Transcripts
Press Conference with Ambassador Ordway
Kazakhstan Press Club,
Almaty, Kazakhstan
July 6, 2005, 14:00
Amb: (In Russian). It just so happens that today’s press conference coincides with President Nazarbayev’s birthday. He has been a strong partner of the United States since the very beginning of Kazakhstan’s independence. He has been a world leader in non-proliferation efforts, in promoting inter-ethnic tolerance and harmony among religious faiths here in Kazakhstan, and in bringing Kazakhstan into the international coalition against terrorism. We’re very happy for him and wish him all the best, long life health and a great future on the occasion of his 65th birthday. With that, I’m ready to take your questions.
Q: Could you tell us the reaction of American troops to the declaration by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Astana yesterday asking for a date to withdraw from Central Asian bases?
Amb: First of all, we very much welcome the strong support for the anti-terrorist coalition and for the activities it has designed to bring stability and security to Afghanistan. This is a goal shared not only by Americans, but also by the people and governments in Central Asia. We very much hope and are working to provide that stability and security in Afghanistan as rapidly as we can with our coalition partners and with the government of President Karzai in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, there are a number of challenges remaining in Afghanistan and the military contingents there remain essential in the struggle to provide that security and stability. U.S. bases in Central Asia and those of our coalition partners are principally there to support our military operations in Afghanistan, which are ongoing and will be for some time to come. From a U.S. point of view, the arrangements for these bases were done on a bilateral basis. We will continue to deal with our partners on a bilateral basis on both the conditions for using those bases and the term for which we’ll require them.
Q: That means there’ll be no definite dates?
Amb: As I said and as the State Department spokesman said in Washington yesterday, all of these discussions are done on a bilateral basis for the countries where those bases are located.
Q: Recently the Washington Times published an article that suggested a blueprint for how the U.S. can best outmaneuver Russia and China in Central Asia. What is your official policy in the region?
Amb: First of all there are about as many opinions in the United States as there are political observers for the newspapers. Let me say that we do not see Central Asia as an area of a great power rivalry. It is important for the nations of Central Asia, which achieved their independence and their sovereignty after many, many years, to determine their own national interests, and then to seek partners in the world who can further those interests. We believe the United States can be and is one of those strong partners for Central Asia, that can help countries pursue economic development and their long-term fundamental political aims. One of the most vivid examples of that in the last several years has been our common efforts, particularly with Kazakhstan, in the struggle against terrorism. We do not, however, think that this has to be a struggle between outside powers, we think there’s plenty of room for cooperation. We have excellent relations with Russia, we have good relations with China. We don’t see any contradiction at all in also having good relations with the nations of Central Asia. With regard to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, we welcome any organization that can bring together nations in an attempt to further their common interests, as long as they keep an open ear and an open door to the rest of the world. And certainly, the emphasis in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on the common struggle with terrorism is one that unites us, rather than divides us.
Q: Respond to President Nazarbayev’s statement that leaders who come to power as a result of revolutions contribute to regional instability.
Amb: I don’t think we share the view that the new leadership in countries such as Georgia and Ukraine are destabilizing the situation. I think, however, that history was not over at the moment that power changed, and that there are still in both of those countries very serious challenges and issues. It’s up to the leadership and the people of those countries to try and solve those issues in the best manner they can, given their own situation. We are prepared to try and support those efforts where we can. We have excellent relations with those new countries. The president of Ukraine just visited Washington, President Bush has visited Georgia. But I think that Kazakhstan also has established excellent relations on the president-to-president level, and there have been visits. So I don’t see that there’s any contradiction between us on how we approach the fundamental issue, which is to try and move these countries forward toward better economies and more stable and secure governments that reflect the desires and needs of their people, based on democratic values.
Q: In your opening statement you said you have a strong partnership with Kazakhstan on non-proliferation, etc. Is that right? Even today? There have been rabid anti-American speeches in Parliament, they passed a repressive law on NGOs, the courts hand down verdicts punishing independent media, there are still political prisoners here. How can one call that a stable partnership?
Amb: I’m not sure I would totally agree with every single characterization you have just made. But in any case, when we look at the world, we look for reliable partners who can work with us, even when we have disagreements, or even if they don’t do everything exactly the way we would like to see it done. On a number of things you have mentioned we have had our differing points of view. We have made our point of view very clear to the authorities here in Kazakhstan, and they made their point of view clear to us. But I think the accomplishments of Kazakhstan over the past 15 years are undeniable, and President Nazarbayev has a significant role in those accomplishments. It would be a mistake not to recognize those. We always are working for the future and we always hope, and work closely to ensure that Kazakhstan carries out all of its commitments.
Q: [Inaudible question concerning events in Uzbekistan.] How long ago did Nazarbayev visit the U.S.?
Amb: I think that we and all of the friends of Uzbekistan have been deeply concerned about developments in that country. We think there needs to be fundamental reform, economic and in other areas, in order to put Uzbekistan on the right path for stability. Extremism, whether it’s religious or any other type, flourishes in situations where there is economic deprivation and a lack of ability for the people to express their legitimate political views and participate in governments. So yes, we are concerned about the situation in Uzbekistan, but it’s up to the people and the leadership of Uzbekistan to draw the right conclusions and to move their country in a way where it can take the steps that it needs to. As far as when the last time President Nazarbayev has been to the United States, it was before I became an ambassador. I believe it was in 2001 or 2002. It’s a well-known fact, I just don’t have it in my head.
Q: Is the U.S. still insisting on an international inquiry?
Amb: We think an international inquiry would be the optimal way forward. It would provide a highly credible report on what happened. It would have much more credibility in the international community, and we think it would have more credibility within Uzbekistan as well. That’s particularly true given the fact that one of the major elements of the events in Andijan is not only how it started, but how it ended, and the role of the government’s forces there and the excess use of force. Coming to a credible conclusion on that is not very likely in our judgment, if the investigation isn’t [inaudible].
Q: George Bush is also celebrating his birthday and given the decline in his popularity, will people still continue to name their babies after him? Secondly, what is your response to the arrest of human rights activist Lutfullo Shamsitdinov?
Amb: Well, I think President Bush’s popularity is best reflected by the election results last fall. As far as the naming of children, the name of a prominent figure would not necessarily make parents think about whether the name “George” has gone up or gone down in popularity in the last few years. With respect to the first part of your question, referring to Mr. Shamsitdinov, I would have to say that this is something about which we have very, very grave concerns. He has been officially recognized by the UN High Commission on Refugees and has the status provided for by that commission. In accordance with the international refugee convention, to which Kazakhstan is a party, Kazakhstan is obligated not to return him to his country of origin. This is an international standard on which we have very clear views and we think that Kazakhstan has the kind of reputation and history that would suggest that it would scrupulously abide by its obligations under this convention.
Q: But at the same time, yesterday Nazarbayev signed a treaty among SCO member states, which would obligate them to turn over any suspected terrorists to other signatories. Which of the laws will Kazakhstan follow?
Amb: Kazakhstan has a very clear international commitment under the UN refugee convention not to return a person who has been recognized by the UNHCR to his country of origin. If refugees were returned every time their home country accused them of a crime, it would totally undermine that convention.
Q: Do you think that yesterday President Putin was behind the statement asking for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Central Asia? Second question, which of the following would make the United States happier: a Nazarbayev re-election, or an election of a member of the opposition? If Nazarbayev remains president, how would that affect the Kazakhgate case?
Amb: In regard to your first question, I’m not going to speculate as to what the motivations were for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s statement, that’s for them to say how that came about. In regard to your second, our position is very clear. It is up to the people of Kazakhstan, through internationally recognized elections, to determine who their president is going to be. We will work with the president that the people of Kazakhstan pick. In regard to the last question, I really can’t comment in any way on this particular case, other than to underscore the fact that this is a criminal case involving an American citizen and a violation of American law.
Q: If you could greet President Bush on his birthday, what would you say?
Amb: I would say, “Happy Birthday, Mr. President.”
Q: Do Americans celebrate their presidents’ birthdays more or less than other countries celebrate the birthdays of their leaders?
Amb: I think in America there’s probably less of a celebration than in many other parts of the world. But I did note before I came here that President Bush is spending his birthday in Denmark and according to the article I read, the Danes were going to greet him on his birthday with a band playing “Happy Birthday.” So I think in any case, the president’s birthday will get noticed. How it gets noticed depends on the history, culture, and tradition of that particular country.
Q: There are some big discrepancies regarding the role of Kazbat soldiers in Iraq. On the 18th of May according to information disseminated by the U.S. embassy, 27 Kazbat soldiers had disarmed 3.5 million pieces of ordnance. But only a year ago, the Kazakhstan contingent had disarmed half a million of explosive devices. You think that in one year, 27 people can disarm 3 million mines?
Amb: No, we’re not talking about mines, we’re talking about unexploded ordnance. I’m not an engineer, so I can’t tell you how exactly they do this, but I don’t think they go and individually disarm every single grenade or bullet. I think there’s an efficiency in doing this in large numbers.
Q: You think those numbers include bullets?
Amb: It says pieces of unexploded ordnance. We’re not talking about going out and finding mines and digging them out. I’m not responsible for these particular figures. If you’re really interested in a technical explanation, we’ll see if somebody from CENTCOM can provide that sort of technical analysis. Or perhaps you could ask Kazbat, there are people there who can tell you exactly how they went about doing that.
Q: [gist] Is it just a coincidence that there are 27 Kazbat soldiers and you have away 27 Humvees last week? Were the Humvees donated in exchange for another Kazbat rotation in Iraq?
Amb: There was a press opportunity at the ceremony where we handed over the Humvees. The press asked this question, and General Sembinov answered it. But I don’t think that’s because there’s been any change, it was just that the press asked the question. If they had asked the question a month earlier, he would have given the same answer. In fact last month at the opening of the Asia Society conference, President Nazarbayev himself expressed very clearly that Kazakhstan would continue to participate.
Q: Many are predicting Nazarbayev will win the upcoming elections. What is the future of Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan, situated between Putin’s Russia and communist China?
Amb: Kazakhstan has done a very good job since its independence in determining its own position in the world and trying to pursue it. Every time I hear President Nazarbayev talk about who the main partners are of Kazakhstan in the world, he always starts with a troika, and the third horse in that particular troika is the United States. As I said earlier, we don’t see it as an area of competition, but we do think that each of these countries has contributions they can make. But it’s not the role of the United States or the role of Russia or the role of China to determine the future of Kazakhstan; that’s the role of Kazakhstan. If they’re looking for strong and reliable partners, we think we’re one of those partners. We have no objection and think it’s perfectly logical that two very large countries on Kazakhstan’s borders also be partners in the move to the future. I think it’s probably much better for Kazakhstan in its long-term interest to have good, friendly relations with all three of those countries, rather than bad relations with one, two or three of them.
Q: What is the American reaction to the Shanghai countries’ request to set a deadline or date to withdraw American troops from region?
Amb: I already answered that question two times. Ask your colleague.
Q: Yesterday, Karimov essentially accused the U.S. military forces in Afghanistan of not doing anything to destroy the poppy crop or to stop drug trafficking.
Amb: The principal goal of the U.S. forces and the other coalition forces in Afghanistan is to provide for security and stability, so the government of President Karzai can continue to move forward. Reducing the supply of narcotics that are grown in Afghanistan is also a very high priority, both for us and our coalition partners, as well as for the government of President Karzai. This is going to be a process that’s going to take a little while. It is not simple, it is not easy, but it is one which we are committed to moving forward on. The fight against this particular evil requires not only a reduction in the supply in Afghanistan, but very strong efforts by transit countries to cut off the transit through their territory. And it also requires very strong efforts by the countries of destination to have police actions against the criminal elements that are involved in narcotics trafficking, as well as to reduce the demand for narcotics. So I think there’s room for substantial improvement in all of those areas. We’re committed to doing the best we can to make rapid progress in Afghanistan, and we are also working very closely and cooperatively with the countries of Central Asia, and Kazakhstan in particular, to try to reduce and cut off trafficking.
Q: [Gist] There are rumors that George Soros paid the salaries of government employees in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. Second, not long ago Defense Minister Altynbayev said Kazbat troops would be taken out of Iraq after the current deployment. But you said another rotation is scheduled. Who is right?
Amb: Well, frankly I think you’re wrong on both questions. The first question is actually not a rumor, there was a discussion at the Asia conference with Mr. Soros himself about this particular issue of paying salaries or supplementing salaries of Georgian officials. It was the deputy prime minister of Kyrgyzstan who asked him to undertake a similar program in Kyrgyzstan. This took place not before, but after the change of power in Georgia and it took place very openly and publicly, and through a request from the government of Georgia. It is a significant contribution to the struggle against corruption by raising government salaries to a level necessary for those government officials to not engage in corrupt practices in order to have a minimum standard of living. In regards to how long Kazbat will stay in Iraq, this is a decision completely for Kazakhstan to take. We are very grateful for the strong role that Kazbat has taken and we look forward to continuing cooperation in the future. As President Nazarbayev said in the opening speech of the Asia Society and as Deputy Minister of Defense Sembinov said the other day, Kazakhstan intends to have a rotation of troops in Iraq at the end of the summer.
Q: Why did it take so long for the U.S. and Great Britain to respond to the events in Andijan? They only denounced the events after CNN and other media reported on it. Was their tardy response appropriate? Also, would you still welcome Karimov’s cooperation against terrorism?
Amb: (Joking) As the U.S. ambassador I’m obligated to say that our reactions are always perfectly appropriate. But, more seriously, exactly how you react to a particular situation, how you try to further your goals is going to depend a little bit on how that situation develops and on tactical considerations of what’s most effective at the moment. With regards to your last question, I think we’re always interested in partnership and cooperation in the struggle against terror. And we’ll just have to see how that develops.
Q: Do you think there were terrorists in Andijan?
Amb: I think that what we really need is an impartial, international investigation to determine exactly what happened there. Then you would be able to answer that question.
Q: Many people in our country think that there’s no real challenger to Nazarbayev in the upcoming elections. Who do you think is going to challenge him?
Amb: I don’t think I would be a very diplomatic ambassador if I tried to dive into Kazakhstan’s political pool and come out with some candidate. That’s not my job. That’s your job to identify the challenger.
Q: What is the U.S. position toward Iran after the election of the new president?
Amb: I don’t think fundamentally our underlying principles towards Iran are going to change regardless of who’s in the leadership. We have several principles concerning Iran. One is Iran’s attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery. The second is Iran’s support for terrorist groups and its undermining of the Middle East peace process. And the third is the very serious human rights and democracy deficit that exists in Iran. We would hope that at some point there will be a government in Iran that can address our concerns about all of these issues.
Q: I don’t think you fully answered the very first question, Yesterday Mr. Karimov said clearly that the SCO is insisting on dates for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. You’re talking about a bilateral process. Is that enough to start talks about withdrawal?
Amb: We have been in more or less in constant contact over the last several years with the governments involved. We’ve had some very well known negotiations over the use of the Karshi-Khanabad air base. Both we and the Uzbek authorities know how to get hold of each other and to continue these discussions in whichever direction Uzbekistan wants to lead them.
Q: Who is the “we?”
Amb: I think this is angels dancing on the head of a pin here. The negotiations are ongoing. If there’s dissatisfaction on either side, each side knows how to get in touch with the other one and work out whatever the terms are going to be for the use of that base. And normally we conduct our diplomatic negotiations through diplomatic channels, not through open public channels.
Q: Today you stated that the U.S. is critical of Iran’s human rights violations. I think it was about a month or a month and a half ago, the U.S. criticized China and India for human rights violations. The Andijan events were condemned by the United States and today Kazakhstan was criticized for violating an international law, which they agreed to.
Amb: But they haven’t violated it yet, we said we are concerned -
Q: — about the potential violation of Kazakhstan with respect to the refugee being deported or sent back to Uzbekistan. I was curious as to why the U.S. believes it has the authority to talk about this kind of stuff when we have similar violations occurring in Guantanamo Bay where 500 plus detainees are being held without charge and without trial, etc.
Amb: Any nation in the world has the right and an obligation to draw attention to serious violations of human rights or international obligations. We wouldn’t have much of a world if only perfect people and perfect nations were allowed to be critical. Just as we wouldn’t have a very successful world if in a family only the perfect ones, who’d never made a single mistake, were allowed to criticize their children or their spouses. To get to the other nuance of your question, I think there is a fundamental difference in how the United States has tried to resolve the issue of Guantanamo Bay and human rights violations in Iran. There’s a very lively political debate in the United States Congress over whether this is the correct course to follow or not. There have been extensive reviews by a fully independent United States court system as to the legality of what the administration has done. Where the court has determined that the government’s actions were not according to the law, the government has changed course and has undertaken action to satisfy the courts. We have a very lively and independent press, which has done extensive reporting on this issue without any negative consequences from the U.S. government. I don’t think you can say any of those things about the situation in Iran.
Q: Why does America not care whether Pakistan has nuclear weapons, but is so concerned about Iran possibly getting them?
Amb: If you look back historically, we have had extreme displeasure with Pakistan ranging to sanctions, which have really caused great damage to our relationship, precisely because of that issue. Precisely because Iran has not reached that stage is the reason why I think we and our European allies are so concerned to act right now, so that it doesn’t get to the point where they actually have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
If there are no more questions, thank you for coming.