Transcripts
Press Conference with Ambassador to Kazakhstan Richard E. Hoagland
November 6, 2008
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Ambassador Hoagland: Good morning. I’m so pleased to see so many journalist colleagues here in the room. Thank you for coming. This is my first official press conference in Kazakhstan as the new American Ambassador, and I’m very pleased to do it here with you.
I said that I am the new American Ambassador, but I am certainly not new to this region. I started working in Central Asia in 1993. Since that time I have worked in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan most recently.
This is not the first time that I’ve ever visited Kazakhstan, of course, but it’s the first time that I’m living here, and I’m honored and delighted to be here in this country representing my country.
I see my job very much as a two-way street. I represent my country to Kazakhstan, but I also have a responsibility to represent Kazakhstan to my country. In fact a big part of my job, I believe, is to help Washington, official Washington, understand what you would call the objective realities of Kazakhstan. If diplomacy is successful we will continue to build a stronger, more fruitful relationship of mutual trust and respect.
I don’t think you came to listen to me make a speech. I always enjoy a press conference more when I can hear you and answer your questions. So I think our colleague, Asel, is going to help moderate the press conference and call on the journalists. You see, if she chooses the journalists, that way you cannot accuse me of being unfair.
Question: [Inaudible]. I wonder how the election of Barack Obama will affect policy here in Central Asia. And secondly, about the objective reality, how would you compare Kazakhstan’s part in the economic crisis? How much can it actually be affected by the crisis.
Ambassador Hoagland: First let me say that I think November 4th, Tuesday, in the United States, our election day, was a historic day. It was an extremely important election for us and possibly for other countries.
Some people say that August 1914 was the end of the 19th Century in Europe. I think it’s quite possible that November 2008 is the end of the 20th Century for the United States. The reason I say all of this in preparation is because you asked about how the election of Barack Obama might change policy in Central Asia.
Let me say, you must know from history that elections in the United States, no matter which party wins, do not necessarily dramatically change our foreign policy. For the last two decades American foreign policy in Central Asia has not changed dramatically. Of course the details have changed from time to time, but it has always been that the United States first supports economic and political progress. And second and third, our interests of course include security and energy. Those three areas have not changed in two decades, whether the American President has been from the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.
You asked how Kazakhstan’s response to the global economic crisis is going. Kazakhstan is different from the other countries in Central Asia because its banking and financial sectors are rather more developed toward international standards than some of the other countries. Something most interesting, Kazakhstan’s credit crisis already hit a year ago before this kind of thing became a global crisis. Gross national product in Kazakhstan has slowed. The availability of credit for construction has slowed somewhat. But I have talked to officials from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, other international financial organizations, and they all say Kazakhstan has done a positive job of handling this kind of crisis. I’m not an economist, so I will trust what the international bankers tell me.
Question: We’ve been hearing that the sub-soil service contracts that were signed with various companies, primarily like U.S. companies operating in Kazakhstan in the ‘90s, were not fair and that they have to be revised. Since this is something we also see in other parts of the world, what do you think are the prospects of this situation in Kazakhstan?
Ambassador Hoagland: First of all let me say I understand that point of view because decisions that were made 10, 15 years ago may not be the decisions that leaders would make today necessarily.
Kazakhstan has attracted large, direct foreign investment in part because of the economic conditions in the country which include stability of contracts. The total investment from United States companies in Kazakhstan is $15 billion right now, and $11 billion of that is in the hydrocarbon sector. I know of many other companies that want to invest here. But if they hear from their colleagues that it’s not a safe place to invest, not because of security but because of rule of law and sanctity of contracts, then they would be less likely to invest.
But there’s good news here, too. The most senior officials in the government of Kazakhstan have assured foreign governments and foreign companies that contracts already signed will be respected. For those who want to negotiate new contracts for new projects, do you think Kazakhstan will be a little bit more strict? I suspect so. But that’s part of international business. Negotiations in international business are sometimes more difficult than diplomatic negotiations.
Question: Reuters News Agency. My question is about Kazakhstan’s OSCE commitments. Some of the human rights organizations and opposition leaders here have been very critical about Kazakhstan’s progress in that respect. Particularly, organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Freedom House have said there has been no progress by Kazakhstan with regard to some of the commitments that Kazakhstan promised to do by the end of this year. How would you respond to that?
Ambassador Hoagland: I think one of the great values of freedom of speech is that everyone has the right to express his or her own ideas, whether or not everyone agrees with those ideas. Those who are most affected by these three commitments in the area of mass media, political parties, and elections will certainly watch extremely closely and will want a maximum result.
From a diplomatic point of view, I believe very firmly that quiet diplomacy behind the scenes is more effective than public criticism. Let me assure you, since I arrived in Kazakhstan September 25, not one week has gone by that I have not discussed the OSCE commitments with ministers and higher level in the government. Every one of these officials has told me personally and has asked me to tell my government that they take these commitments with complete seriousness and by the end of the year three law amendments will be submitted to Parliament.
Will the amendments satisfy absolutely every critic? Will they meet maximum expectations? Probably not. But I believe, I personally believe that they will represent a significant step forward for Kazakhstan. If people disagree and are unhappy with the results, then please, let’s all work together to achieve better results.
Question: Associated Press. First of all, there’s one amendment actually going through parliament with respect to the OSCE commitment on the law on religion which has been described in an OSCE legal review submitted to the Kazakh parliament as failing on almost every count to meet international standards. So I’m wondering if this quiet diplomacy you're speaking about has been as effective as you might have hoped.
Secondly, with regard to the nature of the other legal amendments which you spoke about, the three amendments being considered before the end of the year, what their [prospects are]?
Ambassador Hoagland: If you’ll permit, I’d like to make a very small correction, please. When we talk about the three Madrid commitments, in fact amending the religion law is not one of those commitments. Of course the religion law is terribly important. That’s part of the larger, entire basket of human rights and democracy. So I’m not saying it’s not important.
You asked what are the three commitments, and it’s no secret that as has been published very broadly, the commitments are to revise the law on mass media; to revise the political party law; and to revise the election law to take them closer to international standards.
May I make one observation, please? I know this is true in European countries. It’s true certainly in my country. So let me give you only the American example.
When the President and his advisors and his ministers draft laws, when they propose new laws for Congress, they may include many, many ideal elements that they want to achieve all at one time. When those laws go to our Congress, they’re going to have to be reviewed by over 430 members of the lower house of Congress and 100 senators from the upper house. Those, let’s say 550 individuals, who will be considering the laws represent an entire spectrum of opinion, from most conservative to most progressive. And inevitably those draft laws get changed in different ways.
So the final result should always be what has been achieved that is new, and how do we get to the next level.
Question: The first question is about Rakhat Aliyev, the ex-Ambassador to Austria. They say that right now he’s enjoying the benefits of the witness defense or protection program run by the United States security service, and that right now he is in the United States. So can you confirm that this is a fact of truth?
The second question regarding the fourth Kazakhstani citizen that has been kept in Guantanamo for seven years already. Your predecessor said that he was a threat to the United States. So what is your comment on that?
Ambassador Hoagland: To answer the first question, I have absolutely zero information that Ambassador Rakhat Aliyev, former ambassador, is in a secret program in the United States. I have absolutely zero information that he’s in the witness protection program. If he were in the United States I might make some comments about his presence in the United States, but otherwise this is an internal affair for Kazakhstan and I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to say much more about that.
Your second question is a very good question. I’m trying to think how to answer it honestly and still respect the privacy of some of the individuals involved. What I can assure you one hundred percent is that there are no Kazakhstani citizens in Guantanamo today.
Question: There is one. Three of them have been released and one is still kept.
Ambassador Hoagland: May I go one step further and say that four have been released. So I repeat, there is not one Kazakhstani citizen, thank God, in Guantanamo today.
Question: I am from the Vremya newspaper. My question is, is Washington happy with the position of Kazakhstan, with Kazakhstan’s stance on the Russia-South Ossetia conflict? And is there a chance or at least is Washington looking into the option of Kazakhstan confirming or acknowledging the independence of South Ossetia?
Ambassador Hoagland: First of all let me say we think, this is our official opinion in Washington, that Kazakhstan has taken a principled stand on this conflict. The government of Kazakhstan has made its views known to Russia and some of those views were sympathetic to Russia. But I would also note that Kazakhstan, along with its colleagues in SHCOS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and in the Commonwealth Security Treaty Organization, have not recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
You see, our position has always been that Kazakhstan, like every other country, is independent and sovereign and has the right to choose its own friends and make its own policies and decisions. And in fact from the point of view of the United States, Kazakhstan has been a very helpful, very good strategic partner for security in the world.
Question: I just have a follow-up question on the [political rights] issue. President Nazarbayev this year said that he would like to create a more democratic parliament. He was obviously speaking after last year’s election that gave his own party all the seats in the lower house. I was just wondering through your private diplomacy, your private conversations with government officials and the President, have they hinted that a snap parliamentary election might happen at some point over the next year before Kazakhstan takes chairmanship of the OSCE?
Ambassador Hoagland: The very short answer is no. No, we have not heard any hints or secret plans about snap elections. In any case, you know this is a question for the government of Kazakhstan to answer. It’s not for me to answer.
Question: In your experience with countries in the region, would you say that recently we’ve seen an increased threat in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan. Are there any potentially threats associated with the worsening social and political situation? Now in the view of our Afghanistan-related experience, what could be the way to regulate finally, to resolve the situation in Afghanistan? And in your view how much longer will the troops remain in Afghanistan?
Ambassador Hoagland: The answer to the first question, I really do not at this time see any direct linkage between the current economic crisis and political stability in any other country in the region. And I can’t speculate further because it’s not good to look into a crystal ball and possibly make the wrong prediction.
Afghanistan. Along with the people of Afghanistan, I wish that there could be normal life and peace returned to that country for the first time since 1978. How much more time will it take? How long will foreign troops from several countries remain in Afghanistan? Again, my crystal ball does not give me the answer.
Question: Kazakh Radio. Why do you not [inaudible discuss our economic relations] political [inaudible relations]? Why do you not [inaudible things]? If so, what are they?
Ambassador Hoagland: I think our political relations between Washington and Astana are quite strong. As I said before, we cooperate in a positive way in a number of different fields of interest and we consider Kazakhstan an important strategic partner. Are there new possibilities for further economic ties? Well, remember the United States and those other countries that follow free market economy, those governments do not tell their private companies where to invest. We try to help, but we can’t order, we can’t tell them what they must do.
Kazakhstan, as I said before, has created reasonably good conditions for foreign direct investment. Now of course there’s always room for improvement, but there is more direct foreign investment here than in any other country in the region.
Western companies continue, new Western companies continue to invest in Kazakhstan and to enter this market. For example, the American -also international - pharmaceutical company Merck has just entered the Kazakhstani market for the first time in many years.
This afternoon, I will meet with an official of the international hospitality company Marriott who has plans for new projects in Kazakhstan. Marriott Hotels. The American Embassy has a commercial attaché here in Almaty to help American businesses enter the markets and invest in Kazakhstan. And I, as ambassador, take every opportunity possible to meet with American businessmen.
Question: Associated Press again. Returning to the point of Afghanistan, what are U.S. hopes about the kind of commitments that Kazakhstan might be able to make in the future in committing troops to Afghanistan? And are there also any negotiations underway to secure any kind of transit facilities for American troops through Kazakhstan?
Ambassador Hoagland: Kazakhstan is already playing a helpful role in Afghanistan. For example, in humanitarian reconstruction and development, Kazakhstan has pledged government money and is involved in building schools, hospitals, and roads.
Obviously the Ministry of Defense understands that stability in Afghanistan is important for security and stability in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan has already had the experience of sending a small number of specialized troops to Iraq for a period of five years.
If Kazakhstan decides it’s in their national interest to provide either specialists or troops to Afghanistan, they’ll make that decision.
Your second question, there are no negotiations at this time for American troops or military materiel to transit Kazakhstan. By materiel I mean lethal equipment.
Question: [Barack Obama] insists on bringing the oil price down, so how far will it come down?
Ambassador Hoagland: I am absolutely certain that President-elect Obama’s energy policy will not focus only on lowering the price of oil. Because no American President, no one individual anywhere in the world, can do that. It depends on many factors including supply and demand and of course international economic conditions.
When President-elect Obama says that he wants to see the price of gasoline lower, petrol lower in the United States, he’s thinking of many different options that need to be involved for the longer term. Part of that would be government encouragement for developing sources of renewable energy, like wind energy, solar energy. If there is a larger supply of renewable energy then there will be less demand for oil and oil prices will fall.
So President-elect Obama will not go out to his local petrol station and change the sign telling you the price overnight.
