Kazakhstan quickly reaffirmed Western investor’s rights and its signature balanced foreign policy. The emphasis on the rule of law and improving government transparency and efficiency will continue. Certainly, the genuine widespread public protests against poor economic conditions underscore the significant challenge that the state faces in terms of the need to reform the socio-economic system. But it is important to realize that the nearly two-week bloody unrest that left more than 225 people dead, as many as 7,000 arrested, 5,000 released, 2,000 investigated and prosecuted and $3 billion in damages to property did not disrupt the overall trajectory that the country has been on since it first emerged from the Soviet implosion three decades ago.
If anything, it has furthered the transition that has been underway since 2019, when current President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev succeeded the nation’s founding head of state Nursultan Nazarbayev. In the early days of any crisis, confusion reigns as to what is happening, especially in countries where information is already hard to come by and especially in this age of social media awash with rumors and downright fake news. Our subjective preferences further complicate any efforts to analyze Kazakhstan’s rapidly evolving situation accurately. What we want to see happen and/or the outcomes we fear cloud our ability to assess the actual realities on the ground.
It is now increasingly clear that there are two distinct developments that shaped the crisis earlier last month.
For the first three days there were widespread peaceful protests triggered by the energy companies’ move to double the price of liquified petroleum gas that fuels the majority of vehicles in the Western region of Mangistau but also informed by more serious and chronic economic problems such as unemployment, poverty and corruption in the country. At some point armed elements went on a rampage attacking security forces, sacking weapons depots and government buildings, especially in the country’s commercial center of Almaty.
President Tokayev’s own statements, blaming criminals for the violent protests and distinguishing them from genuine peaceful protestors, are very telling.
It is still unclear who instigated the violence and terror attacks. That said, this wasn’t a coup in the classic sense with the military getting involved. Elites remained fairly united around the Kazakh nation-building project, which helped the government fairly quickly subdue the armed gangs that wreaked havoc for a few days.
In a critical moment Tokayev sought assistance from Russia, which quickly deployed a Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) task force of some 2,500 mostly Russian troops. But this force was in and out of the country in five days during which time it guarded key facilities while Kazakh security forces did the bulk of the heavy lifting to rein in those who had hijacked peaceful demonstrations and were engaged in large-scale violence.
As far as Russian President Vladimir Putin is concerned the unprecedented scale of unrest in Kazakhstan initially seemed to threaten a key Russian ally at a time when his focus was on Ukraine, but he was able to turn it around into a quick and relatively easy win—demonstrating that his country could simultaneously act on both its strategic front and rear. Tokayev’s decision to seek Russian help has raised questions about Kazakhstan’s much talked about multi-vector foreign policy but from his point of view there was no alternative to securing his own political position and the stability of the Kazakh state. To his credit, he ensured that the CSTO force would leave quickly. China, too, fully endorsed the Kazakh leadership’s action and offered its forces for security assistance.
On Jan. 18, former President Nazarbayev announced his full support to President Tokayev and referred to himself as a “pensioner since 2019.” That was a watershed moment for the country. Yet it appears that Nazarbayev’s legacy as the founding president will remain intact. The state withstood the double stress test of the COVID-19 pandemic and violent unrest.
Not only was the government able to quell the violence on the streets, it also successfully went after elites allegedly failing to prevent and adequately quell it, particularly the country’s intelligence chief, Karim Massimov and his two deputies. In the light of public unrest, former President Nazarbayev decided to transfer his powers as the chair of the National Security Council to President Tokayev, and the Parliament ratified this decision in a law.
Tokayev said painful economic conditions were the root causes of the protests that brought people on to the streets. But the Kazakh president has his work cut out for him with the bigger challenge of introducing reforms, both economic and political. While Tokayev must accelerate this process, meaningful transformation may be painful and will be a work in progress.
Whenever a country faces a public uprising, we in the West wish to see it become democratic, allow for freedoms, establish the rule of law and advance a human rights ethos. And we should be pushing hard for that. However, we mustn’t forget that these are desired outcomes that will only emerge from a messy and highly long-term process. Starting points matter and each country’s path toward reform is unique and we must assess the moment at hand accordingly.
Kazakhstan is only 30 years old, and its political transition only began three years ago. The country has made considerable strides in the past three decades, but it would be wrong to assume that it would not enter choppy waters. As a post-Soviet state, problems were bound to happen. Even highly advanced democracies face turmoil, like here in the United States and in Europe. The strength of a state cannot be measured by social unrest or its absence; rather the extent to which it can withstand such shocks to the system.
Russia may have helped stabilize Kazakhstan, but in the end, only the United States and its Western allies can help the Central Asian nation with much-needed reforms. Unfortunately, Washington has been negligent toward not just the country but the region. It was around this time last year that I pointed out that Central Asia was a major blind spot in the Biden administration’s viewfinder. This latest crisis should be enough to steer the White House toward a strategic approach to Kazakhstan and not let the U.S.’ competitors dominate the heart of Eurasia.
Kamran Bokhari, PhD, is the director of analytical development at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, D.C. Bokhari is also a national security and foreign policy specialist at the University of Ottawa’s Professional Development Institute. He has served as the coordinator for Central Asia studies at the U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI). Follow him on Twitter at @KamranBokhari.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
