Central Asian Bulletin, 18 May 2000

Sagyndyk MENDYBAEV

A new epochal liberal initiative by the Republic of Kazakhstan's supreme power is expected to be launched in June: It will
declare the “round table” with participation of the leading political parties and movements. This “table” will be introduced to the
West as the beginning of Nation-wide Dialog. But actually the most likely purpose of this event is to send the idea of national
Dialog to the bottom of dreary hopeless altercation.

But before this show starts its directors from Astana should at least bring dissonance and vacillation to opposition camp. The
definition of “opposition” should itself be so eroded that citizens would get confused who is “white”, who is “black” and who is
at last “turquoise”. For this reason the Whites should get red and it would also be fine if the Reds get white.

Pro-presidential parties can openly occupy more strict position soon and even criticize the President himself (how awful!)
would he require. Can you imagine Mr. Tereschenko as an opponent? I can not either. But Sergei Aleksandrovich can attack
Tokaev’s government for sure. The Agrarian Party can kick authorities for impoverishment of rural areas. The Civil Party can
do the same for crazy tax policy. Thus a “powerful knot” absorbing and disseminating real opposition can be formed.

At the same time the work with real opposition is in the full swing. Someone is promised to be promoted, others are being
threatened. Co-chairs of “Azamat” movement Svoik and Abilsiitov were advised to contact authorities directly. They requested
to assign them as akims and promised to demonstrate everything they are capable of. They contacted authorities however the
authorities kept silence. They did not get positions and seceded Forum of Democratic Forces either.

Madel Ismailov (Workers Movement) and Irina Savostina (Pensioners Movement “Generation”) are the more serious
opponents. Authorities have either imprison or threaten them. “Orleu” Movement leader Kuttykadam is subject to complex
treatment. He is blackmailed, threatened and given sweet promises simultaneously. Authorities do not stand on ceremony with
the Republican Peoples Party leaders at all. Thanks God, bricks have not been beating in their heads yet.

President Administration as well as the Almaty Department of the Committee for National Security have been thrashing over
these problems, and Rakhat Aliev, Department Head, have been giving his personal attention to opposition. Prophylactic and
“business” meetings and talks have been organized in strict confidence however one can hardly conceal anything both among
oppositionists and reporters. “Objects of interest” have been known for a long time, as well as the methods of prompt
enrolment and vert. Within everyone’s recollection are the shining examples of Olzhas Suleimenov, who has turned from
oppositionist to the President’s best friend in a day, and that of Vitaly Voronov who has suddenly waken to acknowledge that
his activities in the Republican People’s Party of Kazakhstan had been “dangerous and destructive”.

Individual pressing has been so strong that some oppositionists has begun to have a dread of each other being afraid of
treachery. That is the purpose of the authorities: To awe, to sow the seeds of strife, to liquidate the Forum of Democratic
Forces so that the authorities themselves would be able to determine the composition of the opposite party for the show made
of the “National Dialog”.

Indeed, each person (including oppositionists) is an architect of his or her own fortunes and has every right to decide whether to
keep a troublesome and thankless role of the fighter against the regime or to choose other, more comfortable and secure way.
Taking such a decision one should however keep in mind a few copybook maxims:

  1.When dealing with any authority, moreover authoritative authority, one should be governed by the “laws of a prisoner”:
    Do not believe, do not be afraid, do not ask for something. If you violate these laws the authorities will certainly fall in
    love you but in their specific way.

  2.The example of many ex-oppositionists proves that Nazarbaev will never trust a person from “the other side”. Baltash
    Tursumbaev was promoted to the position of Vice Premier, however where is he now? Where is Murat Auezov – the
    main competitor for presidential ballot? Former oppositionist will forever bear the earmark of otherwise-minded person
    whatever the proves of the loyalty to the regime would be. The very fact that the person was able to oppose President
    Nazarbaev is an indelible disgrace. The President can play games but he does not overlook offences.

  3.Nothing could change the general disposition no matter who would make a volte-face. They can split off Svoik or
    jeopardize Voronov, they can buy someone today to sell him tomorrow, or just to beat someone in his head, however
    the opposition will remain the opposition, and the authorities will remain the authorities. There is no government without
    its Premier, and there is no opposition without leaders, politicians, opponents to the authorities. From this viewpoint, all
    the attempts to destroy opposition by its fragmentation, enticement, individual pressing are on the skids. The opposition
    can be liquidated only physically. Thus, opposition newspapers were prohibited in fascist Germany, there were no
    opposition parties either. However there were briefcases with explosive devices for Hitler. Any forced pressure upon
    opposition inevitably results in extremism. The attempts to lynch and quench present the best way to radicalize political
    opponents.

  4.The discussion involving pro-president parties and ethnic cultural centers will never be mistaken for the National Dialog
    by the West. Actual political opponents to the regime should speak to the authority rather its vassals bearing fancy
    “polemic” dresses. Whatever colors would parties and movements leaders choose, the formula of the National Dialog is
    to be proposed by its initiators representing the Forum of Democratic Forces of Kazakhstan, as well as the third party –
    independent observers. Otherwise any dialog will become impossible.

Central Asian Bulletin, 18 May 2000

News from home
Kazakh human rights activists are concerned over latest changes in the Criminal Code

International Kazakh Journal "Arba", June 2000

Tatiana DELTSOVA

Kazakh human rights activists are concerned over the latest changes in the Kazakhstan's Criminal Code. In their opinion, the
new version of article 172 puts a limit on the rights of journalists and can be ambiguously interpreted.

Article 172 of the Criminal Code has acquired new contents. The recent changes make citizens of the republic responsible not
only for disclosing of state secrets, but also for collecting of corresponding information. This means that journalist investigation
has become impossible or hardly realizable in this country. Under certain conditions such a law can be used against the press,
Internews-Kazakhstan international agency lawyer Sergei Vlasenko says.

On the face of it the article seems to be quite innocent. Illegal collection and disclosure of state secrets. However, given the
imperfection of Kazakh legal system, officials can use it in their interests. From now on journalists may not use hidden shooting
and record closed trial proceedings. Collection of information that constitutes state secrets by way of stealing documents,
bribes, threats, tapping communication channels, and breaking in computer systems or networks without the evidence of high
treason or espionage will result in half-a-year arrest or up to five years in prison without any right to hold certain positions.
Disclosing official secrets without evidence of high treason will result in a fine, arrest or imprisonment for up to two years, again
without the right to hold certain positions for three years. Consider all this in the light that the life and health of the president and
members of his family are considered, among other, state secrets in Kazakhstan - the provision, which can be differently and
widely interpreted, say lawyers. That's why, since their field of professional activity has become even narrower, the lawyers
have to warn journalists. Take care and be on your guard, check your information twice, as from now on you will be held
responsible not only for the information itself but for the wrongful way it might be gathered, says lawyer Sergei Vlasenko.

If earlier only those trusted the secret were punished for its disclosure, now it will refer also to those who collected the
information. If earlier we had to keep state secrets, today the same goes for official secrets.

Alma-Ata, 30 May 2000

International Kazakh Journal "Arba", June 2000