NEWS

An interview with Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev ahead of the OSCE Summit

Published in the Kazakhstanskaya Pravda newspaper on November 10, 2010 “Towards Tolerance in a New Decade”

            In your video address to the OSCE community in January 2010, you revealed the motto of the Chairmanship – Trust, Traditions, Transparency and Tolerance, which was generally well received.  Has Kazakhstan managed to fully conform to the motto during its Chairmanship?

            The motto of our OSCE Chairmanship was well received because it reflects the need of all the participants of the Organization for real changes in the vast area from Vancouver to Vladivostok. 

            First, we all need to trust each other. Security challenges faced by the OSCE participanting states are diverse and complex. Differences in our understanding of these problems and in selecting ways to solve them are wide as well. 

In Kazakhstan’s view, the OSCE community must show trust and unity – that is what we need to overcome current challenges. Thus, the strategy of Kazakhstan’s Chairmanship is to create environment to restore accord and trust among participating States. Moreover, trust should be seen as the most important component underlying the collective security.

            Consistently pursued by the Kazakh Chairmanship, the Corfu process – an open, permanent, wide-scale and comprehensive dialogue to achieve unity on the future of the Eurasian security at the platform of the OSCE – has contributed to the restoration of trust in the OSCE area. I am not incidentally using the definition “Eurasian”, as today we can’t speak separately of European or Asian security.  Taking into account the nature of modern challenges and threats, as well as the location of a number of the OSCE participating States in Asia, the Kazakh Chairmanship talks about the security community in Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian area.

            As part of the Corfu process, progress has been made in identifying consensus areas for further work. All of this creates good conditions for strengthening trust and responding to common challenges.

            The second element of the motto – traditions – symbolizes the commitment to the main principles and values of the OSCE. Unfortunately, principles and commitments enshrined in fundamental documents of the CSCE/OSCE are not still fully implemented today. Use of force is still seen as a tool to resolve conflicts, and the threat of confrontation between states has not yet been eliminated.

            The process of conventional arms control is stagnated.

            Transnational threats still pose grave danger, and many conflicts remain unresolved. Thus, I believe that at the Astana Summit we need to reaffirm all principles and commitments of the OSCE as well as approve a new future-oriented agenda.

            We need to innovatively analyze means to implement significant changes in the policies of the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian area.

            By traditions, we also understand the need to take stock of historical and cultural peculiarities of every nation.

            And this has to be done in order for us to return to those objectives for the sake of which our Organization was established – building Europe without dividing lines based on comprehensive and balanced approach to all aspects of security.

            Concerning the third element – transparency – I could say that it means the ultimate transparency in international relations free from double standards and dividing lines, and it also means the orientation towards constructive cooperation in addressing challenges and threats to security.

            During my visit to France last October, we held a conference dedicated to the 20^th anniversary of the Paris Charter attended by the participants of events of those years including former French President Valery Giscard D’Estaing, former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas and former German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher. The signing of the Paris Charter for New Europe launched the transformation of the CSCE from a forum to an active structure, and it became a logical continuation of the Helsinki Final Act. This momentous document in many ways identified the contours of the long-term pan-European security.

            During the Cold War, the basis of the Helsinki process was formed by the interests of sustaining the Euro-Atlantic order through the balance established between the two poles, the USA and the USSR.  With the fall of the Iron Curtain, the breakdown of the Warsaw bloc and the collapse of the USSR, this super idea was gone.

            As a result, having lost its former spatial landmarks, our Organization failed to readjust in time and got into a state of inertia. 

            In essence, 20 years after the bipolar confrontation virtually ceased to exist, the structure of international relations in the area from Vancouver to Vladivostok still retains all main qualities of a long gone era.

            Certainly, founders of the OSCE created a unique organization, organically included in the common architecture of the Euro Atlantic and Eurasian security. However, life goes on. New challenges to stability emerge, substance of threats changes, concepts such as terrorism, political and religious extremism, and drug trafficking become internationalized. 

            All of us are experiencing the economic crisis bearing unprecedented impact and scale. The international community is failing to resolve protracted conflicts.

            Afghanistan still remains a gaping wound on the world map.

            The internal political crisis in Kyrgyzstan has posed an unprecedented challenge to all of us. We must respond to processes affecting the security architecture in a flexible, timely and adequate manner. Our goal is to strengthen and adjust it to real conditions. 

The fourth element of the motto is tolerance which reflects the global trends of strengthening the intercultural and intercivilizational dialogue which acquires greater importance in the present-day world.

            The OSCE High-Level Conference on Tolerance and Non-discrimination held in Astana on June 29-30 was our common success. The forum acknowledged the importance of exchange of experience in the sphere of interethnic and interreligious harmony.

            Kazakhstan is actively promoting rapprochement between the East and the West in understanding the key issues of the modern world order and prospects of its further development. Upon my initiative, Astana hosts the Congresses of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions on a regular basis.

During the Summit in Astana, we must demonstrate in practice the significance of the memory of the past, reconciliation of people, promotion of tolerance, fight against racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia in today’s Europe and Eurasia.

            Unfortunately, changes in language, migration, religion, culture, education policies, which we witness in the OSCE participating States are not duly comprehended on a collective basis.

            I believe all of us should work on summarizing serious shifts in policy of tolerance for recent years. We should produce a new document which I would call “OSCE: Towards tolerance in a new decade”.

            The subject of tolerance in the wider context will be the focus of the Kazakh Chairmanship in the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 2011.

            The previous OSCE Summit took place 11 years ago in Istanbul. Ever since, the organization constantly tended to stagnation owing to the confrontation between the East and the West. How did you manage to persuade the 55 heads of state, with frequently different and even controversial interests, to accept the initiative of holding the OSCE Summit in Astana?

            The Kazakh Chairmanship as the OSCE political manager proceeds from the necessity to consider views and interests of each participant of the Organization without exception.

            Kazakhstan, as an active partner of various structures throughout the OSCE area, closely cooperating with member states of other “competitive” organizations, has proved that as a Chairman-in-Office it is possible and necessary to steer an impartial  course.

            Exactly due to consultations with all OSCE participating States we managed to radically change the atmosphere of discussion within the large area of responsibility and obtain a consensus on the issue of holding the Summit in Astana. At that, at the beginning of our Chairmanship there were few people who believed the idea will come true.

            2010 is a milestone marked by the 65^th anniversary since the end of the Second World War, the 35 years of the Helsinki Final Act and the 20 years since the adoption of the Paris Charter for New Europe. That is why, in consultations with the participating States we focused on the fact that building a community with integrated and collective security in Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian regions requires both reconfirmation of all OSCE principles and commitments and a new future-oriented agenda. The development of the new agenda is possible only in case of availability of a relevant political will at the top level.

            In addition, we emphasized that launching at the Astana Summit of a true “reset” of geopolitical relations in the vast area of responsibility of the OSCE will effectively complement similar processes occurring in the world today.

            First of all, in relations between certain states. Russia and the USA represent a bright and successful example.

            Second, within the framework of global and regional multilateral political and economic processes. I mean primarily the Group of Twenty, the European Union, the NATO, the Customs Union of Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus. In the OSCE, everyone admits that achievement of a comprehensive peace and stability within the area of its responsibility will strengthen the global security.

            For example, if, during the Astana Summit, we reach an agreement on a modernized security framework, we can confidently expect an obvious progress in the sphere of nuclear arms control and their reduction. The same situation will occur in the relation to climate change if key countries for addressing that problem are able to reach compromise in other serious aspects of cooperation.

            Interaction in stabilizing the world’s hot spots would be more promising if we eliminate problem spots at our own home, in Europe and Eurasia.

Another important aspect of our initiative of convening the Summit is Kazakhstan’s desire to show the world that Islam, development and democracy are compatible.

            We have a moral right to claim this as a country with the prevailing Muslim population, successfully implementing socio-economic and political reforms, consistently integrating into the democratic society.

The problems caused by further delay in holding the Summit, we explained, might result in losing the present favorable geopolitical conditions. Also we may face a worst-case scenario, when the idea of the European security may come down to the space from Vancouver to… not Vladivostok, but Byelostok.

            Such a scenario would definitely put the OSCE to a lethargic sleep. Meanwhile, any arguments in favour of holding the Summit would fail unless all the OSCE participating States show practical approach and political vision.

            I would like to note considerable contribution to reaching the consensus, as well as great support and hard work of the Secretariat, and particularly, OSCE Secretary General Marc Perrin de Brichambaut and all institutions of the Organization.

            What challenges, in your view, were the major for Kazakhstan during the Chairmanship?

            The major challenge for Kazakhstan’s Chairmanship was how successfully we could live up to the trust given to us by OSCE participating States.

            Honestly, entrusting Kazakhstan with the chairmanship, our partners could very well have doubts regarding our ability to adequately and effectively manage such a complicated structure whose area of responsibility includes 56 countries, including four nuclear states. And one could understand those doubts.

            For Kazakhstan is the first post-Soviet and predominantly Asian and Muslim country to assume the chairmanship of the Organization. Certainly, our country is well known due to its active foreign policy, has a reputation of moderator and conciliator and has the authority of the “driver” of different integration formats and author of the range of international initiatives.

But Chairmanship in the OSCE has been the challenge of quite a different level and scale, particularly given quite difficult political and economic situation in the world. At the same time, a lot of people pinned on Kazakhstan’s chairmanship the hopes for a “reset” of the OSCE in light of similar positive recent tendencies.

            Having developed the program of our Chairmanship and implementing it later we intended to chase away worries of “skeptics” and live up to the hopes of “optimists”. I hope we made it to a considerable degree. 

            Certainly, the consultations on Kazakhstan’s proposal of convening the Summit were held in a rather difficult way. But reaching a consensus decision on holding the meeting on the highest level is just half of the way. We understand that joint opinion on the effectiveness of the Kazakh Chairmanship firstly will be connected with the success of developing organizational and substantial issues of the Astana Summit. 

            We attach special priority to the substantial parts of the high level meeting.  A lot of outstanding issues have been accumulated in the OSCE area during a lengthy break after the Istanbul Summit.  It’s not easy to address them.

In spite of all difficulties, I’m sure we’ll find mutually acceptable language even on the most difficult issues. In this opinion, I proceed from the interest of all our partners in having the Astana Summit give start to qualitative renewal of the Organization, its adapting to new 21st century realities after an 11-year-break.

            In the context of the substantial content of the Summit, I would like to note that the assistance to resolution of protracted conflicts in South Caucasus and Transnistria became another serious challenge to Kazakhstan’s Chairmanship.  

            I am glad to note particular progress on the regulation of the Nagorno-Karabakh within the framework of OSCE Minsk Group.  In October this year, for the first time in five years, a group of international experts under the aegis of the OSCE visited Nagorno-Karabakh to assess the humanitarian situation on the ground. 

            We welcome joint statement of presidents Dmitriy Medvedev, Serzh Sargsyan and Ilkham Aliyev of October 27, in which Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to exchange the prisoners and return the bodies of deceased with the assistance of the co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

            This year, we managed to set regular and quite a constructive dialogue within the “5+2” format on the Transnistrian issue. Favourable negotiation climate and efforts of international conciliators promote intensification of cooperation on practical issues in different spheres of life activity of the population.     

            For example, on October 1, for the first time since 2006, the railroad passenger service between Chisinau and Odessa through Transnistria was resumed. 

            Within the framework of Geneva discussions on the Georgian issue we can note gradual normalization in relationships between parties and their commitment to searching mutually acceptable decision. We welcome the resumption of the Mechanism for preventing and responding to incidents in South Ossetia context on October 28 after a long break.

            All of these efforts in the end should assist strengthening the confidence and rapprochement of conflicting parties for the benefit of ordinary people which still suffer from the consequences of protracted conflicts.

            Certainly, I cannot leave out the crisis in Kyrgyzstan. This situation was for all of us an unexpected and enormous challenge, in particular for Kazakhstan, as the closest political and economic partner of this country.

            Activities of our Chairmanship to assist in settling this complex, multifaceted situation related to domestic policy, indeed, was unprecedented. We had to act according to circumstances, which often developed in an unpredictable way; to adopt, within the OSCE framework, responsible statements and decisions, coordinate international efforts on the spot. And all this was done under severe time pressure.

Through our timely and coordinated actions with Presidents Dmitriy Medvedev and Barack Obama, efficient support of the UN, the EU and other international organizations, as well as the will and wisdom of the multi-ethnic people of Kyrgyzstan, we managed to prevent the country from sliding towards the civil war.

            Uncontrolled development of the Kyrgyz conflict would have had the most unpredictable consequences for the entire Central Asian region. Destructive terrorist forces in Afghanistan’s combat zones were not averse to using the situation in Kyrgyzstan to expand their influence on the region.

            Nevertheless, even after the parliamentary election of October 10, it is still early to speak about final stabilization. The authorities and the multi-ethnic people of Kyrgyzstan take progressive steps to overcome the crisis and to return to the constructive track, to form a full-fledged government.

The OSCE not only welcomes this positive process, but also continues to support Kyrgyzstan practically at this important stage. The top priorities are issues of economic and humanitarian assistance, as well as ensuring the rule of law and prevention of interethnic conflicts.

In order to coordinate the efforts of international community on assisting Kyrgyzstan, early next year we are planning to hold a special international donor conference under my auspices in Almaty.

            Many people today talk about the upcoming summit being historic. But what do you think should be the main outcomes of the summit for it to indeed become historic?

            The Astana Summit will be historic in only one case. If the heads of state and government of the 56 participating States in fact prove that the OSCE has been effective not only during the Cold War, but still remains a vibrant structure that is closely interwoven into the living tissue of the modern global politics and economics. The key to success in addressing these major problems is a sober, impartial and pragmatic analysis of the problems and contradictions accumulated within the OSCE.

            We urgently need to identify and strengthen the existing positive ‘baggage’, and identify appropriate responses to the challenges and threats faced by our Organization.

            We should use our meeting for strengthening the OSCE’s effectiveness in reinforcement of unique and indivisible security, settling existing conflicts and preventing new ones, countering transnational threats, economic and environmental problems, ensuring human rights and freedoms in the area of responsibility of the Organization. 

            However, one clearly should understand that the Astana Summit will not be a summit of ready-made solutions. Our aim is to identify new strategic directions and an action plan of consistent movement from the concept of the space of security from Vancouver to Vladivostok to the creation of the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian community of united and indivisible security, a community, free of dividing lines and zones with different levels of security, formed on the basis of common values, principles and commitments.

            In Astana, we will set specific goals and objectives in the sphere of strengthening the pan-European regimes for conventional arms control, as well as in the areas of confidence and security building measures, responding to transnational threats, including terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, human and drug trafficking, cybercrime and the problems associated with small arms and light weapons.  

            We consider it appropriate to reaffirm our commitment to assistance in the stabilization of Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, and, accordingly, record a new - Eurasian - security component that complements traditional Euro-Atlantic dimension.

It is exactly in establishing of long-term Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community that I see the quintessence of the “spirit of Astana”, which will give a new sparkle and energy to the “spirit of Helsinki”.

Improving collective mechanisms for early warning, prevention of conflicts, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation represent another priority. This must be done, because in the OSCE area, dozens of potentially contentious regions exist.

            We also have to consider the priorities for economic and environmental basket of the OSCE. Especially in light of our efforts in building a new model of financial and economic world order, and developing collective responses to environmental disasters in the OSCE area, primarily to the Aral issue.

            In Astana, we should reconfirm our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms are among the fundamental objectives of the government and the foundations of modern international order. All of us endured the ideals and values of human rights and freedoms, standards of tolerance and openness. This makes them an indispensable foundation of our policy in this area.

            In the third OSCE basket, we also propose to adopt commitments on strengthening of tolerance and non-discrimination.

            This year, Kazakhstan is chairing in the OSCE, a predominantly European organization. The following year, Kazakhstan will be presiding in the Organization of Islamic Conference, covering the entire Islamic world. In your opinion, how realistic is the use of Kazakhstan’s leadership in these organizations for enhancement of mutual understanding and building bridges between the East and the West?

            The OSCE High-level Conference on Tolerance and Non-discrimination held in June in Astana vividly confirmed the importance of sharing experience in the sphere of interethnic and interreligious harmony. This is especially topical in light of the UN proclaiming of 2010 as the International Year of Rapprochement of Cultures.

            During the years of independence, Kazakhstan has accumulated a unique experience of peaceful and tolerant coexistence of a huge variety of ethnic groups and religions. Such a clear advantage turns our country into one of the most suitable sites for a dialog between the West and the East, Europe and the Muslim world.

For implementing chairmanship and mediation functions, they often choose those in whose impartiality all parties involved are convinced. That is why our foreign partners consider Kazakhstan an ideal candidate for chairing Asian and European associations, as happened in the case of CICA and the OSCE, and next year will be the case with the OIC.

            In addition, Astana already has a substantial experience in a similar work, which we have gained during convening three Congresses of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions. Besides, it was for the first time that we held a conference of foreign miunisters of the West and the Muslim East, entitled “Common World: Progress through Diversity”. Many developments in recent years persistently remind us of the theory of a “clash of civilizations”.

            These include the 2001 attacks in the USA, subsequent terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Moscow, Beslan, Tashkent and other cities in the OSCE area. A referendum on minarets in Switzerland, talks about the crisis of multiculturalism policy, debates on banning headscarves and “caricature scandals” in several European countries. One should add here the debate surrounding the construction of a Muslim centre complete with a mosque near Ground Zero in the USA, the threats to burn the Koran and many other events.

            Difficulties in relations of the Muslim world with the other world remain one of the major problems of the global policy. Difficulties in communication are expressed in mutual suspicions, counter-charges in expansion, both political and ideological.

Ultimately, all this transfers into political and military conflicts. The Muslim world in the eyes of the Western community is associated primarily with its radical part, and causes fear. The most important thing, understanding the causes, is to suggest practical ways of overcoming these difficulties.

We face the two most important tasks. First, learning how to resist religious fundamentalism as the political ideology without demonizing Islam as religion. Secondly, establishing an open and honest dialogue between the West and the Muslim world. The Kazakh presidency in the Organization of the Islamic Conference will serve these generous goals.

Date of issue: 2010-11-10