Transcripts
Ambassador Ordway's Interview with Navigator.kz
Navigator Offices, Almaty
May 16, 2005
We don't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries."
On May 16 U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan John Ordway visited the editorial offices of Navigator and answered questions posed by the editorial board and our readers.
Q: How can the unprecedented measures to guard the U.S. embassy be explained? The building is surrounded by a solid ring of barriers, armored plates, entrances are obstructed by embassy security vehicles. You're not allowed to hold a camera or video camera within 50 meters of the embassy. No other embassy employs such defensive measures. Does this mean you're afraid of attacks from the whole world? Doesn't this mean your policies find no support in the world?
A: First of all our embassy, like all American embassies, should be open. Our job is to have interaction with society, with government, with NGOs, businesses, religious leaders. That’s our whole purpose for being here. Unfortunately in the world today, we can't do that as simply as we used to. We learned through the loss of great life when our embassies were blown up in Tanzania and in Kenya that even embassies in places where we wouldn't expect this to happen, terrorists can find weak points and will seek to attack those. In Central Asia last July there was a terrorist bomb attack on our embassy in Tashkent. So we have a very high obligation to protect the lives of our American and our Kazakhstani employees, our visitors, our visa applicants.
So that's why we have to have these kinds of measures. Especially our embassy here in Almaty, it's in a very beautiful historic building. Unfortunately, it is not well-suited to be an embassy in today's era. And that explains why we have such visible measures in that location. In about 15 months we will move to a new modern embassy, which is designed with all these requirements in place. We will not have many of the things you mentioned there in the new embassy in Astana, because our building will be designed from the beginning to be open and accessible, and yet still well-defended.
Q: If the September 11 attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda, which had no relation to Saddam Hussein, and if no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, why are U.S. soldiers still in Iraq? Especially since the security situation is not getting better, but worse? Could a parallel to Vietnam be drawn?
A: Well, I think there are really two different questions here. The first is, Why did the U.S. and other members of the coalition go into Iraq? That was a subject of some debate in the U.S. and the world before we went in, and I'm sure historians will continue to debate the wisdom of that course.
We feel very strongly it was the right decision, but that's not really the question you're asking. You're saying, Why are we still there? And the reason is, because Iraq deserves to have a stable future, and that cannot happen unless they have a strong government that unites the country in some fashion. And for that you need to have security, which only the coalition forces can provide right now.
We're trying to do several things simultaneously there. Provide current security, which is difficult and we don't always succeed. We're trying to improve the capability of Iraqi forces to provide security. And we're trying to support the development of a government that has the support of the population, a new constitution that can be approved by the Iraqis. This is not an easy task, it's going to take quite a bit of time, but it is not our intention to stay there any longer than we have to to accomplish those tasks. The violence that's occurring in Iraq is a very sad event for America and for the Americans who lost family members. But it's even more of a tragedy for the even greater number of Iraqis, who lose their lives and their families. So we have an obligation to do the best we can to restore Iraq to a stable situation, with what we hope will be a strong and democratic future for a united Iraq.
Q: Aren't attempts by more developed civilizations to artificially "catch up" or hasten through active interference the development processes of other societies doomed? Don't you think that each nation itself should go through these stages of growing up, and "pass through" the childhood illnesses? And trying to influence this process from outside - even with the best of intentions - is this not only presumptuous, but absolutely counterproductive? Isn't the U.S. now repeating the mistakes of the Russians, the crusaders, the imperialists or the revolutionary idealists of various types?
A: If you ask any people anywhere in the world, what kind of society they want to live in, they're going to want to live in a democratic society where they are protected and they determine their own future. The questioner is absolutely right, that it's up to each country to make this determination of how to pull in this direction. But no country should have to approach this task all by itself without help and assistance from other countries. My country has a long history of democratic development, has gone through many stages, has made many mistakes, but nonetheless, has rich experience. Moreover, we think that a country, or a world that is democratic, is going to be a stronger and more stable world for all of us. But, unlike the Russian empire, we don't have a single model of how this should be done. We want to help the process that exists in each country. We’re not coming from the outside and telling any one country what to do, other than to live up to international obligations and the fundamental, internationally recognized principles of human rights and democracy.
Q: What are the prospects in the court case that goes by the name, Kazakhgate? What might be the consequences of this affair? How could this reflect on relations between the U.S. and Kazakhstan?
A: I can't comment on the course of that case, which is in the courts and with our prosecutors. But I can say that it is a case against an American citizen, it's not a case against Kazakhstan. It's an American who is accused of violating American law and we will see how this court case develops. But our relationship with Kazakhstan is very broad and very deep, it has been developing positively for the entire period of Kazakhstan's independence. I think we have a very strong foundation for that relationship, regardless of what particular issues we may disagree on, or may cause problems in the relationship. But I don't see this or any other issue undermining the overall, very good, strong relationship we have. And it's certainly not our intention that this case should have that impact. It's strictly against an American citizen for violating American law.
Q: In the Kazakhstan opposition camp there's talk that after the victory of a "possible" revolution in Kazakhstan, all contracts concluded under Nazarbayev with foreign investors should be subjected to a review to determine any possible corrupt violations. Afterward, the contract should be abrogated, and there should be a normal process of privatization - open tenders, an account of Kazakhstan's interests, etc. Will a democratic (non-Nazarbayev) government have the right, from the point of view of international law, to re-examine the biggest investment contacts, in your opinion?
A: I'm not going to comment on what's obviously a hypothetical situation. But I think there are certain fundamental interests that Kazakhstan has, that any reasonable government of Kazakhstan would follow. Kazakhstan needs to have a strong and stable investment climate for foreign and domestic investors that is predictable, so that Kazakhstan has a reputation of living up to its word, of following through on its contracts, in a large measure, because Kazakhstan, like any country, continues to need that kind of investment. So there are always going to be very serious issues and costs in completely re-examining every single deal that was done in the past. I think that the kinds of major contracts that American companies have here are in the interests of both countries and I would hope that they would be abided by in the future.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, it seems to me that Western oil companies (including American), have become so strong that they have a powerful lobby in governments of Western countries. So, to get beneficial contracts through their lobbies in their governments, they carry out policies amenable to the governments of small states that are rich in natural resources. What do you say to this?
A: First of all, in the United States, as in most Western countries, there are lots of powerful interests and powerful lobbies, not just business, but religious groups, NGOs, political parties, regional organizations, and they all push very hard for their point of view. And very few of them get everything they want out of that process.
We believe that out of this process of everybody expressing their own ideas and their own views, you have a better chance of making correct decisions, whether it's in the government or parliament. Most American businesses, when they operate overseas, whether it's a large country or a small country, they make their own cases. They try to convince their foreign partners why they should be chosen for contracts or investment. Our goal as a government is not to be another business, but to help ensure there's equal treatment for everybody, an equal playing ground for all. And if there are particular problems where they're discriminated against, or we think that they are, we can occasionally intervene. But this is a very rare thing. We don't do this all the time. I think there's a misunderstanding that somehow we are the agent of American companies here. They are their own agents in trying to pursue their business interests. We try to support them, but it's their business.
Q: What is your position on the persecution of Galymzhan Zhakiyanov? How is your position realized concretely in relations with the leadership of Kazakhstan?
A: Our position on Mr. Zhakiyanov hasn't really changed in quite some time. We were concerned about the fact that his prosecution was politically motivated, or appeared to be politically motivated. We were encouraged and glad when he was moved to better conditions to serve out his sentence. We hope that he will be able to return to his home and his family and resume his legitimate political role as the leader of a significant political force in Kazakhstan. We have made this position clear publicly and we've made it clear to the authorities in private conversations as well.
Q: Is there any probability that the U.S., following its democratic principles, will interfere in the internal political situation in Kazakhstan?
A: All of our activities are completely in accordance with internationally accepted practices of diplomacy in the Vienna Convention. We don't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. I think there has been a lot said and written about support for democratic development in Kazakhstan, but this is very much in keeping with the laws and practices of Kazakhstan, with the desires of the government and the people to move as quickly as they can through this transition period to build a strong and stable democracy. And we do it in a way that is absolutely non-partisan and doesn't take sides in the political life of the country. We're interested in the process, that the process provide possibilities for parties and political figures to compete effectively and fairly and for people to make their own decisions.
Q: Does the U.S. support the aspirations of Kazakhstan to enter the European Union and NATO? If yes, then what concrete steps does our government need to take?
A: Well, I've not heard that Kazakhstan has officially declared that it wants to join either the EU or NATO and we're not a member of the EU. But let me say, in general the kinds of things that we do to help economic development, for instance, working with Kazakhstan to enter the WTO, those are the kinds of things that are important for a country that wants to enter into an organization like the European Union.
As far as NATO is concerned, again, I've not heard anyone say that Kazakhstan is interested in joining NATO. But Kazakhstan does have an interest in closer relations with NATO and in working more closely and effectively with NATO. We are doing things to help this happen. We have a five-year plan of assistance to the Kazakhstani military and part of that is to help them meet the NATO standards, which will enable Kazakhstan to participate in international peacekeeping and other activities that are based on NATO standards. And we also think that having good command of your forces, mobile forces, good communications, good tactics, those are going to help Kazakhstan build an effective military force for Kazakhstan's own needs in its own region, as well as helping Kazakhstan become more interoperable. But again, this is all in very close coordination and to help to meet the goals that Kazakhstan itself has established.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, there's a very convincing opinion that Washington has inadequately reacted to the activities of Kazakhstani authorities in violation of democratic principles with respect to media, the opposition, NGOs, etc. There's a sense that Nazarbayev's policies suit the U.S. just fine, and therefore the Bush administration reacts listlessly to all these violations. We also know that American society shows a more principled position with respect to the Nazarbayev regime. Why doesn't your administration express the opinion of the American people and conduct a tougher and more principled line with the Nazarbayev regime? Has Washington really taken the position to exchange oil for democracy?
A: Well, I don't think it's an issue of choosing oil or democracy. Kazakhstan needs to produce and export its oil, the world needs the additional resources. Kazakhstan needs to develop its democracy in its region of the world. There's no contradiction between those two things happening. We are very clear, publicly and privately, with our evaluations of progress in the area of democracy and observance of human rights. We have a fairly tough, but accurate, evaluation every year of human rights in Kazakhstan and all other countries in our annual report. We bring up individual cases and we try to encourage progress in this area.
But, it's like I said before, we have a very broad and deep relationship, and the fact that we may not get the kind of mutual progress in one area doesn't mean we're going to abandon the country or its government in all other areas. So we want to push forward, we want to help Kazakhstan make progress, we want to have a good relationship, and the issues that the questioner is interested in are important, but they're not the only issues in the relationship.
Q: Do you think that the system of electing the head of state in the U.S. fails to fulfill the sincere will of the citizens and creates the possibility for manipulating the elections by influential forces?
A: Well, no country has a perfect election system and our election system is based on our own history, which goes back to the 18th century. Back in the 18th century we had a few things in our election system we would be very ashamed of today. Women couldn't vote. Slaves couldn't vote. In many elections only property owners could vote.
So, we've made a lot of progress in moving past each of these areas and we're proud of our election system. Despite all of its flaws, there is good access for all candidates to get their views across to the public. Voters can be assured that their votes are cast in secret and are properly counted and recorded.
It is true that there are a lot of powerful influences, that there's a lot of advertising in American campaigns, but I think in the end our people are smart enough to make the right decisions, we trust the people.
Some people don't understand why we maintain the electoral college for electing the president. It's a historical and cultural heritage that we have maintained until today. There's no great move in the United States to replace it, or to have fundamental reform, because it does provide a bit of a balance between simple majoritarian rule and an outcome that reflects the geographical and other differences that exist throughout this very large and diverse country that we have. But I'm not sure I would recommend to any other country. It's the one we have and the one we work with.
Q: What is your assessment of the recent events in Kyrgyzstan?
A: Our expectation was that President Akayev would serve to the end of his term and there would then be elections that would identify a successor who would have the opportunity to lead the country in the future on the basis of a strong, national, if not a consensus, then at least a majority view.
Kyrgyzstan now has that opportunity in July to carry out an election that will put the country onto a firm, stable and democratic path and provide a president who has the authority of the population to deal with Kyrgyzstan's challenges and problems.
Q: How would you comment on the events taking place right now in Uzbekistan? In connection with these events, is the U.S. planning on strengthening its military base in Termez?
A: First of all, on the American military base, it's there strictly to support military operations in Afghanistan and has no role whatsoever in anything that happens inside Uzbekistan.
We don't think that violence is the answer to any of Uzbekistan's problems and we would hope that Uzbekistan would be able to get through this episode with as little loss of life as possible, and to proceed to observe the basic fundamental norms of democracy and observance of human rights. But the main thing at the moment is to end whatever loss of life there is, and restore an orderly situation so the country can determine its own future without resort to violence.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, how much is spent annually for supporting various NGOs working in Kazakhstan, both from the U.S. Government and from other American sources?
A: I don't actually have the figures broken down quite in that fashion, but let me give you a few figures that I do have. The total assistance we provided last year was a little over 33 million dollars. The largest part of that, 43 percent, went to support economic reform, and particularly to help small and medium-sized enterprises grow in Kazakhstan. The second largest sum went to help the population with things like reforming the medical care system, HIV/AIDS, and a number of other health-related activities. The third largest is to support the development of democracy and media, about 18%, or a little over 5 million dollars. The way USAID operates, is that for each program in these areas, there is a strategy, which is implemented through specific programs, and there are open tenders to implement those programs. Some of those tenders are won by U.S. NGOs, some are won by commercial organizations. In the democracy and media area, a lot of the expertise rests with our NGOs, so they're a little more represented in that area than they might be in other areas. We have NGO's and for-profit organizations working in the health and economic areas.
Q: What is your attitude to the campaign started by the Baltic states to re-consider the results of the Second World War? What next steps are expected from the West? Is it possible to re-draw the border?
A: First of all, we are very strong believers in the Helsinki Final Act, which says that borders in Europe can only be changed through peaceful means and by mutual agreement. There have been negotiations between Russia and the Baltics for a number of years, and we hope that they will be concluded so that there can be no doubt at all over where those borders are. This takes a while. Kazakhstan just recently concluded an agreement with the Russian Federation on border delimitation.
On the issue of World War II, the victory of the allies in World War II was one of the great events, the great victories of the 20th century. There is no doubt in American public opinion and in American government that that was a positive event that was a tremendously positive force in the development of Europe and the entire world's future. Nazism represented an unambiguous threat to the world and particularly to Europe. That victory in which the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom in particular, had a very, very large role, can only be characterized in a positive fashion.
At the same time, we certainly understand and sympathize with the situation the Baltic Republics found themselves in after World War II, incorporated against their will into the Soviet Union. We, the United States, never recognized that incorporation. We always had embassies of the three Baltic Republics throughout that period in Washington and we rejoiced when the Baltics received their independence again.
But I don't see this as a trade-off between the victory in World War II and the wrong approach of the USSR to incorporate these independent countries against their will. The Baltics and Russia are fated to live near to each other. And they have to learn how to do this in a peaceful, predictable fashion that provides mutual benefit for all sides. This is a process that's going to take a while, it's been going on for 10 years, it has improved dramatically since 1992 when large numbers of Soviet troops still stayed in the Baltics. But there have been major steps forward, there are still more to go, and we hope that Russia and the Baltic countries can finish this job.
Q: What is your assessment of the situation of Kazakhstan's media with respect to observing free speech principles?
A: There are several issues when you look at the mass media in Kazakhstan.
First has to do with the character of the mass media themselves, print and electronic. There needs to be much higher professionalism, there needs to be greater balance, so that readers and viewers get a full sense of the range of views that exist in the country. Every media outlet has the right to its own point of view, of course, but it needs to be done in a fashion so that the public can reach their own conclusions on the basis of a full range of information.
Another issue is some of the kinds of things that journalists and journalist organizations have pointed to repeatedly. That is the problems of the media law and attempts to control the media inappropriately, attempts to close down particular media outlets and the use of libel laws that have the impact of closing down media outlets, particularly when the libel cases are brought by government organizations and institutions.
I don't think there's anything unique in my point of view, these are the kinds of things that, if you listen to the journalists' organizations, you hear about everyday. And there are great debates on the media law, which is good. We hope that they will come out in a correct way.
Q: Would you be able to resign if your administration (whether the current or next one) were pursuing something that was at odds with your personal convictions?
A: There have been a number of very famous cases in the history of American government and American diplomacy where people have done exactly that, where they have resigned because they could not in good conscience carry out their jobs. I've been for the foreign service, I've worked for the government for 30 years. I've never found myself in that situation, and I don't think that I probably will find myself in that situation. But you never know exactly what fate is going to produce in the future.
I can say that I think that one can only have admiration for people who act on their beliefs, even though you may disagree with their conclusions. I think that's very much in the American character.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, Kazakhstan is not your first overseas residence. What are your impressions of our country? Of our people? Of the economy and politics?
A: I don't know if you have here this children's toy, this tube, on one end there's a glass viewer, you look into it, turn it and everything inside changes, it's called a kaleidoscope.
I think Kazakhstan is a little like that kaleidoscope. I'm turning it and I'm having a very entertaining view. This is a tremendously diverse country in its geography, its culture, its economic development. I'm just beginning to travel around the country and see how these little different colored pieces work together. I'm very impressed with the macroeconomics, I'm very impressed with the development and the choices Kazakhstan made in many areas. I find Kazakhstani politics to be fascinating. Every day I get up and sometimes something unexpected comes up. I hope that all the pieces will fall into place and show a very clear path to the future of the country.