Transcripts
Press Conference with Ambassador Ordway, December 20, 2004
A: Thank you very much. It’s a great pleasure to be here with you today. This is going to be my first, and also one of a regular series of press conferences here. The goal is to establish a regular means of communication with the press and through you, with the people of Kazakhstan, on issues that are of interest and on which we in the American embassy and I as the Ambassador can provide some enlightenment or explanation. So with no further ado, I’m ready for your questions.
Q: Liter. How does the U.S. plan to observe the conduct of elections for city and regional akims? Also, it’s well-known that the U.S. provided assistance to Kyrgyzstan to conduct their elections, will you share the same assistance with Kazakhstan?
A: With regard to observers for elections for rayons, akims and eventually, when it occurs, for the presidential election, if there is an official OSCE election observation mission, we would participate in that mission. If there is no OSCE observation mission, then we would probably use whatever opportunity is made available through Kazakhstan law and the Central Election Commission to acquaint ourselves with how those elections would go.
With regard to assistance for elections, we normally do this in cooperation with the host government. It depends upon the circumstances and what their needs are. We provide things like technical assistance, training, and occasionally commodities, such as transparent ballot boxes, which we provided in my last posting in Armenia. But this is part of an overall effort to try to work with and help the government carry out its commitment and its program to improve democratic reforms and particularly to conduct elections that meet the international standards and obligations the country has committed to.
Q: Central Asia Monitor. Not long ago there was a statement in the U. S. Congress about indirect financing of the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, and it’s no secret that there’s indirect financing for NGOs in Kazakhstan. Do you expect that the authorities could take control of that financing?
A: First of all, I think the administration in Washington has already reacted to that particular charge about financing political parties and candidates in Ukraine. Neither in Ukraine, nor in any other place in the world did we provide financing to political parties or to political candidates. What we do is very much what I said in my last answer. We try to work with civil society and with a number of groups in order to improve their capacity to act and to be effective and influential in an increasingly democratic society. We do provide financing to both the National Democratic Institute, NDI, and the International Republican Institute, IRI.
We do work of this nature with political parties in Kazakhstan. We do this with a broad variety of political parties, not just selected ones. The goal is to increase their capacity, things like developing programs and platforms, working with constituents, how to be more effective as a political party. It’s not directed towards increasing their ability to win the elections as opposed to another group, nor are they involved in selecting the platforms, policies, or positions of that party. The idea is to improve the general capacity of all political parties to have a more competent, more effective, more representative political contest in the country, so that the people can make a more educated choice about the direction they want their country to go. All the activities they undertake are open, we provide information about the kinds of activities they undertake. They undertake all their activities in accordance with the laws of the host country, in this case, Kazakhstan. Again, let me emphasize, their task is not to work with just the opposition or just the pro-government parties, their task is to work with all democratically oriented parties across the spectrum.
Q: Channel 31. Did you discuss Kazakhstan’s parliamentary elections with representatives of the Government of Kazakhstan?
A: The view we had of the parliamentary elections was expressed in the statement the State Department issued shortly after the first round. Essentially what we said was, there had been a certain amount of progress in the process of preparing and carrying out the elections, and we welcomed that. At the same time, we recognized that there were a number of serious problems that remained in the election process and noted that we agreed with the OSCE, that on the whole the elections did not come up to the international standards to which Kazakhstan had committed itself. We have had discussions both before the elections, during the course of the elections, and since then with senior leaders in the Kazakhstani government. The OSCE final report on the elections was just issued a couple days ago. I recommend to those of you who haven’t looked at it, to look at it very carefully. For our part, we will be looking at it with the idea of seeing how we can further assist Kazakhstan to move forward in improving the election process so that it can have elections that meet, or at least come much closer to meeting, international standards the next time.
Q: Vremya. Not long ago I was in Afghanistan for the presidential elections and I have to say, that they were more muddled than our Majilis elections. What accounts for Washington’s different standards of assessment?
A: I’m not sure I agree with the premise of your question, to begin with. I think there were some substantial differences between the two electoral processes. And also, I would suspect that in the case of Afghanistan, although initially there had been substantial complaints by persons who did not win, there was a process that addressed those complaints and resolved them to the satisfaction of all candidates and to the general population. I think that the evaluations that we made in both cases were based on the evidence of what we saw, and basically we called them the way we saw them.
Q: Syoz. You know that your predecessor, Ambassador Napper, invested a lot of effort in trying to resolve the issue of the fate of Galymzhan Zhakiyanov’s political incarceration. Have you conducted any official negotiations in connection with this? Are there any prospects to resolve this in a positive way? Also, please address the contradictions between Kazakhstan’s desire for the OSCE chairmanship in 2009 and their human rights record. What will prevent Kazakhstan from holding the chairmanship?
A: With regard to your first question, yes, both Ambassador Napper and I carry out the policies of our government. We would very much like to see that when there are trials which appear to have been motivated by political means, that they be resolved as quickly as possible and the people involved be able to resume their normal lives. I think that our views on this are extremely well-known to the government and to the public. When the need comes to repeat them or to make them more precise, or to change them, arises, we don’t hesitate to have that kind of dialogue.
With regard to the OSCE chairmanship and office, of course Kazakhstan is perfectly free to pursue that, and we very much welcome their attempt to do so. I think it’s a bit premature to take stock of where that process stands now far in advance of any decision on the chairmanship for 2009. Our fundamental position is well-known, that any chairman in office has to exemplify the fundamental characteristics of the organization.
Q: Reuters. The U. S. is the leading investor in Kazakhstan. What are the main obstacles to further investment? Is corruption an issue?
A: First of all, let me turn your question around 180 degrees. There is a lot of American investment here, and the reason there’s a lot of investment here is because investors believe this is an attractive place to invest. But, despite this fact that it is overall a good place to invest, and that there are many good opportunities to invest in Kazakhstan, there are nonetheless challenges for any investor here. This is a transition economy, which has made remarkable progress, but there are still barriers to trade and barriers to investment that don’t completely meet international standards. We hope the process of Kazakhstan’s entry into the World Trade Organization, which I hope would be possible by the end of 2005, will help reduce or eliminate many of those barriers to investment. One thing that some companies meet as a problem with here is protection of intellectual property and trademarks, a whole series of issues that are a problem, but aren’t necessarily connected to corruption.
There are also problems with tax levels, there are problems with sometimes onerous customs provisions that affect different investors in different ways, depending on the kind of investment and the kind of business they’re conducting here. But different investors have different problems, depending on the nature of their investment and the sector in which they’re investing. Obviously, in a country which in the Transparency International Corruption Index, I believe, is ranked 12th from the bottom in the world, there are going to be issues involving corruption that many foreign investors, including Americans, meet in the course of their business here.
But the American investors I speak to say that it is possible to do business here, ethically, legitimately, legally, and without engaging in corrupt practices. It may not be easy, and it may not be quick, and it may not be the cheapest way to do it, but it can be done and in the long run, it is the best and most effective way for American businesses. And it is the best and most effective way to contribute to diminishing, and eventually eliminating, corruption as a major problem in Kazakhstan
Q: Turkestan. The U. S. Ambassador to the OSCE once said that the U.S. would apply all efforts to free Zhakiyanov. But you were much more restrained in your response to Ergaliyev’s question. Has the position of Washington on this topic changed?
A: I don’t think the position of Washington has changed any on this issue. However, one thing that has changed — I’m not sure when Mr. Minikes made that statement — one of the things that we had concentrated on, was to improve the conditions under which Mr. Zhakiyanov was being held, and that has taken place. Clearly, the conditions under which he is currently being held are not good, and we would like to see that ended as soon as possible. But it is far better than when he was being held in isolation unable to have contacts with his family and his political associates. He is a leader of one of the significant political forces in Kazakhstan, and we think that he should have the opportunity to carry out that political role.
Q: You speak 5 or 6 languages. Will you learn to speak Kazakh?
A: Well, I’m not sure I’ve actually mastered any of those, perhaps not even English. But I will, when I come back from my Christmas- New Year’s vacation, try to take a stab at learning some Kazakh.
Q: How do you evaluate Russia’s influence over Kazakhstan?
A: I’m not sure I’m the best person to ask that question of. All I can say is, from the American point of view, we don’t have any sort of conflict with Russia over anything going on in Kazakhstan, nor with Kazakhstan over our relationship with Russia. Obviously, there are commercial interests, there’s commercial competition among American and Russian companies, particularly in the oil and gas sector and that’s something we welcome and think is useful.
We think that it is up to Kazakhstan to determine its national interests and determine its policy and we welcome that because we think that we have a good relationship and we will continue that relationship in an excellent fashion, provided Kazakhstan does take a very pragmatic examination of what its own national interests, and what its own future should be in the region and in the world.
Obviously Kazakhstan has two very large neighbors on its borders, and it has every interest in the world to maintain good, open and friendly relations with those neighbors. We’re a very large country that doesn’t have a border with Kazakhstan, but I still think it’s important for Kazakhstan and for us to have a good, positive and open relationship, and I think that will continue in the future. But fortunately, countries can’t move houses like people can, so we’re stuck where we are, we won’t be neighbors.
Q: Epokha. Can the scenario in the Ukraine be repeated in Kazakhstan? And based on your observations, will the Kazakhstani government allow a similar situation, and will the opposition have the same kind of support from the people?
A: On the first part of your question, I think that’s a rather far-fetched comparison. On the second part, I think that’s what one has elections for, and we just have to wait and see what happens. Our main interest is that those elections be as open, transparent, effective and honest as they can possibly be.
Q: Associated Press. Does the U.S. want Kazakhstan to increase the number of its troops in Iraq?
A: First of all, the number may be small, but the impact is very significant. It goes beyond their numbers. The Kazakhstani contingent is doing work that is very dangerous, and they are doing work that is very beneficial for the safety of coalition forces and the long-term safety of the population of Iraq, as they destroy the enormous amount of ordnance that was accumulated during the Saddam Hussein era. We very much welcome them and are glad they are there. We hope they will continue to do this good work in the future, but obviously the decision as to how long Kazakhstan will continue to contribute and the exact level of that contribution is something for the Government of Kazakhstan to decide.
Q: Data Nedeliy. I would like you to expand on the theme of corruption. You know that American companies have been involved in corruption in Kazakhstan, that Chevron, Chevron/Texaco, Mobil have started to provide interesting documents to the court for the Kazakhgate case. That’s the first question. Second question. Not long ago the Coordination Council of Democratic Forces was created in Kazakhstan. For the U.S., is this organization just another social organization, or does it have a different status?
A: On the first one, there is a law in the United States called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This law makes it illegal for any American individual or company to engage in corrupt practices outside the United States, including Kazakhstan. If I had information about any American company doing this, I would have to report that to the Justice Department for their consideration for possible prosecution under American law.
With regard to your second question, we don’t have a category of lists of organizations that is any sort of official American determination of what an organization represents here in Kazakhstan. We follow political developments here like all other embassies do. It’s a very interesting development and we will maintain contacts with opposition parties and with the people who are involved in the new council, just as we do with the broad spectrum of political figures from the pro-government parties as well.
Q: Channel 31. Are you a Republican or a Democrat?
A: You know, if you asked my two children that question, you’d probably get two different answers. I don’t think it’s particularly relevant, so I don’t tell anybody. In the United States we have a very strong tradition of bipartisan support in foreign policy. I am a career member of the Foreign Service, my job is to serve whichever president is in office, whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican. I don’t mix the views I have as a private person with my public life representing my country here in Kazakhstan.
Q: Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11 and if so, what did you think of it?
A: I did see it. I thought it was a very clever work, but obviously one designed more to convince people than provide unbiased information.
Q: Megapolis. Is the Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian model of democracy better for the region? Does it seem to you that recent events are following the Hamiltonian model?
A: That makes me think I’m back at Stanford taking undergraduate political science classes. There is a lot of debate in the United States about those two approaches. But I think that the real answer is that we don’t go to either extreme. Although over the years we may shift a little bit toward one or the other, generally speaking the United States moves in its foreign and domestic policy between those two different visions of America and the world. In any case, both Jefferson and Hamilton were products of the 18th century, and they had 18th century ideas, which are interesting to study, but don’t always have the most relevance to the 21st century.
Q: Can we get your opinion about the draft law on extremism, which is causing on the one hand criticism from human rights organizations and which government organs consider a foundation for fighting extremism?
A: I think that in today’s world it is necessary to carry out a struggle against extremism, which can be a very dangerous phenomenon for any country or any society. But it requires a very comprehensive approach. Law enforcement can be one aspect of that struggle. A number of OSCE countries have laws, which involve measures against extremism. But at the same time, those laws, and particularly criminal measures, have to be very carefully formulated and very narrowly defined, so they are clearly used only against extremists and extremist organizations and cannot serve as a threat to the broad spectrum of people and organizations who are not extremists within the society. There are concerns that the draft law does have too broad a character and definitions that are too broad. I think there is still an opportunity with differences between the Senate and Majilis to work out those differences and in the process to take advantage of the experience of other countries, to take advantage of the expertise the OSCE can provide in order to sharpen those definitions and to ensure that this law will be an effective instrument against extremism and not be regarded as something against civil society or mainstream religions or thought.
Q: Ekspress K. I would like to clarify something; you said the elections in Kazakhstan corresponded to international standards to which Kazakhstan had committed itself. Is this your own opinion or the official position of Washington? Second question, also on the elections. After the elections, international experts at the OSCE said that Kazakhstan’s elections were more democratic than those in the U.S., and that there were more violations in the U. S. Please comment.
A: Our views are the views of the OSCE election observation mission. I observed the elections myself during the first round, in and around Astana, and I visited a number of polling places, and although I saw a few problems, what I saw was generally satisfactory. But my experience was only a very narrow one. What OSCE with their observation mission does, is cast this net across the entire country. By collecting the experiences of many, many different observers, they can reach a much better, more accurate understanding of what happens on a country-wide scale and they draw their conclusions from that.
I’m not sure I recognize the exact quote you cited about the American elections, but I can say that the OSCE did send an observation mission to the United States for the presidential elections in November. And I think if you read the OSCE report on the American elections, although it does mention a number of issues in there that they call for greater attention to, on the whole they concluded that the outcome of the elections reflected the will of the American people. I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind in the United States, from either party or from any of the candidates about that. They may not be happy with the results, but I think they respect the fact that the process produced the results that accurately reflected the way people voted.
Q: So the U.S. elections followed obligations, undertaken by other countries?
A: I would recommend you go to the ODIHR website and read the two reports and they will say precisely what characteristics the OSCE found in both of those cases and you can compare for yourself. You can also compare the scale and nature of the problems that OSCE found in those two elections, and you will see there are substantial differences. There is one common characteristic, though, and that is there are concerns and issues about electronic voting in both countries.
Q: Syoz. Do you know why the Kazakhgate trial was postponed? You probably know when the trial will finally start.
A: No.
Q: Second question. Mr. Nazarbayev has stated that he will run for re-election in the next presidential elections. Of course, we as democrats understand that this is manipulation of the constitution. What is your position, as a representative of the most democratic power? What do you think of this decision? Is this a violation of international norms?
A: I think each country establishes its own constitutional legal procedures for eligibility for the presidency. They have their own procedures for validating those, and it’s not our business to interfere in that process. There are cases where it’s very clearly established in the constitution. There is no doubt about the term limitation. And in those cases, when a president tries to violate them in a way that does not correspond to legality, then we would have some serious questions.
Q: If there’s no corruption in Kazakhstan, how did Kazakhgate happen?
A: What I said is, that the companies that are operating here now that I am familiar with, as far as I know, are not engaging in corruption. And if I were aware of that, I would have to report it for possible prosecution. And that is exactly what has happened in the case of Mr. Giffen, who is being prosecuted under that particular legislation. As far as I know, he’s not doing business in Kazakhstan now, at least I have not met him.
Thank you very much.