Transcripts
Ambassador to Kazakhstan Richard E. Hoagland: Interview with Liter Newspaper
October 30, 2008
Astana, Kazakhstan
Question: In your swearing-in speech, you mentioned that Kazakhstan was often the destination for internal exiles and that exiles like Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Leon Trotsky, and Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn ended up liking the place. On September 10 at the State Department, you said, “They each fell in love with the land and people of Kazakhstan, as I am sure I will, too.” Does it mean you consider your appointment to Kazakhstan as an exile?
Ambassador Hoagland: Well, I am certain that I will love my time here in Kazakhstan. There’s no question about that. But I notice you asked the question here, do I think that my appointment to Kazakhstan is also an exile? And I hope you asked that question as a joke, because on the contrary, this is a great honor for me. This is the highest diplomatic assignment I have had in my career.
Question: What are your first impressions of Kazakhstan? Of course I understand that it has been a short time, but still, what are the most striking things that you have noticed during your short stay in Kazakhstan?
Ambassador Hoagland: I have lots of experience in Central Asia. I have lived in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. Maybe some of your readers watch CNN Television. Right now Kazakhstan has a tourism advertisement on CNN, and the opening line of that advertisement for tourists to visit Kazakhstan says, “Kazakhstan, a European country in the heart of Asia.” I think that’s a good description.
Question: Let’s go to a more serious question, question number three. What are the similarities and differences between post-Soviet countries, particularly with your experience in working with some post-Soviet countries?
Ambassador Hoagland: Every country has its own national character. That’s natural. In this region, however, there are some similarities because of history, culture, Russian language, for example. But I want to stress that each country is rather different. So it’s my opportunity to learn what really is Kazakhstan right now.
Question: Your appointment has come coincidently at a moment of chill in Russian-Kazakhstani relations, which had begun even before the Caucasus crisis. Since Russia and Kazakhstan are strategic partners, we wonder if the rotation of U.S. Ambassadors to Kazakhstan means changes in U.S.-Kazakhstani cooperation?
Ambassador Hoagland: My appointment as U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan is unrelated to international events and it’s unrelated to any other country. It’s standard practice in our diplomatic service to change ambassadors every three or four years. So I don’t predict any changes in the relationship except that my goal is to continue to improve the relationship between our two countries.
Question: How does the embassy assess efforts taken by Russia to strengthen its influence on its neighboring countries, in particular former Soviet Union countries? And will the United States embassy take any effort to balance those efforts? What is your opinion about so-called color revolutions?
Ambassador Hoagland: First of all, we firmly believe as the United States government that every country has the right to choose its own partners. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during her press conference in Astana on October 5, we do not compete for the affections of any other country. At the same time, we do not accept some countries’ views that they have a privileged sphere of influence, for example, in Central Asia.
So-called color revolutions were simply the result of manipulated and falsified election results. They certainly were not organized by some kind of United States black magic.
Now for your next question.
I really predict no major changes from my predecessor, Ambassador John Ordway, who did excellent work as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan. My promise is that I will work hard every day to understand Kazakhstan and its government and its people so that I can help build a stronger relationship of mutual trust and respect between our two countries.
Question: What do you mean by saying “understand Kazakhstan?” From which angle: politics, economics, or people?
Ambassador Hoagland: Every aspect of Kazakhstan. Complex. It’s important for me to travel through the country, it’s important for me to meet many different representatives of the country, many different layers of society. So that takes time.
Question: And when are you going to start your travel inside Kazakhstan?
Ambassador Hoagland: I have already traveled to Almaty three times, I think. The second week of November I will be in Atyrau. Later in November I have another trip planned elsewhere in Kazakhstan. So I will travel as often as I can to different parts of the country.
Question: And while you are traveling in Kazakhstan, with whom you are meeting, talking, and what about?
Ambassador Hoagland: It depends. It depends on the reasons for traveling. Sometimes I will meet with American investors. I will always try to meet regional and local officials of Kazakhstan. I very much like to meet university students. I like to meet representatives of civil society. So, many possibilities.
Question: Any personal trips? Not as an official ambassador?
Ambassador Hoagland: You know what? An ambassador is working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So if I want to make a personal trip people will find out, and automatically I become not private citizen Richard Hoagland, I become Mr. Ambassador. So, private trips are difficult. I would love to do it, but it’s very difficult.
Question: Do you have a personal opinion about the conflict in South Ossetia? Do you agree with President Nazarbayev that Georgia was wrong not to inform anybody about its military operations conducted in areas where civilians live?
Ambassador Hoagland: In principle, I want to say only that my government believes that President Nazarbayev and his government have taken a responsible response to the events in Georgia in August. Some people argue there is no difference between Ossetia and Kosovo, for example, but there is a big difference. And that difference is that for places like Kosovo, the United Nations was involved in advance. In the example of Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia invaded a sovereign country without the involvement of the United Nations.
Question: At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit, a number of Kazakhstani officials, top officials of Kazakhstan, criticized actions taken by the West or Western countries. What’s your attitude?
Ambassador Hoagland: In every organization, international organization, for example, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, individuals and representatives of countries are free to speak their opinions. For example, if you go to the United Nations you’ll hear many different opinions. I do not believe that the United States should be free of any criticism, but we should listen to what people have to say. Sometimes maybe we will agree. Sometimes maybe we will not agree. But people have the right to speak their opinions.
Question: Will countries like South Ossetia and Abkhazia ever be recognized as sovereign countries by Western European countries and the United States?
Ambassador Hoagland: In my view, that is extremely unlikely. I would also add that to this point, only one country in the entire world has officially recognized these territories as independent, and that is Nicaragua.
Question: What do you see is the way out for, for example, Russia of this difficult critical situation of this crisis? What is the way out, where it can get out of this crisis, saving face, or doing it with dignity? Don’t you think that for majority of countries in this region, stability is more important than the desire of Tbilisi to take control of territories which never wanted to be a part of Georgia?
Ambassador Hoagland: I think as the United States Ambassador to Kazakhstan, it’s not proper for me to give advice to the Kremlin because that’s not my sphere of responsibility.
Question: Do you think that these events in Abkhazia and Georgia are in some way a reaction response to the events in Kosovo?
Ambassador Hoagland: No. I think that’s a pretext. An excuse. Because, as I said earlier, even though Kosovo was a very difficult situation, it was a continuation of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. So historically, and I emphasize historically, there are other states that came from the former Yugoslavia. And as I said, from the beginning the United Nations was involved in the establishment of Kosovo and the other new states that came from former Yugoslavia.
Question: During his final years in Kazakhstan, Ambassador Ordway, your predecessor, made fewer criticisms of Kazakhstan’s changes in democratization of the country. How can you explain that? Can it be explained by the fact that Kazakhstan did better in building democratic society in Kazakhstan, and that the well being of Kazakhstan was improving? Or has Washington’s foreign policy with regard to the U.S. partners in Central Asia been changed?
Ambassador Hoagland: Building a democratic society, establishing democratic government, is a very long-term process. Very long term.
If you look back two decades, to where Kazakhstan was in 1988 and where it is today in 2008, there’s a very big difference. If I ever make criticisms of this process in public, I always want them to be constructive criticisms. Positive criticism, not negative criticism. And in my view, I think it’s possible to achieve more by having quiet diplomatic discussions with different parts of the government, different parts of society, than to make public statements on television or in the newspapers.
Question: Based on your travels around Kazakhstan and your meetings with people, with various people, representatives of Kazakhstan society, will you analyze the process of democratic changes in the country? How the country changes or the government changes the country, and how people see those changes, and how local government officials implement those ideals of democratic advancement?
Ambassador Hoagland: Of course I will make those kinds of analyses. But what’s most important in the first place is for me to listen carefully and to think honestly about what I see. I have to understand the objective facts before I can make any kind of analysis.
Question: How will you reach that objective vision of the facts? What is the true way of real understanding whether something you hear is true or not?
Ambassador Hoagland: I think analyses are always subjective. But they should be based on objective facts. So how do I acquire objective facts? I listen to people. I organize roundtable discussions with different levels of society. I read history. I talk with many different people. But that takes time. So please don’t expect a complete, full analysis tomorrow.
Question: Do you intend to meet the Kazakhstani opposition? Whom, of the leaders of Kazakhstan’s opposition political parties and movements, do you know? If it is not a secret, which of them impresses you most?
Ambassador Hoagland: You know part of any ambassador’s job anywhere in the world is to meet with not just the government officials but with representatives who are not in government, sometimes called the opposition. That’s a responsibility, so that we understand the full, entire context of a country and its political situation. If I didn’t meet with so-called opposition, I wouldn’t be doing my job. Let me give you an example.
Your former Foreign Minister who is now an excellent Ambassador to Washington, Ambassador Idrissov, during our current election traveled to Denver and to Minneapolis to attend the Republican Convention and the Democratic Convention. So right now, President Bush represents the Republican Party, but your Ambassador also went to the opposition convention. Why? Because he’s a good ambassador and he was doing his job.
During my present time in Kazakhstan, I have not yet had the opportunity to meet some of these other leaders. I plan to. As I said, that’s important. But I assure you, I promise, I will not say that I like one better than the other, or I prefer this one and not that one. I think that would be a very unprofessional thing for an Ambassador to do.
Question: Official U.S. representatives have been confronted almost in every continent with anti-Americanism. In your opinion, what is it linked with? Have you encountered negative attitudes as a U.S. diplomat in Dushanbe and Ashgabat?
Ambassador Hoagland: You know, I have to say that honestly in my experience working in the different countries of Central Asia, I have never directly encountered anti-Americanism. I think part of that is because of the great tradition of hospitality to strangers in this part of the world.
Of course I have had discussions with government officials and with private citizens where we have not agreed, but I would not consider that anti-Americanism.
Question: Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is considered an expert on the former Soviet Union, often criticizes Bush Administration foreign policy. Do you agree with his assertions?
Ambassador Hoagland: Because I am a professional diplomat, I read the books of other diplomats. I have read the books by Brzezinski, by Kissinger, by Albright, and by many others. I don’t think any one who is truly an intellectual will take a book and say this is fully my view. I think the best thing is to take views from many different people and then build your own view based on that.
Question: So you do not agree with criticism that we have lately been hearing about Bush Administration policy?
Ambassador Hoagland: As an educated individual I certainly can have my own views, but as a professional diplomat it’s my responsibility to support the policies of the President’s administration. No matter what administration I’m working for.
If I ever strongly, strongly disagree with a policy of my government, I have one responsibility if I’m going to be intellectually honest. I resign my position and become a private citizen.
Question: Presidential Elections were recently held in the United States. What are your political views? We certainly understand that you may not answer this question, but were wondering for whom you voted, and does the outcome affect your career?
Ambassador Hoagland: In our diplomatic service, all diplomats at all levels, from the Ambassador to the most junior new diplomat, are required to be non-partisan. Of course we have our own political views, but professionally we do not make public statements in favor of one candidate or another candidate. What we do is talk about the process of elections.
So as a private citizen, do I have a view? Yes. Will I vote for a candidate? Yes. Will I tell you whom I vote for? No. And because we are a professional diplomatic service, professional diplomats are not affected by elections, no matter what party wins. For example, me. I have worked for President Reagan, President Bush Sr., President Clinton, and President Bush Jr. So I have worked for four different presidents of both parties and my career continues.
Question: In you opinion, how will relations between Russia and the United States unfold under an Obama Administration and under a McCain Administration?
Ambassador Hoagland: One of the most interesting things about American foreign policy is that it does not change dramatically when a new president is elected. So I cannot predict what the next president’s policies will be for Russia or for China or for India or for any other country. Everything is based on past experience in the relationships and our constant desire to improve relationships.
Question: Did you follow the reports of the so-called “Rakhatgate” trial and what do you think about prosecution and conviction in absentia? Do you think Austria can extradite our citizens who wanted in Kazakhstan?
Ambassador Hoagland: The only thing I want to say about that is so-called Rakhatgate is an internal issue for Kazakhstan and it is inappropriate for foreign diplomats to comment in public on internal affairs of another country.
Question: We’ve covered all the official questions. Now I want to ask you about your family, whether they will move here or will they be visiting with you? And what do they do? What are they engaged in?
Ambassador Hoagland: I certainly hope some of my family will visit here. For example, I have twin nephews, my bother’s sons, who are like sons to me. They are now 14 years old. I have already invited them to come visit their uncle.
Question: Have you served in the military. If so, have you ever participated in military conflicts?
Ambassador Hoagland: I never served in the military, no. At the time when I would have been eligible for military service it was during the Vietnam War, and we had a process in our government at that time that gave exemptions to students who were in university. Because I was in university, I did not serve in the American military. But I do have great respect for our military and I enjoy as an Ambassador working with them very very closely.
Question: Thank you very much.
Ambassador Hoagland: Sure. And thank you for your interesting questions.
