Approaches to the promotion of human rights in the field of freedom of religion in Kazakhstan by international legal institutions require in-depth study and a more flexible approach. Successfully building of a new format of dialogue is possible only if the existing realities are taken into account.
For example, in its 2024 report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom again recommended that the U.S. Department of State place Kazakhstan on the Special Watch List for ‘tolerance of serious violations of religious freedom’ along with Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey and other countries.
International organizations have for many years criticized the existing 2011 law ‘On Religious Activity and Religious Associations’. In particular, the fact that it requires mandatory registration of religious associations, religious expertise and ‘accreditation’ of missionary activities. All of this, according to international and local human rights activists, violates international legal norms concerning freedom of religion or belief, which Kazakhstan once ratified.
In response, state authorities claim that international norms do not take into account the specific local context of the country and the complex geopolitical situation in the region. Thus, in a report prepared by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) in 2023, a representative of the Committee on Religious Affairs of the Ministry of Culture and Information of Kazakhstan said that religious expertise, for example, is necessary to ensure public safety and counter threats of religious extremism and terrorism.
It is not difficult to notice that in their responses to international criticism, state bodies appeal to the experience of other countries and never directly criticize the international norms themselves. Kazakhstan often participates in dialogue platforms organized by the UN, the OSCE or the US government. All of this emphasizes how important a positive international image is for a state.
Nevertheless, 13 years have passed since the law was adopted in 2011 and, despite all the criticism, no significant changes have been made to the law.
As practice shows, in the balance between national security and international standards of freedom of religion or belief, the state prefers to lean more towards the former. Most likely, according to the authorities, limiting religious freedom is a necessary sacrifice to ensure stability within the country. Many officials see ‘excessive’ freedom of religion as a threat in the form of uncontrolled spread of violent extremist ideas.
Ineffectiveness of existing approaches
International human rights institutions in their attempts to promote freedom of religion or belief in Central Asia, and in particular in Kazakhstan, use the so-called ‘name and shame’ method, publicly criticizing states for anti-democratic laws. In this way, international actors try to hold state systems accountable for human rights violations and highlight the problems in the international arena.
However, as research in the field of international relations shows, such a strategy most often leads to a response in the form of the status quo protection, thus increasing tensions between the parties – the international community and individual countries.
This applies to the case of Kazakhstan as well.
Since 2005, international criticism has not helped to seriously change the state’s policy towards religion and each subsequent change in the law has been harsher and harsher. Kazakhstan keeps stating that such measures are necessary to protect society in the context of the complex situation in the region and the world.
Certainly, attracting international attention and subsequent criticism is one of the important tools for ensuring human rights. Local human rights defenders and civil society, having no other alternatives to influence the government domestically, turn to international agencies. In turn, the international community, be it the UN, the OSCE, or the US State Department, prepare reports that reflect current problems.
Such an approach seems logical, consistent and optimal for the promotion of human rights. However, without detracting from the effectiveness of this approach, it is worth understanding all the nuances and complexity of its consequences in practice.
For example, the creation of ‘blacklists’ such as the ‘special watch list’, although initially intended to attract international attention at the political level, more often than not does not change the situation.
This is confirmed not only in the case of Kazakhstan, but also by scientific evidence. Analyzing the situation in 145 countries from 1975 to 2000, researcher Hafner-Burton concludes that in many cases governments, under pressure from international criticism, make rather cosmetic changes, but in fact continue or even worsen the situation of human rights violations.
Public denigration, so often practiced by a wide variety of human rights organizations, has the effect of placing the criticized states outside the community of ‘civilized countries,’ thereby creating an even greater gap in dialogue, which leads to even greater isolation of these countries.
What to do?
Given these dynamics, it seems more effective to create strategies of interaction based on a positive approach.
Firstly, international actors need to pay more attention to understanding the root causes of the existing paradigm within Kazakhstan. Only by understanding the motives behind the actions of the authorities can we gradually move towards a dialogue based on trust and cooperation.
Second, international organizations need to move away from a public censure approach. Instead, more attention should be paid to the policy of encouraging positive actions of the authorities, even if they seem insignificant and insufficient. The development of positive indicators will motivate public authorities to make more changes and strengthen relationships with the international community.
Third, there is a need for training for public officials of all ranks on international standards in the field of religion. It is very important that these trainings not be top-down or instructive in tone. The training should demonstrate how freedom of religion or belief can improve national security, not undermine it.
Formal appeals for compliance with international norms will not suffice. Practical examples are needed.
Thus, the effectiveness of an international approach to advancing human rights in the area of religion requires a profound change in the very foundations of engagement.
Successfully building a new format of dialogue also requires international actors to be flexible, innovative, and willing to reevaluate strategies that have been approved over the years. This, in turn, will lead to the formation of a new paradigm, despite growing fragmentation and globalization fatigue.