Opinion: Are Kazakhstan and the U.S. Reaching Common Ground on Sovereignty and Mutual Engagement?
Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has made his position clear: his country must remain sovereign, and activities to exert foreign influence should be closely monitored. The message from Astana is that cultural impositions from abroad are not welcome. Tokayev’s longstanding view that Kazakhstan’s democracy should evolve on its own terms has gained new traction with the return of U.S. President Donald Trump to the White House. Washington's avoidance of values-based diplomacy in favor of a hard-nosed, transactional model reinforces Astana’s instincts and creates an opening for a new kind of engagement between the two. "The so-called democratic moral values," Tokayev said, "have been imposed on many countries for decades." Moreover, "under this guise, open interference in the internal affairs of states through international non-governmental organizations and foundations has become widespread. Its ultimate goal," he concluded, "is only theft, that is, pocketing billions of dollars in budgets." For decades, the U.S. policy in Central Asia was fixated on democratic governance, press freedoms, and minority rights, seeking to advance these objectives through NGO funding and media support. In principle, these directions align with Kazakhstan’s own institutional reforms. In practice, however, they became points of friction. Astana has pursued decentralization and anti-corruption measures on its own terms, so any tension with Washington did not concern governance itself. It was, rather, about Washington’s insistence on deeper cultural and political shifts. The unease was not hypothetical. It was spelled out in statements by U.S. officials visiting Kazakhstan. They "were glad to discuss key human rights issues including the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, and respect for the rights of disabled persons, members of the LGBTQI+ community, and political prisoners." Moreover, these issues were framed as non-negotiable pillars of engagement, without reference to the cultural context of Kazakhstan’s legal and political traditions. In some cases, the “political prisoners” were propped up by NGOs funded by the U.S. Government. From Washington’s perspective, these were essential democratic norms; from Astana’s, they were foreign expectations imposed from outside. In truth, Kazakhstan had seen this dynamic before. Its wariness of Western-backed NGOs was informed by patterns of events. In Astana’s view, some so-called civil society initiatives weren’t merely fostering grassroots activism. They were vehicles for political engineering. For instance, Mukhtar Ablyazov, who remains accused of embezzling $10 billion from Kazakhstan's BTA Bank, fled to Britain in the mid-2000s before escaping criminal charges to France, where he was granted asylum until being ordered to leave in 2023. Despite his history of corruption, he rebranded himself as a political opposition figure and human rights leader, cultivating a network of international NGOs and earning significant support within the European Union. As recently as February 2025, he and his NGO allies received backing from members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. A similar strategy has been employed by public figures like Bergey Ryskaliyev, Akezhan Kazhegeldin, and Karim Massimov. These individuals, despite facing criminal allegations, have amassed significant wealth that appears to have been used to fund lobbyists, NGOs, media and other...
