no strong-hand tactics, not 
     dictatorial regime will stand up to that threat.
       Conversely, dictatorship and the corruption it breeds is 
     likely to lead to an explosion of religious, and particularly 
     Islamic, fanaticism. In a poor country where the ruling elite 
     cynically robs the people and deprives them of the 
     opportunity to express their aspirations, the emergence of 
     religious extremism becomes unavoidable.
       The average person sees that he or she cannot change 
     anything, becomes desperate and ready to do anything. And at 
     this moment a preacher inevitably appears saying that God 
     will bless your protest and forgive any bloodshed. All that 
     remains is to find the weapons, and that is not difficult in 
     our world today.

[[Page S392]]

       So wherein lies the true source of religious extremism--in 
     religion or in dictatorship which pushes people towards 
     violence? The answer is self-evident. Leaders of some CIS 
     regimes find it useful to have a few extremist Islamic groups 
     handy to frighten the West.
       They tell you: ``Only dictatorship can stop Islamic terror. 
     If you do not support me, your oil pipelines will suffer''. 
     This is a lie. This is a total reversal of cause and effect. 
     The longer dictatorial clan-based regimes remain in power, 
     the greater will the influence of religious fanatics become, 
     and the more blood will be spilled eventually.
       For Kazakhstan the threat of national and religious 
     extremism is especially great. In our country there are as 
     many Kazakhs as non-Kazakhs, as many Muslims as there are 
     Orthodox Christians. If the danger of religious extremism 
     arises in the predominantly Kazakh south, the Russian 
     population which is concentrated in the north will turn to 
     Russia for aid. The oil-rich western part of the country will 
     proclaim its own interests. In that case the 
     ``balkanization'' of Kazakhstan will become inevitable.
       It pains me to say all this. I am asking you to help my 
     country avoid this fate. There is no other way to achieve 
     this than to help the people of Kazakhstan to secure those 
     freedoms which were initially promised by the Constitution 
     but which were then stolen: the freedom of speech, the 
     freedom of forming political organizations, the freedom to 
     choose one's representatives in the governing bodies. And, I 
     beg, do not help dictators stay in power.
       Our world stands on the threshold of a new millennium. 
     There is a saying: ``As you greet the New Year, so will you 
     live in it''. If this is true, then equally true would be the 
     conclusion that ``as you greet a new century, so will you 
     live in it'', or ``as you greet a new millennium, so will you 
     live in it''. During most of the first millennium of the new 
     era East and West existed apart from each other. During the 
     second millennium they fought a great deal. Let us live the 
     third millennium in peace, justice and prosperity.
       I thank you for your interest in my country, Kazakhstan, 
     and its people.
                                 ______
                                 

         National Exile Warns of Extremist Threat in Kazakhstan

          [From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, OH, Nov. 13, 1999]

                            (By Joe Frolik)

       A Kazakhstani dissident leader in exile since April warns 
     that his resource-rich homeland could fall prey to religious 
     or nationalist extremists if the current regime continues to 
     resist democratic reforms.
       Akezhan Kazhegeldin told a City Club of Cleveland audience 
     yesterday that United States and other democratic countries 
     should continue pressing the former Soviet Republic of 
     Kazakhstan to hold open elections, to allow a free press and 
     to permit political dissent.
       ``When the average person sees that he or she cannot change 
     anything, they become desperate and ready to do anything,'' 
     said Kazhegeldin, Kazakhstanys Prime Minister before he broke 
     with President Nursultan Nazarbaev in 1997. ``It pains me to 
     say all this. I am asking you to help my country avoid this 
     fate.''
       Nazarbaev was Kazakhstan's communist boss at the end of the 
     Soviet Union and became president of the newly independent 
     republic. He has concentrated economic and political power in 
     family members and sponsored a series of elections that have 
     been criticized by outside observers, including the 
     Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
       Last year, Nazarbaev suddenly moved the date of the next 
     presidential election ahead two years.
       Then his election commission disqualified Kazhegeldin, who 
     most Western observers consider the country's most popular 
     opposition figure. The reason: He had delivered a speech to 
     an ``unauthorized'' group--Kazakhstanis for Free Elections. 
     Kazhegeldin also was barred from last month's parliamentary 
     ballot, though by then he had fled to Moscow and then London 
     after being shot at and accused of corruption and money 
     laundering.
       He has denied the charges.
       Nazarbaev himself is widely suspected of having profited 
     from power.
       The Guardian newspaper last year reported that he was the 
     eighth wealthiest person in the world.
       Kazakhstan covers 1 million square miles of Central Asia 
     and borders both Russia and China.
       It is believed to contain the world's largest untapped pool 
     of oil, as well as large deposits of gold and titanium.
       But unemployment is high and the average annual income is 
     less than $1,300,according to the State Department.
       Foreign investors are afraid to set up shop in Kazakhstan, 
     Kazhegeldin said, because of an unreliable legal 
     system.

                          ____________________