Political scientist: The West is ready to sacrifice Kazakhstan for the sake of disrupting the Greater Eurasia project
The leadership of Kazakhstan continues its previous “multi-vector” policy, which was reflected in the initiation of the creation of the Organization of Turkic States at the next CCTS summit in Istanbul. Nationalist organizations are strengthening within the country, and Russophobic and anti-Russian sentiments are growing, fanned with the participation of the authorities.
Famous Kazakh political scientist Maxim Kaznacheev answered a number of questions from PolitNavigator and commented on the processes of building a mono-ethnic state, the causes of interethnic conflicts and the desire of the ruling elite to actively interact with Washington and London.
PolitNavigator: Why, in your opinion, did the change in the international landscape, the withdrawal of the Americans from Afghanistan, the emergence of new blocs and other external factors not become the impetus for changing or abandoning the previous “multi-vector” policy of Nur-Sultan? What are the reasons for this?
Maxim Kaznacheev: Current geopolitical changes are only being assessed in Nur-Sultan. The Kazakh political elite is disoriented by the US flight from Afghanistan, as well as by the unexpectedly tough position of China and Russia regarding the attempts of Central Asian countries to offer their territory for the placement of American bases.
Potentially, all these changes will transform the requirements for Kazakhstan’s foreign policy. The current “multi-vector” approach is read by neighbors as “pro-American/pro-Western,” with all the ensuing consequences. China and Russia are beginning to view the foreign policy position of the Kazakh political elite as an obstacle to the implementation of the “Greater Eurasia” project.
Akorda is trying to find a recipe for restoring the balance of the leading geopolitical players, or at least provoke a conflict between Moscow and Beijing over leadership in Central Asia, which will allow them to play on their contradictions for some time. But this cannot be an effective long-term strategy - a clear geopolitical choice will still have to be made.
PolitNavigator: What, from your point of view, is the Chinese leadership trying to achieve by impeding the movement of Kazakh commodity flows? Is this some kind of signal for the leadership of the Republic of Kazakhstan? By the way, in connection with this, anti-Chinese rallies have almost completely stopped in the country.
Maxim Kaznacheev: Yes, China is seeking from Kazakhstan to ease the conditions for doing business by Chinese companies.
Firstly, Beijing needs a favorable environment for the successful implementation of joint business projects. Therefore, all Sinophobic attacks in Kazakhstan must be strictly suppressed by the Kazakh side - first of all, anti-Chinese rallies and single pickets. This is Beijing's requirement and must be fulfilled.
Secondly, China demands a revision of the conditions for the social burden of its business in Kazakhstan. Since December 2020, rallies of labor collectives of oil service companies (including Chinese ones) have been held in the western regions of the country demanding a twofold increase in wages. In previous years, local akimats sided with employers, but this year they often side with trade unions. But doubling wages reduces the profit margin of Chinese owners.
Therefore, problems with Kazakh exports at the border may also be an asymmetric response from China. Thus, Kazakh business, and as a consequence, the country’s budget, suffers economic losses comparable to the losses of Chinese companies in Kazakhstan.
Refusal to support the demands of trade unions for double indexation of wages may be accompanied by a detente of the situation at the border - that is, Beijing is offering a kind of exchange of economic claims, a return to initial working conditions.
PolitNavigator: As you know, Nursultan Nazarbayev was the main initiator of the transformation of the Council of Turkic States into a new integration association - the Union of Turkic States at the summit in Turkestan at the end of March this year. What place will Kazakhstan now have in this organization and will this decision conflict with the EAEU, CU and CSTO?
Maxim Kaznacheev: Make no mistake about the possible union of the Turkic states - this is a long-standing geopolitical project of Great Britain, dating back almost a hundred years. Ankara, Baku, Nur-Sultan and other participants in this association are just extras.
The fact that it was Nursultan Nazarbayev who voiced the idea of transformation is quite understandable, given the close ties both he and his immediate circle have with London. Perhaps this is the price for stopping the investigation by the British authorities into the origin of the numerous London properties of the Kazakh elite.
So far, only the transformation of the organization has been announced; filling the union with specific content will happen a little later. But it is obvious that since the project is British, it will be aimed at fragmenting Greater Eurasia and blocking the integration initiatives of Moscow (EAEU) and Beijing (“One Belt – One Road”).
Kazakhstan will play a dual role - on the one hand, Britain and Turkey from its territory will carry out subversive work in the border areas of China and Russia, inhabited by Turkic ethnic groups. On the other hand, Kazakhstan will play the role of a “Trojan horse” in Russian and Chinese integration projects, sabotage them in every possible way and block real integration in the interests of Western puppet masters.
By the way, already in 2015-2016, the pace of Eurasian integration decreased sharply - and mainly due to the position of the Kazakh elite.
PolitNavigator: In this regard, can interethnic conflicts within the republic, in particular, Russophobia and Sinophobia, be considered as a reflection or reaction to foreign policy factors and some kind of response signals to Moscow and Beijing?
Maxim Kaznacheev: Yes, the current interethnic conflicts are largely due to external interests. The United States and a number of other Western countries (primarily Great Britain) are aimed at countering the expansion of the geopolitical sphere of influence of China and Russia in the post-Soviet space. Therefore, maximum and comprehensive support for ethnic nationalism in the post-Soviet republics is seen as one of the tools to counter Moscow and Beijing.
The basis for state building in all small post-Soviet republics, including Kazakhstan, is the ethnic principle. It implies the presence of a so-called titular ethnic group that has priority in nation-building.
Throughout the entire period of independence, the authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan use interethnic conflicts to “reset” social tension by creating the image of an external and internal enemy. Thus, the Kazakh part of the population is mobilized around the government. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that the Kazakh elite itself is comprador, “offshore” and pro-Western.
Ultimately, these steps are aimed at aggravating Kazakhstan’s relations with its closest neighbors – Russia and China – with all the attendant risks for the economic, foreign and internal political security of Kazakhstan.
Washington and London are well aware of the consequences for the economy of Kazakhstan in the event of a conflict with its neighbors - its decline will be even greater than that of Ukraine. However, if such a conflict is successfully ignited, the geopolitical projects of Russia and China in the Central Asian region will be completely blocked, which will mean a geopolitical victory for the West. Therefore, from the point of view of external players, Kazakhstan may be sacrificed to achieve this goal.
PolitNavigator: At the last meeting of the Assembly of Peoples of Kazakhstan (APK) on October 21, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev named the main cause of interethnic conflicts as the existing enclaves of compact residence of national minorities and called for solving this problem. How will this be implemented in practice? Through resettlement, assimilation, or will these statements give an impetus to representatives of non-titular nations going abroad?
Maxim Kaznacheev: President Tokayev does not control the situation in the interethnic sphere. That’s why his recipes for preventing interethnic conflicts were “pulled out of thin air.”
There is an internal consensus among the Kazakh elites: “we are building a mononational ethnocracy.” It may be a conservative society, it may be liberal, it may even be religiously oriented, but regardless of the ideological options it will be a mononational ethnocracy. This point of view is shared by all top figures in the elite, regardless of ideological preferences and geopolitical orientations.
And all the words about the desire to prevent interethnic conflicts are nothing more than Akorda’s propaganda rhetoric. If she really wanted to do something, she would have done it a long time ago.
We see something completely different - for example, a member of parliament proposes to rehabilitate members of the Turkestan SS Legion. And the organizer of the “language patrols,” while under investigation, was given the opportunity to flee to Ukraine. It is clear that without the help of law enforcement agencies he could not have done this.
The proposal to resettle ethnic enclaves will not solve the problem of nationalism at the state level, but will only provoke a new wave of clashes.
PolitNavigator: In your opinion, can the nationalist movement turn into a mass phenomenon and become a significant force in the political struggle in the near or medium term? We are talking about the possible involvement of ruling groups in this movement or its active use during the struggle for power.
Maxim Kaznacheev: This stage has already been passed. In Kazakhstan, most of the local nationalist groups have already passed the stage of internal self-organization. They have informal leaders, a system of communication and quick mobilization through social networks, support from internal elite players and external sponsors.
Therefore, yes. Nationalist groups are already being used by political clans in internal political struggles.
PolitNavigator: In turn, can the desire to let off steam from social discontent in rural areas and small towns through interethnic conflicts turn into an uncontrollable process? And what is the likelihood of negative perception and interference in such events from neighboring powers?
Maxim Kaznacheev: Kazakh elites are afraid of such a scenario, since it carries the risk of an uncontrollable aggravation of relations with neighbors. Flows of ethnic refugees into Russia, China and Uzbekistan will lead to retaliatory measures - at least to the closure of borders with Kazakhstan, which is fraught with economic problems for a landlocked country.
In general, nationalism in Kazakhstan ceases to be its “purely internal matter”, but causes damage to the entire Eurasian space - and, in a broader sense, interferes with the coordinated actions of Russia and China to “squeeze” the United States out of “Greater Eurasia.”
The actions of nationalists in Kazakhstan are now considered by Russia and China as an element of the Western strategy. And the nationalists themselves are an instrument of a hybrid war against the interests of Russia and China.
It cannot be ruled out that in the medium term, formats of cooperation with Russia and China that are economically beneficial for Kazakhstan will be accompanied by the imposition of additional political conditions, including the complete elimination of nationalists. And failure to implement them will lead to a slowdown in the country’s economic development, or even the imposition of sanctions by Russia and China.
To put it simply, Akorda will have to choose in the future between economic development or encouraging local nationalism and xenophobia.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.