On May 13, 2025, an article entitled “Human rights activists reported on the real situation with torture in Kazakhstan” was published in the Kazakhstani information space.
It states that a certain Coalition of NGOs of Kazakhstan has prepared a report on the situation of torture in the country. It is emphasized that Kazakhstani human rights activists are implementing this project with the financial support of the European Union.
The material says that in our country, “the vicious and so-called ‘systemic’ practice of torture and evasion of responsibility continues”.
The publication of this material forced us to recall a number of theses we have already expressed earlier. I believe it is necessary to refresh them in the memories of my colleagues from organizations funded by foreign foundations.
The analysis of international grant funding of national NGOs in Kazakhstan in the field of human rights and democracy clearly shows certain trends that create comfortable conditions for the radicalization of human rights rhetoric of certain human rights groups.
International NGOs are ready to support the most odious human rights defenders who, failing to find forms of harmonious dialogue with society through the mechanisms created in the country, help to sow in our country an atmosphere of denial, hopelessness and deadlock of the chosen path.
The old formulaic, often completely unprofessional public statements about the totalitarian basis of the political system of Kazakhstan continue to be imposed as a “technical task” from radicalized colleagues from international grantors.
In March 2012, while holding the position of Deputy Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the OSCE in Vienna, and being responsible for the human dimension, I met with the head of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law Yevgeniy Zhovtis. At that time, we were able to discuss quite constructively the issues of political development of Kazakhstan and strengthening of mechanisms for the protection of human rights and democracy in the country.
At that time, Zhovtis was planning to go abroad for permanent residence. He was offered to stay in Kazakhstan and participate in human rights activities, to which he agreed and stayed in Kazakhstan. Later, he became a member of the Advisory and Consultative Body “Dialogue Platform on Human Dimension” under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan (CAB), which I initiated.
The platform was established in January 2013 - after my return to Kazakhstan and my appointment as Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan (Human Rights). It was attended by representatives of all state bodies, members of the Parliament of the RK, as well as representatives of NGOs, mainly funded by the US and the EU. In addition, the Dialogue Platform meetings were attended by representatives of the EU, UNDP, OSCE, USAID, as well as the embassies of the USA, Canada, Germany, and Great Britain.
Yevgeniy Zhovtis became not only an active participant of the CAB, but also a manager of dialogue between governmental bodies and representatives of the civil sector of Kazakhstan on certain issues.
At the beginning, the CAB meetings were very tense, as participants from the civil sector spoke out harshly and critically against state authorities, and this was all in the presence of international organizations and foreign embassies.
When I chaired the CAB meetings, I was more supportive of the civil sector than of state bodies, which was a unique phenomenon in itself back in 2013.
Representatives of state bodies then supported many civil sector initiatives, but were afraid of their superiors, a known amount of whom were corrupt. However, seeing that I was on the side of NGOs, they also expressed their thoughts, which fully coincided with the proposals of human rights defenders, which were dissonant with the position of their leadership.
All the CAB meetings were shaped around two issues:
I am grateful to the civil sector for their participation and to the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law for systematizing and storing the CAB recommendations, most of which were implemented during the political reform of the head of state - in building a Just Kazakhstan.
However, this contribution of the Dialogue Platform was not appreciated by civil activists, human rights defenders or our Western partners. Despite my repeated attempts to bring to the attention of the OSCE and the UN the unique effectiveness of CAB in building a dialogue between the state and human rights defenders, the great democracies remained deaf and mute to Kazakhstan's experience.
“Deafness” and “mutism” are the main reasons for the stagnation of democracy in the world. Its authors do not want to take into account history and traditions for consistent introduction and development of democratic values in previously closed societies. They want quick and easy victories for which, just as it is in Latin America and the Middle East, local peoples have to pay for decades.
It strikes me that they are trying to make a similar mistake in Central Asia. Using standard molds, they ostentatiously talk about so-called “political prisoners” who are, in fact, criminals of the Law.
While promoting democracy, the West itself is mired in corruption, forgetting its values. Thus, in Belgium, the vice-president of the European Parliament and several other people have been detained in a case of large bribes.
Many people who receive illegal forms of financial support continue to be deputies not only in Europe, but also around the world, including in the United States, but the European Parliament and, in general, all national parliaments of Western countries remain the bastion of democracy in the world - they decide which democracy programs in Central Asia will receive financial support and which will not.
Last year in Warsaw at the OSCE ODIHR conference as the head of the Public Foundation “National Endowment for Prosperity.” I told this to the representatives of 57 OSCE member states, as well as to the European Union. However, my questions about corruption in the world's democratic institutions remained unanswered.
Such degradation trends have also affected the behavior of the non-governmental sector in Central Asia. For example, certain NGOs in Kazakhstan that receive international grant funding have begun to strengthen the ideological component of their rhetoric, taking it far beyond Kazakhstan's international commitments and international practices of their implementation.
This, in my understanding, was made possible, among other things, because of the peculiarities of procedures for obtaining foreign grants. Thus, foreign grants to “trusted NGOs” are very easily allocated - on the basis of simple applications in conditions of complete unaccountability to the population, as well as a complete lack of civil responsibility for their work. Moreover, foreign grants have never been allocated to NGOs working with the state - in this matter, the unspoken rule of the foreign grant policy remains in place.
Not surprisingly, a number of such NGOs receiving 100% foreign funding have adapted to the culture of corruption in the West and are engaged in projects parallel to the processes of political - democratic development of Fair Kazakhstan. They are always critical of political processes in Kazakhstan - they are not aware of the rules of maintaining objectivity in their work. Indiscriminate criticism is the only guarantor of the preservation of incomes and receipts of foreign grants to their organizations. Discreditation multiplied by disinformation has become their bargaining chip in maintaining long-term financial stability.
The current situation is reaching its critical peak - participants in the political process in Kazakhstan should look back and return to having a dialogue and use the best practices and traditions of CAB work.
The dialogue platform at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can restore the process of communication between government agencies and NGOs. The platform should define the agenda of political projects in Kazakhstan for the sake of foreign funding, drawing clear red lines where such funding transforms from constructive to destructive, directly interfering in domestic policy issues.
CAB should regain its role in overcoming possible misunderstandings. The platform should provide guarantees to foreign donors that NGOs receiving their grants are working effectively with the state and influencing political processes, and not in isolation, wasting foreign taxpayers' money.
It states that a certain Coalition of NGOs of Kazakhstan has prepared a report on the situation of torture in the country. It is emphasized that Kazakhstani human rights activists are implementing this project with the financial support of the European Union.
The material says that in our country, “the vicious and so-called ‘systemic’ practice of torture and evasion of responsibility continues”.
The publication of this material forced us to recall a number of theses we have already expressed earlier. I believe it is necessary to refresh them in the memories of my colleagues from organizations funded by foreign foundations.
The analysis of international grant funding of national NGOs in Kazakhstan in the field of human rights and democracy clearly shows certain trends that create comfortable conditions for the radicalization of human rights rhetoric of certain human rights groups.
International NGOs are ready to support the most odious human rights defenders who, failing to find forms of harmonious dialogue with society through the mechanisms created in the country, help to sow in our country an atmosphere of denial, hopelessness and deadlock of the chosen path.
The old formulaic, often completely unprofessional public statements about the totalitarian basis of the political system of Kazakhstan continue to be imposed as a “technical task” from radicalized colleagues from international grantors.
In March 2012, while holding the position of Deputy Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the OSCE in Vienna, and being responsible for the human dimension, I met with the head of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law Yevgeniy Zhovtis. At that time, we were able to discuss quite constructively the issues of political development of Kazakhstan and strengthening of mechanisms for the protection of human rights and democracy in the country.
At that time, Zhovtis was planning to go abroad for permanent residence. He was offered to stay in Kazakhstan and participate in human rights activities, to which he agreed and stayed in Kazakhstan. Later, he became a member of the Advisory and Consultative Body “Dialogue Platform on Human Dimension” under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan (CAB), which I initiated.
The platform was established in January 2013 - after my return to Kazakhstan and my appointment as Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan (Human Rights). It was attended by representatives of all state bodies, members of the Parliament of the RK, as well as representatives of NGOs, mainly funded by the US and the EU. In addition, the Dialogue Platform meetings were attended by representatives of the EU, UNDP, OSCE, USAID, as well as the embassies of the USA, Canada, Germany, and Great Britain.
Yevgeniy Zhovtis became not only an active participant of the CAB, but also a manager of dialogue between governmental bodies and representatives of the civil sector of Kazakhstan on certain issues.
At the beginning, the CAB meetings were very tense, as participants from the civil sector spoke out harshly and critically against state authorities, and this was all in the presence of international organizations and foreign embassies.
When I chaired the CAB meetings, I was more supportive of the civil sector than of state bodies, which was a unique phenomenon in itself back in 2013.
Representatives of state bodies then supported many civil sector initiatives, but were afraid of their superiors, a known amount of whom were corrupt. However, seeing that I was on the side of NGOs, they also expressed their thoughts, which fully coincided with the proposals of human rights defenders, which were dissonant with the position of their leadership.
All the CAB meetings were shaped around two issues:
- Taking NGO’s proposals into account in Kazakhstan's legislative activities.
- Bringing national legislation in line with the country's international obligations.
I am grateful to the civil sector for their participation and to the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law for systematizing and storing the CAB recommendations, most of which were implemented during the political reform of the head of state - in building a Just Kazakhstan.
However, this contribution of the Dialogue Platform was not appreciated by civil activists, human rights defenders or our Western partners. Despite my repeated attempts to bring to the attention of the OSCE and the UN the unique effectiveness of CAB in building a dialogue between the state and human rights defenders, the great democracies remained deaf and mute to Kazakhstan's experience.
“Deafness” and “mutism” are the main reasons for the stagnation of democracy in the world. Its authors do not want to take into account history and traditions for consistent introduction and development of democratic values in previously closed societies. They want quick and easy victories for which, just as it is in Latin America and the Middle East, local peoples have to pay for decades.
It strikes me that they are trying to make a similar mistake in Central Asia. Using standard molds, they ostentatiously talk about so-called “political prisoners” who are, in fact, criminals of the Law.
While promoting democracy, the West itself is mired in corruption, forgetting its values. Thus, in Belgium, the vice-president of the European Parliament and several other people have been detained in a case of large bribes.
Many people who receive illegal forms of financial support continue to be deputies not only in Europe, but also around the world, including in the United States, but the European Parliament and, in general, all national parliaments of Western countries remain the bastion of democracy in the world - they decide which democracy programs in Central Asia will receive financial support and which will not.
Last year in Warsaw at the OSCE ODIHR conference as the head of the Public Foundation “National Endowment for Prosperity.” I told this to the representatives of 57 OSCE member states, as well as to the European Union. However, my questions about corruption in the world's democratic institutions remained unanswered.
Such degradation trends have also affected the behavior of the non-governmental sector in Central Asia. For example, certain NGOs in Kazakhstan that receive international grant funding have begun to strengthen the ideological component of their rhetoric, taking it far beyond Kazakhstan's international commitments and international practices of their implementation.
This, in my understanding, was made possible, among other things, because of the peculiarities of procedures for obtaining foreign grants. Thus, foreign grants to “trusted NGOs” are very easily allocated - on the basis of simple applications in conditions of complete unaccountability to the population, as well as a complete lack of civil responsibility for their work. Moreover, foreign grants have never been allocated to NGOs working with the state - in this matter, the unspoken rule of the foreign grant policy remains in place.
Not surprisingly, a number of such NGOs receiving 100% foreign funding have adapted to the culture of corruption in the West and are engaged in projects parallel to the processes of political - democratic development of Fair Kazakhstan. They are always critical of political processes in Kazakhstan - they are not aware of the rules of maintaining objectivity in their work. Indiscriminate criticism is the only guarantor of the preservation of incomes and receipts of foreign grants to their organizations. Discreditation multiplied by disinformation has become their bargaining chip in maintaining long-term financial stability.
The current situation is reaching its critical peak - participants in the political process in Kazakhstan should look back and return to having a dialogue and use the best practices and traditions of CAB work.
The dialogue platform at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can restore the process of communication between government agencies and NGOs. The platform should define the agenda of political projects in Kazakhstan for the sake of foreign funding, drawing clear red lines where such funding transforms from constructive to destructive, directly interfering in domestic policy issues.
CAB should regain its role in overcoming possible misunderstandings. The platform should provide guarantees to foreign donors that NGOs receiving their grants are working effectively with the state and influencing political processes, and not in isolation, wasting foreign taxpayers' money.