News from the Washington File
U.S. Wants Engagement in Central Asia, Jones Says
(Assistant Secretary of State's briefing on recent trip) (8350)
The United States wants to engage over the long term with the
countries of Central Asia -- especially on economic reform, democratic
reform, and human rights -- but does not want American bases in the
region, Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones said February 11
during a briefing about her recent trip to Kazakhstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.
"We are not looking for, we don't want, U.S. bases in Central Asia. We
don't want a U.S. base anywhere," Jones said. But the United States
does want the governments in Central Asia to continue granting access
to bases there "for as long as we need them" to prosecute the war on
terrorism and deliver humanitarian supplies and reconstruction
materials to Afghanistan.
For example, at Manas Air Base at Bishkek, "there is an expansion
under way there so that they can handle the humanitarian supplies
going into Afghanistan, but most importantly so they can handle all
the reconstruction supplies going in, as well as the International
Security Assistance Force and all the supplies that they need."
Asked about Russia's role and reaction to the U.S. presence in Central
Asia, Jones said, "Our goal with the Russians is to make sure they
understand that we are not trying to compete with them in Central
Asia, we're not trying to take over Central Asia from them, but we
have common interests -- international common interests -- that we
will be transparent about as they play out in Central Asia."
The United States and Russia have been in "complete agreement on what
are our goals vis-a-vis Afghanistan, the importance of assuring that
the threats coming out of Afghanistan don't threaten Russia," she
said. The Russians "are right with us on working to ensure that border
guard programs are beefed up, that counter-narcotics work is beefed
up, and all that kind of thing to prevent the threat traffic."
Jones said that during her trip she raised with the leadership in each
Central Asian country the issues of economic reform, democracy, and
human rights. "We believe security includes not just the
military-to-military [cooperation] that we're doing now ... you cannot
have security in your country without reforms on democracy and human
rights and on the economy."
Stability also requires job creation stemming from reforms that will
reduce impediments to investment and "allow the citizens of your
country to make a living," Jones said. Similarly, there must be
respect for human rights, and expanding democratic processes in each
of these countries; otherwise, disaffected citizens can become easy
targets of recruitment for extremist organizations.
Asked what the consequences will be if a country does not meet certain
human rights benchmarks, Jones replied: "The consequence is that we
are in their office, in their face, all the time. It seems to me that
it makes no sense at all that a consequence of Uzbekistan not
cooperating on democracy and human rights is to cut our aid which goes
to democracy and human rights groups."
Assisting the assistant secretary in her briefing was Ambassador
William B. Taylor, Jr., the coordinator for U.S. assistance to the
Newly Independent States and chairman of the Assistance Working Group
of the interagency Europe-Eurasia Policy Coordinating Committee.
Following is a transcript of the briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
February 11, 2002
ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS
BETH JONES ON U.S. RELATIONS WITH CENTRAL ASIA
February 11, 2002
Washington, D.C.
(10:05 a.m. EST)
MR. REEKER: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the State Department.
As advertised, we are very pleased to have with us today our Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Ambassador Beth
Jones. She has recently been traveling in the region and will give you
some brief remarks about her travels, some observations, and then we
will open it up for all of your questions. So let me go directly to
Ambassador Beth Jones.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Thanks for joining us today. I spent not
quite two weeks in Central Asia. I went to all five of the Central
Asians. I was there January 24th to February 1st, and because of the
anomalies of air travel there, I also ended up spending several hours
in Baku so I was able to meet with President [of Azerbaijan Heydar]
Aliyev in addition to the five Central Asians.
Let me give a little context of what our relationships have been with
the Central Asians for the past ten years. We've had embassies in each
of the five Central Asian capitals for ten years. They are all
celebrating their tenth anniversaries. I don't know if any celebrated
in January, but all in February, just about.
And throughout those ten years, our effort has been to do very, very
focused assistance programs with each of the Central Asians with some
specific categories in mind, especially economic reform, especially
democratic reform and health reform; as well as on the military side,
each of them has joined Partnership for Peace, with the exception of
Tajikistan which joined just now. So we have had a mil-mil
relationship with each of the Central Asians at various levels for the
past almost ten years as well.
So what we have been doing in the past few months, ever since
September 11th, is we have been substantially building on the
relationships that we have already developed with each of the Central
Asians, with NGOs [non-government organizations] in Central Asia, with
other organizations in Central Asia, with the militaries of each of
the Central Asians, to do the work that we have been wanting to do and
that we do want to do to counter terrorism.
The other element that is important with the Central Asians, which
wasn't really much of a factor over the past ten years but is very
much a factor now, is, number one, of course they're all very close to
Afghanistan physically, but they have all had relationships with
Afghanistan going way back, not least in the Soviet military. One of
the anecdotal points I think is kind of interesting is virtually all
of the Central Asian military -- anybody a lieutenant colonel and
above -- served in Afghanistan, so right there you've got a lot of
Afghanistan experience.
And I found in all of my discussions huge interest on the part of
governments, NGOs, educators, to be involved in Afghanistan now to
work with reconstruction, to invite Afghan girls to participate and be
students in their universities, to get involved in education and get
involved in reconstruction, whatever it may be, because they have so
much experience there, and of course some of the languages are the
same as in Afghanistan.
But let me focus on some of the work that we're doing now. What do I
mean by "expanding the relationship" and what does that all involve?
Particularly with Uzbekistan, one of the areas that we have had an
extremely difficult time working on is both on the democracy
development/human rights issues, as well as the economic reform
issues. The president there, President [Islam] Karimov, has been
extremely opposed to convertibility, extremely opposed to Uzbekistan's
economic situation being linked in with the West, extremely opposed to
the economic reforms that virtually all of the other Central Asians
have gotten involved in from the beginning. And he had a particular
view. He believed that this was destabilizing and dangerous for
Uzbekistan, it was destabilizing and dangerous for the regime, and
therefore he was adamantly opposed.
One of the things that we have worked on extremely hard since
September 11th, as we were building up our relationships on each of
the sectors that I've mentioned, is to make certain to hit that one
very, very hard. And we have actually found a receptive audience
there, both in President Karimov, but more importantly -- very
importantly in President Karimov -- but also in the economic
leadership, the Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, Mr.
Azimov, and some of the -- and the central bankers.
They now believe, starting with the president, that the time is right
for Uzbekistan to loosen up on its economic reform. They are talking
in terms of allowing convertibility within the next six months. They
are talking in terms of exchange rate reform to bring all the
different layers of exchange rates back to one exchange rate. And a
lot of that discussion is going on between Uzbekistan and the IMF and
the World Bank. That's where the heavy duty work is being done,
facilitated to a great extent, to an expert extent, by Nancy Lee,
Deputy Assistant Secretary at Treasury, who was with us in that
portion of the trip.
On human rights and democracy in each of these countries, each one has
developed slightly differently. Each one has its own sort of anomalous
situation. But it has not prevented us from really pushing very hard
on human rights and democracy issues throughout the past ten years.
The difference now, it seems to me, is because each of these countries
is so much more interested, it sort of has rejuvenated their interest
in a lot of contact with the United States and a lot of work with the
United States in each of these sectors, we have a far greater ability
to have the kind of tough, detailed conversations that we need to have
with government agencies and to work in a more intensified way with
NGOs and citizens groups of various kinds on each of these issues.
And I wanted to speak to that particularly because there is a lot of
talk about how because we have new military relationships with several
of these governments that somehow we're giving a bye to human rights
and democracy. In fact, the opposite is the case, and we are finding
it easier. Because we have so much more contact, we have an easier
time of discussing each of these issues with the governments of the
region, particularly Uzbekistan and particularly Kyrgyzstan.
The way that I have been discussing this and the way the Secretary did
in December when he was both in Tashkent and in Astana is to say, "Mr.
President," or whoever it is we're talking to, "the United States
wants to have an expanded security relationship with your country, but
we believe security includes not just the military-to-military that
we're doing now, but you cannot have security in your country without
reforms on democracy and human rights and on the economy. You can't
expect to have stability in your country without job creation. You
have to find a way to remove investment impediments, to do the kinds
of economic reforms that allow the citizens of your country to make a
living. Because without that, you are simply creating a generation of
people who are so disaffected that they become easy targets for
extremist organizations."
The same thing we argue goes for democracy and human rights. If the
people of this country feel they have no choices, feel they have no
voice in determining their parliament, their president, their prime --
whatever it may be, the governor -- those are the people, again, who
are going to find a much more congenial home in extremist
organizations. If you want to have the kind of security that we're
talking about, we have to talk in terms of specific improvements in
human rights activities, respect for human rights, and expanding
democratic processes in each of these countries.
And the way we do it -- you know, once we do that, sort of a
discussion -- is talk in terms of very specific things that could be
done in each of the countries. So, for instance, in Uzbekistan we talk
in terms of ICRC access to pre-detention centers; to registration of
human rights NGOs; to the importance of inviting the UN Rapporteur for
Torture to come and do a study, do a report; to our very straight-up
statement about how much the referendum in Uzbekistan that occurred
about the time we were there is not a part of the democratic process;
it can't possibly be part of the democratic process because it's
extending in position a president who was not elected in a free and
fair election.
In Kyrgyzstan, with President [Askar] Akayev, of course Kyrgyzstan was
sort of the poster child at the beginning for democracy, for how
democratic reform works well in Central Asia. He was Mr. Democracy for
the first few years, and he has fallen away from that. So we had a
pretty good discussion with him about the importance of Kyrgyzstan
restoring its reputation for having good practices in human rights and
democracy, but in particular we discussed a couple of the arrests that
had been made, specifically the arrest of Mr. Beknazarov that had
resulted in hunger strike protests on the part of many of -- I don't
know how many -- not many, many, but quite a number, a significant
number of Kyrgyz. And it was with extreme regret that I learned of the
death of one of the hunger strikers on, I think, February 5th, which
demonstrates the fervor of the desire among the Kyrgyz people to get
their government to behave in accordance with the human rights
principles and democracy principles that it has signed up for in
signing up for the OSCE charter, which of course each of these
countries is a member of.
In Kazakhstan, the issue there is expanding democracy. I spent some
time talking about the importance of the government allowing
Democratic Choice, this new group, to function. In the meantime, since
I was there, one of the members of the Democratic Choice Party has
been renamed to the government. And I spent quite a bit of time with
the Foreign Minister talking about the importance of -- again of
Kazakhstan having the reputation of being stable enough and
comfortable enough with its identity and with itself to allow this
kind of full discussion in the media, within the elites, among the
people with NGOs, so that people had a genuine sense that they were
able to determine their future, whether it be through election of
local governments or governors, which is sort of under discussion now,
the parliament; and that the parliament itself should be -- the
elections to members of the parliament should be absolutely free and
fair, and not back to the old days, when the president said to me, in
one conversation, "Yes, we have lots of political parties here. I
started them all."
I could talk in greater detail about each of the countries, but let me
leave it to you to ask questions and see where you'd like me to focus
the discussion.
QUESTION: I'm getting mixed signals on the question of long-term
military presence in these countries. I think you knew you were going
to get that one.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Right. I should expect it.
QUESTION: And some reports seem to suggest a long-term presence, and
others, including your own on your trip, suggest there is no intention
of a long-term presence. Could you clarify?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Yes, I'll do my best. The fact is, we are
not looking for, we don't want, US bases in Central Asia. We don't
want a US base anywhere. But what we do want is access to the bases to
which we have access now for as long as we need them, and that is
completely impossible for me or for Secretary [of Defense Donald]
Rumsfeld or the President of the United States to determine at this
particular point.
So that the work that is being done, for example, at Manas Air Base at
Bishkek -- there is an expansion under way there so that they can
handle the humanitarian supplies going into Afghanistan, but most
importantly so they can handle all the reconstruction supplies going
in, as well as the International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and
all the supplies that they need to have go into Kabul or wherever else
the International Security Assistance Force may go.
So, for example, at Manas, yes, there are a lot of Americans there.
There are about 300 Americans there now and they're building up to
have more Americans there who can handle all of the offloading that
needs to be done of these reconstruction materials and reloading onto
different planes, or whatever all the logistics are to get all these,
particularly reconstruction materials, into Afghanistan.
Now, I can't honestly tell you when that is going to change because it
depends on load factors at Kabul Airport on the tarmacs, what's
possible at Bagram, how many forklifts they have, where does all this
stuff need to go, does it make sense to send it to Kabul if it's going
to Mazar-e Sharif. Probably not, but it might make sense to get it to
Kandahar, you know, when that airport is up and has runways that can
handle the size and the weight of these planes that are going in.
At Dushanbe, the focus there -- and now I think there may be 60 US
forces there -- the focus there is on gas and go. They take the planes
coming out of usually Kandahar and refuel them going in and out. So
that's mostly a refueling operation there.
And in Uzbekistan, at Karze-Hanabad, that's where sort of the forward
CENTCOM area for anything that needs to be done in terms of
humanitarian or otherwise in northern Afghanistan. And again, I can't
tell you when that's going to go back down again, but it will be
determined by what's going on in Afghanistan and what is needed.
What is happening in all of these is that even though the military
aspects of what we're doing in Afghanistan are reducing, there is so
much work that still needs to be done to get the ISAF in and to get
them up that we're finding it difficult to start moving troops out.
And one of the anomalies of this ten-year relationship we've had with
each of these countries -- and we've had a good relationship and a
very engaged relationship with them -- is that we're the ones that
each of these governments want to have to talk to about the French
ISAF contribution, the German ISAF contribution, the British ISAF
contribution, the Danish -- you know, whoever it is that is coming in.
They would like us to be in the lead on the discussions with the
governments. We're the ones who help negotiate the status of forces
agreement for each of them.
So we're finding ourselves very much in the lead, even on the
reconstruction and the ISAF bit, even though we're not in a military
sense participating in ISAF, but we're doing a huge amount of support
for it.
QUESTION: During your trip, did some of these countries -- even though
you say that you're not looking to have a permanent military presence,
are these countries expressing an interest for you to be there on the
long term, especially Uzbekistan? Weren't they looking for some kind
of permanent presence?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: It's an interesting discussion that we have
with each of them. Each one is a little bit different. In
Turkmenistan, very happy to have participated and supported so
vigorously the humanitarian effort, mostly by land, but also by air
into Afghanistan; very concerned to keep it on the humanitarian level
as much as possible; and no interest whatsoever in basing or temporary
basing or that kind of thing.
In Uzbekistan, the focus there is we really want to participate in the
coalition, we want to help you participate in the coalition, we want
to support you. We want you to be engaged with us over the long term,
but not looking for a permanent base.
So the trick is to understand what we mean and they mean by
engagement, because of course what we mean is engagement in every
sector that I've mentioned, particularly especially economic reform,
democratic reform and human rights. And, you know, we are very up
front about saying it means all of these things; you're not going to
have this enhanced mil-mil relationship and the increased exercises
and all the kind thing that goes along with that without working with
us on these issues as well.
With Dushanbe, President [Emomali] Rahmonov of Tajikistan is extremely
eager to have -- has been very forthcoming, very eager to have more US
participation, more international participation. He doesn't want a US
base there either. He would like us to use his bases so we fix them
up, but not to stay.
In Kazakhstan, very eager for us to use their bases, partly also
because of the fixing up that goes along with that, but also just to
be part of the coalition. We're not using any of the Kazakhstani bases
at this point, but we have huge overflights. I mean, it's like 10, 12
overflights a day that just sort of goes without any difficulty
whatsoever.
And with the Kyrgyz, again, not a base. And one of the reasons, for
instance, that you saw in the paper that there is a PX going in is
that each of the commanders, especially at Manas but also at
Karze-Hanabad, are very, very eager to make certain that there are no
incidents, that all our troops are on the base most of the time. They
are very, very few, very small groups that go out into the community
just to make certain that we have no difficulties for the short period
of time that we expect to be there.
QUESTION: There is an impression, though, that some of these countries
are looking for the US to stay there over the long term to counter
Russian influence in the region, and even from the statement from the
US Working Group, you know, the US kind of saying that. If you could
talk about the Russian --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Here's the difference. They want us engaged
in the long term, and we will be engaged in the long term, but the
difference is is to make certain that everybody understands that this
does not mean American bases. That's the bottom line. And in terms of
the Russians, the Russians have been extremely collegial, shall we
say, in terms of agreeing -- in terms of the kinds of discussions we
have. We have complete agreement on what are our goals vis-à-vis
Afghanistan, the importance of assuring that the threats coming out of
Afghanistan don't threaten Russia. They have been very concerned about
the sort of the ease with which those kinds of threats, whether it's
terrorism, narcotics, crime, whatever it is coming out of Afghanistan,
flows fairly freely through Central Asia. So they are right with us on
working to ensure that border guard programs are beefed up, that
counter-narcotics work is beefed up, and all that kind of thing to
prevent the threat traffic, shall we say.
QUESTION: You mentioned some very specific human rights benchmarks for
Uzbekistan and some of these other countries. What are the
consequences for these countries if they don't meet these very
specific benchmarks, considering that you've just -- and the new
budget requests a significant boost in aid?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Here is the difficulty I have with
consequences. It's a hard question. In my view, the consequence is
that we are in their office, in their face, all the time. It seems to
me that it makes no sense at all that a consequence of Uzbekistan not
cooperating on democracy and human rights is to cut our aid which goes
to democracy and human rights groups. No money goes to the Government
of Uzbekistan.
And as a student group, fabulous student exchangees that we met with
in Turkmenistan who had not only had their year in the United States
as exchange students, or exchange teachers in some cases, but they had
-- you know, so they came back speaking fabulous English from
wherever, wherever, but they were doing -- they had started their own
little NGOs, they had started their own newsletters, they were
involved in environmental issues, they had groups going to doing
volunteer programs in old folks' homes or with physically challenged
kids, or whatever it is. And as one of them said to me, "If you really
want to make a point about the importance of democracy, you triple
this program. You don't cut this program."
QUESTION: Well, if I could just follow up.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Please.
QUESTION: If the Uzbeks, just to go back to that country, are looking
for a more engaged relationship with the United States and you're
giving them that engagement, what is to stop them from thinking that
they are essentially getting a pass on all of these very specific
violations that you mentioned in your trip?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, they're not going to get a pass on
it. I mean, that's the bottom line. But, like I say, I'm not going to
cut the democracy programs because they haven't invited the UN
Rapporteur on Torture.
QUESTION: What about the ExIm Bank? Or, I'm sorry, I mean, I
understand that there's a small business investment program as well.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Yes, well, here's the other -- here's the
important thing to me about that. It is important to the people of
Uzbekistan that they have the jobs and the ability to sell their wares
for hard currency overseas. I mean, why would we want to cut a program
that finally allows famous potters to get foreign exchange for the
pottery that they sell, or the art they sell, and spectacular stuff.
QUESTION: But that's not really the problem, is it? The real problem
is the fact that they don't -- they haven't gone to convertibility?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: That's right. But that affects the potters,
too.
QUESTION: Exactly. No, that's -- I mean, that's --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Okay. Sorry, yes. Right.
QUESTION: The potters -- isn't that the real point? I mean --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: It's convertibility, but it's also job
creation through investment. And by investment, I don't mean
necessarily only foreign investment, too.
QUESTION: May I ask about -- since the President's speech a few days
after the 11th, I haven't heard a single US -- and maybe this is a
function of not having been asked a question about it -- but I haven't
heard anyone mention the IMU. Do they still exist in any kind of a
reasonable force?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: The IMU [Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan]
does still exist in a reduced form. It seems -- I'm told by people who
know that a lot of the IMU were killed or captured in Kunduz, so it is
not the dangerous organization that it was. But it's also clear in
discussions that I had with the Kyrgyz, with the Tajiks and with the
Uzbeks that they believe and we believe that there are still IMU
members in each of the three countries that are a danger.
But that's also why I say you don't -- one of the greatest ways to
fight the IMU is through democracy and human rights programs and
economic reform programs. Better to have an agricultural assistance
program in the Islamic villages of Tajikistan than to really do
anything else. That's the best way to combat the pull of these kinds
of organizations.
MR. REEKER: If we could just clarify for the record that the IMU is
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. I saw some (inaudible).
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Right, sorry.
QUESTION: Sorry. Can I -- I mean, one of the fears that the United
States had, and probably the Uzbeks as well, but one of the fears that
the US was bringing was that the IMU was getting popularity
particularly in Uzbekistan because of President Karimov's less than
soft hand in dealing with Islamic fundamentalists.
Have all the people that you have been pushing for -- pushing to be
let out of prison been let out of prison? Or are these people still
festering away in there?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: There has been an amnesty in Uzbekistan.
There was one several weeks ago of some 2,000, and then there was
another one about a week ago of about 800. But I can't tell you person
for person who's in, who's out at this point. But there has been the
kind of amnesty that we had in mind.
Plus, we have, in my conversations and other conversations with the
Uzbeks, pressed home the point that you have to -- he a
nd his government -- I've said the same thing in Turkmenistan -- must
differentiate between what people believe and what they do, that you
can't arrest people for being devout Muslims. And the worst thing you
can do is go into a mosque and arrest a bunch of kids for praying,
that all you've done is created more IMU adherence, that you can go
after them only on the basis of terrorist activities planned or
completed.
QUESTION: Do you actually speak to them about the dangers inherent in
putting believers, as opposed to terrorists, in prison?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Absolutely.
QUESTION: And do they understand that?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: No, I can't honestly say they really
understand. Certainly, in Turkmenistan that was not -- I had a hard
time with that one. And I kept talking and talking and talking, and I
can't honestly tell you that I got through.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) President Karimov?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, he says that he understands and
accepts that, but we'll see in terms of behavior. One of the things
that was very good is that the trial of the, I think four or five
police who had beaten to death a prisoner was concluded, I believe,
the Friday before last with the conviction of the police.
So, I mean, each of those steps is a good thing. And as I said to the
Uzbeks, and I have repeated to the Uzbek Ambassador here, we will
always have a list of specific things that need to be improved. When
the ICRC goes into the pre-detention centers, they will come out with
a list of things that need to be improved, and we will be talking with
you about how to get each of those things done. It will be a good
thing to invite in -- an extremely good thing, a very necessary thing
for Uzbekistan to invite in the UN Rapporteur on Torture. That will be
a very good thing. It will give the right impression. But that person
will also have a report and we'll be talking with you about how to
correct those things as well.
QUESTION: Could you say something more about the cooperation with the
Russians in Central Asia? I mean, in Tajikistan you've got the 110th
Division, I think it is, still on the border. In Kyrgyz I don't know
what the Russian involvement is, but because of the concern that they
had with regard to the fear of permanent military presence in Central
Asia, it seems to me that there would be some cooperation between the
two sides. The French are coming in to the Kyrgyz base, which makes it
more of a multinational force. Is there the same kind of cooperation
in terms of the Russian military activity in any of these countries?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Let me put it this way. What I want to do
is make sure that it's clear there is not a US-Russian condominium
about Central Asia. The Central Asians are each independent states.
They make their own decisions. We have a lot of bilateral discussions
with them about what we do, what they do, and we come to agreement
with them on a bilateral basis.
Our goal with the Russians is to be completely transparent about what
we're doing in Central Asia or the Caucasus or wherever it may be.
First, we have absolutely nothing to hide. Second, we agree on our
goals, as I mentioned earlier, with the Russians. And particularly
with -- and, for example, in Tajikistan with -- I think it's the 201st
Motorized Division, there is a lot to talk about there in terms of
border controls and what can be done to assure that the 201st either
gets out of the way of vetted narcotics control units or is no longer
part of the problem in terms of narcotics coming through the border.
The Russians are right up there in recognizing that that is a problem
in itself.
So when we have discussions with the Russians, it is to talk about, as
your question implied, specific things we can do with Russian units
who are in Tajikistan and specific things we can do with the Russians
in UNDCP [United Nations International Drug Control Program] on
counter-narcotics programs, specific things we can do with the
Russians on coordination in Afghanistan that may be particularly
relevant, things we can do with the Russians to coordinate delivery of
the humanitarian supplies across the bridge at Termez, that kind of
thing.
So I want to differentiate the way we have these discussions. But our
goal with the Russians is to make sure they understand that we are not
trying to compete with them in Central Asia, we're not trying to take
over Central Asia from them, but we have common interests --
international common interests -- that we will be transparent about as
they play out in Central Asia.
QUESTION: To follow up on that, with regard to the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, after September 11th, it seems that at least
the terrorist side of the Shanghai organization had been kind of
sidelined by events and that other things were in action to deal with
terrorism there.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Right.
QUESTION: But it seems the organization is still intact, there still
is the economic cooperation, and there was this talk about setting up
an anti-terrorist center in Bishkek. Is that still on the table or is
the US involved in it? Or is that independent, or is that no longer
really relevant?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: It is independent. We had a discussion with
the Russians in the US-Russia Afghan Working Group on Friday about --
they basically briefed us on what the Shanghai Coordination
Cooperation Organization is doing. And we said, great, let's make sure
to coordinate the program so we're not all trying to do the same thing
and we've let something out on the side. Sort of the same kind of
thing we try to do with the OSCE [Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe] and Partnership for Peace, for instance.
But we've told the Russians and each of the governments who belong to
the Shanghai group that whatever they can do to improve their regional
situation is, we're all for it. And in fact that's one of the elements
of our policy that we are working hard on this to find ways to enhance
and increase regional cooperation, not just each of the countries with
Afghanistan, which is sort of at the top of their list, but to improve
customs issues between the countries so that vegetables coming out of
Kyrgyzstan actually can go out of Kyrgyzstan through Uzbekistan or
through Kazakhstan without gargantuan customs, which is the case now.
That doesn't help anything.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the question earlier about consequences for
inaction on these issues? If you're not inclined to cut the aid
because, as you say, it goes to democracy groups, and if the military
cooperation is going to increase for our own interests and reasons,
then I don't understand what consequences there are for, for instance,
Uzbekistan and Karimov if he chooses to ignore your good advice.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: I can't tell you specifically what we might
link to what, but suffice -- I mean, the best way I can explain it is
that we're going to make sure all of it stays in balance, that there
isn't this gigantic mil-mil cooperation that they especially want if
we're not getting anywhere on this. And it takes a lot of daily
adjustment on our programs and how we pursue them.
But at this point, I mean, the president said -- he agreed to ICRC
access for the pre-detention centers, which is something we've been
wanting for some time. NGO registration comes next in Uzbekistan. But
it's -- I can't give you, if they don't do this, this is what happens.
I can't do that for you.
QUESTION: But you have tried to ask the Pentagon to go slow with the
military cooperation because they are lagging on the human rights
side?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: We have very detailed conversations,
interagency conversations, about how to keep everything in balance. So
we haven't -- at this point we haven't had to say don't do this
because of that. But everybody knows the deal. And what was very, very
good is in Uzbekistan we had a very large interagency delegation to
pursue all aspects of our assistance programs and sort of talk through
what the sort of enhanced relationship is going to be, and especially
our Pentagon and JCS colleagues were extremely good about the
importance of assuring that democracy and human rights issues stayed
on the agenda, right in front of the agenda, because all of these
programs where all linked.
QUESTION: Which other countries besides Uzbekistan does the US
Government not give direct aid to, to the other government?
Turkmenistan, I believe? Is that --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: We don't give direct aid to anybody. We
give aid to programs. Our money goes to specific programs through
(inaudible), but there's no cash.
QUESTION: No, but some of them are government programs, and in some
countries they aren't. Or do I misunderstand?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Right. For instance, let me give you an
example of what I'm talking about. Ambassador Bill Taylor is here, who
can maybe go into it in greater detail but, for instance, let's say
we're doing an economic reform program. The money goes to experts to
sit down with the chief of the central -- the head of the Central Bank
to write legislation. Now, some of that money will go to local lawyers
to help write the legislation that underpins a new Central Bank law,
but we aren't giving a check to the government.
QUESTION: I didn't mean that. I meant in some cases we are giving --
we are helping government programs, and in some countries we are not.
Is that true in Uzbekistan? You said that we're giving money to
democracy programs, but nothing that goes through the Government of
Uzbekistan?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Yes, that's true in -- right.
QUESTION: In Uzbekistan, and which other countries I was interested
in?
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Yes, there are only very small programs that we
have through government agencies or entities in Uzbekistan. For
example, in the Central Bank, that has been -- as Secretary Jones has
indicated, the Central Bank and some of the economic reform people
have been willing to do good work on oversight. And we've trained a
little bit of the Central Banker staff in order to do that. So that's
a very small program.
By and large, in Uzbekistan, almost entirely in Turkmenistan, we do
very little with the central government. We do do some work with the
private sector and nongovernmental organizations and some in the local
governments. We're able to identify some reforming local government
people to provide some services to their people.
So it's Turkmenistan, virtually nothing; a little bit in Uzbekistan.
We have had some good work with the government in Kazakhstan and in
Kyrgyzstan, and to a lesser degree, but still significant, in
Tajikistan.
QUESTION: Thank you. That was exactly my question. And did any of this
change after Secretary Powell's trip to -- where did he go -- to
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan? Did anything change after Secretary Powell was
there and talked about democracy and blah, blah, blah, I guess it is,
to them? Did you see any difference since his visit, I mean in terms
of reforms and follow-through on programs they talked about?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: The biggest difference is that we actually
can have a civil conversation about the importance of all these
things. I mean, I felt that in talking with Karimov after -- this
time, after the Secretary's visit with President Karimov. And one of
the things that -- well, a couple of things happened since Secretary
Powell's visit to Uzbekistan. The two amnesties that I mentioned and
then the agreement for ICRC access to pre-detention centers happened
while I was there.
QUESTION: So did the election that was neither free nor fair, and so
unfree and fair that you --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Yes, bad thing.
QUESTION: What is their response to your bringing that up?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Their response is that nobody forced these
people to go the polls; obviously it was free.
QUESTION: And your response to that is?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: That the referendum was irrelevant because
the initial elections had not been free and fair, which was --
QUESTION: But they already (inaudible) --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, President Karimov's answer to that is
we have to keep things under control because the people aren't mature
enough to understand how to do this right.
QUESTION: And how far can they develop in view of their own view of
neutrality?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: With Turkmenistan, right after September
11th, we basically went to the president and said, "We know you are a
neutral country, but you cannot be neutral on terrorism. There is no
such thing as neutrality. You are either with us, with the coalition
on terrorism, or you're with the bad guys." And President [Saparmurat]
Niyazov was very clear very quickly, no, we're on the side of the
coalition on counter-terrorism, let us help.
QUESTION: And what were you going to do if he said, "No, we're going
to be with the bad guys"?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, luckily we didn't have to figure that
out.
QUESTION: There was no threat, not like we're going to bomb you back
into the Stone Age if you don't --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: We didn't use any threats, shall we say. We
used the positive aggressive version of those talking points.
In terms of our relationship with President Niyazov, we have had a
hard time developing much of a relationship with Turkmenistan. We are
working very hard to increase the number of exchanges, especially
student exchanges that we do. We work a lot with the UN organizations
that have been doing a tremendous amount of work there on humanitarian
deliveries to Afghanistan and using that as sort of a foothold to
expand a lot of the work that we do with other organizations. It's not
widely known that 40 percent of the humanitarian goods that went to
Afghanistan throughout since September 11th went through Turkmenistan.
And a lot of others went from Pakistan, but of all of the states, 40
percent went through there. And I must say I was extremely impressed
with the UN organizations there and how much work they do in
Turkmenistan, as well as across the border, so that's a very
interesting dynamic that is developing there.
But I was extremely heartened by the local NGO leadership that I met
with in terms of their willingness to go after their goals without
regard to the difficulties that they encounter. Of course they have
difficulties, and we in the OSCE and other Western embassies are
constantly talking about specific things with the Turkmen Government
to improve the situation with NGOs. One of the recent successes was
getting rid of the exit visa requirement, which was very important to
our training programs, student exchanges, the ability of Turkmen to
travel, and that requirement went away a couple of months ago, to
great effect. But it's not an easy place to work for these people, but
I was extremely impressed with how much -- as I say, despite the
difficulties, they all roll up their sleeves and are just ready to go.
Especially the kids. They were fabulous.
QUESTION: Still on Turkmenistan, there are reports from various groups
from the region that the former Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan, Mr.
Boris Shikhmuradov, he joined opposition and three ambassadors of
Turkmenistan -- in Iran, Saudi Arabia and also in Turkey, they
resigned. They also joined opposition. And since it happened, the
Turkmeni Government now arresting hundreds of relatives of these
people, they're demolishing their houses. This is the (inaudible)
human rights groups (inaudible). Is this something you have taken into
account? Are you --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: We would take it into account. I have not
seen reports of the arrests and the demolition of houses, but it is
something that our embassy would be very, very focused on making sure
we understand what the deal there is. But again, there and in other
places, I did a lot of work with the president -- in two hours and
twenty minute discussion -- about the importance of recognizing that
stability and security comes from debate, free press, civil society.
QUESTION: On Kazakhstan, if you say this is one of the stable
countries in the region which has some potential to be better than --
I mean, others.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: I actually didn't say that, but --
QUESTION: But you mentioned something about the stability. Anyhow,
during your discussion with ministers of this country, is issue of Mr.
Atajan Kazablavan comes up, because he is -- most every member of the
congress supported his position to go back and participate freely in
political life. Do you think there is any indication from the Kazakh
Government that they will let him come back and participate in
political life?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: No.
QUESTION: Have you discussed this issue with the government?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: I discussed the issue in the context of the
importance of full discussion, the importance of letting the debate
occur, the importance of demonstrating the confidence of the
government in allowing full debate by all -- by everybody, whether it
be in TVs or -- the TV issues or whether it be among the political
elite.
QUESTION: Last one. You also visited Azerbaijan. Could you just
elaborate what you discussed with President Aliyev? And he is in
Cleveland clinic right now in United States. Do you have any contacts
with him since he came to United States?
And also, last one, Azerbaijan proposal to extent his presidency from
five years to seven years, also have a referendum from members of
ruling party which President Aliyev is chairman. Is this something
United States will oppose or support?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: On -- yes, Deputy Secretary Armitage was in
touch with President Aliyev in New York before he went to Cleveland. I
talked with President Aliyev about the same kinds of issues --
security, stability, you have to allow debate, economic reform,
removal of investment impediments and the importance of border
security, financial controls, financial bank reform, that kind of
thing -- because we haven't been able to do that with Azerbaijan
because of the 907 business. [Note: Section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act in 1992 during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict banned U.S.
government aid to Azerbaijan until it relieved pressure on Armenia and
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. President Bush waived this section on
January 25, 2002, after Congress passed legislation as part of the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill granting him the authority to
do so.]
In terms of the referendum, I didn't talk about that specifically with
President Aliyev, but we do talk about those kinds of things in all of
our discussions, basically along the same lines that I mentioned in
terms of Uzbekistan.
QUESTION: On Kyrgyzstan you mentioned that hunger strikers died last
week. Apparently, US Embassy staff met with him before that. I
wondered if you can characterize the US contacts with these opposition
forces. How have they changed since 9/11, since the war in
Afghanistan?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, they haven't changed because they
were so extensive. They have been so extensive throughout. I mean, the
reporting -- all the contacts we have had with all aspects of Kyrgyz
society has been ongoing. So we --
QUESTION: Are you in talks with Akayev on the military bases?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: No, no. I mean, it just gives us --
frankly, it gives us more to talk about. It gives us details that we
can go in and say here's what's going on there.
QUESTION: Could you elaborate on the status of the talks on status of
forces agreements with some of those countries?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: I believe all the status of forces
agreements are completed with each of the -- the US status of forces
agreements. In Dushanbe our Embassy has been extremely helpful to a
variety of other countries in helping them develop their status of
forces agreements; in Bishkek the same way and Tashkent the same way.
I don't know if there are any details that I'm missing.
QUESTION: Do you have just an overall number of aid dollars for
Central Asia?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Ambassador Taylor is our numbers guru. I'm
sorry, I don't keep it in my head.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: And I don't have -- I can get you specifics of both
fiscal year -- last year up to now and '02 numbers. The conversations
that we had in detail on this trip had to do with Uzbekistan, and the
Uzbekistan number is generally about 50 million from all spigots, all
parts of the US Government. And we've added a hundred million to that
for a total of about 150 million this year. So that is the tripling
that people have talked about.
It is much smaller -- the base is about -- we have similarly a base
program in these other countries as well, and if you're interested I
can get you the specifics.
MR. REEKER: Thanks very much.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Okay, thanks everyody.
(The briefing was concluded at 10:50 a.m.)
(end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
