Transcripts
Remarks of former U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan Beth Jones at the Ablay Khan University of International Relations and World Languages
Putting U.S.- Kazakhstani Relations to Work
Almaty, Kazakhstan,
September 29, 2006
I want to outline today ways in which I think the dynamism of the U.S.- Kazakhstani relationship lends itself to collaboration – to engaging in work that brings positive results for the people of both countries, for peoples in the region and for the broader international community.
But first, I want to remind ourselves of the elements of the thinking that formed the basis for the relationship that has developed so successfully.
It is only fitting that we should have this conversation today – when President Nazarbayev and President Bush are discussing many of these issues today in the Oval Office in Washington.
How the Relationship Began
At the break-up of the Soviet Union, Secretary Baker and President Reagan were insistent that the U.S. establish full diplomatic relations with each of the new states.
This seems obvious now, but it was a highly questionable policy at the time. No other country did this except Russia.
Typical of government, we decided that each was the same as the other. Each new Embassy would have no more than eight staff members. Each was opened on a tiny budget.
In did not take long for us to realize that – although each started with the same political/economic philosophical ingredients – each country had a personality of its own, aspirations of its own and a different sense of itself.
In Central Asia, the U.S. decided to work in limited sectors: economic, political, social and military reform.
In Kazakhstan, the first real engagement involved removal of nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
We found a straightforward, business-like, direct style in the Kazakhstanis with whom we worked. We deduced from this that the U.S. would find broader engagement here productive and mutually beneficial.
Senior Kazakhstanis expressed interest in what the U.S. might offer. For their part, they had experienced American officials who treated them as equals, as leaders who knew what they wanted for their country, not as people who needed to be led or needed to be told how to conduct their own affairs. This style of relationship was well known from Soviet days. But it was different with the U.S.
The U.S. presented thoughtful, workable options in each of the areas in which we had agreed to work. Americans made clear their respect for the high level of education and sense of clear policy direction, especially in economic and military reforms.
American experts designed sets of options for banking, tax, customs, stock exchange, accounting systems for Kazakhstani officials to choose from.
This led to innovations in U.S. assistance programming: short term and targeted at upgrading already prodigious skills, so senior managers and officials could be quickly connected with business and banking practices used in international market economies.
Defense policy was an early easy sector in which we worked exceptionally cooperatively.
Built on excellent collaboration over removal of nuclear warheads and follow-up work to remove stockpiled HEU.
I want to take this moment to commend again most extravagantly the wise decision of President Nazarbayev and many here to day to dismantle Kazakhstan’s nuclear arsenal as a nuclear successor state to the Soviet Union. Some Kazakhstanis still worry that Kazakhstan should have exacted a higher price for this. What Kazakhstan gained in international reputation as a state focused on protecting the international community from nuclear holocaust is a priceless reward, one that Kazakhstan will reap for decades to come.
Kazakhstan started early to build a sergeants corps, a group of senior enlisted men charged with assuring that young recruits have shoes and winter clothes and can be found by their mothers.
Its membership in NATO’s Partnership for Peace and its leadership of CentrAsBatt count among the many decisions that gave Kazakhstan a higher, more positive profile in the ‘90’s.
Officials worked with health professionals to transform the infrastructure heavy system into one focused on preventative medicine, with greater patient education and participation. We brought together two elements of reform by privatizing pharmacies and clinics. Work in one oblast with USAID became a model for WHO implementation throughout the country.
Kazakhstan demonstrated its commitment to political reform by joining the OSCE. It works with the OSCE to conform its electoral laws to international standards, work that it is important to continue.
There is no question that the strongest, most stable countries are those that enjoy the strongest popular support. The best way to assure that popular support is for the leadership to demonstrate respect for the people and for their opinions. And the best way to accomplish that is to encourage lively debate, including assuring that government officials are answerable to the people whom they serve.
Putting the Relationship to Work
The key to successful foreign policy is to develop programs and policies that result in a win-win for all parties.
This has been the hallmark of the 15 years of U.S.-Kazakhstan relations. It should be the guiding light for this relationship in the decades to come.
For the purposes of our discussion today, I will posit that two countries have a win-win situation when their interests intersect.
But that isn’t sufficient. For the world in which we live today, it is important for countries and their governments to use that intersection of interests as the basis for joint action – to widen the area in which this win-win situation – the area in which the benefits realized from this win-win situation -- can be widened.
This is no particular revelation.
But what I would like to outline today are the issues on which I believe the United States and Kazakhstan can work together. Many are what we call global issues – but what that really means is that they are issues that affect the person in the street in a more direct way than, let’s say, Cold War issues did.
Addressing health issues – whether providing access to clean water or affordable treatment for HIV/AIDS – leads the list of issues that very many people now see as a responsibility of the international community. These are issues that are as important to miners and school teachers living in West Virginia as they are to miners and school teachers living in Karaganda.
Combating narcotics trafficking, fighting trafficking in persons, ending gunrunning and the smuggling of nuclear materials, curtailing corruption – this is work that seeks to end criminal activity, activity that – in the end – could finance terrorism. And the same thing applies here: communities in Ust Kamenogorsk and in Chicago expect their leaders to end corruption and criminality.
Both Kazakhstan and the United States have been endowed with ample natural resources. Both have the human talent and generosity to think beyond themselves, to take a leadership role in finding ways to combat these scourges at their source.
Kazakhstan is furthered endowed by geography. But President Nazarbayev already sees this as a responsibility of his regional and international position. Kazakhstan’s experienced and expert de-mining team in Iraq is but the beginning of what can be Kazakhstan’s superior leadership in these kinds of humanitarian tasks, performed by its ever more valuable and valued military. The joint operations and training exercises in which it participates as a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace are a standard to be emulated.
Especially with Afghanistan so close by, President Nazarbayev can secure his international leadership position with a commitment to business, health and education leadership in this neighborhood – just as he is already doing around the Caspian.
Already, plans are solidifying for Kazakhstan to serve as the anchor for a North-South energy and transportation corridor into Afghanistan and Pakistan. What better way to bring prosperity to communities throughout this region than by making it easier to reach them, to establish businesses in them, and to light and heat them efficiently.
I have talked so far about better health, fighting criminality and the terrorist financing associated with it, and about spreading prosperity through access to energy and transportation. All of this works best in a stable environment.
To my mind, the greatest stability comes when there is a clear sense that people have choices – and are able to exercise those choices with access to good information and without coercion. These kinds of freedoms come with civic responsibilities. Stable governments rely on the people to pay their taxes, to observe the laws, to support their communities in social, economic and political terms.
This collection of concepts is what is meant by democracy. Democracy is not synonymous with a political free-for-all. As much as democracy provides the voter his right to choose the leaders of the country, the form of government and the outlines of the country’s economic and social systems, it also imposes on him the responsibilities of good citizenship: paying taxes, obeying the law, respecting the rules of the society.
I have talked about what the U.S. and Kazakhstan can do together. Sometimes it is sufficient to agree that these are the issues that need to be addressed. But they can and should be addressed by any collection of countries and communities that choose to do so. Thus, as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization develops programs to work against terrorism or narcotics smuggling, it should by all means do so. This is one of the greatest benefits of working from a win-win platform. Any work on any of these global issues is valuable. Since resources are not endless, why not take a few minutes to coordinate among the various organizations to assure complementarity of effort and not duplication? The fact that the U.S. is not a member of the SCO does not diminish the value of the organization – provided it is doing real work and not just hosting summit meetings.
There is plenty of work to go around. There is no point in fighting over who is going to do it – and every reason to push for more to become involved in ridding our world of the dangers that threaten each of us and our families.
Conclusion
So what is the greatest change I have seen in my ten year involvement in U.S.-Kazakhstani relations? We started with a strong sense of mutual respect and eager collaboration. That has only increased.
The target of that collaboration is broader now. In the ‘90’s our mutual focus was on Kazakhstan. Today the discussion revolves around Kazakhstan’s substantial contribution through its demining team in Iraq, around ways Kazakhstan can support international efforts in Afghanistan, around Kazakhstan as the anchor for energy corridors across the Caspian and across Central Asia south the Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Whereas in my day Kazakhstan’s regional role was visible in its outline, now it is vibrant in its reality and stunning in its potential.
And all of you in this room are the ones who will take this leadership charge forward.
Thank you.