Comments on: “Kazakhstan is at the centre of an ugly trade”

By: pacific

pacific — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:59:56 +0000

I have stopped buying The Economist as well. A once well-reasoned magazine has become far too sloppy and dim-witted.

By: Nothing is Free

Nothing is Free — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:11:12 +0000

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34138

By: Michael Hancock

Michael Hancock — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:58:20 +0000

Vast anti-Uzbek conspiracies… yeah, I don’t buy into them either. It was just a coincidence I noticed and mentioned. The Uzbeks hardly need help in being plotted against, considering how well they do it themselves.

The Economist’s star may be falling, but in an age where news changes and travels so quickly, who can blame them for slowing up in the face of an ever-more vicious blogosphere? And who remembers that great Point-Counterpoint over at the Onion about the smug bastards who used to read nothing but the Economist and thought every other journalistic endeavor a bunch of also-rans?

By: Bonnie Boyd

Bonnie Boyd — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:03:47 +0000

And yeah, if that instalink to which you refer was Great Decisions, there wasn’t anything in that post about a vast anti-Uzbek conspiracy. And there won’t be.

Generally, I believe in greed and carelessness more than conspiracies. . .
B.

By: Bonnie Boyd

Bonnie Boyd — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:01:29 +0000

Dear Joshua, and all,
Like Nathan, I see Kazakhstan on a relatively positive trajectory, and unlike Frank, I see stability as a prerequisite for other kinds of state and institutional growth.

I also see Europe as terribly parochial, and often operating from a high ground that often doesn’t bear close scrutiny–which I think was part of Joshua’s point, with better examples.

So far, no one appears to be thinking that Mr. Nazarbaev’s principles and actions could grow in order to keep up with his leadership a high-minded OSCE community. I think it possible–and it is a trajectory that a balanced essay from the Economist would have kept in mind, even if later the idea was discarded.

Bonnie

By: b

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:33:55 +0000

Agreed. The Economist‘s quality has gone downhill of late. There’s still good there, but it’s uneven. That old reputation for accurate reporting and precise analysis is no longer deserved.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:41:33 +0000

Nice try Lance. I would have been cranky had he linked to The Economist article. My complaint about both is the same.

As for the choice at play here…

Frank, would you say the OSCE choice, which was to reinforce the Yalta trade of Eastern Europe’s freedom for Western Europe’s stability, did neither? The Economist says that choice was the moral thing to do, as it brought down “totalitarianism.” Why, then, would engaging Kazakhstan in the same way? Romania was among the most horridly corrupt countries in Europe when it was given the chair in 2001; I don’t see the Economist discussing how that ruined its mandate or anything.

A look at the Chairman-in-Office’s role is illuminating as well:

* co-ordination of the work of OSCE Institutions;
* representing the Organization;
* supervising activities related to conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.

The Economist addresses none of these issues (except peripherally the idea of coordinating the work of OSCE institutions, of which election monitoring is only one small bit). In fact, aside from a general sense of outrage that a non-elected leader might have the chair for a year, they didn’t make any case.

And since when is “stability” an issue here? Kazakhstan is the most stable country in Central Asia, and I’d argue in the former Soviet Union, save Russia. This has nothing to do with stability – that is as much of a red herring as trying to add Belarus to the discussion.

By: Lance

Lance — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:40:10 +0000

Wow, an instalink. Does that mean it is an approving link? Do snarky commentators who disagree with you get to write ill tempered screeds about who he links to on issues where even he would never claim he has any great knowledge, but just found it a view he was interested enough in to send people to read? Inquiring minds want to know? ;^)

Cheers!

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:36:12 +0000

Though rushing foolhardily forward in pursuit of instant realization of principles doesn’t get one stability either. Kazakhstan is more or less on a positive trajectory. I may merely be a derision-worthy “expert,” but it seems odd to me that we all of a sudden should go about looking to journalists who, having barely discovered the country’s existence, cannot discuss Kazakhstan without mentioning Borat for sage wisdom on how to make the country a better place.

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:39:44 +0000

History has shown it and I thought you, supposed “experts” already knew:

when you give up principles in exchange for “stability” you end up without principles and without stability.

Do you want to try again tempting Destiny?