The letter, which text you’ll find below, was sent to us by German journalist Theo Fuchs

Dear Better.kz editors,

My name is Theo Fuchs, and I’m working on Central Asia and Kazakhstan news for several German newspapers. I was given the assignment to describe Rakhat Aliev issue in light of publication of his memoirs “Fater-in-law”, and following response in Kazakhstan. As the part of the study, I came upon your website, where I found a mass of information relative to my subject. However, my attention was captured not by the topic itself, but by repeatability of the articles on this matter, all of which are biased and negatively tuned, concerning Rakhat Aliev and his work. From the other side, personal web-page and the book of Rakhat Aliev are too flooded with negative expressions, which allow making the traditional conclusion – the truth is out there. However, it’s impossible to gain a fair understanding of the process currently. That’s why I decided to write an open letter to you, in which I summed up everything found by my own conclusions. I’d like to ask you to comment it.

Exchange of recriminatory slaps which moving amidst camps of Kazakhstani president from one side, and Mr. Aliev from the other, carrying different natures. Defenders of the president are more offensive, using all available means, whereas Mr. Aliev is forced to defend himself after the publication of his book, using the arguments which can’t be proved by available information. You’d think that Mr. Aliev has played out his mudslinging on current junta. Yet, judging by his repeating references on facts in his Livejournal diary (which is banned to Kazakhstan, as I know), which aren’t marked in his book, he has the additional information, but for some reason he doesn’t use it as a leverage.

Kazakhstani newspapers available on European languages, as your respective online newspaper, basically reciting the same arguments against Rakhat Aliev, as: attempt to seizure of power, kidnapping, keeping and sales of arms etc. You’d think that active part of Kazakhs, which supposedly represented by the press, formulated its common ground, which witnessing against Mr. Aliev. Antagonist sources of information, as I understood, are declaiming everything what current Kazakhstani administration doing, so considering it is pretty difficult. However, all these articles have one clearly visible shortage – it’s far-fetching of the same facts until affected corruption, contradict to similar information in other articles. All that articles are united merely by one thing – attempt to make Mr. Aliev as some monster human with only treacherous intrigues and plan within his thoughts. It is as if these articles are most written by weathercocks. These tendencies, along with many witnesses about dependence of press in Kazakhstan, were stumped my study. Eventually, Rakhat Aliev owned and controlled practically all popular mass-media in times of his activity in Kazakhstan, which allowed him the abilities to “forge” information events. No wonder if the same old story continues.

Even more sad continuation in human rights and freedoms evaluation in Kazakhstan is the taking out of Mr. Aliev’s book, the “Godfather-in-law”. If what Kazakhstani press saying is true, the book contains nothing that can really shatter the high reputation of the president. In this case these seizures are conflicting not only to liberty of speech, but the press, which represents this freedom. Seizure of book is the attribute of any totalitarian system, as known from schoolbooks. In case of Kazakhstan, which, by EU opinion, is developing democracy and open economy, this fact is deplorable.

By information found on your website the book of Mr. Aliev can be bought in almost all European bookshops, but I unsuccessfully tried to found it in Hamburg, and eventually bought it on Austrian E-bay for €2.98. I’m not sure that common Europeans are interested in this book, but Euro politicians’ environment it is in requisition. Generally it’s not those who check human rights and stuff in different countries, but those who searching for possibilities to use this book as a leverage.

And yet it stands for no reason, what Mr. Aliev aiming at in those conditions where he putted in? It’s hardly believable that he seriously relying on support from EU or US. Particularly these aggregations are revealed as business, with established and worked-out rules. Good or bad, but he has nothing to exchange on justification or even return to Kazakhstan on the rights of the free man. But on this stage he represented exclusively as the subject of exchange between West, which can’t evaluate Mr. Aliev as an argument, and Kazakhstan, which is unable to give him, or its own actions, a sensible estimation.

I think that Kazakhstani press is unable to give any unbiased information. More of that, I suspect that Kazakhstani press, which is arguing against Rakhat Aliev, actually is contributing to him, supporting charged interest for his name from the Kazakhs. He couldn’t become so famous as now by his own forces, because the only source of information connected to him now, is his internet diary. I also suspect that Mr. Aliev’s diary appears to be the same artificial occurrence, as the press opposing to him, because he along couldn’t accomplish design, numerous translations, and continuously write different articles on the same topic. Comments from unspecified editorial stuff of his diary are pointing on this too.

I can’t sort out, where’s the truth or lies in this situation. Most of the facts, which earlier appeared to be unquestionable, are now distorted to be unrecognizable. The one thing is clear – that this story is demonstrative in sense of democratic standards. I can’t believe that Rakhat Aliev reached all his chairs only by kinship with the president. His crimes, most obvious of which is publication of state secrets, considered as disgraceful and prescribed by highest possible punishment in any country, show the rate of overall weakness of Kazakhstani state system. Any state has something to hold back from the others: that’s why the presence of intelligence services is excused. But if person reveals this information, he is not only an outlaw, he is a traitor. Even if he decide the trait purposely to give trouble to the same sort of people, like he is.

Theo Fuchs, Hamburg, Germany

July 23, 2009

theo.fuchs@gmx.de