When nearly 31 years ago, on August 1, 1975, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Leonid Brezhnev, signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Helsinki, few in the Kremlin doubted that his ornate painting was the holder of all conceivable and inconceivable awards and titles set without any obligation.
That is, of course, the fanfare sounded, the announcers of the Central Television talked about this, but few people saw the text of the Final Act in the USSR. Therefore, the Moscow Helsinki Group was created right away so that the population of the country knew about the obligations that the Kremlin assumed. Some members of the MHG were put in camps, and the articles of the Soviet Constitution remained on paper until Gorbachev's perestroika.
This, in fact, was the beginning of the OSCE, an organization that was originally called the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe), and from January 1, 1995, the CSCE was transformed into the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. 55 countries, including the USA and Canada, are now OSCE members, and after the finalization of the “divorce” between Serbia and Montenegro, the number of participating countries will be 56.
Almost immediately after the declaration of sovereignty, the former Soviet republics became members of the CSCE, signed the text of the Final Act, having assumed obligations - the Declaration of Principles by which the member states should be guided in mutual relations and defining the norms of mutual relations and cooperation. Only 10 principles: sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; non-use of force or threat of force; inviolability of borders; territorial integrity; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; equality and the right of peoples to dispose of their destiny; cooperation between states; fulfillment of international legal obligations.
All 55 participating countries committed themselves to the principles. Even those countries that are not European geographically, but since they were part of the formal European state of the USSR, they were taken on an equal footing. It would seem that the new independent states were given a chance to become not only sovereign, but also democratic. But in Central Asia, everything happened differently: Turkmenistan turned into a state with an authoritarian regime, almost immediately, after Uzbekistan, caught up, then the civil war in Tajikistan began. And only in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, events occurred that did not meet all OSCE principles, for example, in terms of respect for human rights, but it all came down to talking about the state youth, the inexperience of politicians, the difficult legacy of the Soviet past, and so on.
Serious changes began to occur in recent years, when the Russian Foreign Ministry, which determined the policy in the CIS countries as a priority, began to make complaints about the assessment of monitoring human rights violations and the holding of presidential elections. Indeed, these Europeans are strange: they have been explaining to them for 15 years now that Central Asia has its own democracy. In fact, this is not democracy, but it is unlikely that presidents Karimov, Niyazov or Nazarbayev themselves will call their regimes authoritarian. So what if they have been in power all these 15 years? This, they believe, is a feature of Central Asian democracy.
Finally, who said that elections in Central Asian countries are non-democratic? They are the most democratic, because television persistently, the entire election campaign speaks only of the "main democrat", who becomes the president. Once again. Some even for life.
Who said that human rights are violated in Central Asia? First of all, these “men” themselves do not know their rights. Secondly, as the authorities believe, if they themselves do not know, then there is nothing to violate. Here is such a Central Asian democracy.
To this it is worth adding that Central Asian democracy within the framework of the post-Soviet space is estimated not by monitoring human rights violations, but by the volume of oil and gas fields. If there were oil and gas in Latvia, the Russian Foreign Ministry would close its eyes to all its claims. On the other hand, Turkmenbashi, Nazarbayev and Karimov have gas and oil. Now you can try to calculate how many allegations of violations of the rights of Russian-speaking countries in the region have been issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry. That's right, not at all, because in the CIS a rule has long been formed - where there is oil and gas, there simply cannot be human rights.
The OSCE, unlike the Kremlin, is trying to talk with Central Asian countries not in a strange "hydrocarbon language", but with exhortations, for example, regarding relatively controlled television in most countries and non-transparent elections. What do they hear in response? That's right: “Not your business, we have our own democracy. If you find fault, we'll complain to the Kremlin. ”
The situation in varying degrees of difference in small details is absolutely the same everywhere - from Kazakhstan to Tajikistan. That is, the humanitarian component of the OSCE Principles is not being implemented everywhere. And so it was until April 6, 2004, while Solomon Pasy, the foreign minister of Bulgaria, then the head of the OSCE, did not make it difficult. At a meeting with President Nazarbayev, he said that "... by 2009, Kazakhstan can become a worthy candidate for the chairmanship of the OSCE."
Well, he said - and he said, you never know that diplomats speak their strange language, which, in fact, does not oblige to anything. But Nursultan Abishevich jumped at this idea, and for three years he was not tired of convincing the entire world community (of course, within the OSCE) that Kazakhstan is such a country that deserves to head this organization.
What will happen next? The Russian Foreign Ministry has conceived a reform of the OSCE, against which the vast majority of countries. Who will support the Kremlin? That's right, Kazakhstan, Belarus and other CIS countries. But both Kazakhstan and other “democratic” CIS countries should not understand that the OSCE will not deviate from the Principles, which were adopted more than 30 years ago. Kazakhstan will not be able to change anything, unless of course he becomes the OSCE chairman. In the best case, the OSCE crisis will come, which will end in a year. And then the initiators of the Helsinki Act will have to think seriously about what to do with these games in the post-Soviet "democracy."
Nothing but a deterioration of the image for Kazakhstan is not threatened. And as long as there are oil reserves in this country, ambition will overwhelm common sense.