Will the European Union be able to mediate in resolving the political crisis in Kazakhstan and are the fears of some experts justified that the true goal of Moscow, which sent its military personnel to the country as part of the CSTO contingent, is to increase its geopolitical influence in the Central Asian region? These and other questions in an interview with DW were answered by the regional director of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Christoph Mohr.
DW: Mr. Mohr, just three days ago in Kazakhstan, people took to the streets to protest the rise in gas prices. Today, after the riots and bloodshed, neighboring states, including Russia, at the request of President Tokayev, are sending their military to the country, and local security forces are allowed to shoot demonstrators without warning. How was such a rapid development of events possible?
Kristof Mor: A very difficult situation has developed in Kazakhstan. For a country that just a few weeks ago celebrated its 30th anniversary of independence, it is literally unparalleled. After all, there have never been any protests comparable to the current ones in terms of scale, speed of development and escalation in the largest country in Central Asia.
Expert of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation for Kazakhstan Christoph More
These protests began suddenly, but not unexpectedly. The reasons for the unrest were primarily of a socio-economic nature. This is undoubtedly related to the general structure of Kazakhstan’s economy, how the economy of this resource-rich country functions and how its wealth is distributed.
Rising prices – not just for energy, but also for staple foods – was the first concrete factor to spark the protest. High inflation, social injustice, which intensified amid the coronavirus pandemic, also played a role. In my estimation, this was the main reason for participation in the protest for many Kazakhs.
Meanwhile, the demonstrators are not a homogeneous group, and they do not have leaders who would speak on behalf of all participants in the demonstrations. If socio-economic problems gave impetus to the start of the protest, now they are mixed with other demands, for example, about the transformation of the system. We all saw how the monument to the first president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, was demolished.
They take part in demonstrations, as the government very clearly indicated, and criminals who are engaged in robbery, looting and seizure of weapons. In this context, the government speaks of “terrorists trained abroad”.
– In other words, from your point of view, political demands are not the main ones on this protest?
– In this regard, large cities, such as Alma-Ata, may differ from other regions. As for the latter, I assume that for them it is economic requirements that play a key role. Indeed, in the provinces and during the economic upsurge of Kazakhstan, many people had to wonder how to pay for housing and what to buy food for.
Meanwhile, in the megalopolis of Alma-Ata, already in 2019, during the transfer of power from Nazarbayev to Tokayev, demonstrations were held at which other demands were expressed: about political participation and a departure from the Nazarbayev system, which dominated Kazakhstan for 30 years.
– At first it seemed that President Tokayev was ready to make concessions: he canceled the increase in gas prices and dissolved the government. However, he now calls the demonstrators “terrorists.” Do you think he is in control of the situation?
– Today there is a lot of speculation about whether Tokayev retains control over all parts of Kazakhstan. There is also a discussion about whether he is in conflict with his predecessor Nazarbayev. It is too early to draw unambiguous conclusions on this score. One thing is indisputable – during the months leading up to the protests, Tokayev, within the framework of a concept called “a state that listens to the voice of the people,” tried to listen to civil society in order to prevent unrest.
So I think that the country’s leadership and, in particular, Tokayev was aware that there is a potential for conflict in Kazakh society, and wanted to prevent this conflict. I think it is correct that Tokayev, first of all, took a step towards civil society. However, today, despite the fact that the situation is aggravated and permission was given to fire on demonstrators, it can be assumed that the government will change course.
– How do you see scenarios for overcoming this crisis and what role could the EU play in them?
– Statements made by the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy (Josep Borrell. – Ed.), as well as the local EU Delegations in Kazakhstan, sound very clear. A dialogue is needed between the parties to the conflict, this is the only way to resolve it. I subscribe to this opinion because I do not think that the escalation that leads to gunfire at demonstrators and out of control violence is an acceptable way out of the systemic crisis. The socio-economic problems mentioned above can be solved not by violence, but by the willingness to talk and exchange views.
– Several neighboring countries of Kazakhstan, including Russia, within the framework of the CSTO contingent, at Tokayev’s request, sent their military there to, allegedly, stabilize the situation. Some experts fear that Moscow could take advantage of this to increase its influence in Kazakhstan. Should Western countries raise this topic in the upcoming talks with the Kremlin over Ukraine and NATO?
– It is worth noting that the introduction of military personnel into Kazakhstan under the auspices of the CSTO, which is also called “Russian NATO”, is a new phenomenon. Article 4 of the Collective Security Treaty, which is similar to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, is being used for the first time, and at the same time – to suppress internal unrest. This is what is being discussed in the substantiation of the mandate prepared by Kazakhstan, and not about external aggressors and the aforementioned “terrorists”.
Thanks to the involvement of foreign military personnel in Kazakhstan, primarily Russian ones, this conflict has acquired a new, geopolitical dimension. It is clear that now many experts and the population of Kazakhstan are starting a discussion (about the possible strengthening of the influence of the Russian Federation in Kazakhstan. – Ed.). But so far it is difficult to assess the consequences of such a step.
It is necessary to look on the spot how large this contingent will be, what tasks it will have and how long it will stay in the country. It can be said with certainty that for Moscow, Kazakhstan is an extremely important country. Institutional linkage of Kazakhstan to Russia is very strong: the country is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and other organizations, where Russia prevails. Geographic and cultural ties play an important role, as does cooperation in the use of the Baikonur cosmodrome. So Moscow is very interested in the stability of Kazakhstan.
Meanwhile, Nur-Sultan has long sought to pursue a multi-vector foreign policy, building good relations not only with one major power, but also with China and the West. Therefore, the current turn towards Moscow for Kazakhstan is a double-edged sword. If one wishes, one can assume that Russia’s influence on the country will now increase. However, from my point of view, it is too early to draw such conclusions.
– Stable relations and economic partnership with the West distinguish Kazakhstan from other countries in the region. Do you think that the country’s economy, open to the world, could become a prerequisite for democratic transformations?
– The turning points in the history of some countries made it possible to turn their political development in the direction that we consider correct. Of course, Kazakhstan has the potential for an in-depth dialogue between state and society and ongoing democratization. As I said, the government tried to listen to civil society even before the protests began.
Given the observed spiral of violence, will the present moment become exactly (at which democratization in Kazakhstan. – Ed.), I would not be in a hurry to speak. Of course, we would be glad if the dialogue between the parties to the conflict led to transformations in Kazakh society, which would allow on a long-term basis to solve systemic problems and create a more equitable economy.
See also:
.