Transcripts
Ambassador Richard E. Hoagland
Remarks at the Institute of Diplomacy
of the Kazakhstan Academy of Public Administration
February 27, 2009
Astana, Kazakhstan
Moderator: It is my pleasure to welcome you, Mr. Ambassador, and the idea is, as usual, to have as much as possible a dialogue with you. The students have already prepared some questions for the ambassador and he will reply to those questions after a brief introduction.
This lecture is on European diplomacy. I thought that it would be good also to have an external view on European diplomacy. For the students it is good also to have judgments on what you will say about U.S. foreign policy. And they will have their own opinions on how it works on your side and how it works on the EU side.
All of the students here are civil servants of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They belong to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and they are here to have training in the Institute of Diplomacy.
Mr. Ambassador, you have the floor.
Ambassador Hoagland: Thank you very much. What a nice pleasure to talk to young people who are preparing to work, who are working in the Foreign Ministry, preparing for possibly a diplomatic life.
Now I certainly want to have as much time as possible for dialogue. I want you to ask me questions. I want you to ask me difficult questions if you want to. I want us to be open and honest with each other.
To start, I thought as an introduction I would tell you what I think an ambassador is. What is an ambassador, then? I found three general parts of the job that I think can explain my view of what is an ambassador.
First, an ambassador is a psychologist, a psychologist who specializes in relationships. So as an ambassador-psychologist one of my jobs, one of my tasks is to find points of common interest, just like you do in a personal relationship. Find points of common interest, and then begin to build the relationship based on common interests.
As an ambassador-psychologist I have to find the right language, the right words to communicate very clearly, to build a stronger relationship.
Finally as an ambassador-psychologist I have to understand how to convince others to build stronger cooperation. So in some ways the relationship between two countries is very much like the relationship between two people. There are many common points you can look at there.
Second, I believe strongly an ambassador is also a journalist. Now that’s a little bit unusual, because many people in government don’t especially like working with journalists, don’t like answering questions from journalists. Even in my own government sometimes. But let me tell you why I think an ambassador has to be a good journalist.
What does a journalist do? A journalist tries to find multiple sources of information and to get the best information and to get accurate information. And then, of course, a journalist must be a good writer. I think that diplomats should be good writers. Finally, the ambassador-journalist puts together the information and communicates it to his capitol in a way that tells a story that people want to read.
For example, if you have a newspaper or a magazine, let’s say, and you’re looking through and you see a headline, you say “oh, that looks interesting!” What do you do? You read the first paragraph, and if it doesn’t seem interesting, you don’t read the rest.
The same thing happens in foreign ministries. They receive hundreds and hundreds of reports every day, and not all of them get read. So if you want your reporting as a diplomat to be read, it has to be interesting, and it has to be well written.
Finally, an ambassador inside the embassy is like the chief executive officer of a business, the most senior manager of a business. The manager sets the goals and motivates people to work together to achieve those goals. As an ambassador-manager it’s important to enforce rules and regulations because you can’t have chaos in an organization.
Finally, an ambassador-manager is ultimately responsible both for the human resources for the people and for the financial resources of the embassy. When I talk about human and financial resources, I’ll tell you what I mean with respect to the American embassy in Kazakhstan. Of course our embassy here is in Astana, but we also have a large office in Almaty which will become a consulate eventually. I have about 100 American citizens working for me as diplomats representing different ministries from Washington, of course. In total, there are about 100 Americans and about 450 citizens of Kazakhstan working for me.
Our operating budget, which means simply for salaries and expenses and everything like that, is about $10 million a year. So here in Kazakhstan, we are what we would call a middle-sized embassy. We have many embassies in the world that are smaller, and we have a number that are larger.
That’s my short introduction. That’s enough from me. It’s your turn to start, and let’s have a good seminar. Who would like to ask the first question?
Question: How is Washington going to conduct its policies in Central Asia? I mean this in the situation of an increasing role of Russia in Central Asia?
Ambassador Hoagland: Everyone asks me that question. Journalists ask me that question, government officials ask me that question.
Let’s start with the most basic point here. Kazakhstan, as are the other countries of Central Asia, is an independent and sovereign country. Kazakhstan’s foreign policy is quite successful. I think the government calls it multi-vector foreign policy, which means that the government balances its relationships with large countries -- with Russia, with China, with the European Union, with the United States. It keeps those in balance. We think that’s fine. We have no problem with that.
We also have said for a very long time that we understand that Russia has a special role in Kazakhstan and in the region. That’s perfectly natural because of what? History, language, culture, economics, all of that. So Kazakhstan has a very special relationship with Russia. And that’s fine.
Our point is that we don’t believe in what is called “zero-sum” thinking, that if a relationship grows with one country it means it must decline with the other countries. So this is, for us at least, a new period because we have of course a new President and a new administration, a new Secretary of State. Our new government in Washington is already working very closely with Moscow to find ways to improve the relationship.
So just because Russia has stronger positions in some areas, that doesn’t mean that we’re going to disappear and say goodbye. Okay? And your foreign policy is proof of that, that it’s possible to have strong, important relations with more than one country at one time.
Question: Where [inaudible] military forces after [inaudible]? [Inaudible] American base.
Ambassador Hoagland: A very important question that’s in the news.
First let me clarify. The American military presence at Manas Airport in Bishkek is not technically an American military base. What it is is a logistical support site, because we don’t have soldiers who are permanently there forever. It’s used for not only American but also European and other countries’ soldiers who are active in Afghanistan in what’s called the International Security Assistance Force. So it’s a coalition.
There are actually 11 countries that use the facility at Manas, and it’s used primarily for soldiers coming and going from Afghanistan. And it’s also used for supplies to be flown into Afghanistan.
You asked where the United States will go after Manas. First of all let me tell you that this is still very much an open question because it’s not absolutely certain that we won’t find a solution in our diplomacy, from talking with Moscow, talking with Bishkek, and from our European partners talking with Bishkek, talking with Moscow, because actually there are six months before this takes place. So there’s a period of time to talk yet.
As they say at sports events, let the games begin. [Laughter]. But if in fact it means that the American support facility at Bishkek has to move some place else, there are other possibilities. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to be immediately in Central Asia. So I know, because I read the Russian newspapers, that there are some analysts who say Tajikistan has already offered a military base. No, it hasn’t. There are some analysts who say Kazakhstan has secretly offered the United States a military base. Absolutely not true. Absolutely not true.
What we’re going to do in the near term, meaning the next few months, is to have very intense diplomatic conversations with Moscow, with Brussels, with Bishkek, and with other friends and partners and allies, both in Central Asia and in the larger region. So it’s not a black and white issue at this point.
Question: How can you [inaudible] the relations between Kazakhstan and the United States?
Ambassador Hoagland: I think the relationship between, the current diplomatic relations between Kazakhstan and the United States are very good, very good. And I don’t say that just to be diplomatic. I honestly do think they are good.
You have a rather large and active embassy in Washington with a very expert ambassador, your former Foreign Minister Erlan Idrissov. We have a large embassy here. There are many, many areas where we’re working very, very positively together. Let me name just a few.
Investment, for example: American investment in Kazakhstan is very large. It’s not just the oil companies, either. For example, one of our large corporations, General Electric, has an agreement to build a $1 billion factory in Almaty to produce locomotives for trains. We have many other companies that are working here, so on the economic side, there are pretty good relations.
We work together extremely well on an issue that your president is very famous for, and that is nuclear non-proliferation. But over the years, this has now expanded to not just nuclear but weapons of mass destruction. So it’s nuclear non-proliferation, biological weapons non-proliferation. Our cooperation there is excellent.
So that’s just two examples. I want to give time to other people to ask their questions, too.
Question: What is the biggest U.S. embassy and why?
Ambassador Hoagland: Are you talking about numbers of people or the size of the building?
Question: You said you have different [inaudible].
Ambassador Hoagland: I think right now our largest embassy in the world—other than Baghdad, because that’s a special case—I think our biggest embassy in the world is Beijing, China. I know that our embassy in Moscow, Russia is very big, as well, of course, in Tokyo, Japan, and in a number of the European countries -- London, Paris, Berlin. Certainly, of course, the European Union hosts a large mission; in fact we have three embassies in Brussels. There is the bilateral U.S.-Belgium Embassy, that’s one embassy by itself. There is the European Union-United States Embassy, that’s a second one by itself. Then there’s also the United States-NATO Embassy, and that’s an embassy by itself.
Question: Mr. Ambassador, how do you consider the suggestion of the president of Republic of Kazakhstan for a common world currency?
Ambassador Hoagland: In a period like the world is facing right now, where there is a worldwide, very serious economic crisis, it’s always good for people to think in new ways to solve problems. It’s good to look for new solutions to very difficult problems.
I know that President Nazarbayev has suggested that this be an initiative of the United Nations. I think in reality it would be a little hard to establish a world currency. I know we do have the example of the European countries that have gone to the euro, and they gave up their individual currencies. Italy gave up the lira, Germany gave up the deutschemark, France gave up the French franc, and they all use the euro now. But Europe is comprised of countries with a common heritage, a common economy, and in general, a common philosophy.
When you look at the world, you have some very different countries making up the world. Usually countries see their currency as an important sign of their own sovereignty. So I think it would be rather hard, for example, to convince, let’s say, Beijing to give up its currency, or to convince Moscow to give up its currency, the ruble.
I’ll tell you something, I was talking to one of your officials who asked me this question. He said he thought it would be very good to have a common world currency. I said what would happen if you do it in stages? What if you start with regions? How about if Kazakhstan returns to the ruble zone and starts using the Russian ruble? He looked at me and he said, “Are you crazy?” [Laughter].
It’s an interesting suggestion that should be considered. I think in reality it would be very hard to implement.
Question: What American [inaudible] can you advise to Kazakhstan [inaudible] corruption?
Ambassador Hoagland: Whoa, that is a difficult question. That’s difficult. Because in not just Kazakhstan, but in many countries of the world, corruption is part of the daily life. It’s part of the political culture. It’s part of the health care culture. It’s part of the educational culture. It’s part of the economic culture. And so it’s very hard to get rid of, to stop corruption.
The best thing is to start working on building solid, independent institutions, especially an independent judiciary, independent courts where judges do not take bribes, where officials cannot pick up the telephone and say, “I want you to give this verdict today,” that kind of thing. When there is an independent judiciary that is constantly fair and follows the law, then you can begin to use the law against corruption.
Now I said corruption exists everywhere. It exists, of course, in the United States. And sometimes our business officials and our government officials are corrupt. But the difference is that when that corruption becomes known, when it rises to a certain level, and when it becomes known, then the courts take over.
For example, the governor of the state of Illinois has just lost his position because of corruption. We have several former congressmen, parliamentarians, who are in prison right now because of corruption. We have business people, formerly extremely rich, powerful business people, who have been imprisoned because of corruption.
So the institution of an independent judiciary is important, but do you know what else is also important? An independent mass media who can report without fear on real issues of corruption. Because in an open, free society, the media plays the role of what we call a “watchdog.” When people learn about these big cases through the media, then that puts pressure on the government to clean up its corruption, and it also draws the attention of the courts to specific cases.
Question: I want to know about U.S. policy in Pakistan now.
Ambassador Hoagland: First of all let me tell you that I have served as a diplomat twice in Pakistan. Once in 1986 to 1989 -- probably before some of you were born; and then for a second time for one year, 1998 to 1999.
As for U.S. policy in Pakistan, let me tell you right now that President Obama and his National Security Council, and the State Department and the other ministries, are in the middle of a very, very comprehensive and very intense policy review to determine what will be the new policy for the next several years. So I can’t tell you exactly what it is right now.
I am quite certain it’s going to include a much larger component to support education, because Pakistan has an educated elite, very well educated people. But it’s also a poor country where the poor people have been deprived of a good education. So to build stability and prosperity in a country, you have to have a good system of education so that people can compete in the economy.
So I am quite certain that our new policy will have a strong support for building the educational institutions of Pakistan. But as for the other aspects, I honestly can’t tell you right now because I haven’t seen what the new policy is.
Let me go further. It’s very clear that the problems in Afghanistan cannot be solved without solving the problems in Pakistan associated with them. It’s not just problems of the last five years or the last 10 years or 25 years. It goes back to the British Empire. So that is one reason why President Obama appointed a Special Representative, a very senior and very powerful diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, to be the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan together. So I do know that we are looking at the two countries as a whole. You can’t solve problems in one country and ignore them in the other. They have to be solved together.
Question: Ambassador, [inaudible]. Can it change with President Obama? The second, [inaudible] in Czech Republic [inaudible]?
Ambassador Hoagland: Expansion of NATO to the east, can it be stopped? The short answer is yes. But I think it’s important to understand that often what you hear about NATO is very different from how Europe and the United States think about NATO.
In the Cold War period there was NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and there was the Warsaw Pact. There was the Soviet Union and its Eastern European, Middle European allies. And they were military organizations that were to confront each other in the case of a war. The Warsaw Pact disappeared.
NATO is in many ways a political organization as much as it’s a military organization. In the European view, I think, and also certainly in the American view, NATO does not threaten Russia. We have no reason to threaten Russia. We do not want any kind of military confrontation with Russia. And when we hear that Moscow thinks that this is a threat, we say why? We don’t understand. But we have to take that seriously if that’s how they’re thinking. And we didn’t take it seriously for a while.
Let’s be very blunt here. The two countries that have caused the most controversy have been, of course, Ukraine and Georgia. For a country to choose to join NATO—or to be accepted by NATO, as I should put it—for a country to be accepted by NATO, it has in advance to resolve all of its border disputes. Okay? It cannot join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if it has outstanding border disputes. Georgia has two border disputes right now. They’re called South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
A country cannot join NATO, and the countries of the alliance are not eager to let a country join, if the majority of the population does not support that decision. At this particular time, for various reasons, Ukraine is not unanimous about joining NATO, especially when you have the region of Western Ukraine, you have the region of Eastern Ukraine, and you have the special case of Crimea.
So will Georgia and Ukraine join NATO soon? I don’t think so. I really don’t think so.
As to the question of what we call missile defense, this was a policy that was developed by the previous administration to protect Western Europe, for the most part, against possible missiles from Iran. Because there is serious concern that Iran is building nuclear weapons and we know that they have the missile capability to deliver them. So the two countries that we negotiated with were the Czech Republic, actually for radars, not for the missile sites, and Poland for the anti-missile sites themselves.
Now the easiest way for this to disappear would be for Iran to say “we are not developing nuclear weapons, and we open our facilities to United Nations inspection and international safeguards.” Because of course Iran has the right to nuclear energy for its people. But it’s a question of how much uranium they are enriching. Are they enriching uranium for nuclear electricity or for nuclear weapons? They refuse to allow true inspection by the United Nations on this question.
In our new administration again, and it really is a new age, it is clear we are going to start for the first time in 30 years talking seriously with Iran. Some of this may not be visible at the beginning, because sometimes very quiet diplomacy is more useful in early stages than for everything to appear in the newspapers. So let’s hope that our new relationship with Iran as it develops will help to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
Also, Russia can play a positive role in working to negotiate with Iran. There’s no question about that.
President Obama and our Secretary of Defense have said if the threat is reduced, then of course we can look at the previous policy. So it’s an open door, an open question right now.
Question: Mr. Ambassador, I would like to know your opinion about joining [inaudible].
Ambassador Hoagland: For which organization?
Question: World Trade Organization.
Ambassador Hoagland: This is something that your government and my government are working on seriously. I have discussed this with Prime Minister Masimov. I have discussed this in detail with your world trade representative negotiator, Zhanar Aitzhanova.
We strongly support Kazakhstan joining the World Trade Organization, and we believe that there would be long term benefits for Kazakhstan to be a member of the World Trade Organization. We want these negotiations to increase, and we want them to be successful this year.
There is a potential problem, a potential roadblock. You know also that Kazakhstan is working very intensely, and is close to finishing, the documents for a new customs union of Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan. If that’s the final decision, that’s going to slow Kazakhstan’s entry into the World Trade Organization dramatically because any country that joins the World Trade Organization must harmonize its trade and economic laws with the other countries. In this case they would have to enter, we think probably, as a customs union. That means then Russia would have the right to say when or if Kazakhstan could enter WTO. So this is another one of our interesting issues we’re working on.
Question: I would like to ask about [inaudible]. What was accepted [inaudible]? Who do you suppose [inaudible]?
Ambassador Hoagland: This is USA and --
Question: Iran.
Ambassador Hoagland: As is true in foreign relations all over the world, it’s usually governments who have problems with other governments, it’s not people who have trouble with other people. The United States openly, warmly recognizes the great history of Iran, and of the Persian Empire. Iran is an educated population. It has a very talented population. And it’s fair to say that it’s in some ways quite a democratic country in its practices.
Our problem with Iran, the United States government’s problem with Iran has been two things. More recently, it has been Iran’s apparent goal of developing nuclear weapons. Now why would that be dangerous? It’s not even that it’s a threat against other countries at this time, but if Iran develops nuclear weapons then it’s going to lead to proliferation, because Saudi Arabia will say they must have nuclear weapons to protect themselves against Iran. Other countries will say they must have nuclear weapons to protect themselves. So it would mean a spread of nuclear weapons that way.
The other thing we have a real problem with the government in Iran about is their support of what we believe are terrorist organizations, especially in the Middle East.
Question: I want to ask you two questions. [Inaudible] relations between [inaudible]. And second question, [inaudible] human rights in China, but [inaudible].
Ambassador Hoagland: Human rights in China and in especially where?
Question: [Inaudible].
Ambassador Hoagland: Western province.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is relatively new but it’s already beginning to mature, to grow, into a rather useful regional organization because it brings together China and Russia as well as Central Asia. It has strong observer participation from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Mongolia and India. So it’s emerging as a useful diplomatic organization, regional organization.
In fact on March 27, next month, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is going to host a high level conference in Moscow about Afghanistan. And the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has invited—this is interesting I think—the European Union, NATO and the United States to participate in this conference as observers. And I am quite certain that the United States will send a delegation.
This is the first time we will be permitted to participate as observers at that level. So I think SCO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, is a useful multilateral organization, and I think it will probably become more important in the future.
As for human rights in the western part of China and in western province, I must start by saying I don’t have enough information about specific cases to be able to say if the human rights situation in that province is different from any other place in China.
In principle, U.S. policy for human rights in China suggests that there should be more open freedom of the press, freedom of the mass media; that there should be more civil society space for people to express different opinions in public. But you know, democracy is a process. It’s not something that happens in a short period of time. And if you look back to the end of the cultural revolution in China, and then the end of the period of Mao Tse Tung, there have been dramatic changes in China.
Is China a totally open political society like the countries of Western Europe? No, not yet. But there’s more freedom now in China, certainly, than there was 20 years ago. I think it’s the responsibility of democratic countries to continue the conversation with the Chinese leadership to help them understand that more openness does not necessarily mean revolution and chaos. In the long term it means more stability.
Question: Mr. Ambassador, welcome to [inaudible]. I have two questions. What do you think about process of communication [inaudible] in [inaudible]? The second, what do you think about relationships and [inaudible] between USA and [inaudible]?
Ambassador Hoagland: Good. Another topic, huh? [Laughter].
Let me start by admitting that the United States has not been very good on the Kyoto Protocol in recent years. We’ve been not very good on some of these issues. That too is changing. In fact President Obama has appointed a Special Envoy for Climate Change and other scientific issues. So you’re going to see some dramatic changes in our policy on environment and on global warming.
I think that Kazakhstan is rather impressive because it really is taking seriously developing alternative sources of energy like solar energy. It really is taking seriously, for the most part, environmental protection. Also, what is equally impressive is that there are citizens who have formed groups, environmental protection groups, who are in discussion with their government representatives at the local level, at the oblast [regional] level and nationally to preserve and protect the environment. I think that’s quite positive.
You asked what I think of the Ministry of Environmental Protection here. I have not had the pleasure of meeting the minister personally myself yet, but I do know that for example we have an American delegation that is meeting today at the ministry to discuss common interests.
I think Kazakhstan’s environmental policies are pretty good.
Question: [Inaudible] the first visit of President Obama. As I know, the first visit of [inaudible] was [inaudible]. What [inaudible]?
Ambassador Hoagland: His first visit to a foreign country you mean?
Question: [Inaudible].
Ambassador Hoagland: President Obama has already made his first foreign visit which is traditional. The first foreign visit by a new American President is to Canada. So he has had a one-day visit to Canada. A short visit.
We do know, for example, that he will go to London in April for the G8 meetings. He will also -- I know he’s going to one other capitol. He’s going to Europe in April. The precise other countries, I don’t know.
He will certainly be traveling to other parts of the world. I hope he comes here. I’ve already recommended that he should come here. So let’s see.
And also, some of your most senior officials have told me to please invite President Obama to come here. I think it’s a positive sign. One of the very first foreign leaders that President Obama telephoned after his election in November was President Nazarbayev.
Question: I’d like to continue a previous question and ask about what about official visits of new administration of USA there may be to Kazakhstan.
Ambassador Hoagland: For example Secretary of State, you mean? I am absolutely certain that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Kazakhstan sooner or later. Exactly when, I don’t know. You know she was here once before when she was First Lady, with President Bill Clinton. In fact I’ll tell you an inside story. Last week I had an excellent meeting with your Minister of Justice and she had sent to Mrs. Clinton a letter congratulating her on her new appointment, and Mrs. Clinton sent back a letter. So I told Minister Balyeva, “I hope I have the opportunity soon to introduce you face to face.” And Minister Balyeva said “Oh, but we’ve already met. I know her.”
I’m sure we’re going to have -- Look, Central Asia is an important region and with our new foreign policy being developed right now, the priorities are being established. I am certain we will have cabinet-level visits; I am certain very senior Kazakhstani officials will be invited to Washington. I certainly hope that President Obama will be here soon. Now by soon, I do not mean in two months. But soon. [Laughter].
Question: I would like to ask you about the U.S. [inaudible] conflict in Israel. My first question. The next question, what changed after the start of presidency of Sarkozy, what changed between the United States of America and France?
Ambassador Hoagland: Good foreign policy questions. [Laughter].
On Israel: the Israel question is a very difficult question. The American policy is to support a two-state solution, that Israel should share the land and the Palestinians should share the land that was Greater Palestine originally, or going back 3,000 years, part of what was called the biblical lands where the people have always lived.
In the late 1990s, Israel and the Palestinians, with the help of some of the European countries and the United States, came very close to a final agreement on how to do this. However, at that time the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the last minute decided he could not make that agreement. So things stopped for a while. Then the first Intifada came. Then some of the hardliners, some of the more conservative Zionist forces in Israel began to expand their settlements into Palestinian territory. So it’s just a really hard question right now, and it’s complicated by the fact that you have external players -- Iran supporting Hamas; Syria supporting various factions. We’re taking this one seriously too, again. Now the difference is, instead of waiting until the final year of a presidential administration, we’re starting from the very beginning.
Because the issue of Israel and Palestine is fundamental for questions of peace in the region, and it’s fundamental for questions of terrorism. If there can be a fair and just settlement that can last historically between Palestine and Israel, then many of the other questions will be easier to solve too.
On Sarkozy, and what changed: Sarkozy’s political opponents in France call him “President Sarkozy of the United States.” After World War II, under several presidents of France, it seemed that there was a bit of—we were always friends, always allies—but there was always a little bit of difficult relations, scratchiness, whatever. Sarkozy has a very different view of Europe, first. No, a different view of France, first. And a different view of Europe. And a different view of the United States. He has worked hard to build a new kind of relationship with the United States, both with President Bush and now with President Obama.
I have lived in France before. It’s a wonderful country. Some of the happiest years of my life, two years, actually, were living in France. So these are just political issues.
The France/United States question is not at all like Israel/Palestine one. [Laughter].
Question: Mr. Ambassador, I’d like to ask about United States foreign policy concerning combining [inaudible]. And particularly Afghanistan. What do the Americans expect from the military campaign [inaudible] and what does the word victory in Afghanistan really mean?
Ambassador Hoagland: Victory in Afghanistan means peace and security and prosperity for the people of Afghanistan. It does not mean military victory for the United States. And what is the military role in Afghanistan at this time?
Because of various reasons, in part because the United States has not paid proper attention to this very important issue in recent years, the Taliban who were always allied since the 1990s with al-Qaeda, international terrorists, have returned again to many, many places in Afghanistan. They have returned in part because the institutions of Afghanistan are weak and because the regional officials are extremely corrupt and do not provide proper security and prosperity for the citizens that they are responsible for.
We do not believe there is the possibility of a military victory in Afghanistan, but we do probably need to use military forces for a period of time to push back the Taliban.
At the same time it is going to be extremely important for economic development, institution development, everything that it takes to make a stronger nation. That all has to come back to Afghanistan. How will the military element be involved? I wish I could bring to your class the commander, the American military commander of the U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus. He was here, you know, back in January, and I was in all of his meetings with President Nazarbayev and Minister Akhmetov and Minister Tazhin and others like that at the security council, for example Presidential aide Suleymenov. And General Petraeus, who also helped to bring in the degree of stability that exists in Iraq right now, he went through in great detail how to build stability. You don’t do it by bombing every day.
You do it by building relationships. You do it by supporting local officials. Soldiers cannot live behind brick walls with razor wire on the top. They have to go out into the villages, not as soldiers, but as people working to build political alliances.
General Petraeus’ strategy for pacifying and then developing regions within a country is impressive and strong, and it works. So I hope that’s what’s going to happen in the next six months, twelve months or so.
Moderator: We have to stop now. Thank you very much for this dialogue.
Ambassador Hoagland: Good questions.