Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who addressed the gathering at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce via video link, was hailed by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle as a "visionary leader," while diplomats and business leaders alike waited in line to heap praise on the rapidly developing oil-rich republic.

By regional standards, Kazakhstan is indeed qualified to boast. Nazarbayev, bolstered by an expanding hydrocarbon economy, has permitted a level of political reform that looks well against neighboring Uzbekistan's brutal authoritarianism, or the dictatorial isolationism of Turkmenistan.

But while the Kazakh administration has steered a path toward prosperity, its leaders are by no means secure. The 'color revolutions' that swept aside unpopular governments in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine have created a sense of unease, the effect of which is clearly discernable in Kazakhstan's foreign policy.

"Regional leaders are becoming wary, if not entirely distrusting of the U.S. presence," wrote Dmitry Shlapentokh, an associate professor of history at the University of Indiana, in a September article for the EurasiaNet Web site.

The perception that American influence was instrumental in deposing other governments in the region has prompted a Kazakh public relations offensive, which aims to convince the West of Nazarbayev's beneficence, create closer ties with the United States and secure his regime against both democratic and revolutionary opposition.

All of which ties neatly with American interests in the region. These interests suffered a massive setback following Uzbekistan's decision to evict U.S. military personnel from the base at Karshi-Khanabad after the violent suppression of popular protest in Andijan in May. As an alternative site for military bases, Kazakhstan can do much to revive the American position.

The United States has made no secret of the importance it places on Kazakhstan. "We are not ashamed to say that the U.S. has strategic interests in the region," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza told the Chamber. These interests were not just military, he said: America also had an interest in Kazakh fossil fuels and in promoting democracy in the region.

However, these various interests are by no means complimentary. Kazakh leaders are well aware that if they can make their country an indispensable strategic partner to the United States, Western pressure for democratic reform will lessen. Already, opposition figures in Kazakhstan are claiming that many of Nazarbayev's political reforms are cosmetic and aimed largely at cementing the strategic alliance with America.

Rachid Nougmanov, general director of the International Freedom Network and campaigner for the opposition party United Movement for a Just Kazakhstan, says the Nazarbayev regime is simply much wilier than its neighbors in its dealings with the West.

The government is at great pains to tell anyone who will listen that upcoming presidential elections, recently rescheduled by Nazarbayev for December, will be 'free and fair.' Not a chance, says Nougmanov. "We will see the same violations as before," he told United Press International. "The difference is that this time they will try harder to convince the international community that the elections were fair."

A 2003 European Parliament resolution on human rights in Kazakhstan "hit the country like a bomb," he said, causing a sudden realization on the part of the regime that it must work harder to ingratiate itself with America and Europe. "There is no real progress in civil society," Nougmanov said. "There is only progress in improving Kazakhstan's status in the international club."

A cornerstone of United States energy policy has long been diversification of sources, on the rationale that if oil is imported from a variety of suppliers, no one power can upset the global strategy.

Kazakhstan's new privileged position as America's closest friend in Central Asia raises the danger that while the energy sector continues to diversify, military strategists are increasingly relying too heavily on individual partners at the expense of the broader imperative of encouraging democratic development.

"After Uzbekistan, U.S. options are getting narrower," said Ariel Cohen, a regional expert at the Heritage foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, told UPI. "The U.S. is talking to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. But we also need to explore the possibility of a strategic dialogue with Russia and China."

Inherent friction between the various strands of United States policy in Central Asia will certainly pose problems, Cohen said. But this was "a challenge, not a contradiction." The United States was now better placed to handle this test: "The U.S. experience of 'orange revolutions' means that we are now able to integrate different aspects of our policy more effectively," he said.

In 2004 the German weekly 'Der Spiegel' reported that the United States was aiding the Uzbek regime, a vital ally in the 'War on Terror,' to the tune of $100 million annually. This sunny relationship came to a bloody and ignominious end on the streets Andijan in May.

If Kazakhstan is not to become the next Uzbekistan, the task of balancing strategic interests against democratic development must be performed sensitively. Close association with Kazakhstan is a strategic imperative. But this need not come at the expense of Kazakh democracy.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News