Transcripts
Ambassador Richard Hoagland
Weekly Analytical Program “Portrait of the Week” Author/Anchorman Arthur Platonov
Interview
March 8, 2009
Astana, Kazakhstan
Question: What are the prospects of economic and cultural development of the U.S.-Kazakhstani relationship? What is going to change with new President in the office?
Ambassador Hoagland: You know, American foreign policy is in general remarkably consistent, so during the administrations of President Clinton and President Bush, during the independence of Kazakhstan, our policy has not changed radically from one administration to another administration. Sometimes there are what we call fine tunings-- we make adjustments, where the emphasis might be different-- but in general we have a very stable foreign policy.
Now I am absolutely certain that our relations between Kazakhstan and the United States are going to continue to grow in a very positive direction. For example, American companies are involved here. There is major investment in the oil and gas, hydrocarbon area. Those investments will continue. We have, for example, good cultural relations, people-to-people relations. There are several thousand Kazakhstani students studying in the United States right now. Some are on U.S. government exchange programs, some are on the Bolashak program that your president has established, and some are simply private students with their own financial resources. But if you think of several thousand students from one country, I think that’s a very positive sign.
I want to mention one more very promising program. It’s called the Public/Private Economic Partnership Initiative. This is between the government of the United States and the government of Kazakhstan, as well as our private sector business people. We will be meeting together for at least a year to work on new policy initiatives, ways to improve the investment climate, and that in the end will draw more foreign investment.
So we have many areas where things are going very well right now.
Question: Kazakhstan in 2010 will chair the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. How can you assess the achievements of Kazakhstan that made such a chairmanship possible? How can you as ambassador of one of the most advanced democratic countries assess those achievements?
Ambassador Hoagland: The Chairmanship of the OSCE is chosen by the consensus of all of its members, so during the Madrid Ministerial in November 2007 Kazakhstan put forward its own candidacy to lead the OSCE. This was very significant because Kazakhstan will be the first former member of the Soviet Union to lead the OSCE. This is a big step forward for Kazakhstan. This is a big step forward for the OSCE.
We were very pleased that, during the discussions leading up to a decision for chairmanship, Kazakhstan stated very clearly that it would continue to uphold the human dimension aspects of the OSCE. That’s an important commitment.
In preparation for its chairmanship, Kazakhstan has worked hard to amend three very fundamental laws -- the political party law, the election law, and the media law. President Nazarbayev very recently signed these amendments into law. We recognize these amendments as a certain step forward in what we know is a very long process.
So we say that we are pleased with the progress to date, and we look to work with the government of Kazakhstan to take further steps. For example, what kind of steps? Let’s say for the media law: to come closer to international standards, it would be useful to decriminalize libel. That would be one good step. Another step that might be considered for the election law is the creation of independent election committees. So those would be possibilities for next steps.
During Kazakhstan’s chairmanship in 2010 and in the period before, we have said both in public and in private that we do look forward to working closely with Kazakhstan. What does that mean? That doesn’t mean give orders, it means consult as partners. So we’re looking forward to a strong, positive, productive consultation.
Question: Could Kazakhstan’s experiences of voluntary nuclear disarmament and of multiethnic and multiconfessional accord be a model for the other states, and can this experience be useful for OSCE and beyond?
Ambassador Hoagland: Kazakhstan has long had a reputation, almost from the beginning of its independence, for an unusual degree of peace and harmony among the different nationalities in the country and among the different religious faiths in the country. Can this be an example for another country or for other countries in general? Certainly. However, every country has to develop its own standards based on its culture, history and tradition.
Question: The decision to shut down Manas Air Base – what was the motivation of that, do you think? Does this decision mean the role of Russia in the region has been strengthened?
Ambassador Hoagland: First of all, I can’t speculate on the motivations of the government of Kyrgyzstan to make this decision. It was their decision and you'd have to ask them for the details.
But there’s another important part to your question. Does this mean that Russia has a stronger position in Central Asia? When I hear that question, I think what that does is make the countries in the region second class citizens, because what it’s doing is saying that big countries have the right to make decisions for their neighbors. We don’t accept that position.
It’s really important to develop peace and security in Afghanistan to prevent the spread of terrorism, to prevent the spread of extremism, to prevent the spread of narcotics. Now that’s in everyone’s interest, including Russia’s interest. So it seems as if we need to find new ways to work together with Russia and with the other countries in the region in respectful, equal partnerships. But we don’t like the idea of zero-sum thinking, that one wins, the other loses. No. Let’s work together as partners.
Question: There was a very serious point in your last answer. This model “older brother – younger brother” - isn’t it a model of behavior that the United States is often accused of? Accused of pushing other states or taking decisions for them?
Ambassador Hoagland: There have always been times in our history when we have gotten a little bit too far in one direction or a little bit too far in the other direction. I am absolutely convinced that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are bringing us back to the very good center. I can say that with confidence because Secretary Clinton has already said that in public several times. I think that’s very positive.
Let me be a little more frank. There have been certain times in our recent history where we have turned our ideals, our ideals as an American nation, as an American people, into a rather rigid ideology, and sometimes we have said to one country or another, you should be like this. I think what we’re going to return to is ideals, not ideology. We will always support our strong ideals, but we now want to do it once again in a very respectful partnership way.
Question: The United States and other big influential countries are often blamed for using double standards. Do you think the United States uses double standards in its foreign policy?
Ambassador Hoagland: Well, I think this concept of double standards, honestly, is sometimes over-emphasized. I think it’s sometimes over-emphasized by countries that have become rather irritated with us. In some cases when countries say the United States has double standards, I think what they really mean is we don’t agree with your standards, we think ours are better. Countries can disagree with each other. That’s natural. Just like in human relationships, you can disagree with a friend. But the important thing is to do it with respect. To be honest, open, express your opinions, and respect each other’s opinions.
Question: Mr. Ambassador, how do you think the placement of anti-ballistic missiles in Europe will result in strengthening of security in the world or in that region? Or will it bring a further escalation of tension in the region?
Ambassador Hoagland: First of all, there is no final decision to place those anti-missile defenses in the Czech Republic or elsewhere in Central Europe. The concept behind this plan was to protect our allies in Europe from the possibility of missiles from Iran, including nuclear missiles. If Iran gives up its nuclear weapons ideals, its nuclear weapons search, then the system would not be as necessary.
For several years we have been talking quietly with Russia on how to cooperate in missile defense, and there have been ideas from both sides. From Moscow and from Washington. But neither side was able to say okay, we agree, we can do it together like this.
I think it’s quite clear that the nuclear weapons threat from Iran could potentially threaten not just Europe but also Russia. I think it’s equally clear that Russia would not be especially happy to see Tehran develop nuclear weapons. So we are discussing on a constant basis with Moscow, how can we work together diplomatically to have a good, frank conversation with Tehran to ensure that they give up their nuclear weapons ambitions?
So to conclude, let’s say it’s possible that multilateral diplomacy that includes Russia and the United States and other partners could help Tehran agree absolutely not to have nuclear weapons. Then the missile defense program wouldn’t be as necessary.
Question: I would like to hear your opinion on whether the threat from Iran is exaggerated. If we go back to a time when American troops invaded Iraq under the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction, then American intelligence reported that weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq. So is it possible that the threat of Iran is as artificial as it was in the case of Iraq, and it is just a way for American troops to get closer to the borders of [serious] countries?
Ambassador Hoagland: I think the Defense Department of the United States has no special desire to put its troops closer to the borders of the former Soviet Union. Let’s look specifically at the case of Iran.
Iran absolutely has the right to peaceful nuclear energy. But peaceful nuclear energy should be absolutely open to international safeguards including by the United Nations, and especially by the United Nations.
The problem right now is that so far Tehran is not willing to put its entire nuclear program under international safeguards and to open it to international inspection, as other countries have done. So if diplomacy can help the government of Iran accept these kinds of inspections and safeguards, then the threat begins to wane, it begins to get smaller, but it’s not a question in any sense of the United States wanting to put its troops closer to Russia. Not at all.
Question: The world crisis is on, and it impacted the United States economy as hard as it did economies of other countries. Will it have an impact on projects between the United States and Kazakhstan? On some joint ventures, or the creation of new jobs?
Ambassador Hoagland: Our largest investments, of course, are by our international oil companies. I have talked to representatives of these companies and they have said that because of the profits of recent years they are financially stable and they expect to continue with the kinds of projects they have now without cutting or closing any project.
It’s possible that new investment for new places, new sectors, that might be slowed, possibly, by the financial crisis. However, the Chief Executive Officers of major corporations from the United States continue to come to Kazakhstan to look for new possibilities.
For example, in a few days I will meet with the Chief Executive Officer of General Electric, a major corporation that has already invested here. They’re looking for new opportunities.
Thank you very much.
