Transcripts
Press Conference with Ambassador Ordway
Kazakhstani Press Club
Almaty, Kazakhstan
June 21, 2006
Q: What is Washington’s reaction to the last amendments to the media law?
Ambassador: I think that on the whole the amendments that have been offered represent a step backward in the development of press freedoms in Kazakhstan. I think that the remarks that the OSCE media freedom representative made the other day are fairly accurate and generally reflect our views. I certainly noted that they are quite controversial here in Kazakhstan and met with a substantial degree of opposition from the press and various press organizations. And I think that it certainly does not enhance the candidacy of Kazakhstan to be chairman of the OSCE.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, what is the US Embassy’s reaction on the statement by Ibragimov’s lawyer. You are probably aware of the statement. How would you comment? Does it have any relation with the U.S. Embassy? Second question: a couple of days ago President Bush has signed a decree regarding sanctions against Belarus. If one compares the political situation in Kazakhstan with the one in Belarus, we are not in a better state than Belarus. Why does the Bush Administration react to the situation in two ways?
Ambassador: On your first question, much of what was quoted in the press or was described in the press by Mr. Ibragimov's lawyer is completely incorrect. On your second question, I think that there in fact are some rather substantial differences in the situation between Kazakhstan and Belarus. Obviously, we think that there are some serious issues in Kazakhstan. We have expressed ourselves publicly and privately and encouraged movement forward in Kazakhstan. Unlike the situation in Belarus, we have a very good and productive dialog with the government here about those issues. I can’t say that it always produces the results we want, but it is a good dialog and we have substantial understanding about the general direction in which we all want Kazakhstan to move. So I don’t think that we are even contemplating or see any parallel between the two situations.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, what was the U.S. State Department’s reaction on the openly anti-American statements made by Karimov during the last CICA summit? I would also draw your attention to the anti-Israeli and anti-American statements made by the special representative of Iran.
Ambassador: I’m actually not sure that we've had an official reaction to the CICA summit. We are observers in the organization; we think that it is a very useful organization that potentially could play a very positive role in Asia. But at the same time I think that there are some very major challenges for the organization to have the kind of effect that the founders wanted it to have. And the range of statements and the various positions of the members of the organization I think demonstrate the difficulty of that challenge but at the same time show the great benefit in moving forward even slowly building confidence in these countries. We've had a number of statements in Washington reacting to what the Iranian President said in Shanghai and I have nothing to add to that.
Q: Regarding Mr. Karimov…
Ambassador: I listened to Mr. Karimov’s remarks, just as I did all the other people who spoke there. And if you have some specific quote you would like me to react to I would be happy to, I don’t have any reaction to this overall [speech].
Q: Mr. Ordway, please give us the U.S. position regarding the West-Kazakhstan-West-China gas pipeline.
Ambassador: I’m aware that there is some interest in having a gas pipeline going through China. There is also a significant amount of interest in a gas pipeline that will go from Kazakhstan to Azerbaijan and westward on to markets in Europe. I think that there is one thing that both of these ideas have in common, and that is establishing diversity of exports for Kazakhstani and Central Asian gas, and that is a goal which we completely and fully support. There will be feasibility studies done on both these routes as to where the greater economic advantage lies. One obvious advantage of going across the Caspian is that it offers access to multiple market players and potentially has much greater economic return. But obviously there are many very complicated issues that have to be studied and analyzed before there can be any final conclusion to that any export gas line.
Q: It is well known that FBI officers assisted the investigation of Sarsenbayev’s murder. What your comments on that? What have you accomplished?
Ambassador: Well I think the principle job to present the case rests with the prosecution in court. We still believe that there is a very strong case against the people that have been charged with this crime. And it probably wouldn’t be appropriate for me to talk in great detail about the details of that particular case.
Q: Are there any plans to expand the U.S. Government’s presence in the energy sector of Kazakhstan? If yes, then in what areas?
Ambassador: The United States has zero investment in the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan. But we do have a few companies that have invested billions and billions of dollars here. And I think that those investments will continue to rise because the investment into the projects in which they are involved requires continuing investment. In addition, there are variously new blocks and new investments to be looking at new deposits that are and will become available for tender. And I am confident that there will be American companies who will be interested in at least some of those and we wish them every success in their commercial bids. But we don’t determine their investment policies.
Q: Is it only the oil and gas sector?
Ambassador: No, of course not, there are lots of other American investments here as well. Including in coal, and electric power, telecommunications, transport, consumer goods. There was just a ground breaking for the construction of a new locomotive factory, which General Electric is very involved in. There is a very broad interest in Kazakhstan and a number of countries are active here.
Q: Is there any news from the Southern district, State of New York? Second question, you are probably aware that a criminal case was filed recently against the opposition journalist Kazis Togusbayev for damaging the honor and dignity of the President. Are there such criminal cases in the United States?
Ambassador: Almost all of my knowledge about that particular case in the Southern District of the State of New York comes from the press, and I haven’t read anything recent in the press. The other issue is a little more complicated to answer. We do not have an analogous law in the states. Although I would have to note with some amusement that over two hundred years ago there was a serious attempt by our congress to pass such a law. I think it’s generally accepted today, that would not be in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. There is in the United States, as there is in any country, always the possibility of bringing private lawsuits for slander and libel. But in the case of public figures in our constitutional procedure, it is extremely difficult to actually win any such cases. So I think the short answer to your question is that no, that that’s impossible in the United States.
Q: Will there be a reconsideration of the visa issuing policy for Kazakhstani citizens? As far as I know, getting a visa is not an easy task for our people, we are probably in the list of “unreliable” countries. Second question, what is the status of the Guantanamo prisoners, specifically Kazakhstani citizens? There was information that the U.S. Government will provide them with lawyers. What are the latest developments on that?
Ambassador: On the first question, I don’t think that Kazakhstan fits in any unfavorable circumstances that are any different from the vast majority of countries in the world where we require visas. We, in fact, are looking for ways in which we could lower the costs and extend the validity of visas for citizens of Kazakhstan. Although I have to add for accuracy sake, that the application fee for a visa is set by law, and it’s the same for every country in the world, and that cannot be changed. But the fees to issue to successful applicants, those can be changed on the basis of reciprocity, and we are seeking with our Kazakhstani colleagues to identify ways in which we can, on a mutual basis, make visas cheaper and longer. On the issue of Guantanamo: all I can say is that we have, since the very beginning, been engaged in dialog at various points with the government of Kazakhstan, and we continue to do so, but I can’t provide any information and details about that situation.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, what can you tell us about the September visit of the president to the U.S.? What kind of issues will be discussed during this visit?
Ambassador: We have not made, and are not, at this point, prepared to make any announcements about any visit to the United States.
Q: I’d like to go back to the Kazakhgate issue. Recently some Internet sites have published a letter of Nazarbayev’s lawyer to the U.S. Department of Justice, in which Nazarbayev’s lawyer suggests cooperation between the Department and [Nazarbayev’s] defense, referring to U.S. diplomatic interests. I fully understand that because of your status you cannot comment on the content of the letter. But can you confirm the very existence of the letter?
Ambassador: Well, I think that the letters which have been circulating in the press appear to be four to five years old. And I think that the fact that the United States is vigorously conducting this prosecution against Mr. Giffen, who is an American citizen, is all the commentary I need to make.
Q: Going back to the media law. Have you contacted the Kazakhstani government about those amendments? Would you urge them to withdraw them, just like the OSCE did?
Ambassador: I think that what I just said is pretty public, and if they weren’t already aware of our views, they certainly will be after this conference. But we have had an ongoing dialog about media freedom and media law that predates my arrival here and has been the subject of some fairly intense and high level discussion. I think the government is very aware of our general position.