STORIES
THE TRIAL OF KING CHARLES I WAS RIGGED TO FIND HIM GUILTY
1649: A bloody civil war had just ended with the King of England captured by Parliamentary forces and imprisoned at Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight. What was to be done with him? Whilst Charles the First still lived he was a figurehead, a rallying-cause in whose name renewed fighting would inevitably break out sooner or later. It would therefore be most convenient for his enemies that he should die. This was decided in secret session held by Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) and his leading military officers in the New Model Army that was now running a bitterly divided nation.
After pondering several options, including discreet assassination by poisoning, they finally concluded that the King should be put on trial in public, which in Cromwell’s words, “Would teach all Kings and let them know that they are punishable for the wickedness of their lives.”
Therefore on the bleak Tuesday morning of 20 January 1649, the King was conducted by barge to Westminster Palace and led to the Great Hall, where the specially convened court was waiting. All present understood the historic significance of the occasion: such a trial had no precedent, and to share the burden of responsibility, 135 Special Commissioners had been appointed.
But barely half this number of men stood up to be counted in the Hall that day. Some were absent through cowardice, and others disapproved of what was planned. In the latter category was Lord Fairfax, commander-in-chief of the Parliamentary forces during the Civil War. A highly successful general and no ‘yes man’ to Cromwell, Fairfax was convinced that the trial would be rigged and flatly refused to have anything to do with it. When his name was called in the Great Hall, his wife bravely shouted from the gallery “Lord Fairfax is not here in person, and he will never sit among you, for you do him wrong to name him as a commissioner in this shabby affair!”
But of course the trial went ahead. Lord President of the Court was a lawyer named John Bradshaw, who wore a bulletproof hat for the occasion in case a hidden sniper tried to take him out of the proceedings. The judges’ benches were draped with scarlet; the Sword and Mace lay crossed on a table carpeted by a rich Turkish rug, and the Hall itself was so jammed with armoured soldiers that despite the open doors very few ordinary citizens were able to enter and view the trial as they were legally entitled to.
The King arrived in due course and made his way down the central aisle, dressed in black and carrying a silver-beaded cane. He looked sternly around the assembly before sitting down on the crimson velvet chair reserved for him, and by failing to remove his hat, showed clearly that he had no respect for the Court.
After the preliminaries, the chief prosecutor Mr Cook read out a long document which charged Charles Stuart with high treason and misdemeanours which included making himself a tyrant and maliciously waging war against Parliament and the English people. The King listened in silence except for near the end, when charged with being ‘a tyrant and a murderer’ he suddenly laughed aloud. The President then asked for his response to the charges, and King Charles replied, “I would know by what power I am called hither. When I know by what lawful authority I am called, then I shall answer.”
Bradshaw replied that he was being tried in the name of the people of England, “of which you are the elected King.” Indignantly, Charles responded, “England was never an elective Kingdom, but an hereditary kingdom since these thousand years and more. Therefore let me know by what authority I am called hither, sir.”
There followed several more crisp exchanges in this vein. The King demanded to know what right the assembly had to try him; and Bradshaw reprimanded him for challenging the authority of the Court. With the pattern of the trial set in these opening moves, the president adjourned the proceedings for the day.
When legal argument was resumed on the following Monday the King again refused to answer the charges, and the same disputes erupted. On the third day of the trial, the prosecution moved for a quick judgement on the grounds that, by refusing to answer the charges, the King was effectively confessing his guilt. Bradshaw gave King Charles one more chance to make a formal answer, and when he remained obstinate, the prosecution was allowed to bring forward its witnesses.
In the following days over two dozen witnesses were called, mostly from the Parliamentary army, to establish that Charles had started the civil war when he raised his standard at Nottingham in August 1642; and that he subsequently fought himself. Some claimed to have seen the King on horseback at Edge Hill and Marston Moor, slashing at infantrymen around him with a sword.
A witness named Humphrey Brown claimed that the King had condoned an attack on surrendered Cromwellians at Leicester, allegedly saying, “I do not care if my men cut them three times more, for they are mine enemies”. In modern parlance this is what could be called a ‘war crime.’
When all the evidence had been heard, and no defence offered in mitigation, the court proceeded to the business of passing sentence. It took a whole day to draft the required document, which was read out in Westminster Hall on 27 January. By now, Cromwell’s watching soldiers were growing impatient, and as the King entered the Hall loud cries of “Justice!” and “Execute him!” were heard.
Bradshaw embarked on a long oration, waving aside interruptions from the King as well as the indomitable Lady Fairfax. He itemised a catalogue of treasons, including all the ‘murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damage and mischief to this nation’ resulting from a brutal civil war which had bitterly divided the nation. He concluded that, “for all such treasons and crimes this court doth adjudge that the said Charles Stuart is a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and a public enemy. He shall be put to death by the severing of his head from his body. And may God have mercy on his soul.”
After the sentence was read, no last words were permitted from the King. When Charles called out, “Will you hear me, sir?” Bradshaw ordered him to be silent. When the King persisted, the president shouted, “Guards, withdraw your prisoner!” and England’s monarch was dragged, still protesting from the Hall amid the spits and jeers of soldiers around him.
Two days later Charles said a moving farewell to his younger children and on 29 January the death warrant was signed by Cromwell and 68 others, ordering the sentence to be carried out the next day in the open streets before Whitehall. (Cromwell’s signature was third on the list). Further objections by Lord Halifax were impatiently brushed aside by Cromwell who now ruled as England’s new ‘Protector’ until his death nine years later.
On the fateful morning of 30 January 1649, Charles Stuart was woken before dawn, and is said to have dressed with great care. He particularly asked for a warm shirt so that he should not be seen to shiver from the cold wind, “which some observers will imagine proceeds from fear.” On ascending the scaffold, he was dignified, delivering a short speech in which he held fast to his principles of kingship. He said that he did not believe that “the happiness of people lies in sharing government. Subject and sovereign”, he said, “are clean different.”
As the public executioner had refused to carry out the beheading an expert was brought over from Switzerland and handsomely paid to swing the axe on the royal neck. Not wishing to be identified by anyone, this man wore not only a mask around his eyes, but a wig and false beard also. It was a curious touch, lending an element of macabre charade to the occasion. The executioner asked the King to tuck his long hair into his silk cap, then knelt and begged his forgiveness in accordance with tradition. When Charles did so with a courtly gesture, he straightened up and readied his sharpened axe.
King Charles I exchanged a few whispered words with the headsman and then knelt himself and put his head on the block. After a moment’s silent prayer, he gave a sign that the blade should fall.
It says much for the nerve of the anonymous executioner that in this moment of great historic drama he did not falter. His aim was true and swift: with one single blow he severed the King’s head clean away from his body.
There were triumphant cheers from Cromwellians and a loud sigh from the watching crowd, as the King’s head was held up for all to view. Then there began a frenzied surge to the scaffold by spectators eager to dip handkerchiefs in the royal blood to keep as souvenirs. Some of the more ignorant were surprised that the blood was red and not blue, as they had been led to believe.
Postscript: Though he launched murderous campaigns to settle what were then considered ‘unruly elements’ in Scotland and Ireland, Oliver Cromwell never lived to see his dream of Britain becoming a republic. Two years after his death on 3 September 1658; the monarchy was restored and his body dug up and hung in chains on the orders of Charles II, who during his reign until 1685 made it his mission to take royal revenge on all 68 men who had signed his father’s death warrant. Cromwell’s rotting corpse was later taken down and ritualistically beheaded. He had dared to defy and then murder an English monarch, and this futile post mortem ‘execution’ was also unprecedented in English history. In fact there had been nothing democratic about Cromwell’s stern and unbending rule. The ‘Protector’ had been, in all but name, a ruthless dictator.
Iraq five years on
by Pepe Escobar
Future non-biased historians may well regard March 19, 2003, as a crucial mark in the annals of Western imperial arrogance. Five years later, the pre-emptive war celebratory fireworks have turned to dust. For months now Iraq has been an invisible American war. It’s seldom on TV. It does not “sell”. Thus, it does not exist. US Vice President Dick Cheney, one of its key architects, has just been to a whirlwind Baghdad tour. He said he sensed “phenomenal changes” since his last whirlwind tour 10 months ago. He praised security progress as “dramatic”.
The “dramatic” progress was celebrated in style by a Sunni Arab female suicide bomber who managed to detonate her payload under her black abaya near the ultra-protected Imam Hussein Cheney did not see the real Baghdad, drowning in sewage, desperate for water and plunged in the dark - lacking 3,000 megawatts of electricity (it may take as many as 10 years before the city gets power 24 hours a day; so much for “reconstruction”). As no US official was suicidal enough to take Cheney, for instance, to a real life suicide bomber-targeted vegetable market in Sadr City - or to Imam Hussein’s shrine in Karbala for that matter - these “phenomenal changes” warrant examination. Cheney seems not to be very fond of the humongous Pentagon study based on more than 600,000 Iraqi documents which proved that there was no link whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In a curiously sedate propaganda effort, the report will not be posted online and will not be e-mailed by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia; any reporter who wants it will have to ask it to be sent via CD in the mail. That’s quite a “phenomenal change” with regard to the George W Bush administration’s hyped 2002 build up towards war. British agency Oxford Research Business has recently updated its estimate of “additional deaths” caused by the war to 1.3 million Iraqis - not including the top killing fields, the provinces of al-Anbar (Sunni) and Karbala (Shi’ite). At least 4 million Iraqis have been internally displaced or become refugees, mostly in overburdened Syria and Jordan, now desperately running out of money and resources. As for any Sunni or Shi’ite proud of his historical memory, the US occupation has been regarded as more devastating than the Mongol invasion of the 13th century. Talk about a historical “phenomenal change”. Baghdad - following the strategy of counterinsurgency ace General David Petraeus - has been reduced to a rotten, amorphous, bloody and dangerous stockpile of blast-wall ghettos controlled by local warlords and militias. This “strategy” is being financed by US taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars a month. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes, in their book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, estimate that by 2017, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion. Republican presidential contender John McCain wants this to last indefinitely as millions of Americans finally realise this avalanche of funds could instead provide them with better public schools, better health insurance and better projects to repair crumbling US infrastructure. Petraeus’ “surge” is gone - replaced by a “pause”, defined by the general to the Army Times as “sensible” and “prudent”. Recently resigned Admiral William Fallon, the CENTCOM commander, was dead set against Petraeus’ “pause”. He wanted to start drawing down troops - immediately. The Bush administration evicted him. Up to the US presidential election, for political reasons, many would be led to believe nothing moves on the US front. At least nothing visible. Because in Kuwait, the Pentagon is busy building, in virtual secret, a mammoth permanent command structure to project “full spectrum dominance” not only in Iraq but all over the arc from the Middle East to Southwest Asia. Lieutenant General James J Lovelace minced no words to the Middle East edition of Stars and Stripes. It will be a “permanent presence” - of course compounded with all those extra permanent bases in Qatar, Bahrain the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Be it under pro-withdrawal Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, or pro-”surge” McCain, the “war” in and on Iraq will go on - supported from Kuwait and the Gulf petro-monarchies.
Baghdad is not only the 21st century heart of darkness. It is Fear Central - a desert sand nightmare frozen in fear, a direct consequence of the soggy mix of Petraeus’ “surge” profiting from the uneasy Shi’ite Mahdi Army truce and the proliferation of the 80,000-strong anti-al-Qaeda movement dominated by Sunnis, Sahwa (Awakening). As middle class Shi’ite professionals tell Asia Times Online, rape and pillage and widespread killing is down (65 Iraqis killed daily in August 2007, 26 killed daily in February 2008) because most neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. Baghdad is only “safer” - as the current official mantra in Washington goes - if compared to horrific post-February 2006 after the bombing of the Shi’ite shrine in Samarra, during the battle of Baghdad, when as many as 3,000 people were being killed every single month. The inept Nuri al-Maliki government in Baghdad knows little of what’s really going on - as it drags on in imperial seclusion behind the Green Zone, defended by valiant mercenaries from Georgia, Peru and Uganda. If Maliki and his entourage decide to go for an armored convoy stroll in formerly bustling al-Mansur neighborhood, for instance, the area has to be extensively searched as if this was a US presidential visit. No matter what Washington decides or spins, it won’t alter two major facts on the ground. Of all the major overlapping wars in Iraq, the Sunni Arab resistance has for all practical purposes stalemated the US occupation to the edge of defeat. And on a sectarian level, the Shi’ites have defeated the Sunnis as a whole - as they now control, allied with the Kurds, the government, Parliament, the army (13 divisions, half of them militias aligned with Iran) and the police.
The anti-al-Qaeda Sahwa, which the Americans dubbed “Concerned Local Citizens” and then “Sons of Iraq”, are the same old Sunni Arab guerrillas, many of them former Saddam army officers who former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld described as “remnants of the old regime” who were killing Americans before they decided to rake some cash ($300 a month, an excellent salary in 70% unemployment Iraq) and do their own version of a “pause”. After all, they could not fight the US Army, al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government at the same time and believe they would win it. They are, of course, anti-majority Shi’ite Iraqi government (although the American public relations machine would never let this cat out of the bag). They’re still one more militia in a cornucopia of militias - the US Army itself being nothing more than a heavily armed militia. In a sense, the old imperial divide and rule tactic has worked - as Sunnis and Shi’ites are more deadly polariszed against each other than against the occupiers. But at the same time they all unite on the key issue: occupation out. The answer as to why no Iraqi militia organizes a Tet-style anti-American onslaught is political positioning. Everyone’s got militias - the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Mahdi Army, the Badr Organization, the Sahwa. Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army’s objective is to conquer political power in the next legislative elections. The Kurdish Peshmerga worry about defending Kirkuk after a referendum that could see it incorporated into the Kurdish north. Badr does not want to lose the government power it already enjoys; Hadi al-Amri, the dreaded leader of Badr, says he will respect the truce with the Mahdi Army. And Sahwa is just waiting to pounce against the Shi’ites. In this lethal cobweb, the Americans are just marginal, puzzled onlookers. Stuck inside of Baghdad. This country is no more. This is an ex-country. It has gone to meet its maker (the Sumerians, presumably). The “surge” is a public relations-created illusion - as ghostly as those abandoned, burned out Iraqi tanks littering Baghdad’s empty, dirty boulevards in April 2003; after all there was no war to speak of, the Iraqi army having preferred to flee. The Turkish army, for its part, has just proved its point; Ankara can invade Iraqi Kurdistan any time it sees fit - as if it was Gaza. And this is nothing compared to what may happen after the endlessly postponed Kirkuk referendum, when Iraqi Kurds will finally have full control over their oil wealth and rekindle their independentist dreams. If East Timor and Kosovo can do it, why not us?
Muqtada has - literally - vanished, after lamenting an Iraq “characterised by social turmoil”. He disappeared just like the 12th Imam, Imam Mahdi - and that’s a really huge thing for pious Iraqi Shi’ites, not to mention a masterful political ploy. Muqtada has transferred to the US Marines the task of carrying a pogrom of the Mahdi Army. He’s aiming at the polls - he wants the Sadrists to take over the Shi’ite provincial governments in the south in the next election. Sooner or later “anti-American” occult Muqtada will be the lord of what remains of Iraq - and there’s nothing Washington can do about it. As an internal US issue, neither Clinton nor Obama has provided any concrete evidence they want to totally scrap the US “mission” in Iraq - or at least roll back the worldwide empire of military bases still heavily supported by Cheney and an array of corporate/industrial-military interests. As a global issue, millions of Iraqis lost their homes, their jobs, their families, their dreams and in countless cases their own lives because of a pre-emptive war (or “successful endeavor”) built on lies. Shocked, awed and utterly destroyed, their ancestral land beheaded like a stray dog, Iraqis deserve at least the world’s respect in their hour of darkness.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalised World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge.
Obscure Tour - Kazakhstan
So you have been everywhere have you? You have faced up to missing luggage, dodgy taxi drivers, kids using the back of your seat for football practice, boring in-flight movies and connecting flights that do not connect. You sit back with a smug look on your face comparing destinations with other grizzled, seasoned travellers. Been there, there...and there! Well we are delving into those last few destinations left on the planet you may not have been to, fasten you seat belt for your journey to... Kazakhstan - ‘not’ according to Borat.
The infamous Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) made a mint out of mis-representing the place, but as a vast undiscovered backwater in central Asia, Kazakhstan is worth checking out. For a start it’s the largest landlocked country in the world, with a landmass of 2,727,300 kilometres, which makes it bigger than all of Western Europe. It also boasts a highly strategic position, bordered by Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and China. The only defined ‘coastline’ is alongside the Caspian Sea, which is really a very large inland lake.
Born again after the messy breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan is now the ninth largest country (by area) in the world with a population of only 15.4 million people. But thanks to huge reserves of oil and gas it has become one of Asia’s most important emerging economies. Its two largest cities of Almaty (population 1.3 million) and the new capital, Astana (600,000), are hurtling into the 21st century; sporting upmarket hotels, smart shopping malls, internet cafes, 24-hour supermarkets, slick international boutiques, coffee-lounges, chic bars and western-style nightclubs.
In the large cities, increasing traffic is beginning to cause pollution as smartly-dressed yuppies walking the tree-lined streets whisper urgently into their cellphones.
The racial mix includes Kazakhs, Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, Tartars, Uzbeks and Belarusians all dating from the days when the country as a Soviet satellite was a dumping ground for ‘undesirables’ who managed to escape Joseph Stalin’s death warrants – sometimes he would sign around 6,000 a day. The huge spaces and desolation made Kazakhstan an ideal place for the Soviet authorities to build gulags, test nuclear weapons, and dump toxic waste, so that some parts of the country are uninhabitable. About half of the population lives in modern cities dotted across the plains, and urban development continues at a good pace. But in spite of this disparity, religious freedom is practiced and if there are any Islamic militants here in this Muslim country, the world has yet to hear from them. All of this is centuries away from the vast undulating plains which are home to the real Kazakhs, formerly nomadic people who can trace their ancestry back to the brutal Mongol hordes who destroyed and pillaged much of Europe under the mighty Genghis Khan (1162-1227). Some of these guys still play a very macho version of Polo; using a dead animal instead of a chukka, which they whack mercilessly on long sticks as they charge at each other on horseback. Visitors are welcome to photograph the hectic scene.
Contrary to Borat, horses do not have the right to vote, women ARE allowed to travel inside buses, and yak’s urine is not the national drink. Dating rituals CAN include dragging the prospective wife away in a sack, but this is no longer a recognised practice in the urban areas. President Nursultan Nazarbayev (aged 67) is head of state and also commander in chief of the armed forces and may veto any legislation that has been passed by the Kazakhstan Parliament which in theory acts as a constitutional republic. Nazarbayev regards himself as a benign dictator, though his (repressed) political opponents would certainly think otherwise. As the only candidate in national elections, he habitually wins 97% of the vote. He’s also reckoned to be one of the richest men in the world with a personal fortune to rival that of the Russian magnate and Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich.
Karim Masimov has served as the Prime Minister since January 2007 but everyone knows just who is pulling his puppet strings. Political dissent is not tolerated here and visitors would be wise to keep their opinions on western-style democracy and freedom of speech on hold whilst they tour the country – not that the people are in any way repressed by a brutal military regime as in Myanmar (Burma), for example.
Tourists in the vast hinterlands however are well advised to avoid the local police as much as possible – travel writer John Noble was once hassled by uniformed ‘plod’ on an overnight train from Pavlodar to Astana. After being thoroughly searched and interrogated, he was fined 80 US dollars just for being a foreigner on their ‘patch’.
Kazakhstan is divided up into three times zones: The Eastern Zone is Greenwich Mean Time plus 6; the Central Zone is GMT plus 5, and the Western Zone is GMT plus 4. Local currency is the Tenge (125 to $1 US). Electricity is 220 Volts AC, 50Hz and round two-pin continental plugs are standard. Those wishing to travel throughout the sweeping plains and steppes of the country can book special caravan-style motor-cross tours (using durable 4-wheel drive utility vehicles) at travel agents in all major cities from around 5,000 US dollars per head for 20 days of travelling including overnight accommodation and meals. This is probably the one of best ways to see this vast land mass. For hardy travellers, Kazakhstan is still one of the great unknowns. Visitors can hike and climb in the range of mountains near Almaty in the south, including scaling the magnificent 7,010 metres high mount Khan Tengri. The scenery is majestic, but not exactly inviting and definitely not for the faint-hearted.
The Kazakh Steppe (plain), with an area of around 804,500 square kilometres (310,600 square miles) occupies one-third of the country and is the world’s largest dry steppe region. Passengers can travel across the Caspian Sea to neighbouring countries on the Ekroplan: a huge half flying-boat, half-ferry craft that flies just 9 metres above water-level to take full advantage of what is known as ‘ground effect’. This low flight path is a big saving on fuel costs. The countryside harbours untapped riches, from the lakes, canyons, forest and snow-capped mountains along the southern and eastern fringes to the stark drama of the desert-like Ustyurt Plateau in the far west. And the locals are usually very friendly: traditional moral values of Kazakhs include respect of elders and genuine hospitality to strangers. Visiting foreigners are treated like honoured guests and not as rich targets to be fleeced as in many parts of Asia that have sadly become thoroughly jaded by mass tourism. When greeting a guest, a Kazakh host will lightly embrace him/her with both hands from an ancient tradition showing that the host is unharmed. When addressing a guest or elder, the host may address him/her with a shortened form of the guest’s or elder’s name with the suffix ‘ke’. This shows a high level of respect for the visitor. The population is quite diverse, comprising 130 nationalities and ethnic groups including some 47 per cent who are Sunni Muslim and around 44 per cent Russian Orthodox. The country can boast a 98 per cent literacy rate and a large well-educated middle class that is quite tolerant of gays and other minorities. Laws against homosexuality were removed in 1997, and gay bars operate quite openly in most cities. Thanks to vast oil and mineral wealth, poverty has declined steadily since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Kazakhstan has become an important ally of the West. Suspected al Qaeda members wandering in from less stable bordering nations have been swiftly detained and deported under Nazarbayev’s strict regime. The main international airport is Manas near Bishkek with daily services to Moscow, Tashkent, Urumqi, Istanbul, Baku, Delhi and London. Visas can be obtained at embassies in most major western cities.
There are also rail links to Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China and with support from the Asian Development Bank, there is now a major road linking the north and south west from Bishkek to Osh, which has considerably eased communication between the two major population centres of the country – The Chui Valley in the north and the Fergana Valley in the south. The Chui and the Fergana valleys were the twin endings of the Soviet Union’s rail system in Central Asia. Following the emergence of independent post-Soviet states, the rail lines which were originally built without regard for administrative boundaries have now been cut by borders, and traffic is therefore severely curtailed. The remaining rail lines within Kazakhstan (about 370 kilometres) have little economic value in the absence of the former bulk traffic over long distances to and from such centres as Tashkent, Almaty and the major cities of Russia. Cohen’s spoof of Borat Sagdiyev and his mock-documentary ‘Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan’ gave us plenty of belly laughs as it also incurred the wrath of many humourless Kazakh politicians and some involved in the country’s budding tourist industry. The discerning listeners however soon realised that the film’s real targets were American bigotry and xenophobia. One Kazakh diplomat even said, “People soon caught on to the idea that it’s all fiction about a fictional character. And some of it is very amusing.” The witty Jewish comedian made millions of westerners suddenly aware of Kazakhstan, and that can’t be a bad thing in the long run. Love him or hate him, Borat really did put Kazakhstan on the world map.
REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
TOTAL AREA: 1,052,085 sq mi (2,724,900 km)
POPULATION (2006 EST.): 15,217,711
CAPITAL: Astana
LARGEST CITY: Almaty
MONETARY UNIT: Tenge (KZT)
RELIGION: Muslim 53.7%, Russian Orthodox 7.8%, Baptists 12.3%, Others 26.2%
LANGUAGES: Kazakh and Russian
AGRICULTURE: about 10.3% of GDP. Seventh largest producer of wheat in the world
INDUSTRIES: Abundant supplies of accessible mineral and fossil fuels
[ return to the top ]
