Whole Truth Unlikely at Kazakstan Unrest Trial

Saule Mukhametrakhimova

Central Asia Editor

Wednesday, 18 July, 2012

The link has been copied

In a trial just getting under way in Aktau in western Kazakstan, 37 people stand accused of instigating mass public disorder in the oil town of Janaozen last December. It was the worst violence in Kazakstan since the country gained independence 20 years ago.

The charges against the defendants include arson, robbery and assaults on the police.

What they are not accused of, though, is the key event of December 16 – the use of live fire by police, which left 14 dead. Eyewitnesses described police shooting indiscriminately into the crowd, and footage posted on YouTube appeared to support this. Police said they were forced to defend themselves, and the authorities have backed this version of what happened.

Against the will of relatives of the defendants and civil society activists, it was decided to hold the trial in Aktau, 150 kilometres away from Janaozen.

IWPR asked Andrei Grishin of the Kazakstan Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law to explain why this case is so important. He began by putting it in historical context.

Andrei Grishin: The scale of the tragedy in Janaozen can only be compared to the [student] protest in December 1986 in Almaty. It’s therefore the first serious test that’s faced Kazakstan in 25 years. There have been conflicts in that time, but not with these casualty figures or this kind of public reaction.

It’s the first time firearms and live ammunition have been used against citizens of Kazakstan.

At the same time, there isn’t such a massive difference between the Kazak Soviet Socialist Republic and independent Kazakstan.

Back then in 1986, just as now, the guilty were identified before the trial ever started, and the trouble was blamed on a bunch of young hooligans.

In Janaozen itself, there was unrest in 1989 and again in 2010. The 1989 disturbances were sparked by ethnic issues. Five people died and Soviet troops were deployed. In the latter case there are many parallels with the December 2011 disturbances – an industrial dispute by oil workers, in the course of which there were some attacks on property.

In past cases, the authorities made the maximum effort to defuse tensions. There were no harsh reprisals against participants, and steps were taken to address underlying social problems.

In 2011, however, no particular effort was made to contain the situation. Quite the reverse – the situation was made worse by a decision to disperse protesters and hunger strikers by force. If we can take his word for it, President Nursultan Nazarbaev has said he was not made aware of how explosive the situation was getting.

On the other side, Janazoen became a convenient platform for those ranged against the president. I don’t just mean the opposition here; there are plenty of people inside the president’s entourage who are unhappy with things as they are now.

So the situation in Janaozen was allowed to happen.

The aftermath now presents a good opportunity for the authorities to clamp down on the political opposition, which expressed support for the demands made by striking workers during months of protests, as well as calling for the industrial dispute to be resolved.

IWPR: What can we expect to come out of the trial in Aktau?

Grishin: It is likely that this trial will be geared towards punishment, as is commonly the case in Kazakstan’s justice system.

The fact that only the protesters are on trial is indicative of who authorities think is to blame. True, five policemen have been accused of exceeding their authority and placed under house arrest. But you can’t talk about all sides being equally represented.

What’s more, I do not think that these policemen – who were deployed to carry out orders – will face real punishment. If that happened, there are dozens of low-ranking police and their commanders who would also have to be held accountable. Not many people in Kazakstan believe the police opened fire without orders from above. Second, if they are found culpable, other police might refuse to obey orders to open fire on a future occasion, recalling the fate that befell their colleagues.

The outcome of this trial has been determined in advance by the arrest of labour activists and opposition politicians immediately after the Janaozen violence. The authorities only have one version of events, in which the opposition is to blame, and they will stick to it even if it defies both evidence and common sense.

IWPR: You’re referring to the officials who have blamed Janaozen on exiled opponents of President Nazarbaev.

Grishin: We can see that according to the authorities’ narrative, the protesting oil workers were acting on instructions from the opposition, which in turn was carrying out the design of exiled banker Mukhtar Ablyazov, the president’s son-in-law Rahat Aliev, also in exile.... We can anticipate that opposition politicians abroad – classed as enemies of the state – will feature large in the case.

IWPR: Do you think the authorities will keep their promise of ensuring the trial is open?

Grishin: The first trial day was open to the public. Not everyone was able to get in, as the courtroom wasn’t big enough. But there were no reports of rights activists or journalists being denied access. It seems to be in the authorities’ interest to hold an open trial.... That way [they can argue that] Kazakstan is honouring its initial pledges to conduct an inquiry that is as open as possible.

But let’s see how it carries on, particularly if concerns are raised about torture – cited by relatives of some of the defendants.

IWPR: What’s the public reaction to the trial been in Kazakstan?

Grishin: There has been some public interest, but no outcry. The trial certainly isn’t headline news for the whole of Kazakstan. Just as Kazakstan’ regions differ one from another, society is divided as well. For people in Mangistau region [where Aktau and Janaozen are located], it’s the key event of the moment. There’s some interest in it in Almaty, where people are generally more interested in politics. For the rest of the country, it’s just another passing event.

IWPR: Given the number of defendants, this trial could take some time.

Grishin: It’s hard to say what they [the authorities] are planning for the trial. It’s possible they will be watching to see the reaction – if interest in it continues, they may decide to get it over with as soon as possible, to avoid reminding people of the event and stirring emotions.

But there’s also another way of making everyone lose interest. Hearings can be endlessly postponed to test the patience of people who need to travel [to Aktau]. That’s common practice.

In any case, the decision won’t come from the court in Aktau. It will be taken in the president’s office.

Interview conducted by Saule Mukhametrakhimova, IWPR Central Asia editor.

If you would like to comment or ask a question about this story, please contact our Central Asia editorial team at feedback.ca@iwpr.net.