[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 23433-23434]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   DEMOCRATIC PROGRESS IN KAZAKHSTAN

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RALPH M. HALL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 8, 2004

  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Republic of 
Kazakhstan on its continued--and steady--progress toward building a 
democracy. In particular, I note the recent parliamentary elections 
held in Kazakhstan on September 19. While the elections show that 
Kazakhstan has work to do in order to more fully meet international 
standards for democratic elections, they were a significant improvement 
over past elections.
  Earlier this year, I was visited by members of the Kazakhstan 
Embassy. Among other information I learned that Kazakhstan gained its 
independence in 1991. It held its first multiparty election in 1994. In 
1999, the republic conducted parliamentary elections that were widely 
criticized by the international community. Since that time, Kazakhstan 
passed a much-improved law on elections, held twelve televised debates, 
conducted effective voter education, permitted more than 1,000 election 
observers to monitor the elections, and registered 12 parties--
including an opposition party that had been refused registration in 
prior elections. These are all positive steps forward for Kazakhstan--
steps that were unthinkable in past elections. I thanked them for their 
visit--and assured them that as Chairman of the Energy and Air Quality 
Subcommittee, I looked forward to working out mutual energy thrusts 
helpful to both Kazakhstan and the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight to my colleagues an essay 
published by United Press International on September 25, 2004, and 
written by Gregory Fossedal, entitled ``Outside View: Big progress in 
Kazakhstan.'' The essay provides a balanced assessment of the recent 
Kazakh election.
  Unlike many of his colleagues, Mr. Fossedal examines the elections 
within the context of Kazakhstan's young history. He looks at how far 
Kazakhstan has come since its independence and how it compares with its 
neighbors. Moreover, the essay makes a compelling case that, 
considering Kazakhstan's geographic and demographic position, its 
steady progress is important to U.S. security.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this essay and I would like 
to have the text of this essay placed into the Congressional Record 
following my statement.

           [From United Press International, Sept. 25, 2004]

                 Outside View: Big Progress in Kazakhan

                         (By Gregory Fossedal)

       Washington, DC, Sept. 24 (UPI).--Kazakhstan held national 
     elections on Sunday, prompting comments from a number of 
     outside observers, and all the local opposition, that the 
     vote was a step backwards for democracy. Was it that--or was 
     it just not as much progress as democracy-lovers around the 
     world, including me, might hope for?
       To answer that question, we need to decide what 
     Kazakhstan's admittedly sloppy democracy today is being 
     compared to: the Kazakhstan of several years ago, other 
     countries in the region 10 years ago, or Russia, China, Iraq 
     or Florida?
       By most of these standards, the country seems to have made 
     mild but steady improvement. Progress, that is to say, motion 
     towards a goal. Furthermore, considering Kazakhstan's 
     geographic and demographic position, it's a steady 
     improvement that's important to U.S. security and democracy 
     in general.
       Measuring a democracy's progress at the low end of 
     development is a tricky matter, but Kazakhstan's recent vote 
     appears to have at least two positive signposts.
       First, the vote was held, and with numerous international 
     observers. Some of these, especially as covered in the major 
     press, had complaints about both voting mechanics and the 
     social backdrop against which the vote took place--especially 
     including reports of ``intimidation'' of some voters on 
     Election Day, and the lack of a paper trail from voting 
     machines used by about 20 percent of the voters.
       In fact, to an extent, that's the point. Kazakhstan has now 
     held a competitive election, with a largest number of 
     international observers per capita compared to (say) recent 
     votes in Venezuela, Indonesia or the Philippines. Critics can 
     point out flaws, document the ruling party's heavy-
     handedness, and urge future improvements.
       The most balanced report to emerge, by the Organization for 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe, generated Western 
     headlines saying the election ``failed the democracy test'' 
     (The New York Times) and even was ``fraudulent'' (The 
     Washington Times). But the report itself noted positive areas 
     of ``progress'' as against previous Kazakh elections--the 
     relevant unit of comparison.
       Professor Frederick Starr of Johns Hopkins, who was in 
     Kazakhstan as an observer, judged the voting to be 
     fundamentally improved over recent Kazakh standards. 
     ``Overall . . . the election was ``a step forward, not 
     withstanding the imperfections,'' he said in a statement 
     issued in Astana on Monday. Unfortunately, such views were 
     not widely quoted in the international press.
       Second, and more important, if the results hold up, at 
     least one opposition party will be seated in the Kazakh 
     Parliament. This is an important signpost in democratic 
     development--as the evolution of Mexico, the Philippines, 
     Pakistan, Turkey, and other countries shows. Looking back at 
     countries that have completed a successful democratic 
     transition, opposition seating is normally a key inflection 
     point.
       This doesn't mean that Kazakhstan will be a full democracy 
     shortly, or even in five or 10 years; the government could 
     always crack down and reverse direction. It is, however, 
     forward motion.
       In social terms, Kazakhstan also parallels some of the 
     developments seen in Mexico or the Philippines in the 1980s. 
     Income is surging, the economy has grown at an 8 percent to 
     12 percent pace each of the last five years. This, in turn, 
     is generating a middle class with greater access to 
     information, and insistence on freedom of expression.
       Kazakhstan doesn't enjoy much of a domestic free press, for 
     example. But foreign newspapers and magazines are available 
     in most cities. Mobile telephone usage has more than tripled 
     over five years. In 1997, there were as paltry 15,000 
     Internet users. This rose to more than 70,000 in 2000, more 
     than 150,000 last year, and probably exceeds 200,000 today.
       That's still small for an emerging middle-income country 
     with 16 million people. But of course, every such user has 
     family, friends, and business associates. In emerging 
     democracies, as in Poland in the 1980s, information can 
     spread quickly. As well, Kazakhstan now has a number of 
     independent service providers less amenable to direct 
     government control.
       The government has tried to block access to critical news 
     sources at home and abroad. Such efforts, however, are 
     generally doomed to failure unless one goes all the way and 
     imposes direct, government-controlled net access only--
     something the government has stepped back from doing.
       Sergei Duvanov of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting 
     outlined how Kazakhs were able to get around many of the 
     blocks in an interesting 2001 report. As well, President 
     Nazarbaev, stung by international criticism of his efforts to 
     regulate speech, has rescinded a number of the 1998-2000 
     decrees.
       This is not to say that immutable economic or social forces 
     will bring about a full Kazakh democracy no matter what the 
     authorities do. Countries like China, for example, have much 
     wider Internet access and a larger middle class--but still no 
     elections, and no substantial opposition parties.
       In Kazakhstan, however, the Internet and other information 
     sources act in combination with independent parties, muddy 
     elections--but elections nevertheless--and what should be a 
     parliamentary opposition. And the government has moved 
     gradually (tortuously gradually; perhaps) towards more 
     freedom; not less, since the country achieved independence in 
     1991.
       The election itself raised several problems. For example, a 
     Monday item in The New York Times, ``Intimidation Alleged in 
     Vote in Kazakhstan,'' starts with a quote harshly condemning 
     the elections from Dos Kushyn, who is described as ``the 
     director of the Network of Independent Monitors,'' which 
     placed 2,000 observers around the country.
       This caught the attention of at least one seasoned Kazakh 
     observer who sent me a number of pre-election clips referring 
     to approximately 1,000 accredited election observers in the 
     country--total, from all outside groups. How could one 
     fellow, running an organization never mentioned before, have 
     2,000 observers?
       It turns out that Dos Kushyn is an opposition figure and 
     whatever 2,000 ``observers'' he fielded, few were accredited. 
     This doesn't mean their opinions should be dismissed. But 
     neither should his complaints be taken at face value, still 
     less as coming from a wholly disinterested group.
       Most Western press quoted only Kazakh officials defending 
     the election or putting it in context. In other words, they 
     presented criticism from independent sources, and praise only 
     from the government, whose motives are likely to be 
     questioned by any skeptical reader. What they didn't do was 
     refer to the numerous independent observers, some cited 
     above, who said that on balance, the election didn't meet 
     Western standards--but was an improvement.
       The government also used voting machines, which are, 
     indeed, a problem--especially given that the computers 
     Kazakhstan deployed, like some of those coming into use in a 
     number of U.S. states, left no ``paper trail.'' This is not a 
     best practice. One can sympathize, however, with the 
     government's decision to go with expensive, high-tech systems 
     from the West, thinking this would buy some credibility.
       The United States--which in contrast to Kazakhstan is 
     allowing a total of 20 (that's right, 20) independent 
     observers for its 2004

[[Page 23434]]

     vote--should be a little reticent about raising this 
     complaint.
       Still less should U.S. policy aim at punishing the country 
     with economic aid restraints and sanctions, as some in 
     Congress have proposed.
       Unlike other countries in what one observer has called 
     ``the scud belt,'' Kazakhstan doesn't need piles of aid 
     (Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq) to hold votes or stay on the 
     democratic path. It hasn't built or tried to build nuclear 
     weapons (Pakistan, India, China). It seems, knock on wood, to 
     be moving the right way--as opposed to Iran, Saudi Arabia, 
     and others.
       This is said not to criticize the other countries 
     mentioned, but to point out that the Kazakhs are building 
     democracy quietly and by tugging their own bootstraps, and 
     without evident imperial ambitions or terrorist-nationalist 
     resentments.
       Kazakhstan is an important potential ally to the United 
     States, Russia, and its neighbors in the ``war on terror.'' 
     It's also a potential bulwark for the faintly democratic tide 
     among countries with large (about 45 percent) Muslim 
     populations. There is a prospect of a ring of democracies on 
     the borders of China and Iran, the better to raise the heat 
     on those undemocratic states. And large Muslim-population 
     states--Turkey, Indonesia, the Philippines, Mongolia, and 
     potentially Iraq and Afghanistan--serve as examples and proof 
     that Islam need not be anti-democratic.
       Thus Kazakhstan is moving in a democratic direction--too 
     slowly, but not going the wrong way. The right response for 
     friends of democracy is to offer encouragement. If matters 
     reverse, it's time for some mild sticks. Working slowly by 
     contrast, should bring soft applause and some small carrots.

                          ____________________