Transcript
Press Conference with Ambassador Ordway
March 23, 2005, 15:30
Kazakhstani Press Club,
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Moderator: Ladies and gentlemen, hello and welcome to today's press conference with Extraordinary and Plenipoteniary U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan John Ordway. Today he will discuss U.S.-Kazakhstani relations in one of his regular monthly press conferences. Now I will turn this over to him to make a few opening remarks.
A: Thank you very much. It's not quite every month, but our intentions are for every month and maybe we'll do better in the future. I'm ready for any questions you may have.
Q: Marat Asipov, Vremya. What is your opinion of the events taking place in Kyrgyzstan?
A: I should probably let my colleagues in Bishkek and Washington provide detailed answers to this question. Judging by what they have already said, we recognize that there was certain progress in the elections, but at the same time there were certain problems as well. At the moment the situation is complex, and we, like many others in the international community, have appealed for calm and avoidance of violence. We think it's important that there be a serious dialogue between the government and opposition in order to resolve the issues that are currently facing Kyrgyzstan.
Q: Almaty-Info. Please comment on the opinion that the U.S. is loyal to the Nazarbayev regime only because it defends and creates favorable conditions for oil companies here. Also, that the U.S. ignores human rights violations in Kazakhstan, is that really true?
A: On the first part of your question, we do not play a role in the domestic politics of Kazakhstan or in any foreign country. We have a very important relationship with the Republic of Kazakhstan and its people. Obviously, we maintain diplomatic relations and have very intense and engaged dialogues with the Government of Kazakhstan across a broad spectrum of issues. This would be the case with any government of Kazakhstan. It's not for us to decide who that government is, we deal with the government as it actually exists and we would hope that that government would be chosen in a democratic manner and in keeping with the international commitments that Kazakhstan has undertaken. That forms one of the elements of that broad and very complex relationship that we have.
As for your second question, that we somehow ignore the human rights situation, I think it's sort of ironic that the question is raised so soon after the publication of the annual human rights report. We normally get more criticism that we pay too much attention to human rights violations, rather than not enough. Let me more seriously say that human rights are an element of the relationship, we do pay attention to it, it is an important component.
Q: Oleg Sviridov, Legislation and Practice of Media in Kazakhstan. Please comment on inspections of U.S. Government-funded NGOs in Kazakhstan.
A: We're certainly very well aware of the inspections that are being undertaken right now by the procuracy. And we, including myself personally, have had a number of conversations with the procuracy about this. We had hoped that there would not be such investigations, but nonetheless, it is the legal right of the procuracy to pursue those inspections. We have made the point to the procuracy that many of these organizations carry out programs at the direction of the U.S. Government with U.S. Government funding. We are convinced, based on our own internal procedures, that all of the programs that we directly finance, are being carried out completely in accordance with U.S. and Kazakhstani law. We are convinced that when the procuracy completes their inspections, they will come to the same conclusion. We hope that the procuracy will accomplish this quickly and with as little interference as possible with the operations of these organizations.
I should add that in our contacts with the procuracy and other elements of the Kazakhstani Government, in the context of these inspections, they have assured us on many occasions that they value and support the kind of work that the U.S. Government is doing through these organizations. We welcome those assurances and look forward to a quick and rapid conclusion to these inspections.
Q: Yaroslav Razumov, Panorama. What is your government doing to control the narcotics trade coming from Afghanistan? The U.S. Embassy supports the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline for transporting oil from Kazakhstan, and Kazakhstani leadership tends to support the Eastern direction. Don’t you think there is a competition between these two directions, because there is not enough oil for both of them?
A: With regard to your first question, we share the concern of many countries about the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan through Central Asia, to Russia, Western Europe and beyond. An effective tactic against narco-trafficking has three different elements to it. One is to reduce the demand, that is to work in the countries of use to reduce the demand for narcotics. Second is to work to cut off the actual transit of narcotics to the market. And the third is to reduce the supply that gets to the market. We are working very effectively with the Government of Kazakhstan to reduce the transit of narcotics through this country. But I think all of us would admit, that although those efforts have been successful, they have been limited. As far as the supply situation is concerned, the coalition forces in Afghanistan and the Afghan Government are now working much more actively to try to reduce the growth of poppies and the supply that enters into the market. Although it's still a little early to reach any firm conclusion, we think that there will be substantially less poppy grown this year than in the last several years.
As far as the second question goes, we don't see an issue of competition here. In fact, I think Kazakhstan has the opposite problem, there's not enough capacity to export the oil that will be produced over the next three decades. The advantage of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is that it gets Kazakhstani oil to the world market, as do other routes, such as the Russian pipeline system and the CPC. We certainly support the pipeline going through China, and think that it offers a way to get Kazakhstani oil to a very significant market. We continue our efforts to create the conditions under which Kazakhstani oil can flow though Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and, although those negotiations are still going on, we very much hope, and are working hard to make sure, they are successful and that Kazakhstani oil can go out through that direction.
But as far as I can tell, this is not a question of one pipeline or another: Kazakhstan needs all those pipelines in order to successfully reach its markets. And it also gives Kazakhstan certain advantages, because it provides alternate routes for Kazakhstan to get its products to market.
Q: Channel 31. Please comment on the memo from Ambassador Young to increase funding for opposition parties in Kyrgyzstan.
A: That is a total forgery. It has no connection whatsoever to anything the U.S. embassy did. And anyone who knows U.S. documents and the way it works, it's obviously on its face a forgery.
Q: Express K. The Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan blamed the U.S.A. for a policy of double standards in Kyrgyzstan, what is your response?
A: I really can't comment, since I don't know the specifics of what he said. What I can say is that, as a matter of policy, and I know as a matter of fact in Kyrgyzstan, our efforts are solely devoted to trying to promote the process of democratization through free and fair elections that meet international standards. It's not our role, nor is it our intention, to support or oppose the government, or support or oppose the opposition.
Q: Please comment on the lawsuits against Soz and Respublika newspapers that are viewed as attempts to shut down the publications.
A: We think it is a mistake to try to shut down any newspaper or journalistic endeavor.
Q: Will the U.S. Government cooperate with the newly created political movement “For A Just Kazakhstan?”
A: We are prepared to engage in dialogue with all political factions and forces in society. Through our partners we provide training and other support for political parties to enable them to compete more effectively in the political process. We provide those opportunities and maintain those contacts with all legitimate political parties and forces in society, both pro-government and opposition.
Q: Liter. Please comment on proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress to curtail U.S. interference in foreign governments.
A: I'm not sure which piece of legislation you're talking about? Is this the draft democracy act that was introduced?
Q:(inaudible followup)
A: I'd be shocked if the U.S. Senate had a law that had such language in it. Let me go back and say that it is not our intention to interfere in the internal affairs of any country. But we do believe that free markets and democratic orientation provide great benefits for all countries and all peoples throughout the world. We want to do whatever we can legitimately to help move in that direction. We will seek those opportunities, but we will do it in a fashion that is compatible with the laws and traditions of the countries concerned -- much as we have done for over the past 10 years in the former Soviet Union with a substantial amount of assistance devoted to countries in transition to develop market economies and move toward democracy. But my idea of interference in internal affairs is having a foreign government, let's say, campaign for a particular political figure to try and get him or her elected. Or provide funding to one political party in order to help it achieve its political aims. And that we're not doing. Maybe others are, but we're not.
Q: Express K. Some information sites say that President Bush has approved military operations in Iran, is it true?
A: If, instead of listening of uninformed sources, you listened to the President and Secretary of State, you'd come to a completely opposite conclusion. They have said clearly, and all of our actions have shown, that our emphasis is on reaching a diplomatic, peaceful solution that would result in Iran's forsaking its desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and in particular nuclear weapons. This is a very serious problem, and it requires a very serious, concentrated, coordinated approach. I think that irresponsible charges of potential military action only divert attention away from our really serious efforts to try and resolve this problem. As the President has said and as the Secretary of State has said, it is not our intention to engage in military action. Our focus is on diplomatic methods.
Q: Panorama. Please comment on the sentence for Asel Abdygapparova. Can the Kazakhstani public somehow influence the sentence?
A: Let's be absolutely clear about what this case is. This is a murder case. She was convicted of participation in this murder. She was sentenced to 40 years in prison. This may sound like a lot, but compared to the death sentences that were imposed on the other people involved in this murder, this is substantially less. She has the right, and I understand her lawyers are pursuing routes of appeal that could result in a change, either in the conviction or the sentence. In America guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for a jury of 12 citizens. She was afforded all the rights of any defendant in the United States. The Kazakhstani embassy had consular access to her, and I understand attended at least some of the judicial proceedings to insure that proper form was followed in the trial and in the criminal proceedings. The next step is to see what happens in the appeal.
Q: In case there is another verdict made by the New York City court next year, what will be the U.S. position regarding the Kazakhgate case?
A: I don't see any connection between this and the other trial.
Q: No, this is another question.
A: There's not much commentary I can make, that case is in the legal system and has not yet come to trial. (Aside, while interpreter verifies comment). The Justice Department is engaged in the prosecution, but it has not yet come to trial.
Q: Some human rights defenders say that the origin of Abdygapparova played a major role in her case. I would like to get your frank answer on how Americans view Kazakhstan, do they think it's just like Afghanistan, or a country associated with terrorists?
A: I think that this case has gotten much broader publicity here than it has in the United States, or even in Texas. Like Kazakhstan, we are a very multi-national, multi-ethnic state. I don't think that in this case people pay much attention to the national origin of a particular criminal or convicted person. I think that Kazakhstan has a reputation in the United States that spans the spectrum. People are aware that it is a country that is a major exporter of oil, in which there's major American investment. As a result of recent performances in Washington and New York, they're aware that it's a country with a great cultural tradition and very fine artists and musicians. As a result of the terrorist acts of September 11 and subsequent coalition activity in Afghanistan, people are aware that it has a critical role to play in the vital region of Central Asia. And I regret to say about my fellow countrymen, that many of them probably don't have any idea where Kazakhstan is, or what it's about.
Q: Kazakhstan-Monitor. What are the prospects for an Iranian oil pipeline?
A: First of all, let me say that U.S. law and policy is that we are opposed to any pipelines that go through Iran. There's another more practical problem from the point of view of Kazakhstan. The CPC already exists, they're shipping oil, and that oil gets to the world markets. The Russian pipeline and rail system exist and are shipping large volumes of Kazakhstani oil to world markets. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan almost exists and the first oil will go through there in May of this year. And that, too, goes to world markets. There is no route through Iran that goes to world markets.
Q: What is your attitude towards the initiative of the Kazakhstani parliament to amend the local election legislation and prohibit any meetings after the elections?
A: I think we would have to take a very careful look at that and would want to have the views of the OSCE as to how this conforms to Kazakhstan's commitments for carrying out elections.
Q: What is your opinion about the adoption of Kazakhstani children by American families?
A: Let me say that everyone's primary concern should be about the fate of the children concerned. Orphanages are not good places for children to grow up. Despite all the efforts of the people who work there, the statistics show that children who go through orphanages suffer from crime, drug abuse, and many other ills at a greater rate than other children do. The best place for a child to grow up is in a family, and for a Kazakhstani child the best place to grow up is in a Kazakhstani family. Unfortunately, there are very few or insufficient numbers of Kazakhstani families that are willing or able to adopt all the children that are available and are living in orphanages.
In the United States the situation is just the opposite. There are many more parents who wish to have children to adopt, than there are children available to be adopted. It seems to me that what we have here is an opportunity to create a better future for those children and to create real ties between our two countries. Both the Kazakhstani Government and the U.S. Government have very strict procedures to ensure that all children who are adopted go to safe and loving homes where they can be properly cared for. What am I afraid of, is that well-meaning efforts, such as you have mentioned, are going to condemn far too many Kazakhstani children to live their lives in orphanages, when instead they could be living and growing up in families that love them. And I would hope that the parliamentarians would devote greater efforts to try and stimulate Kazakhstani citizens and Kazakhstani families to adopt children who would otherwise have no bright future here in Kazakhstan.
Moderator:: Thank you very much.