Why is Europe lost in Central Asia?

By Gregory A. Maniatis

Date: 14/04/05

The absence of the European Union only dawned on me gradually.

At first, during a trip to Almaty last December, I was too busy being impressed by how active Western civil society is

in Kazakhstan. The International Republican Institute trains political candidates in campaign planning, research, management, strategy and polling. Soros-Kazakhstan and the Open Society Institute vigorously advocate oil-industry transparency with the OSI's Caspian Revenue Watch, among other initiatives.

At first, during a trip to Almaty last December, I was too busy being impressed by how active Western civil society is in Kazakhstan. The International Republican Institute trains political candidates in campaign planning, research, management, strategy and polling. Soros-Kazakhstan and the Open Society Institute vigorously advocate oil-industry transparency with the OSI's Caspian Revenue Watch, among other initiatives.

The American Bar Association has several programmes, including one that educates lawyers, judges, and journalists in the basics of media freedom.

USAID, meanwhile, is heavily involved in Kazakhstan, not only providing aid but also in advising the government on economic planning. The World Bank has a muscular presence as well, and just this year launched a grant program for Kazakh non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The list goes on: the American International Health Alliance, the American Red Cross, Internews, Mercy Corps International.

The story is similar in the rest of Central Asia. One of the more intrepid tales of NGO action occurred in Kirgizstan before the overthrow of Askar Akaev. The independent daily My Capital News (MCN), printed on presses brought to Bishkek by Freedom House, was the boldest media critic of the Akaev regime. This winter, after MCN printed pictures of a palatial home being built for Akaev, Freedom House was harassed and electricity to its presses was cut off. The American Embassy sent in two generators to power the presses.

Edil Baisolov, a Kirgiz NGO leader, told the New York Times that support from Freedom House and other US organisations was vital. "It would have been absolutely impossible for this to have happened without that help," he said.

European NGOs in Central Asia are dwarfed in number and resources by their American counterparts. Why is this? It is one thing for Paris and Bonn to object to the Bush administration's militarism, to its bias for unilateral action, and its dangerous notions of pre-emption. Imposing democracy by force is troubling, if not reckless. But it is a betrayal of the EU's commitment to democratic values for it to have such a lightweight presence in Central Asia, as well as in other parts of the world where dissidents oppose authoritarian regimes.

This is especially true given the aspirations of true democrats in Eurasia and elsewhere who look to the Union as a liberal beacon. On 25 March, heartened by the events in Bishkek, opponents of the venal Lukashenko regime in Belarus bravely gathered in Minsk's October Square to denounce the dictatorship. What were they waving? Paper European Union flags.

Supporting dissidents and civil society, even when done with rigorous neutrality, can incite anger. The Kremlin has been apoplectic over US NGO activities in its near abroad. But rather than lash out, Moscow has tried to build up its own capacity for civil intervention - implicitly acknowledging that ideological battles fought with words and ideas are legitimate even when they involve transcending sovereign borders. Isn't this the soft power that Europe touts? If so, why is the Union absent from the struggle? The disappearing act is even more puzzling given that the EU has major security and energy interests in the Caspian.

Over the past year, under the aegis of the Andreas G. Papandreou Foundation, I have been involved in bringing political and civil society leaders in Kazakhstan into closer contact with their Western counterparts.

What has struck me most is the difference in the rhetoric of European and American politicians.

At a round table we held last December in Almaty with Kazakhstan's Perpsektiva Foundation, one politician said: "There's a lack of democratic institutions, lack of a genuinely free press, de facto one-man rule, lack of popular participation in decision making, and widespread corruption. One-man rule, or the rule of a small elite will, eventually, see to it that Kazakhstan no longer matters." Contrast that with the words of another politician: "Much of the region, including Russia, is backing away from democracy. Yet Kazakhstan is moving forward. In this context, it makes this country's achievement all the more spectacular."

I don't have to point out which of the two statements came from a veteran member of the US Congress and which from a leading European politician.

This has been the story over and over in our dealings with Kazakhstan: Most European policymakers talk as if they have pebbles in their mouths. It is hard to understand whether they speak with conviction about democratic principles or whether they just want to exit the room quickly without causing offence. Their relativism is startling, and I know they leave their Kazakh counterparts either pleased (those who like the status quo) or perplexed (those who want the EU to push them harder toward genuine democracy).

One wit once characterised European foreign policy as: "Speak softly and carry a big carrot." But in Eurasia and elsewhere, even the carrots are absent. In reconciling itself to a status-quo approach defined by caution, predictability, and control, Europe is subverting its own standing in the world and its potential to harness soft power. It should quickly come out of its shell and boldly engage with the world by promoting a policy of civil intervention, both for its own benefit and to help countless oppressed people around the world live freer lives.

• Gregory A. Maniatis is senior advisor at The Papandreou Foundation and senior European policy fellow with the Migration Policy Institute

Author depicts the strong presence of American NGOs in the Central Asian republics, especially Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, while European organisations are almost completely absent. He calls on the European Union to underscore its commitments to democratisation in the region with institutional presence.