The problem of Eurasian security is matter number two. And here it is quite evident that, unlike the specifics from the first part of the president's speech, the second block of questions is drawn in, as they say, broad strokes. Nazarbayev talks about the development of the joint treaty on Eurasian security. However, it is hard to say how much time this process could take, because the very first speeches of the summit's guests showed that contradictions between West and East, as well as between the former Soviet Union countries, are not only maintained but are also deepening over many issues. This idea was proved by the speech of the foreign minister of Uzbekistan, Vladimir Norov, who stated that the OSCE did nothing on the prevention and elimination of the events that took place in Kyrgyzstan this summer. This speech contradicts other estimates of the OSCE's role in the post-conflict settlement in Kyrgyzstan. The point is not private contradictions, but defining clear criteria of considering the OSCE's activities without anger and predilection. The other key remark in Nazarbayev's speech was the idea of spinning-off inter-confessional tolerance into a separate sphere of OSCE activity. The President of Kazakhstan thinks that a new document on "tolerance in the next decade" can be developed. The model of inter-ethnic and inter-confessional tolerance, which has always been identified by Astana, hasn't been practically developed properly during Kazakhstan's chairmanship. That is why Nazarbayev will probably try to enhance this direction of the OSCE's activities at the summit. It is difficult to say if the mood of Nazarbayev's speech corresponds to the general mood of the summit's discussion. Considering the first speeches of the Western leaders, there will still be contradictions between the OSCE's members.
Uzbekistan's criticism of the coalition activities in Afghanistan was very unpredictable. Just before the summit, it was thought that the positions of the parties participating in the Afghan settlement wouldn't contradict each other so strongly.
So on the one hand there has been no row yet, and that is good. On the other hand, the "Astana spirit", widely discussed by Russian experts ahead of the summit, hasn't resulted in any formula or treaties. Tomorrow we'll have another day of the summit. The situation will probably change positively. However, even now we can see how deep the contradiction between the representatives of the world political elite is - notwithstanding the policy of "restart".
P.S. At the summit the joint statement of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group of the OSCE was adopted. The document talks about the necessity of more serious efforts on implementation of the Madrid principles, which are the basis of a peaceful settlement process.
How we should judge this document? Ahead of the summit the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was considered to be a key topic. It seems the "Vestnik Kavkaza" expert view, that there would be no breakthrough in this case at the summit, has been verified.
The other declaration, unsupported by particular mechanisms for fulfilling the objectives, will probably be one of many documents adopted at the top level in the recent 10 years. However, before the signing of this statement, the President of the EU stated that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is threatening European security.
Lofty words are lofty words, but the situation remains very uncertain.
Alexei Vlasov. Exclusively to VK
