The author analyzed the meaning of the definition of "Diaspora". Based on the works Mendikulova G. and Shaimardanova Z.Dzh. are discuss the history of formation of the Kazakh Diaspora (XVIII) and its current situation, both in Kazakhstan and abroad, modern aesthetic and ethical values of the Kazakh Diaspora and views foreign experts on the policy of Kazakhstan for the return of ethnic Kazakhs. Thus, Kazakhstan, as a new independent state having some problems in the political, social and economic development and nation building, conducting simultaneously return policy of ethnic Kazakhs, according to foreign experts, faced with additional challenges, so did the main theme of the issue of public debate. On the other hand, he cannot abandon that policy, so as not to displease the Kazakh nationalists. He will continue it, but with a clear and strict compliance with the established quotas 

During last two decades international relations in the World Community were complicated by increasing of the large-scale inter ethnic conflicts, very often growing to a war. That is why importance of research historical and contemporary roots of these events is actually and obviously. In current international relation studies, ethnic pluralism takes a very important place. Now we talk about one of categories of ethnic pluralism: Diaspora, which influence to international relations because it could be a source of either international or inter ethnic conflicts.

The global Kazakh population in 1999-2000 exceeded 12 million, with some 8 million in Kazakhstan, another 1.5 million in China, more than 800 thousand in Russia, 1.5 million in Uzbekistan, 80 thousand in Mongolia, and rest are in various other countries. According to, which was compiled on the basis of several statistical studies and research Gulnara Mendikulova, among these 4 million Kazakhs who live abroad about 800 thousand are the Kazakh Diaspora, the rest are Irredenta. Irredenta is an ethnic group, occupying its own lands, which as a result of conquests or annexations of territories belong to the neighboring countries of its motherland. The Irredenta does not move, they were separated from the main body of their ethnic group by state borders. In the case of the Kazakhs, we have both Irredenta and Diaspora in Russia, China and Uzbekistan. In Russia the Kazakh Irredenta is settled in Astrakhanskaya, Kurganskaya, Volgogradskaya, Orenburgskaya, Omskaya, Chelyabinskaya, and Gorno-Altaiskaya Autonomous oblasts. The representatives of the Kazakh Diaspora in Russia live in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Kazakh Irredenta in Russia was created by colonial conquests of the Tsar’s policy during 16th first decade of the twentieth centuries, and national state territorial division of Kazakhstan and Central Asia in 1925 in the Soviet period.

In China the Kazakh Irredenta lives in Sinkiang-Uighur Autonomous Region and the same Diaspora settled in the central areas of China. The Kazakh Irredenta in China was created by the historical events in 18-19th centuries, in consequences of the State-territorial division in Central Asia between Russian and Chinese empires in the second part of the 19th century.

First of all about the definition of a Diaspora and then consider some typologies concern to it. According to the definition given in ―Modern Diasporas in International Politics‖, edited by Gabriel Sheffer: ―Modern Diaspora are ethnic minority groups of migrant origins residing and acting in host countries but maintaining strong sentimental and material links with their countries of origin their homelands‖)[1]. In typology of a Diaspora we have a few variations. In 1976 on the pages of American Political Science Review,

Armstrong offered one of the first typology of a Diaspora: mobilized and proletarian. Representatives of ethnic groups played or play significant role in external affairs of a recipient country define as mobilized Diaspora. In the history Greeks and Armenians in Ottoman Empire, Germans in Tsar’s Russia could be to account as a mobilized Diaspora. Current representatives of mobilized Diasporas having important economical and organizing resources could influence and give some support to governments of recipient country both internal and external problems. Proletarian Diasporas is a product of labor migration from (very often) rural areas of developing or middle developing countries into western ones. Having being labor migrants they could not influence to government’s acts. In case of the Kazakh Diaspora, it could be account as mobilized one in Turkey in 1970-1980s, and as proletarian in Western European countries and America since 1960s till present.

But from the point of view Gulnara Mendikulova this typology is not enough for describing of nature of a Diaspora, because other types of migration population did not include there, such as: professional migrants (scholars, musicians, etc.). That is why the Armstrong’s classification does not work completely. In 1993 in the article ―Ethnic Diasporas: A Treat to Their Hosts?‖ by G. Sheffer, on the base of researches of J. Armstrong, M. Miller, Rogers, M. Weiner, M. Esman and others, the following classification of a Diaspora was given: classic, new and This typology does not consider both character and cause of migration formed a Diaspora in recipient country. So, according Shefer’s typology, Jews and Armenians are classic Diaspora, representatives of labor immigration new and remains, who arrived to a recipient country not so long ago (especially, after any conflicts) are incipient one. There are no comments to this unserious typology. In his 1997 monograph Global Diasporas, Robin Cohen proposes the following typology, which classifies Diasporas into five distinct groups: victim, labor, and trade, imperial and cultural. While Cohen’s model offers new classifications of Diasporas, his attempt to place Diasporas into only one of these groups problematic. This is because Diasporas have the potential to be in any of the five groups, and often have elements of more than one at a time.

Gulnara Mendikulova shows that the Kazakh Diaspora can be classified as a victim, labor, trade and cultural Diaspora. Indeed, throughout its history, Kazakhs have been political and war refugees as well as labor, trade or cultural emigrants. Robin Cohen in ―Global Diasporas‖ wrote about diaspora: ―I identified the Jewish, Palestinian, Irish, African and Armenian Diasporas as the principal ones that can be described with the preceding adjective of ―victim‖ [2]. But all peoples in different times (historical periods) had trauma, after which a part of them escaped from home country. This book was published in 1997, at the period when we could not define Jewish and Armenian Diasporas as victims and by Robin Cohen’s classification, especially Jewish Diaspora is ones imperial (in context with Palestinian problems). In modernity, in particular, during last decade many historical tragically events took and take places in the World, which, in their turn, created or developed Diasporas. Why only these peoples? Universal history has many examples of ―the principal ―victim‖ Diaspora‖. For example, Crimean Tatar’s Diaspora which was deprived its own lands on Crimean peninsula during consequently the Russian Empire policy. Why he did not include in this list: Indian, Chinese, former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union people’s Diasporas and many others.

Any Diaspora is a victim of a war, ecological catastrophe, internal and external policies, and ruined economical system in a home country or, at the end, its own ambitions. Any Diaspora takes multiple forms and changes its character over time. That is why, the typology, which was proposed by Robin Cohen does not work completely, when he adds ethnic belonging to. The Kazakh Diaspora was or is a victim, labour, trade and cultural, because at different times in several countries and the Kazakhs were or are political and war refugees, labour, trade or cultural emigrants.

Diaspora is created by migrations usually in untraditional, alien environments. In the Western historiography of Migration there are two types of it: Forced and Voluntary Migrations of the Kazakh Diaspora Every migrant population could be divided into two parts. The first part is those who escape from violence. The second one makes voluntary decision to migrate: they have a right and opportunity of choice: to stay or leave their homeland. The firsts have the right, but do not have the opportunity. As a result, it is very important to research the reasons of man choice, when he/she decides to leave home country and migrate to another one. These reasons could be described as ―push‖ or ―pull‖ aims: ―from what‖ and ―for what‖ a man needs to change his life and make a fresh start. It is not a voluntary decision; it is necessity, which very often is connected with his security and well being. It is not a sightseeing tour; it is stark reality, which challenges his survival. Reasons of migration could be political, economical, religious, cultural, ecological and etc.

The Kazakh Diaspora was created by forced and voluntary long distance migrations, for permanent time, with crossing of international borders, by the political, economical and religious causes. All Kazakh Diaspora movements were characterized by either mass or individual migrations. Forced Kazakh Migrations or Victim Diaspora Mass Kazakh migration was always forced ones and usually took place in eastern countries. In the process of the forced creation of the Kazakh Diaspora, there are two separate fields/blocks of study: First Kazakh emigration from Kazakhstan to neighboring countries, and further resettlement in the World in 18-20th centuries, and 2 Kazakh exodus from Sinkiang in 1940-1950s. There were: Kazakh-Oirats wars within the first part of the 18th century; numerous uprisings against Russian expansion and colonization of Kazakhstan in 18-19th centuries; the NationalLiberation movement 1916 against Russian rule in Kazakhstan and Central Asian region; the establishment of the Soviet rule in Kazakhstan; the Collectivization (1929-1932); The Second World War.

The first Kazakh exodus from Kazakhstan took place in the spring of 1723, when the Oirats surprised the peaceful Kazakh auls (villages) attacked and massacred many people, entire Kazakh clans and tribes were completely destroyed. Other Kazakhs were forced to leave their homes and flee to Bukhara and Khiva khanates and Badakhshan area in Pamir. Under the rule of Tsars in 18-19th centuries, there were several Kazakh emigrations following the defeats of numerous Kazakh uprisings against Russian conquest and Tsarist policy in Kazakhstan that promoted giving the best land to Russians. Kazakhs emigrated to China, Bukhara, Khiva, Afghanistan and Iran.

The 20th century was a generator of historical events, to which consequences the forced Kazakh Diaspora was developed. In 1916 the biggest national-liberation movement in Kazakhstan and Central Asia began, where Kazakhs fought against the Russian Government’s effort to conscript Kazakhs for labor battalions behind the front of the First World War. This armed rebellion resulted in the massacre of several hundred thousand Kazakhs, and more than 300 thousand Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs fled to China. Later, the Bolsheviks established control and many Kazakhs refused to accept their hegemony; eventually they emigrated to the South and the East, finally crossing the frontiers of Afghanistan, Iran, and China. They also fled to France and Turkey. Collectivization in the Soviet period resulted in gross human tragedy for the Kazakh population and devastated the Kazakh nomadic economy. Thousand of nomadic families were forced into collective encampments where their animals often starved to death for lack of adequate grazing. The Kazakh livestock starved, hence the people starved. During only three years of the collectivization, from 1929 to 1933, nearly 2 million or 52% of total Kazakh population was lost. 42% were killed by hunger, and 10% of Kazakhs also fled to other regions, including Xinjiang in China, Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Russia and Karakalpakistan. What happened to the Kazakh people was an example of genocide.

World War II uprooted and displaced enormous numbers of people across the globe. From this period, there are two interesting developments of the Kazakh Diaspora evolving out of the capture of Kazakh soldiers by the Nazis. Kazakhs took participated to the Second World War in 1941, after the aggression Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union. The Nazis captured some of them in the early years of the war. As prisoners of war, Kazakhs were first concentrated in large transitional/concentration camps, and subsequently, were distributed among smaller work camps in Germany and Germanoccupied territories. There were two ways there: To joined to the resistance movement on these territories, for example, in France, where about 350 Kazakhs fought with Nazis, as members of the French Resistance movement in 1944-1945 near the town of Toulouse; Or another way: to stay without initiatives in prisoner camps and wait for the solution of their fates. In such a manner, the ―Turkestan Legion‖ was a group that formed in German concentration camps, since the end of 1941, especially, for participating in the fronts of the Second World War, against the Soviet Union. Kazakhs were largest group in the Legion, after Uzbeks and numbered about 420 thousand there. After the defeat of the Nazi Germany in the Second World War, Turkestan legionaries were kept in the concentration camps, in particular in Dahau. After the checking a part of them returned the Soviet Union, but many of them decided to leave in the West. To the Selection Committee, they said that they are Turks, as a result, were moved to Turkey. There were about 20 Kazakhs, former prisoners of war, and then Turkestan legionaries in 1950s in Turkey.

Kazakh Exodus from Eastern Turkestan in 1940-1950s. One of the most heroic stories to be told in Central Asia is that of the fate of the Kazakhs in Eastern Turkestan. According to the Chinese census of 1937-1943, about half a million Kazakhs lived in the country between the Altai Mountains and the borders of the Northwest Tibet known as Eastern Turkestan (now called Sinkiang). There are two major developments whereby Kazakhs were driven from Sinkiang. First, the local Chinese governor Shen Shin Tsai encouraged Han-Chinese peasants to settle on lands occupied by Kazakhs. As a result, many were forcibly deported from their ancestral home in the Altai Mountains region. There was a real reason, why Kazakhs took participation in the many uprisings against Chinese authorities, and after defeat more than 18 thousand of them were forced move to India, via Tibet in 1939-1941. The second major Kazakh exodus took place after 1949 when the Chinese Communists established control and a prolonged-armed resistance forced Kazakhs to leave Eastern Turkestan in 1951. After crossing the sands of the Lopnor desert and snow summits of Tibet Mountains, the Kazakhs arrived in India and Pakistan. With few material assets, their economic livelihood was not easy and the Indian Government would not allow them permanent settlement until 1952. On the other hand, the Turkish government enthusiastically supported the Kazakh Diaspora, ultimately giving permission for 1,850 Kazakh political refugees to settle permanently in Turkey. With the help of the Kashmir and Indian Governments as well as the United Nations, World Church Service, National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, the Kazakhs were able to leave Kashmir and resettle in Turkey from 1952 to 1956. All of these events – from the initial onslaught of the Oirats in the eighteenth century until the forceful expulsion of the Kazakhs from Eastern Turkestan by the Chinese Communists – certainly distinguish the Kazakh Diaspora as a victim Diaspora. And we could to stress that till the end of 1950s the Kazakh Diaspora was created by mass forced migration.

Voluntary Migrations of the Kazakh Diaspora or Labor, Cultural and Trade Diaspora When the Kazakhs moved to the West their movements are characterized by individual and voluntary migrations. Since 1960s the Kazakh Diaspora is characterized by voluntary migrations of individuals. It was a new trend in the development of the Kazakh Diaspora. The Kazakhs, as a component of the Turkish labor immigration movement, came to the West, primarily as manual laborers. Today, the Kazakh Diaspora in the West consists of office employees in large corporations, hotels, and various other service industries. Many Kazakhs have their own businesses. About one third of them have manufacturing businesses in the Western European countries and in the United States. In 1990s there are many examples of Kazakh scholars, artists, and musicians who left Kazakhstan for work in the West, according to invitations of the Western governments.

In the case of the Kazakh Diaspora now it is good observed two tendencies: Attempts to preservation and development its ethnic identity in the conditions of alien living in the West or Repatriation to Kazakhstan. These tendencies became more active after 1991, when Kazakhstan declared its independence. Who decided to leave/live in the West, first of all, tried to stop the process of acculturation. It took place on early stages of Kazakh coming to Turkey, for example. First step was made in a family. Kazakhs taught their children to speak in Kazakh, to know Kazakh traditions. Mono-ethnic marriage was stimulated. Outside the family, Kazakhs began organized the cultural ethnic centers. For example, in the UK Kazakh Cultural Center was established in 1992. There are a few specifics of the Kazakh Diaspora in the West. Anywhere and always they were/are ethnic minority group; they have small numbers in a host country, which is not more than a few hundred families; they never played/play significant role in political elite activity of a host country; Representatives of the Kazakh Diaspora usually live in urban zone, which gives them good opportunities for job and education. They had/have great adaptation abilities, which usually help them to live and act in new environment successfully, such as: good and very quick language skills/knowledge; very short period of adaptation to alien climatic environment. But at the same time they have very strong Kazakh identity, which is displayed in Kazakh traditions, celebrations and customs in living activity. Now, after 1991, the Kazakh Diaspora has strong sentimental and maternal links with the Republic of Kazakhstan, which was impossible in the Soviet period. Another Kazakhs returned to Kazakhstan, where especially for them the conditions were created) [3, 4]. In conclusion, nevertheless it is clear that the Kazakh Diaspora, throughout its history, included elements of the victim, labor, trade and cultural diaspora introduced in Robin Cohen’s recent work. These new classifications of diaspora give us new tools to critically examine diaspora around the world. Although they should be seen not as mutually exclusive, as Cohen argues, but rather that these classifications exist in combinations and multiple forms.

For example, in articles about Kazakhstan published in leading French newspapers, according to the interest of France to Kazakhstan, dictated by having a solid natural resources, and Kazakhstan to France the availability of investment opportunities and high technology. On the other hand, they serve as a tool for creating value-semantic world Kazakh diaspora.

If we pay attention to Kazakhstan return policy of ethnic Kazakhs from the beginning of its implementation attracted the attention of foreign political scientists, historians, experts, analysts and cultural studies, paying attention to the most key issues of political and socio-economic development of the country. These studies are conducted by various institutes, centers, associations, unions, etc. for the study of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, available in different countries around the world. Research is conducted in the framework of research projects, planned activities of these institutions, the results of which are published in the final annual reports, scientific articles in top journals, discussion papers, etc. Foreign analysts prepared a sufficient number of studies on the state policy of Kazakhstan for the return of ethnic Kazakhs, who are rarely subject to scientific analysis. This study Japanese, German, Turkish, American, British, etc. researchers. 

International analyst analyzes the return of ethnic Germans and Jews for nearly half a century, respectively, in Germany and Israel. In these states have developed special policies and programs, well-designed and approved by the legislative and institutional fixed, as in Kazakhstan. These policies also had positive and negative aspects, especially in terms of integration of immigrants, despite the provision of special benefits for socio-economic integration of immigrants. We should take into account the fact that the economies of Germany and Israel were strong at the time of implementation of the program of repatriation. Here, foreign analysts quite objectively describe the cause of successes and failures of Kazakh repatriates policy with which you can fully agree. Kazakhstan began a policy of ethnic Kazakhs returning immediately after independence, in difficult economic period, when the economy was still weak, in its critical period. Kazakhstan is a multinational state, the titular nation which at the time of independence was small. This, according to foreign experts, prompted the government to begin the return policy of ethnic Kazakhs as a tool to increase the ethnic composition of the country's territory and legitimation. According to foreign analysts, Kazakhstan planned that returnees become true citizens of independent Kazakhstan, showing that the definition of national identity and citizenship is not based on territorial jurisdiction, and blood ties, on the Kazakh ethnicity in the country, which might cause debate on what is ethnicity and nationality to the state.

Thus, Kazakhstan, as a new independent state having some problems in the political, social and economic development and nation building, conducting simultaneously return policy of ethnic Kazakhs, according to foreign experts, faced with additional challenges, so did the main theme of the issue of public debate. On the other hand, he cannot abandon that policy, so as not to displease the Kazakh nationalists. He will continue it, but with a clear and strict compliance with the established quotas [5, 6].

References

1. Modern Diasporas in International Politics. Edited by G. Sheffer. London & Sydney, 1986. P.
2. Cohen, Robin. Global Diasporas. London, 1997. P.
3. Mendikulova G. Repatriation into Kazakhstan. University of Toronto, 2000.
4. Mendikulova G. The Kazakh and Korean Diasporas: Comparison of Typology. – Режим дсотупа: //http://iacd.or.kr/pdf/journal/06/6-8.pdf – (дата образщения 03.2015).
5. Шаймарданова З.Д. Казахская диаспора: проявление социокультурного образа страны на примере современной французской прессы//круглый стол на тему «Современные эстетические и этические ценности казахской диаспоры». Алматы, Институт философии, политологии и религиоведения Комитета науки МОН РК, 2013. – С.50-57
6. Шаймарданова З.Д. Зарубежные эксперты о политике Казахстана по возвращению этнических казахов // Матер. Междунар. науч. конф.«Казахская диаспора Центральной Азии: история – культура – памятники». 5.12.2014. – Алматы, 2014.