Обзор иностранной прессы c А.Тажутовым

For Mr. Ablyazov, the question of how he deployed BTA’s loan book is just the latest in a series of battles he has been waging with President Nazarbayev.

And while he may well have his enemies, few question his bravery.

     In 2001, he and several other reform-minded businessmen founded the Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan Party, the first opposition party to challenge Mr. Nazarbayev on the ground that he and his network of family insiders were monopolizing economic and political power.

     A year later, he was sentenced to six years behind bars on charges related to his time as head of the government electricity company. Mr. Ablyazov claims the charges were politically motivated. He served a little over a year in Kazakhstan prison, where he says he was subjected to numerous beatings and other forms of torture.

     After pressure from international human rights organizations, Mr. Ablyazov was released in 2003. In 2005 he took full control of BTA.

     These days, he rents a 15,000-square-foot mansion on Bishops Avenue in London, one of London’s most exclusive neighborhoods, where security guards stand day and night.

     Unlike other oligarchs here, Mr. Ablyazov keeps a low profile in London. He says that his ultimate aim is to overthrow Mr. Nazarbayev, even though he could be caught up in British courts for years to come.

     «I am just here temporarily», he insisted. «In the end I will return to Kazakhstan».

Landon Thomas Jr

Kazakh bank lost billions in Western investments

New York Times,

This article was appeared in print on November 28, 2009, on page B1 of the New York edition.

     To overthrow Mr. Nazarbayev – it’s a task that is easier to talk about than to do. Then imagine Kazakhstan, as an independent country, steadily moving on without him as though nothing has changed – oh, it’s easier said than done.  

     N.Nazarbayev as head of state, like the rulers of all times and ages, unfortunately, is not eternal. Unfortunately - this is not irony. It’s, of course, matter of common knowledge that society can feel tired due to the fact that they have for nearly two decades all the same person as their ruler. It is quite common not only for the Kazakh or any other post-Soviet community, but also to Western society.

     Man is arranged so that he sometimes becomes tired of being told how good his country is under the leadership of one irreplaceable ruler, tired of being told to be grateful and to be scared of the power shift. And then he begins to yearn for something new, being fully aware that it can get him to go sideways.

     In the summer of 1945 indefatigable prime minister of Britain during World War II Winston Churchill confidently looked forward to electoral victory. Although his role in this war had generated him much support from the British population, he was defeated in the general elections held on 26 July 1945 and stepped down as leader of the British Government. Many reasons for this have been given, key among them being that a desire for post-war reform was widespread amongst the population and that the man who had led Britain in war was not seen as the man to lead the nation in peace. Thus, he lost the prime ministership two months after Germany’s surrender, when the opposition Labor Party took majority control of Parliament. Churchill lost his seat of Prime Minister in the days of his and his party’s greatest triumph.

     And now let’s take an example closer to us. There was a lot of gloating in Kazakh society in the mid 1980’s over the fact that Dinmukhamed Akhmedovich Kunayev, then effective ruler of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic for more than two decades and the highest-ranking Soviet leader of Muslim heritage, didn’t find common language with the new Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Gorbachev. I saw with my own eyes a lot of intelligent Kazakhs, who jumped for joy at the news of his dismissal. This newcomer was non-Kazakh, brought from abroad. But they didn’t much care for it. «The point is to replace him with someone else», they said. Later on they regretted it. But it was afterwards - after they were enlightened by the so-called Jeltoqsan or «December» events of 1986 that took place in Almaty in response to M.Gorbachev’s dismissal of D.Kunayev, the long-serving First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, and the subsequent appointment of G.Kolbin, an outsider from Russia.

     A similar phenomenon is happening now in Kazakhstan. And even the most ardent opponents of Mr.Nazarbayev agree that there is no one in nowadays Kazakhstan to replace him as the head of state and would be able to guarantee the stability of government and society. A few years ago, the Soldat newspaper (now - Taszhargan) wrote something like the following phrase: in the case of Mr.Nazarbayev’s leaving the presidency Kazakhstan’s political elite as a whole does not recognize any single authority. Whoever comes to power after Mr.Nazarbayev would be depending on the specifics of Kazakhstani elite and lacking real power in the country. His authority  would be strongly and insuperably challenged by a host of other powerful and abundantly rich individuals. They would say, «Who are you that I should obey and seek favor from?! Are you better, cleverer and wealthier than me? No! You aren’t the boss around here and you aren’t the boss of me!». So really there is no one that can fulfill the role to this day played in Kazakhstan by Mr.Nazarbayev.

     True, Kazakhstani president’s critics blame him for lack of an option to replace him as chief executive of Kazakhstan. Mr.Nazarbayev’s domestic opponents fault him for what they claim is his reluctance to tolerate appearance of would-be successors. But such an argument does not sound like a very convincing argument.

     Mr.Nazarbayev is being still kept in power by, at least, two undisputed factors. This is, firstly, his ability and personal merits that enabled him to undergo natural selection and on the way to the pinnacle of power to overcome all the would-be and real competitors. Secondly, the legitimacy of his nomination as the first head of the country in the eyes of Kazakhstani people and, above all, the Kazakh society due to the fact that he was appointed there by Moscow, the former metropolitan and, therefore, neutral power. So, it will be very difficult to find a wholly adequate successor to him for the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Kairat AMREYEV