Transcripts
Transcript of January 31, 2006 Interview Ambassador Ordway and "Vremya" Corresponent Viktor Vyerk
1. You can't say the situation in the world is exactly calm right now, as the controversy surrounding Iran's nuclear program gets more tense. The U.S. position is well known and runs counter to the positions of Russia and China. Can this lead to a new global confrontation in the world?
I strongly disagree with the idea that there is some fundamental difference between the United States and Russia and China. All the responsible countries on the international scene agree that Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons. They also agree there is a great risk of that happening.
There are a number of worrisome facts the IAEA has investigated. There is a very obvious disinclination of Iran to engage constructively with the international community and the IAEA to resolve this issue. It is true that there have been some nuances of difference between the major players over exactly what course to take. In fact, those differences are smaller now than earlier. There appears to be an emerging consensus that the issue should be referred to the U.N. Security Council. We are very optimistic that we will get that consensus within the IAEA to refer the matter to the Security Council.
You asked about the consequences for the region. The first thing you have to realize is that Iran with nuclear weapons would be a very serious challenge, if not actually a threat, to the countries in its immediate vicinity. We feel very strongly from our contacts with our friends and partners in the region, that they share our concern about this and our strong determination to take the active steps that are needed to prevent the acquisition of a nuclear weapon by Iran.
One of the important elements is to confront Iran with unanimity within the international community. If you had looked at the differences in approach between the U.S. and E.U. over the past year or so, those nuances have narrowed to zero. And the differences in approach with Russia and China also seem to be narrowing.
2. The radical Hamas party won the parliamentary elections in the Palestinian Republic. Some people believe this will heighten the anti-American mood in the Middle East and possibly lead to an energy crisis in the United States and the West. How would the U.S. energy policy change in such a scenario?
We welcome very much the process of the elections. This is something essential for the Middle East and Arab world to turn toward democracy. In the long run, this is one of the key elements in providing stability and prosperity to all the people of the Middle East. We congratulate the Palestinian people for carrying out this election peacefully.
But democracy is more than just elections. When new parties or groups come to power, they have a certain responsibility. In the case of Fatah and Hamas, both have responsibility to their people and people in the region to choose a responsible course which will be to peace, stability and allow the further development of democracy and an economy that will benefit everyone.
There is an extremely strong sense within the international community and within the Quartet that this requires a commitment to peaceful resolutions and a recognition that only a two-state solution, with a legitimate Israel and a legitimate Palestinian state living side by side, is the only solution. This means that Hamas, which has a long-standing ideological position opposing the existence of Israel, cannot govern responsibly unless it changes that position.
3. Lately an article “Kazakhstan – New U.S. Passion in Central Asia” was published in an American paper, claiming that our country is your only strategic partner in Central Asia. Is this true?
It's not useful to compare one country to another. What we want is to have the best possible relationship with each of the five countries of Central Asia. Each has a different leader, economy and approach, and we don't have a single approach for all five countries.
Our relationships change over time in response to developments. We would like all those changes to be positive, but that's not always the case. Our relations with Uzbekistan have become more complicated in the last year.
At the same time, our traditionally very good and close relations with Kazakhstan have gotten even better. It certainly is true that at the moment we have an excellent relationship with Kazakhstan. Each of our presidents has defined this relationship as being a strategic partnership. We certainly hope and expect that our relationship with Kazakhstan will continue to develop along these lines and that this can serve to further economic integration in the region with respect to human rights, the expansion of democracy, and even the expansion of the region itself to encompass Afghanistan, which is a country with new possibilities to seize a peaceful and prosperous future.
This will require great engagement and assistance from other countries in the neighborhood. A secure Afghanistan is very much in the interest of Central Asia. We think this could be a growing element in our relationship with Kazakhstan as we both seek to strengthen Afghanistan and to encourage economic development.
4. Recently President Nazarbayev won an overwhelming victory in the presidential elections with 91.15% of the vote. How was this perceived in the United States?
We have said very clearly in our public and private dialogue with Kazakhstan that there needs to be much more progress in the development of democracy, in expanding and enhancing freedom of the media, and expanding the area for legitimate political expression and activity.
On the election itself, we have said publicly and privately, there were certain very positive steps in that electoral process, and at the same time there were some elements which demonstrated very clearly that much more work needs to be done for Kazakhstan to come up to the standards that Kazakhstan aspires to and has committed to in its international obligations.
I don't think there's any doubt that President Nazarbayev won a very impressive and overwhelming victory. That is something for which President Bush telephone and congratulate him, and is underscored by the very serious delegation that we sent to the inauguration.
But in each of those steps we also emphasize, not only the positive aspects and the very good perspectives for continuing our cooperation in the economic and security area, but the need to go quicker and faster in the area of democratic reform.
I have said several times that the vision Kazakhstan has, the vision that has been enunciated by President Nazarbayev is an excellent one, it's one that we can support. What has to happen is more implementation of that vision in a way that reflects all elements of Kazakhstani society as they grapple with issues of how to proceed further on the issues that have confronted and will continue to confront the democratization commission of the government.
5. We all know that prior to the elections, a Department of State representative said that the State Department would wait for OSCE's assessment of the presidential elections, then the OSCE said they didn’t meet democratic standards. How will this affect U.S.-Kazakhstani relations?
The OSCE Election Observation Mission was in the best position of any of the international observers to observe the election in a way that produces very reliable facts.
If you read the report carefully you will find very convincing details of both the positive and the negative elements of both the campaign and election day itself. With that particular set of facts one can reach different conclusions as to the balance between progress and problems.
The U.S. has taken a very balanced approach and has recognized both the positives and the negatives in that process. I wouldn't say that on the basic elements of what happened that there's any difference at all. We in fact don't have any basis, other than the OSCE report, to make our own conclusions.
6. Kazakhstan's opposition is openly disappointed with your country's lack of support. Does the United States not consider our opposition as a serious political force and as an alternative to those currently in power? What is your reaction to the release of Galymzhan Zhakiyanov?
It's not our role to be either an advocate or a referee in Kazakhstani elections. The role of the opposition is to argue their case and to pursue their campaign as best they can.
One of the tasks that we think is appropriate for us is to encourage an electoral process that offers every political candidate and party an equal opportunity to present their case to the public and will honestly and accurately report the results of the elections. But we can't support or oppose the opposition, anymore than we can oppose or support President Nazarbayev.
I think there is a fair amount of disappointment by the opposition, but they need to look at the situation in the country, the kind of campaign they waged, the issues they brought forth, and evaluate for themselves whether this is an effective or ineffective way to continue their political role in the country.
If you look at any economic market, competition leads to low prices and high quality. In the political sense you need that sense of competition in order to provide the strongest possible incentive and signals for those people in government to choose the right course. If they stray too far, they will find themselves out of government and the opposition will be in government, and the roles switch.
The role of the opposition over the next couple of years is to identify the issues on which they think they will get the greatest public response, that have the greatest resonance among the population, and then to find every opportunity they have to engage in a political process to achieve those goals.
The release of Mr. Zhakiyanov is a very positive thing for the political atmosphere in the country. Based on what he has said, today he is carefully figuring out what his role should be. That's only natural and a good thing for him to do.
The opposition did not have a very good campaign in the presidential period. One could argue whether it was the fault of their campaign or the inability to compete fairly. The arrival of a new person who had no relationship to that campaign gives the opposition an opportunity to take a fresh look and decide how they move ahead.
The one thing that we would encourage them to do, is actually engage in politics. Simply being opposed does not move either them or the country forward, they need to have some way of engaging in a political process to demonstrate how they will move forward. Any political process requires engagement. If you isolate yourself from the process, there will never be that competition that will lead to better results.
7. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington is ready to cooperate even with non-democratic regimes in the struggle against terrorism. Is the struggle against terrorism more important to the U.S. than support of democracy?
This is like who do you love better, your mother or your father. The important thing is that in the choice you presented that you pursue both of those aspects as vigorously and effectively as possible. The problem arises when you have a regime that is so anti-democratic, that is so disrespectful of fundamental of human rights that it takes away the basis for any cooperation whatsoever. There are very few countries in the world with which the United States is not prepared to engage in mutually beneficial cooperation to fight this common enemy of international terrorism.
But this does not mean that because we cooperate in terrorism that we will do anything less on democracy. It's possible and in many cases we have vigorously pursued anti-terrorism cooperation and at the same time had a very strong emphasis on improving human rights and democracy.
8. At present many Kazakhstani people are concerned about the prospect of a weakening dollar. Moreover, some U.S. experts predict a default as early as March. Can any steps be undertaken to make it stronger?
It's extremely dangerous for any American ambassador to talk about the exchange rate of the dollar, because we believe very strongly that the market is the best place to determine the relative value of currencies. One of the very important factors in the market's view is the underlying strength of the economy. The United States economy is strong and there are very positive signs for this year. Although there will be variations in the currency markets, the fundamental strength of the American economy will continue and will be a good and strong signal to the currency markets.
9. When will the U.S. Embassy move to Astana? What is your impression about the capital of Kazakhstan?
We plan to officially move the embassy in the beginning of September of this year. We will move some of our functions in advance of that date. We will retain a very strong presence here in Almaty even after the move of the embassy. We will have all consular services, visa services, and American citizen services; our commercial services will remain here. We will have very strong public diplomacy presence here which will engage with the media, cultural and educational institutions. Our USAID regional headquarters for Central Asia will stay here in Almaty.
Kazakhstan make a decision to move their capital to Astana, and we're a little slow, but we are going there. From my own point of view, although I will miss Almaty, I'm looking forward to the move to Astana. It will enable us to work more effectively with the Kazakhstani government, with our friends and partners in the capital. We will continue to support the strong relationship that we have.