Political Prisoner Mukhtar Ablyazov
On July 31, 2013 at 3 p.m. in France, not far from the town of Cannes, Mukhtar Ablyazov, ex-owner of Bank Turan Alem (BTA), principal political opponent to N. Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, was detained by a special unit of France.
It was officially announced that the detention was effected at the request of the authorities of Ukraine; it was announced later that the Russian Federation also prepares an address to the French authorities with request to extradite Mr. Ablyazov to Russia; afterwards, it became clear that Kazakhstan joined the queue as well to extradite Ablyazov to Kazakhstan directly, because no extradition agreement has been signed between Kazakhstan and France; a question arose at once as to the extradition of Ablyazov to the authorities of Ukraine or Russia that have already signed such agreements with France.
Mr. Ablyazov was illegally convicted as early as in 2002 by a court of Kazakhstan based on a framed-up charge and served his sentence in a correctional facility of Kazakhstan, where he was subjected to cruel tortures.
Subsequently he was granted political status in Great Britain as a political prisoner.
In this connection a question now arises, whether M. Ablyazov detained in France and persecuted by N. Nazarbayev could be extradited to Kazakhstan? The answer is unambiguous: no. Since the Kazakh law-enforcement system organized over 20 years by Nazarbayev protects President Nazarbayev only this day and acts on the latter’s strict instruction. There is no responsibility in the activities of the law-enforcement agencies to the taxpayers, to the people of Kazakhstan whose interests they are qualified to protect. All the key positions of top tier echelon of court and other law-enforcement agencies are appointed by President Nazarbayev.
So, in Kazakhstan fair legal trial is out of the question. That is why there are virtually no political lawsuits in Kazakhstan, and all the politics-related cases are urgently relegated to criminal ones. It was the case of A. Kazhegeldin, the opposition ex-prime-minister; it was once the case of M. Ablyazov, it was the case of G. Zhakiyanov, ex-governor, Z. Nurkadilov, ex-mayor of Alma-Ata, А. Sarsenbaev, ex-minister of press, and many others.
It is the correctional system in this criminal scheme of the mechanism of the government to which Nazarbayev assigned the role of further character assassination, abasement of human dignity. Nowadays, we see how people who entered correctional institutions of Kazakhstan are obliterated. Today, these are the wheels of state pursuing the interests of President Nazarbayev exclusively.
Later on all that is processed by the mass media owned by the President’s family, the policy of ‘Khabarization’ of the people of Kazakhstan is being implemented (‘Khabar’ is the national television agency belonging to President Nazarbayev).
In this connection, it is particularly worthy of notice that the rush which was staged by the leadership of Kazakhstan in relation to M. Ablyazov, his spouse Alma and infant daughter Alua, is but an attempt at castigating the person for his political creed, for his activity aimed, in the first instance, at changing the state of things in Kazakhstan for the better by a democratic way. The regime of Nazarbayev , rather than making his teammates of the well-informed, fairly well-educated people, quite aware of what should be done to carry out the necessary reforms in Kazakhstan, illegally presents them as international criminals.
The world community should take in the situation that exists today in Kazakhstan. Nazarbayev’s ambitions should not be satisfied. Considering that there is no fair trial in Kazakhstan – and there shall never be one while the Nazarbayev regime is in power, there shall be a reprisal against persona non grata, – M. Ablyazov must be extradited neither to Kazakhstan nor to any other CIS countries.
The acts of the authorities of Kazakhstan in collaboration with political figures of Italy to kidnap M. Ablyazov’s spouse together with their infant daughter demonstrate once again that no protection exists in this world against the acts of an autocrat overreaching himself.
Activities to arrest M. Ablyazov in France but raise eyebrows. Currently, Nazarbayev the autocrat uses the International Police to settle the score with the persons unwanted for the Nazarbayev regime in order to satisfy his indomitable ambitions. Why, when the International Police arrest warrant was issued as to Nazarbayev and his family members pending proceedings in a very much publicized case entitled ‘Kazakhgate’, they have never been detained but moved freely country- and continent-wise? The issue remains open, why?
Extradition of M. Ablyazov is not possible, either, as the issue in S. Magnitsky’s case has not been settled so far. The highlight not to be overlooked is the fact that the Russia’s leadership did not condemn the actions of Kazakhstan as to the kidnapping M. Ablyazov’s spouse Alma and their infant daughter Alua as hostages from Italy by the secret service of Kazakhstan.
Likewise, extradition to the Ukraine is not possible, since there are no guarantees of a fair trial of the Ablyazov case based on the force of international law. The Ukraine and Kazakhstan are two states that, like twin brothers, pursue the same policy for the destruction of the unwanted. Everyone recalls the struggle between the former President of the Ukraine and Lazarenko, the prime-minister, the former President of the Ukraine and Timoshenko, the prime-minister, the existing President of the Ukraine and the former prime-minister Timoshenko, in whose defence leaders of major European Union member states made statements on repeated occasions. As to the murder of the ex-minister of Internal Affairs of the Ukraine, General Lutsenko, the official version is a suicide, two shots. In the opinion of international experts, it was a murder.
Similarly, President Nazarbayev’s struggle in Kazakhstan against the former prime-minister A. Kazhegeldin who had received a Peace Passport, yet in Kazakhstan he was convicted in absentia at the direction of the President of Kazakhstan. The much publicized murder in November 2005 of one of the oppositionists of President Nazarbayev, Nurkadilov, the ex-Minister of Emergencies, three shots, the official version being a suicide. In the opinion of independent experts, it was a murder. As it is seen, the scenarios and the stage managers are likely to be the same.
In consideration of the foregoing, M. Ablyazov should on no account be extradited for the Ukrainian authorities to lacerate him, as there are no guarantees in place as to the trial being objective and fair. Besides, there is an increasing risk of M. Ablyazov’s extradition to Kazakhstan by the authorities of the Ukraine.
Politicians of global renown who associated with Nazarbayev lost their international authority, – it will be sufficient to mention the names of the former Chancellor of Austria against whom a criminal case was initiated in Austria within the Aliev’s case; the former President of Germany; Tony Blair, the former prime-minister of Great Britain; Juan Carlos, King of Spain (Rakhat Aliev described in detail how Nazarbayev loaded attache-cases with cash to the amount of several million onto King of Spain’s plane), S. Berlusconi, the former prime-minister of Italy; Andrew, the British prince, may be adduced (the sensational story involving a purchase of a family castle at an exorbitant price).
A dictatorial regime has established in Kazakhstan, the leader whereof, Nazarbayev, has outlawed himself by his actions, and I am sure that the time will come when the people of Kazakhstan shall try criminals with Nazarbayev in the lead for crimes against the people of Kazakhstan. Nazarbayev’s policy that has lead to the pauperization of the whole country and enrichment of Nazarbayev’s family at the cost of Kazakhstan citizens is criminal in relation to the people of the entire state. A transnational criminal group of the family type ganged by President Nazarbayev in person shall certainly come before the court of time.
I consider that President of Kazakhstan should be treated as a family type dictator who cannot quite comply with the wishes of his clan wishing at the end of his political life to physically – and only physically – suppress and even eliminate political opponents to his regime, as he believes that this would ensure political longevity of his political successor who could inherit his style of government, thus, getting Nazarbayev’s family and his partners control the Kazakh economy in the future. This is the argument which is the most sensitive one for Nazarbayev’s political lobbyists, as over 20 years of his reign Nazarbayev attracted the ‘strong’ internationally known lobbyists to the Kazakh economy, who mistakenly relate their own prospects of participation in the business or in the economy of Kazakhstan to the political and economic policy implemented solely by Nazarbayev.
Nazarbayev’s words ‘We should go with the strong’ that Nazarbayev pronounced on July 7, 2013 in Astana at a joint press conference with V. Putin, President of Russia, are a pressing and a substantial argument for him and his clan to provide assistance to the Nazarbayev policy from the leaders of the neighbouring states. But why should his political opponents think different? They are mere clear-sighted thinkers than Nazarbayev is.
They shall allocate income from the investment of strong partners in the Kazakh economy to the rise in the standard of living of the Kazakh society, ‘weak’ today. And the brilliant solution, as always, is a simple one – the Nazarbayev clan should merely be deprived of an opportunity to steal money from the nation’s budget. Nazarbayev’s political opposition is striving to make the Nazarbayev clan leave the political and economic life of Kazakhstan. And this does not constitute an economic exposure for the existing foreign investors in the economy of Kazakhstan. On the contrary, the solution to social problems of the population will but improve the investment climate of Kazakhstan, which, in its turn, shall promote political stability in the country.
Strong Power is the Power that is governed entirely by state interests rather than befriending the high and mighties.
A strong political leader is not the one who projects the entire public resources of the country to prosecute its citizens all over the world – one family, including women and children. An individual with a highly imperative conception of rather an unhealthy person can act that way.
A strong leader is that one who able to protect the citizens of his country in any part of the world; he cannot have private interests, he shall advocate but the reasons of the state. And state interests are those of the Kazakh citizens.
Nazarbayev has been robbing the people of Kazakhstan for over 20 years appropriating the income of the state, inclusive of the investments of foreign companies in the country’s economy; he appropriates the results of the activities of the representatives of the private industry, laundering budget funds of Kazakhstan in foreign banks (the case of the blocked 600 mln. dollars of T. Kulibaev in the Swiss bank of Credit Suisse, the matter in the action of the purchase and sale of the state mass media of ‘Khabar’ – 100 mln. dollars,– and so on).
An urgent leave of the besmeared Nazarbayev without his preparing a successor can make but a positive impact on the economy and further policy of Kazakhstan ensuring stability to significant investors.
A President of the transition period of a democratic nature (similar to Kyrgyzstan) may secure fair, incorruptible elections in Kazakhstan. Besides, he or she is free to make every effort returning Nazarbayev’s private assets – and those of his children, his next-of-kin, grandchildren, who, having no sound business experience, are multi-millionaires already – to the budget of the country.
It is essential to specify that I am not suggesting that the investment strategy of Kazakhstan should be revised.
I am essentially posing a question of the repayment of funds deposited in personal accounts, in the accounts of offshore zones, the return of privately owned real property, assets owned exclusively by the Nazarbayev clan. At my rough estimate, the Nazarbayev family paying back the skim money may refill the budget of the state of Kazakhstan by US50 bln.
Consequently, it is this that Nazarbayev and his family fear. This is the reason why they do not need judicial examination of the political opponents of the Nazarbayev power. Nazarbayev pursues the only objective of a physical elimination of a, one may say, heroic leader of Nazarbayev’s political opposition – Mukhtar Ablyazov, because it is peculiar to Nazarbayev to be thinking in categories of primeval dictators: ‘The only good enemy is a dead enemy’.
If the European community should concede to Mukhtar Ablyazov being deported to any of the CIS countries, he might be waiting to die a martyr’s death in prison torture chambers.
No guarantees of the Ukraine and Russia shall be trusted; it will be sufficient to recall the case of S. Magnitsky and tragic fates of other political prisoners from the CIS countries.
