For some reason, every Fourth of July weekend, I am unable to go to the Embassy cookout, but I am hoping to grill burgers outdoors myself this year. If only we could get decent corn on the cob in Astana, I’d be happy. I am pleased that this year they made the 4th a day off, even if everyone has to work Saturday and Sunday. The day off may have something to do with some small local holiday like the Day of Astana or some guy’s birthday party. But I prefer to pretend that it’s for Independence Day.

Obama and Nazarbayev also discussed the case of Yevgeny Zhovtis, a Kazakhstan human rights activist who was sentenced to four years in prison for vehicular manslaughter after a controversial trial. “The presidents agreed that we need to try to find a creative solution to solve this very difficult issue,” McFaul said. “Many human rights organizations have raised this issue about the processes that were used to convict him. Let’s just leave it at that, the fact that both Presidents had a very frank discussion about this case.” [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

McFaul raised eyebrows when he appeared to suggest that Obama had downplayed Kazakhstan’s spotty record on human rights and democracy. “Both Presidents agreed that it’s never — you don’t ever reach democracy, you always have to work at it. And in particular, President Obama reminded his Kazakh counterpart that we, too, are working to improve our democracy,” he said. Pressed on that statement later, McFaul denied that Obama was equating the United States with Kazakhstan. “There was no equivalence meant whatsoever,” he said.”

At the meeting, Kazakhstan also agreed to allow the US to use an air transport route over its territory and reassured the US that oil company contracts will not be rewritten.

Kazakhstan sent a delegation from the Central Election Committee to the US to observe the polling. They can hopefully take a few things away from this election:

1) Barack Obama is a representative of a demographic minority. African Americans comprise around 12% of the population and Obama is the first black (or even non-European) president. It’s important to note that race, many believe, played a far smaller role in this election than pundits thought. Obama was simply viewed as better qualified to be president.

2) McCain conceded quickly. There was a peaceful concession and the opposition chose not to prolong elections and damage America’s reputation by challenging votes or bringing up lawsuits. In the end, it doesn’t matter which party wins as long as State is preserved.

3) People waited uncomplainingly in 3-4 hour long lines. People were proud to vote, to feel they made a difference. And there were few complaints about problems with machines or corruption or other issues. Not to mention complaints about sore feet, cold weather or wind!

I do have to add that in Kazakhstan Election Day is a holiday and a day off from work. I think that’s something the US could take from Kazakhstan because it would make it easier for people to vote!

As always I welcome comments, disagreements, questions. I also have one question for those who voted in the US. Did you get your free Starbucks coffee for voting? Or did that get shot down as a form of bribery?

However Obama was by far the favorite choice of Kazakhstan. Yesterday at the US Embassy there was an Election 2008 breakfast where Americans and Kazakhs could watch the election results come in and ultimately got to see the victory of Obama. Judging from anecdotal evidence there was far more enthusiasm for Obama than McCain and when Obama’s victory was projected there were shouts of joy from Americans and Kazakhstani alike. An election taken in American Corners, learning centers sponsored by the Embassy throughout Kazakhstan, showed a clear preference for Obama. People I have talked to cited his chuldhood in Indonesia, his understanding of Islam and his multicultural background as reasons to believe Obama would be an agent for peace and understanding in the world, not war.

Beyond the image of a negotiator, however, there is not a lot of evidence that Kazakhstan is an important country for Obama. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea loom higher in US consciousness, of course. Obama has said he will support closer relations between the US and ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations]. While no Central Asian nations are members of ASEAN, that initiative might translate into more support for regional organizations such as the SCO and the CIS. Or it might not.

As has been noted in this blog before Vice President-Elect Joe Biden has some experience in the CIS and is widely regarded as one of the top experts on foreign policy in Washington. Concretely he has promoted democracy and freedom in Kazakhstan and Russia. But that has been the stand of the US government for a while.

As Sean Roberts notes, the biggest change in Kazakhstan-US relations might be the change in how Kazakhstan views the US. For a long time, the US has been viewed poorly for the war in Iraq, intolerance for Muslims, an aggressive policy toward Russia and China. The perceived hypocrisy of the US pushing for democratic reforms and freedoms in Central Asia and the rest of the world in the wake of the 2000 and 2004 elections has not done much for US prestige in the region. Furthermore there are widespread views that Americans are racist, or that African Americans are uneducated gangsters straight out of rap videos.

The overwhelming victory of Obama, McCain’s immediate concession, and the relatively small number of voter complaints will hopefully restore world faith in American democracy. The first African-American president winning with such a landslide should put to rest accusations that the US is racist and Obama’s prestige as a Harvard graduate and respected Senator should improve the image of African Americans in the world. Most importantly, the hope that Obama will be a force for peace in the world should do a lot to repair America’s image as a war monger and an uncompromising, aggressive would-be emperor of the world.

But that image as a peacemaker, not to mention his youth and inexperience, might work against President Obama. Joe Biden famously said on the campaign trail:

It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

Many felt that this statement, while not useful for the campaign, held truth to it and a number of observers felt that that test might come from Russia, as the USSR tested JFK. In fact, messages are already being sent. Will Russia respect this young newcomer or will they see a weak opponent that they can walk all over? Will leaders in the former Soviet Union be able to sit at the table with Obama and view him as a true equal? Is it true that only fear of an aggressive US can truly keep certain foreign nations from realizing their own dreams of empire?

In general, we have little concrete to go on to picture an Obama policy on Kazakhstan. Only time will ultimately tell, but likely the changes will not be radical.

What do you, dear reader, think? What changes can we look forward to? Will Russia “test the mettle” of Obama? Will there be a bigger push for democratic reforms under President Obama?

At first I thought the video was an American making of Russians but I am pretty sure that this guy is Russian from his accent, his intonations, his inconsistent grammar mistakes (he makes a mistake, then the next time he doesn’t make the mistake), and the fact that in the middle of the video, a colleague approaches him and shakes his hand! Only in the former Soviet Union can a good morning handshake not wait for anything! It’s not particularly funny if it really is a Russian, so I think it is meant to be a sincere endorsement of Obama-but primarily because he is afraid McCain will start a war with Russia; it’s more anti-McCain than pro-Obama.

So I’m curious, is Obama more popular with foreigners? Who do you guys support and why? Is it a question of supporting one candidate or disliking the other candidate?

Here’s the video:

People are further worried that the buyouts will never end–as Representative Michelle Bachman said, “What’s next? Starbucks? Too big to fail?” Will the government end up having to bail out half the private sector if more and more companies fail? And of course there is worry that taxpayer money is being put at risk by investing in companies that have failed and may fail again.

Furthermore just yesterday Bernanke and Paulson appeared before Congress to announce their new plan for the government to buy private company assets, proposing a tender system. Questions of who will manage these purchases, who will manage the assets in the name of the government, what benefit the taxpayer may reap, how to price the assets, and how to avoid private companies benefiting unfairly from taxpayer dollars all came up in debate. It’s not a small matter because the Fed is proposing to put up $700 billion for buyouts and investments!

What is not being discussed in great detail here is that these bailouts are not just handouts or grants. When the US invested $85 billion in AIG, it became an 80% shareholder. That’s a controlling interest! And Congress has no idea what to do with the idea of government-owned companies or the government as a share-holder. What branch of the government should run these companies? Can the government make a profit on private businesses? What happens in January when a new President with a new Secretary of the Treasury steps in?

Kazakhstan and other former Soviet countries may hold the answer. Various Kazakhstani government leaders have said at various times that while Kazakhstan looks for advice from the West, the day will come when the West will come to Kazakhstan for help. That day has arrived. Perhaps the US should send some Congressmen to Kazakhstan to tour Samruk, Kazyna, and other state-owned financial entities here. Kazakhstan has had long experience with these models of state involvement in private companies. So why shouldn’t the US draw from that experience?

Furthermore, a lot of the complicated questions that the US is now facing while looking at Paulson and Bernanke’s plan are questions that have never been fully addressed in Kazakhstan. Because of its experience as a former Soviet country with a government controlled economy, issues like accountability or responsibility to the taxpayer have never come up. Old trends and mechanisms are rarely examined in detail. So this is a perfect opportunity for the US and Kazakhstan to work together to develop a model for government as shareholder in a globalized free-market system.

Some may think I’m being a bit glib here, and my tongue is not too far from my cheek. It is interesting to note the difference between Kazakhstan and the US. When the US buys out a company, taxpayers and financial advisers and politicians get nervous and even angry. Here in Kazakhstan, the government already controls 5 holding companies and many citizens don’t know these companies exist, or have a vague idea of what they do.

But I think there is a valid proposal here. How does Kazakhstan solve problems of using federal funds, taxpayer money for private enterprise? What regulations are on the books? How can Kazakhstan and the US work together to solve problems of conflict of interest, corruption and lack of regulation? Perhaps this is a perfect chance for Kazakhstan to be treated as an equal by the US and to be taken seriously as a source of knowledge in the West.

He made headlines for us Kazakhstanaphiles when he wrote a stern letter to President Nazarbayev in early 2007, threatening to work against Kazakhstan’s attempt to get the chairmanship of the OSCE if the nation did not do more to promote democracy. At the time Senator Biden was running for the Democratic nomination for President. An excerpt from Registan:

I am disappointed, however, that Kazakhstan is not moving more quickly towards becoming a transparent democracy that enjoys full freedom of the press, recognized political parties and the other vital institutions that 15 million Kazakh citizens deserve.

Moreover, I am troubled by recent reports indicating that officials within your government have been interfering with the efforts of political parties to organize, such as in the case of the Atameken party.

Given the tensions and turmoil in the broader Middle East, an open and progressive minded Kazakhstan has the potential to be a bridge between east and west and to play an influential role in diminishing current and potential hostilities. But it can only do so if those who value freedom, democracy and tolerance perceive Kazakhstan as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Whether or not you agree with Senator Biden, the fact that he was aware of issues like the allegations of government interference in registering the Atameken party indicates that he is on the ball in Central Asian issues. If Obama wins, that hopefully translates into a more realistic and informed policy on this region.

Of course, that links him to businessman Yerzhan Dosmukhamedov, who was trying to found Atameken and lobbying support in DC to pressure the Kazakhstan government. Dosmukhamedov is also the man who agreed to help The Times of London secretly record lobbyist Stephen Payne. In this country, it is widely believed (to the extent that it is discussed) that he agreed in order to get revenge on the Kazakhstan government. Biden’s connections to the self-exiled opposition leader may not lend him credibility in the eyes of Kazakhstan.

Furthermore, as the Daily Kos points out, Biden is mentioned by Payne, apparently as someone whose support could be bought (The scenario was that Payne believed Dosmukhamedov was representing ousted Kyrgyz President Akayev and seeking support from Washington):

…most importantly we send positive statements made back from the administration about ‘This guy wasn’t such a bad guy’, ‘Many people have done worse’, those kind of statements from a couple of people in the administration, maybe Senator Biden, maybe on the Democrat side, a few statements like that…

Of course, Payne may have been doing some advertising. Biden, as head of the Foreign Relations Committee, is an ideal source of a positive quote. And Payne was certainly not saying he could get Biden’s support by buying him off. Still, it doesn’t bode well.

Furthermore, not long ago he reported to the Senate on US energy policy in Central Asia, favoring trying to block Russia’s deals to get a hold of Kazakh and Turkmen oil and gas. Generally he is in favor of diplomacy and keeping open relations rather than more extreme measures.

Moving out of the Central Asian region, Biden recently went to Georgia and made a strong statement of condemnation of Russia.

But Russia’s actions in Georgia will have consequences. Russia’s failure to keep its word and withdraw troops from Georgia risks the country’s standing as part of the international community. That is not the future the United States or Europe want — but it is the future Russia may get…

Biden referred specifically to consequences such as halting any legislative attempts to further US-Russian partnership, collaboration in nuclear energy production, and keeping in force the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which prevents Russia from joining the WTO.

He also cast into doubt Russia’s justifications for invading.

I left the country convinced that Russia’s invasion of Georgia may be the one of the most significant event to occur in Europe since the end of communism. The claims of Georgian atrocities that provided the pretext for Russia’s invasion are rapidly being disproved by international observers, and the continuing presence of Russian forces in the country has severe implications for the broader region. The war that began in Georgia is no longer about that country alone. It has become a question of whether and how the West will stand up for the rights of free people throughout the region”

He also proposed $1 billion in emergency humanitarian aid for Georgia.

While both McCain and Obama made statements about Georgia, McCain’s was much stronger and clearer according to most observers. Obama’s, while well reasoned and eloquently written (of course), did not spell out a clear plan of action. Biden’s statement which is certainly unambigious shows that he may well be able to balance Obama’s inexperience. Of course, Medvedev may not let him into the Kremlin if he vists as Vice President.

So in Central Asia, Biden may well be a well-informed but unwelcome guest.

Hoagland was nominated as Ambassador to Armenia last year but his nomination was withdrawn in relation to questions of the US acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide. The then-Ambassador to Armenia was withdrawn when he gave a speech regarding the genocide and Hoagland’s nomination was stalled and then withdrawn while the Senate debated whether to publically acknowledge the genocide or not.

Ordway has been Ambassador since 2004.

Aid for almost every country in the former Soviet Union will be falling in 2008, under the current foreign affairs budget released by the US State Department. Much of the planned US assistance will go toward helping independent-minded states in the region resist Russian efforts to reassert its dominance in the Caspian Basin and elsewhere. Even so, some Washington experts lament the drop-off in aid, and describe the dwindling budgets in recent years as “monuments to weak analysis, inter-agency pettiness, and trite bureaucratic formuli.”

Overall, the budget for the Freedom Support Act, which provides aid to former Soviet states, is $346 million for fiscal year 2009, which actually starts on October 1, 2008. That is down from $396 million in fiscal 2008, and $452 million the year before that.

It’s interesting to note because one of the sponsors of the Freedom Support Act was John McCain, who will likely be the Republican nominee for President. So perhaps the Central Asia crowd should be cheering for McCain who has paid some attention to the region. On the other hand, Barak Obama is widely believed to be more of an internationalist and perceived to have sympathy for Muslim countries, having been raised in Indonesia. Perhaps he will be more willing to dole out aid to developing countries and to sympathize with the common rhetoric of Western democracy balanced with Asian values that is rife throughout this region. Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, seems to have a more shameful link to the region via ex-President Clinton who seems happy to do business deals here to help out his buddies and lend credence to regional leaders by talking to them.

I’d be interested in what you readers think. Which US Presidential candidate is best for Central Asia?

My brother-in-law just called me to warn me to be careful about anti-Americanism in reaction to this. Presumably the guy was drunk, but that ain’t right, my friends, that just ain’t right…

But from the US side: The AP story
So maybe it was just a screw up–so this guy stopped peacefully or he was jumped and forced to stop at threat of strangulation?
EDIT: The whole thing has now blown over nicely. It was just a mistake, he was in a big rush and thought he had just gotten lucky by finding the street empty of all traffic. When he saw the limo with the Big 01 KZ, he panicked. Understandable.

And this: Nazarbayev says government leaders should party less Apparently advisors to military attaches should also follow these rules.

Finally, the daugher of the President appears to have figured out that shutting down Borat made the country look worse than Borat himself ever did.