NATO Speech: EAPC Security Forum - Panel 3 “Central Asia - Future Cooperation in the EAPC”

Åre, Sweden

25 May 2005

EAPC Security Forum

Panel 3 “Central Asia - Future Cooperation in the EAPC”

This transcript was published as received

ABDULLAH GÜL (Chair, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Turkey): I'd like to welcome you to the panel entitled " Central Asia - Future Cooperation in the EAPC" of the First EAPC Security Forum. I'd also like to express our thanks to the Swedish authorities for this excellent organization.

I believe that with your contribution this event will enhance our understanding of this important region.

September 11th, 2001, was a turning point in bringing back Central Asia to world politics. Until then, it was considered a quiet corner of the globe where the legacy of the ex-Soviet Union largely prevailed. The region was regarded as an area of energy resources that could be used to complement the current ones. This potential of the region was always recognized.

However, the requirements for Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF, as well as the necessity to contain terrorism in Afghanistan urged other countries to know better the realities of the region.

Central Asia has the capacity to affect security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area directly. It deserves deeper analysis and understanding.

First of all it should not be conceived as a monolithic unit. The special conditions of each country in the region have to be recognised in times of political sensitivities and foreign policy consideration.

Since independence Central Asian states have taken significant steps on state building, sovereignty, and integration with the world. However, there are still some challenges related to the transition process.

It is of utmost importance that we promote political, social and economic reforms in these countries and their integration with the international community, provide the required assistance for smooth transition to the market economy, support enhancement of the law enforcement and interdiction capabilities in combating threats arising from illicit drugs, terrorism and organised crime.

Turkey's historical linguistic and religious ties with Central Asian countries provide a solid base for our extensive political, economic and cultural relations since their independence.

Any step taken to advance democracy and human rights will contribute to democratic harmony and stability and support integration with the world. Tolerance to the expression of different views and the advancement of democracy will strengthen stability. This will prevent differences from turning into extremism. Oppression, intolerance and corruption, in the long run, could create a positive current for radicalism.

Ladies and gentlemen, on the 10th Anniversary of the PfP, EAPC heads of state and government adopted Central Asia and Caucasus as priority area. In the Istanbul Summit the PfP was set on two main pillars: tailored assistance to defence and security related aspects of domestic reforms, and enhancing interoperability with NATO.

Moreover, since the Istanbul Summit, the Secretary General has appointed a Special Representative to the Caucasus and Central Asia, who is present here today, and created the post of Regional Liaison Officers.

PfP programs are based on the principles of inclusiveness and self-differentiation. In other words, it is up to the nations themselves to further their cooperation with the Alliance. In this regard I encourage all Central Asian countries to use existing opportunities to the fullest possible extent.

I sincerely believe that efficient use of current mechanisms will help domestic reforms efforts; we believe that this is desired by the people of the region.

Ladies and gentlemen, before I give the floor to the esteemed speakers I would like to briefly touch upon two developments in Central Asia.

As you know, Kyrgyzstan passes through a special period. We may define this as a renovation(?) movement. I paid a visit to Kyrgyzstan from 5 to 6 May. I met the new leadership and the opposition figures. We attach great importance to the maintenance of peace, stability and public order in Kyrgyzstan. We hope progress and development achieved since independence will continue unabated.

I have been observed that the Kyrgyz leaders are aware of the importance of establishing a transparent and functioning democracy. Turkey will support Kyrgyzstan in its quest for greater democracy, globalization and stability. We also invite the international community to support Kyrgyzstan during this sensitive period.

We followed with concern recent developments in Uzbekistan. We believe that Uzbekistan will take the necessary steps aimed at solving current differences through dialogue. We also encourage Uzbek authorities to prepare the ground for stability, rule of law and order, and harmony in Uzbekistan. We hope that their efforts based on compromise will succeed.

Democracy, rule of law, and human rights are the major concepts of the 21st century that go beyond political boundaries. It is to the benefit of all to participate in this trend.

After these initial remarks, I would like to introduce to you the distinguished panel speakers who will be discussing this important issue:

His Excellency, Alexei Volkov, Deputy Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan; His Excellency, Mr. Michael Emerson, Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels and former EU Ambassador to Russia; Miss Nigina Sattorova, Vice-Chairman of the Information, Education and Cultural Center Vector Intellect in Tajikistan.

As to our discussants, they are:

Mr. Robert Simmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Security Cooperation and Partnership and Secretary General’s Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia; Miss Roza Unaibaeva, Vice-Rector of Eurasian National University Diplomatic Academy in Kazakhstan; Mr. Radislaw Sikorski, Executive Director of the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institution.

May I now give the floor to His Excellency, Mr. Volkov, Deputy Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan.

Thank you.

ALEXEI VOLKOV (Deputy Foreign Minister, Kazakhstan): Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:

First of all I would like to express my appreciation to the Government of Sweden as well as to the NATO International Secretariat for organizing this meeting. Today we have an excellent opportunity to share our views on how we can together achieve closer cooperation through the partnership to promote peace and security in Central Asia.

The NATO Summit meeting in Istanbul last summer once again stressed the importance of Central Asia for the international security environment. There is a clear understanding that NATO's focus on Central Asia also reflects concern of the international community that our region can be very vulnerable for the threat of the modern world.

Indeed, due to geographical local, Central Asia has become not only a cultural and economic crossroad between Europe and Asia but also a transit centre of humans, drugs and weapons trafficking.

Of course, the threat of terrorism remains one of the most urgent problems in the region. The latest events in our region proved that in terms of ensuring security it's very important to see Central Asia partners promoting stability, democracy, fundamental freedoms, and market economy principles in order to avoid extreme scenarios.

And in this regard I am proud to say that Kazakhstan has made significant progress to become a factor of stability in the region. For the short period of our independence Kazakhstan has succeeded to become a regional power with a strong economy and solid position in the international community. For the first time in our history, we have established an independent state according to the principles of the western democracy.

The experience of developed East Asia states and the specific features of our religiously and ethnically diverse society, Kazakhstan model of political development is close to that of the western democracies and other so-called new Asian democracies. Those(?) social progress and political pluralism are recognized around the world.

The recent annual address by President Nazarbayev to the people of Kazakhstan has been very well received to our partners around the world and become a new guidance for future development of our country. The address outlines a complex of tasks in political, economic and social spheres for the Government of Kazakhstan that is to become completed in the nearest future.

The Kazakhstan leader also addressed the threats of the 21st century, his words are, "Our ability to work in peace and advance our country depends on all of us and on the attitude of the international community."

To meet these challenges Kazakhstan is ready to move to a new level of coordination and cooperation with all interested countries and international organizations concerned. Today Kazakhstan is a reliable partner that guarantees stability and mutually beneficial cooperation.

And this progress has led us to seek new approaches in cooperation with NATO. The results that achieved interoperability are clearly demonstrated by Kazakhstan engineering unit which has been making an important contribution to the Polish-led multinational division in Iraq supported by the NATO.

The most important is that things have been progressing since the last ministerial meeting in the direction laid by the Istanbul Summit.

The Secretary General's Special Representative, Robert Simmons, has successful got down to his new business and visited Kazakhstan in March where had a series of productive talks. He has followed by a NATO Liaison Officer who has also taken his office in Astana.

And we also keep our promises. The work is underway to finalize IPAP presidential document of Kazakhstan and we hope that IPAP itself might be adopted by the end of this year and serve as appropriate political and legal basis to our future practical cooperation as well as the instrument of creating common defence and security culture.

Our parliamentarians are going to participate, for the first time, as observers at the forthcoming session of NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Ljubljana.

Beyond the priorities put forward by the Istanbul Summit, our joint efforts in the Framework of Partnership have to address urgent problems of regional security. We should agree on concrete measures to reduce the threatening level of drug trafficking going through our countries to Europe. We are ready to advance in the development of working mechanisms and structures, of information sharing, conducting joint operations to combat proliferation of drugs.

Another very important issue is ensuring border security. We propose to further develop a PfP Trust Fund Policy which we believe could be successfully used for project aimed(?) and environmental of border security.

There is also an opportunity for joint research work. I think it would be very practical to analyze our achievements for the last years of our activity in international drug trafficking current(?) situation. This would help us in terms of planning and better coordinate our further efforts.

Kazakhstan is absolutely convinced that security in Central Asia is directly linked with the situation in the Euro-Atlantic area. We believe it's extremely important to full extent realize NATO potential to jointly respond to the challenges of the modern world.

To conclude, I would like to confirm the proposal of Kazakhstan to host the next Foreign Ministers Security Forum in Almaty.

Thank you for your attention.

GÜL: Well thank you very much Mr. Volkov for this valuable contribution. I'm sure your proposal will be taken into consideration to have the next meeting in your country.

Now I give the floor to Mr. Michael Emerson, the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels and former EU Ambassador to Russia.

Yes, your Excellency.

MICHAEL EMERSON (Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, and former EU Ambassador to Russia): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

Well it's an honour as one of the non-Central Asians on the panel to speak about Central Asia. I have been to all of the states of the region at some time. But today I will devote all of my speaking time to Uzbekistan in view of the exceptional importance and gravity of events- of recent events there. I also have the responsibility as an independent here, not as a diplomat or an official, to speak with complete frankness.

The Secretary General in this morning's session heavily stressed the democracy as partnership as the themes and what I would like to do- and then in the Question and Answer session if you remember he was asked, 'What about Uzbekistan?' And he said, 'Well let's have an international inquiry' and we postponed some PfP events for the time being. That's as far as he went.

I think it is one of the things to do now to go further and deeper into this question as to 'What about Uzbekistan and the present situation?'

The Karimov regime has a long history of president-for-life regime virtually and of human rights abuses which have been well documented. But now we have this Andijan tragedy with somewhere between 169 (official figure) and 700 deaths yet to be clarified.

President Karimov has had one or two lengthy press conferences and so his views on the subject have been documented and I want to pick up two of the arguments he's making and basically contest them. So this is an analysis of arguments and of political logic and of facts.

His first argument that the source of the Andijan episode can be traced to the work of a certain number of Hizb ut-Tahrir (radical Islamists) and that therefore this is the story. That the people who have links with other radical violent terrorist Islamic organizations going through to al-Qaeda if one wants to.

Now, I'm only a reader of the paper these days but it seems to me that that thesis is not very credible. There are some of these, ladies and gentlemen- and presumably mainly gentlemen of Hizb ut-Tahrir who are around there but the question whether they are driving the process and whether they are numerous amongst the people who were caught up and many of whom got killed. And I think this is not so, the evidence is not there.

Let us indeed have the independent inquiry to tell us the facts but this argument is not credible. A counter argument that is coming through is that the people of this region have been suffering from economic mismanagement, economic impoverishments and that the regime, the Karimov regime has even gone to the extraordinary length of driving out of business traditional traders to the profit of the regime cronies and that is part of the dissatisfaction in the region and it may also be the case that events, of course, in Kyrgyzstan may have encouraged the people to protest over these, many of them, over essentially civilian economic distress. And so, I don't buy, for the time being, the argument that this is Karimov against a virtual al-Qaeda.

I don't either buy the argument in President Karimov's press conference, now I quote, "The situation in Uzbekistan is absolutely, I repeat, absolutely different from situation in Kyrgyzstan" and the people living in Ferghana valley have nothing to do with people living in Kyrgyzstan's southern regions. For those who know the geography of that area that is also not a very plausible statement.

Right. Now the second principle argument is that if Uzbekistan was to respond, Mr. Chairman in the way that you are suggesting, and becoming progressively more democratic would that be a good idea or a bad idea? And President Karimov is saying, and here I quote again ". . . attempts to develop democracy . . . may lead to a situation [that] can be used by the third force . . . radical Islam. . . . I appeal to you, western journalists. I ask you, look at the place where you are working. Just look at the mentality of these people. It's sharply [different] from the mentality in Georgia [and] Ukraine. [To be promoting democracy]. . . may have serious tragic consequences." End of quotation.

Now the "serious tragic consequences" we've already got them, thank you very much. But secondly, there's a question as to whether Uzbekistan is really such an exceptional species of mankind that the people there have no interest in eventually having their human rights respected and democracy coming there.

I would- to quote an old expression or to turn it around, those of us who remember reading Karl Marx remember a really brilliant first line in Das Kapital "The spectre of communism is haunting Europe." If I were to turn that around I would say "The spectre of democracy is haunting all the last remaining authoritarian regimes of the Euro-Atlantic area."

Now to get beyond the quotations or the rhetoric, the very serious argument here is to whether the exclusion of moderate Islamist political parties is a good idea or not in order to counter the threat--which is a real threat--of radical Islam establishing a caliphate of all Central Asia.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you know all about this and indeed your party, the AKP Party, is a hugely impressive example of a party originally of serious Islamist origins that has come to be a normal democratic political party.

It's not just Uzbekistan's story, it's a Central Asian story, it's an Arab world story, it's a Middle Eastern story. It's the drama of today. The fundamental political drama of this wider European Middle East neighbourhood as to whether authoritarian regimes that try to keep out all Islamist parties, whether that is a good strategy for their own peoples and from the point of view of the security interests of the West and Europe in particular.

I think the evidence is mounting that this stratagem of exclusion is not a good idea and is not working. On the contrary, responsibilisation within democratic structures of moderate non-violent Islamist elements is the principle strategy that one can observe--or not really a strategy- of the principle of phenomenon one can observe towards these Islamist movements becoming compatible with democracy and general modernisation.

And I think on this count also, myself- speaking for myself but I think I'm speaking for most serious scholars of contemporary Islam, they don't buy the argument that President Karimov is saying that you've got to trust me to keep a tight grip on the situation at all its cost because otherwise you get radical Islam.

So the question then is what to do, if that is the analysis. It would be interesting to hear whether people contest these two points where I would contest the argument that President Karimov is presenting to the world.

The question is what to do? The Secretary General has drawn attention to the idea of the international inquiry, President Karimov has, as far as I know, said so far that he doesn't consider it necessary or appropriate. So what then?

I mean its okay for today for the Secretary General of NATO to say let us have an international inquiry but if President Karimov says no, what then? I would suggest and this is just an idea or- the question I would raise is whether the NATO, the US and the European Union should not be presenting the following proposition: Now, either there's going to be a serious international inquiry and if not, there will be consequences.

Now what would those consequences be? It would be a hardening of a position towards the Karimov regime and what could that consist of? Well NATO could go, first of all, further beyond postponing a few events--it could suspend the Partnership for Peace with Uzbekistan.

The European Union has quite an interesting instrument with its Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. All of the association agreements have a so-called human rights clause which says that if there is persistent and major abuse of the principles of human rights then the parties may take appropriate action but what that- translated into ordinary language, that means that if there is major abuse of human rights principles the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement can be suspended.

Now the European Union has in fact never suspended any of its agreements all of whom- all of which include these clauses even in the Mediterranean-Arab cases. But this would be actually quite an interesting case because there would be- the argument could be put, this would be a good case in which to demonstrate that the European Union itself as well as NATO takes its language of democracy promotion seriously. It goes beyond this easy world of language into action.

With respect to the United States which has a base in Uzbekistan and has used over flying rights for its military then would be the question, 'What for the US?' Maybe our friend from Washington will comment on this. But it would seem to me that the over flying rights are not- the US is not uniquely dependent on Uzbekistan, there's a Pakistan route and the base there, now that the Afghanistan heavy campaign is over, is that base really indispensable? So the question is whether the United States should be held hostage as it were to these two elements of Pentagon instruments.

I guess the question could be put, it's probably not necessary to prioritize those two instruments at the cost of foregoing the fundamental political argument of seeking democratic transition in this region and in this country in particular.

Thank you.

GÜL: Thank you very much Mr. Emerson for this objective and open-minded analysis. I think we need this to understand what's going on there. Thank you very much.

Now I give the floor, Miss Nigina Sattorova, she is Vice-Chairman of the Information, Education and Cultural Center Vector Intellect in Tajikistan.

NIGINA SATTOROVA (Vice-Chairman, Information, Education and Cultural Center Vector Intellect, Tajikistan): Mr. Emerson made very interesting statements and I think that for our region it's main priority concern which will be a subject for discussion. But before we go to our discussion, as a representative with civil society here at this panel I just would like also to add my opinion from the part of civil society of this region.

First of all I would like to join to my colleagues and express my gratitude for... to the organisers of this event, to the hosts and to say that I'm honoured to participate and to say my opinion as a woman, not a big diplomat, but as a ordinary person.

And I'm coming from Tajikistan and if, you know the map and a little bit of background of our country, we are surrounded by four interesting neighbours and three of them are in a complicated so-called for us situation. So, except China, we have- our neighbour is Afghanistan, then Kyrgyzstan and then Uzbekistan and we are the country in this region, maybe the only country, which suffered a severe civil conflict and even the most severe post-conflict situation.

And, this Islamic extremism I would say was quite an issue for us but only one of the concerns. I just would like to share with you what are concerns for civil society in my country and what we see we can contribute through our projects and program to our state policy to support, to complement the government efforts.

Of course, as I said, Tajikistan has some experience in conflict resolution because already for nine years we have our peace agreement with other position and these are things to offer from all the sides but now we are very much concerned with the fact that stability in our region has radically deteriorated due to the situation with first Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and Afghanistan I think it's- historically have some concerns.

As you know that Tajikistan is a transit country for drug trafficking and we concerned with the border of course, security, not only with Afghanistan now it's with all other neighbours surrounding us.

Speaking about problems which we had before, already which are know to the specialists and to the society, these are threat of terrorism, a lack of some cooperation, some misunderstanding, some complicated relationships in the past with our neighbours. We have labour migrants, and already also human trafficking became an issue.

Now when we so-called, we say if there is a fire in your neighbour's house you cannot but be affected by this fire even with the consequences of the fire can affect- therefore it's our main concern.

So what we are trying to do from our side is first of all we of course support in this regard our state policy for peaceful cooperation and in the context of EAPC activity. We are preparing various regional programs, projects, based on as it was here mentioned targeting development and in our understanding its- our centre particularly we are dealing with education which has three main parts of development: education, information and culture.

Information in terms of access to information, work with mass media- a strong mass media and independent but education in terms of working with youths, active youths... students who will be the future of leaders. They will be tomorrow's generation so it depends on us and the academic diaspora who will, how to say, make better banners(?) for the people in terms of what is going on in the region included and regarding these particular concerns and what we can do because now we have this opportunity to raise public awareness involving I would say mass media, involving our partners, international communities, EAPC partners, because maybe before it was not- we didn't have such opportunity but now we have so of course we are open for cooperation, for partnership and we are open for any recommendations, sharing of experiences.

So Tajikistan- the Tajik people as such, we incite(?) even Tajik people, we have various ethnic groups beside minority- national minorities so I think as a representative of my centre and the Tajik people that integration is very important. So projects targeting integration, involving all ethnic groups who were maybe in the past (inaudible) even combatants into some joint projects... involving national minorities, also we'll facilitate the issue of tolerance towards other nationalities, other religions, other ethnic identity and therefore will contribute to the resistant(?) origination or reasons which could originate extremism, hatred, on the grassroots level because it starts very simply from trifles when people are not tolerate, not flexible and therefore we'll contribute to the conflict resolution problem.

So we think that education, information and cultural events will therefore contribute to the political efforts of our government and are very therefore important.

And also, I never forget, I just wanted to say it last. Of course, civil society, very important, is also the gender issue because in all these projects, especially taking into the consideration the background of this region, that it is mainly Muslim countries so women's empowerment, gender issue, is also very important because in all our projects we try to involve women, not only also to participate in projects, you know, as symbolic or token participation but in decision making.

I think that it's very important that women should participate in decision making because women in this part at least of the world, in our region, this I know for sure because I myself am a woman and mother of children, women are such an important element who is responsible for children, who is a chain between children- or a the younger generation and the society. So it's women who are initially put in the children main principles if you understand what I mean, so women should be included in all activities regarding the main concerns.

So actually that's all what I wanted to- I don't want to repeat big (inaudible) phrases which are already known and which were already said by the high diplomats that just very technical bullet points and to- during discussions, I'm open- we are also open for any recommendations, comments.

Thank you very much.

GÜL: Well thank you, thank you Miss Sattorova, your contribution was very much valuable and you briefed us- what's going on in Tajikistan. Thank you very much indeed.

Now, we listen to speakers- here now ready to hear the views of the discussants, we have three. Now we will start with Mr. Robert Simmons, he is the Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Security Cooperation and Partnership and Secretary General’s Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia.

ROBERT F. SIMMONS JR. (NATO Secretary General’s Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia): Thank you very much Mr. Minister and I'm pleased to be on this panel.

In a way the speakers introduced my role more than I can because a number of them mentioned in fact that out of the Summit that was held in Istanbul, the Secretary General did appoint me to be his Special Representative. I'm pleased to do that and I'm also pleased that our colleague from Kazakhstan, the Deputy Minister, indicated that I have taken up those duties at least reasonably actively.

I think listening to the three panellists who presented, I think, very usefully the view from three different countries of the region and the countries are diverse, although they share some problems it might be useful for me to begin the discussion, to talk a bit about how NATO can develop the tools that we already have and how we might expand those to develop our cooperation with the countries of the region to in fact fulfil the promise of Istanbul, to put a focus of the partnership on the countries of Central Asia as well as the countries of the south Caucasus.

One thing I think the speakers pointed to was the diversity. No three of the countries are models of each other, are identical, and secondly they don't face and are not the various- or at the same stage of their development in that context.

That said, they do face and in fact in some ways as again the three speakers indicated, they are really at the front lines of the challenges that the Alliance has said we face. The speakers pointed to that, and certainly to terrorism, to failed states in the neighbourhood, to proliferation and in fact to being, unfortunately, a major transit area for drugs and crime.

Because of their geography they have become critical for NATO's own engagement in Afghanistan and we very much appreciate the role that they have played in that context.

I would say from the point of view, initially, as a defence alliance the priorities in terms of our own work with these countries of the region is defence reform, is helping them--and I'll come back to some of the tools for that--helping them take their military structures and adapt them both on the one hand to interoperability, that is being able to work with the Alliance in cases where they choose to cooperate with the Alliance, but secondly at changing a defence structure to a structure that is more flexible, more responsive, to the new challenges they face.

Out of that I would say, and a number of the speakers highlighted this and it's something that NATO itself sees is very much a challenge, and that is the important of how we can assist them in dealing with border security because if you take the challenges that we face, that they face, border security probably sums it up in many ways and neither NATO nor the countries have all of the tools that I think are effective to develop that but I think it's important that we in fact look at ways that we can enhance and assist them in improving their capacities to defend their borders.

But NATO has also led with these countries in terms of some of the softer aspects, if I can use that expression, of cooperation. It is interesting as I go and speak to the universities in the region how many of them have made very good use of what we call the 'virtually silk highway' that is NATO having given these countries access to computers and linkages between their own academic institutions and the academic institutions of other countries of the Alliance or the partners of the Alliance.

It really has been a remarkable challenge and I think meets, as the last speaker indicated, one of the real challenges of developing communication among the countries of the region and between the countries of the region and Europe.

Second, we have helped these countries, I think, with civil emergency planning and this is a critical area because, they face either natural or regrettably sometimes caused by conflict some of the kinds of disasters that the capacity to deal with civil emergencies in our countries need.

These areas of programs where we can assist these countries I think are important not only because NATO can assist them with technical assistance advice but because NATO, particularly for allies who don't have embassies but want to help these countries can become and develop programs that highlight areas where our allies and our partners, including our host country, can in fact assist these countries in meeting the needs that they face together.

What are the steps ahead? What are the challenges? I think first of all we have to develop a way to have a greater political dialogue with these countries. I think that's one of the roles that I can see myself playing by visiting them, hearing their concerns, but equally as I always say, I challenge them to come to Brussels and raise their concerns in Brussels with the NATO Secretariat, with NATO fora because I think it's important that we hear the challenges that they understand- or how they understand and how they see their challenges.

Second, we need a greater presence in the region. Because of distance, because of small missions in Brussels, it is important that we have a greater presence there. We have a liaison officer and we will continue that presence. I'm pleased to say that that liaison officer will work with at least four of the five countries and hopefully help them to identify the opportunities that exist.

A third area, and I'm pleased that the deputy commander of the Allied Command Transformation is here, is our help in helping them develop training centres that are useful to them--and a number of the other speakers spoke about that--working with our own training capacities within the Alliance to develop Training Centres within the region that can help the countries of the region, but also gather together the other assets that they have to develop capabilities both for defence reform and interoperability.

The third(sic) thing is we have to help these countries meet the transitional challenges that a number of the speakers spoke to and those include, how they focus better on stability, democracy and economic reform. Each in their own way have described these as the key challenges they face, each have met them in different ways, and I think it's important that we continue the dialogue, work with them, and identify ways we can help them meet those challenges.

Finally and without getting into the traditional alphabet soup that NATO representative- that NATO often represents, although that I often raise when I'm in the country, I think it is very important that they have taken up many of the tools that we have to move this forward--particularly the defence area.

Three of the countries have developed planning and review processes that is, having their defence plans looked at by the Alliance and having the Alliance offer them assistance in terms of how the Alliance can help them improve ways that they can develop their defence structures, budget them better and develop a cadre of officers and non-commissioned officers to carry those out. Kazakhstan itself I think has done a particularly useful job at making highly effective use of these tools.

The next step is the Individual Partnership Action Plan which again Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have begun, obviously we face a challenge as Mr. Emerson talked about, about how we carry that forward with Uzbekistan but I think that takes it to the next degree because it sets goals for these countries in these areas that carry out.

And finally in defence institution building, we have to find ways to help them improve the ways in which their management of their defence assets is more accountable to their parliaments and in fact, to their civilian societies.

All of these are the tools that we have but at the bottom line is NATO's commitment, following Istanbul, to assist them in the transition and in fact to show that they are part of the Euro-Atlantic society facing the common challenges we face together. And I'm pleased that I have been the one designated to take the lead in doing that and certainly hope to continue that process, working closely with the governments but also the civil societies, to help them advance on these steps towards the values that we share together.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

GÜL: Well thank you Mr. Robert Simmons. Thank you for your contribution. Now our second discussant is Miss Roza Unaibaeva. She is the vice-rector of Eurasian National University Diplomatic Academy in Kazakhstan.

The floor is yours.

ROZA UNAIBAEVA (Vice-Rector, Eurasian National University Diplomatic Academy, Kazakhstan): Thank you. Distinguished Mr. Chairman, dear ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to participate in the work of the EAPC Security Forum organized by NATO and the government of Sweden.

I represent a sphere of diplomatic education in Kazakhstan, where the issues of security challenges, peacemaking processes, preventive diplomacy, political and military interaction in maintaining security and stability in the Eurasian region are given prior importance.

The keynote speakers at today's plenary session have emphasized the importance of the active participation of representatives of civil society and an academic community in the dialogue of the parties to the forum. A few years ago the Diplomatic Academy had the privilege to receive a delegation of high-ranking officers from the George Marshall Centre for Strategic Research. Our professors and students enjoyed a rare opportunity to get first-hand information about NATO activities. Unfortunately later in the recent years we didn't have this rare chance to have the guests... the guest speakers from NATO Headquarters and from NATO partner countries.

The present forum is another step forward in NATO's productive efforts to embrace wider circles of educators, and I thank you very much for inviting me as one of the representatives of education.

I've been impressed with the range of profound issues discussed at the forum, and as a follow-up response and reaction to the new role of NATO in addressing security challenges, will be working on the development of special courses on the subject with the kind assistance of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs; emphasizing the role of the PfP program, and also a comprehensive cooperative approach to risk management, etc.

So this forum is really a great contribution in terms of getting information about different spheres of activities of NATO and NATO partner countries.

A liaison(?) of the economics and security is another new dimension of adequate diplomatic training. It will take time and effort on the part of professorial staff to collect sufficient theoretical and practical sources to elaborate an adequate course, but this forum, and the speeches I have very attentively listened to, will certainly contribute to helping and assisting the professorial staff develop such courses.

Confidence-building measures are as one of the key issues of today's discussion, are not a new notion for Kazakhstan, an initiator of a unique CICA forum Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia, which activities is also a focus of analysis and discussion within the framework of the syllabi of the Academy.

And I hear learnt a lot from the addresses of the keynote speakers, and of the speakers of this panel today, and I thank the organizers of the forum very much for inviting us to such a great event.

Thank you for your attention.

GÜL: Thank you Miss Roza Unaibaeva for your speech. Now our last speaker is Mr. Radislaw Sikorski. He is the Executive Director of the New Atlantic Initiative at American Enterprise Institution.

The floor is yours.

RADISLAW SIKORSKI (Executive Director of the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institution): Thank you, Minister.

The trouble with going last is that all the best lines and most important things have already been said, so I propose to very briefly share with you some personal impressions of the country that may be tangential and marginal to the EAPC, but is certainly not tangential and marginal to Central Asia. In fact, is the fulcrum of Central Asia, namely Afghanistan.

And I think Afghanistan is a country where we as the West have twice now done the right thing. In the 1980s, and it's at that time that I travelled for three years, on and off, with the Afghan resistance, we did the right thing by supporting our friends, to do what they wanted to do anyway, which was to resist the Soviet occupation. And at the cost of about $10 billion we inflicted a $100 billion worth of damage on the Soviet... on the Red Army, which led to... which was certainly the last such adventure by the Soviet Union.

And I returned to Afghanistan last year. I was incredibly impressed with the progress that country has made. Where there were minefields, there are still some, but there're now vibrant businesses, there are now more girls at schools than ever of any gender, people were at schools. I was particularly impressed in remote villages everybody, men and women, are being registered for first, the presidential election, hopefully for the parliamentary elections. Power grids, new roads, Afghanistan is certainly having its best period, at least in 30 years, possibly many centuries.

And I put to you that there are two models in Afghanistan of developing that country. The one that you see mostly on television is the secular internationalist cabal model. It is characterized by the presence of two and a half thousand NGOs, very strong United Nations presence, and the support functions; the grain distributions, the building programs, the support for the elections, all very good things. And there is only one problem with that model, that progress depends on huge outside infusions of funds into the country.

And then I spent several days in the place where I travelled to join the war 20 years before, the third city in Afghanistan, called Herat, where they tried a different model, a moderate Islamist model, under the leadership of a man called Ismail Khan, who was for 13 years the leader of the resistance there, and then became the local governor.

I went with him to a place called Shindand, where there was once a Soviet Army Corps base, every poor and remote place. And I heard him speak to the local people, appealing to the men, look, what kind of Muslims are you to keep your women locked up in your houses? What kind of Muslims are you to deny education to your daughters? After all, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said in the Haditha(?), that in the search of knowledge you must go as far as China. What kind of men are you to rely on arranged marriages? Can you find yourself a wife the normal way?

And it strikes me that coming from him, a respected resistance leader and a Muslim leader, these kinds of appeal, in those kinds of very conservative, very backwards places, are much more likely to be credible and are much more likely to be listened to than similar things being said by us, westerners, outsiders, do-gooders coming in to the villages.

That model is, of course, somewhat patriarchal, but it also... its other feature is that those people there in Herat province were obviously taking a great deal of pride in paving the roads, in starting local television stations, in organizing villages into the grid system, which allows economic development and starting sewage and water supplies. Doing all that, largely through their own devices, much, much more cheaply. And the reason for that is that local people, being Afghans, are not afraid of taking risks, do not require total security. And therefore can do these projects at a fraction of the cost that it takes to do the same thing under the internationalist model.

And I put to you that the prospect for the self-sustainability of such a model is much greater, it's much more likely to be durable. And I would therefore like to endorse what Ambassador... Ambassador Emerson said earlier, that not every Islamist leader is necessarily a threat to us, and in fact, some of them may be doing what's in our best interest.

There is, of course, a looming huge danger to the Afghanistan settlement. It's been said already, but I'd like to stress it, it's the drugs trade Afghanistan can still become a sort of Venezuela in the sense that there maybe areas in the country where the conflation of drugs money and radical politics make them no-go areas for the central government and where radical politics can have a base.

And that's a huge problem, and I don't think we will tackle it with the traditional ways we've been fighting the war on drugs.

I think you need to address it through market principles and the first thing to do is to look at what we heard in the plenary session. How do you wean societies off humanitarian assistance?

Basically if you flood the country with free grain you will have farmers turning to drugs, because you cannot compete with free grain. And the additional problem in Afghanistan is that the banking system in the villages relies on drugs. When you borrow money you pay back in opium.

So unless we put in institutions with micro-loans and with banking, it's very difficult circumstances where there is no security, we cannot win the war on drugs.

Those were my impressions, and I have one suggestion. Afghanistan was the country... second country to ever win a war with the Soviet Union. The first one was, of course, Poland in 1920. Afghanistan was the country which, by winning the war, with the Soviet Union, in a way is responsible for us being here because that's how the Soviet Union was brought down, so I hope that the next time we meet, and I'm told we're going to meet next time in Central Asia, we will have an Afghanistan delegation with us and perhaps a prospect of Afghanistan joining the Partnership for Peace.

Thank you.

GÜL: Well, thank you Mr. Sikorski for sharing your experience in Afghanistan with us. We hope that the next time there will be a delegation from Afghanistan. I think you are absolutely right, maybe one of the reasons that we are all together here is the result of that struggle.

Now... would you like to say something? To questions. Okay.

Q: Thank you very much. It's on?

GÜL: I think it's working. Yes. No sign, but...

MAREK MENKISZAK (Centre for Eastern Studies, Poland): Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, let me present myself. My name is Marek Menkiszak and I'm a member of Polish delegation, representing Centre for Eastern Studies, which is Polish think tank. And I coordinated the work on the... report which has been made available in front of the hall.

And I would like to just very briefly share with you the major conclusions of our report, which is very much in common with our debate, because it covers 12 nations of the former Soviet Union, including Central Asian states.

It is very difficult to make those conclusions from the more than 100 pages report, but I will put it in every short four points.

The first conclusion is that there are many obstacles for the development of partnership with eastern partners, including Central Asia. But there are some of them which are the most fundamental of problems, most fundamental for the development of these. And they are both on the partner side, and on the NATO side.

On the partner side I believe the major fundamental problem is the deficit of democracy, which of course have been gravely proved by the recent events in Andijan. But it's not the whole issue. Because another very important fundamental problem is the differing priorities and differing expectations on the partner side and the allies concerning cooperation.

For some other partners in other regions, the frozen conflicts are the most fundamental, but in Central Asia it is differing interests and expectations is even more fundamental.

And finally, I believe there is especially a scene from the partners' point of view, a lack of clear vision, a clear strategy on the NATO allies side in policies concerning those countries, partner countries. Which is also very much needed.

Second point, is that in my deep conviction, NATO has instruments to influence seriously situation and developments in the partner countries. And these are existing already instrument including Individual Partnership Action Plan and the Partnership Action Plan on defence institution building. Properly executing these instruments can be very effective, and exert serious influence.

Third point is that there are certain basic common interests of the allies concerning those partners. And in my conviction there are two fundamental objectives. One is the increasing stability, and second is helping in democratic transformation. And those two objectives are absolutely closely interrelated. And in my opinion there cannot be, in central Asia, also, long-term stability without democratic transformation.

And the fourth and final point is that we need serious debate about the partnership policies among allies and with partners, and I believe that this event is very much contribution to that debate. And we need also more cooperation of NATO with other democratic institutions, especially European Union and ERC(?) and overall goals of partnership policies.

Thank you very much.

GÜL: Thank you. Yes, you in the front, lady.

MARGARET WARD (Media Representative, Irish Delegation): Thank you. My name is Margaret Ward. I'm with the Irish delegation as a media representative. I'd like to perhaps direct this towards Mr. Simmons, in relation to Uzbekistan.

Earlier today the Secretary General in his press conference at one point said that the EAPC doesn't put pressure on partner countries, and then at another point, well, we need to keep up the pressure. Given that the whole theme of his speech this morning was democracy, what tools do you see that NATO, or the Alliance, the partnership has, to influence events in Uzbekistan? If NATO expects to try and help export democracy to Darfur, or to Afghanistan, or to countries that are outside its area, surely the first thing it has to do is tackle democratization within its area.

So what tools have you got to try and achieve that?

SIMMONS: Do you want me to...

GÜL: Yes.

SIMMONS: Well, let me put that in two sides. One is, I think a lot of the tools we all have been talking about today are tools to help the countries of Central Asia deal with their transition. Tools like IPAP, the Partnership Action Plan and defence institution building. But our mere engagement with these countries, are all geared to help them deal with that transition, and when they face a crisis, hopefully deal with it in a more responsible way that the Uzbeks did.

So on the one hand there's an investment in all the programs for the future to deal with it better. Then, and I think the question gears to that, when you hit a crisis, like we've hit Uzbekistan, what do you do with those?

Now my own personal feeling is that you have to continue to engage them. I don't think you can isolate them. But at the same time, you have to limit your engagement so that it doesn't be perceived as continuing to provide all of the benefits that come from partnership.

So it's an engagement that continues to talk to them, continues to have a dialogue, and a dialogue that makes clear what our position is, the need for transition, the need for dialogue between the government and opposition, and we've all said that. The Secretary General has said it. I've said it, as his special representative.

On the...

WARD: (inaudible)...if a regime like Uzbekistan has carried out something on a scale not dissimilar to things that were happening, perhaps in Kosovo, and certainly if it continues, would be in that realm, what do you do with the regime that's a member of your Alliance that's not a democracy in that situation?

SIMMONS: Well, it's not a member of the Alliance. It's a member of our partnership, and as I say, certainly you don't give them the benefits, but I don't think you isolate them totally. And obviously we have to see how the situation evolves, and that's critical.

We had one very bad incident we have to watch and try to deal with. And then after that we have to kind of monitor it, have the review that the outside organization, the Secretary General and the Alliance Council has called for, but perhaps some of my colleagues would also like to...

GÜL: Yeah, (inaudible)...

SIKORSKI: Thank you. I share your feeling of helplessness, you know. We should be doing something because in my country in Poland we felt this loneliness about the outside world not coming to help us when we faced our own crackdown when martial law was imposed and Solidarity destroyed by General Jaruzelski in 1981. And NATO... of course, we were not a member at the time, stood by. But the western general didn't do very much.

But there is a good story to tell as well. Look at the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The reason it succeed... there are many reasons why it succeeded, but it could have been destroyed if the army had intervened, and why didn't it? Because over so many years there was such excellent collaboration with NATO of Ukrainian officers, that there was cultural seepage. I think those Ukrainian officers understood the proper role of the army in a democratic society, which is not to intervene in politics in that way. It's to remain neutral. It's to be the guardian of the external security of the state. And it was thanks to this exemplary way that the Ukrainian army behaved that the democratic revolution was eventually able to succeed.

It's very frustration in the short run, I agree.

GÜL: Yes please.

EMERSON: My short answer to that question is that NATO has to form a political conditionality model for handling this kind of case, which is not yet the case.

GÜL: Yes.

STEPHEN PATTERSON (Foreign Office, London): Thank you very much. Stephen Patterson from the Foreign Office in London. And can I first thank everybody on the panel for their contribution to this morning's discussion, which I thought was very insightful.

UNIDENTIFIED: We can't hear you, in fact? Can you raise your voice?

PATTERSON: This obviously isn't working.

UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, it is working.

PATTERSON: Okay, it's now working.

UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, if you stand... can you stand up... I think it's not...

PATTERSON: Thank you very much.

I wanted to make a comment on the issue that was just raised really, which is a very fundamental issue about the role of the international community in addressing incidents such as the one in Uzbekistan. I want to make a couple of points.

First, I think the key role the international community can play is to make absolutely clear to the Uzbek authorities, that question about what happened in Uzbekistan will not go away. The mere fact that Karimov refuses to admit a credible international inquiry team does not mean that the questions will not continue to be asked.

Furthermore, questions will continue to be asked not just about what happened, but about the broader development of an open and pluralistic society in Uzbekistan. It is absolutely clear from the framework document that all NATO partners have signed up to, that they are committed to some key principles of this Alliance: democracy, respected for human rights, tolerance and so on. And it is incumbent upon us to ensure that those norms are properly respected, and that our partners are held accountable for them.

There are various ways in which this can be done. Michael Emerson talked a bit about some of the pressure points that are available to the West, and Robert Simmons has mentioned some of those specific details too. But my real point is a physical one, and it picks up what Mr. Sikorski said, that what Ukraine and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine tell us, is the role of the international community in acting as a catalyst for change. I happen to think that in addition to the restraint of the Ukrainian army last autumn, one of the key factors in the Orange Revolution there was the role of the OSCE. And we shouldn't underestimate the importance of monitoring, of openness and transparency in encouraging forces for change.

The last point I wanted to make, and it picked up Michael Emerson's, is really to underline the issue, which a number of other speakers have made, and that is that we must refuse to condone the link sometimes made between the need for stability and authoritarianism.

The best route to stability lies through good governance. Good governance is not the same as authoritarianism. Good governance requires open, pluralistic societies which create the space for civil society and others to respond to the legitimate demands of people.

Thank you.

GÜL: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Sikorski.

SIKORSKI: I have a suggestion. I think leaders such as Mr. Karimov and even closer to home, Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus, who abused human rights, who run death squads as in the case of Belarus, should not feel that just because they're head of state, even a democratically elected head of state, they enjoy immunity forever. And I think what would be useful would be for the international community to use judicial means to gather the evidence of their malfeasance, so that the knowledge that such a process is in train, and that they one day may be called to account, whether in their own countries, or in the international community, could be a significant break on what they do in the future.

GÜL: Thank you. Yes.

Q: My name is Thomas (inaudible), I am from the Austrian MFA. Mr. Simmons gave a presentation that was very concrete, and you enumerated various areas for assistance, and of course, other international fora like the EU and the OSCE, they are active in more or less precisely the same areas as well. So for example, it comes to my mind, you mentioned border security. There is this border management for Central Asia that started out as an Austrian initiative, and has become an EU project.

Is there enough coordination? Do these activities dovetail and how could we possibly increase the coherence? Thank you.

SIMMONS: Well, I think there has been a certain amount of specialization and that's been good. It's been more by, I would say, happenstance, than effective coordination for a variety of reasons, and yes, the simple answer is, we could do more in terms of coordination.

For instance, NATO's role with defence institutions is fairly unique. The OSCE, of course, takes the lead in elections and democracy building, and as you say, the European Union has done things in their neighbourhood programs in terms of border security and other areas.

We do now have, I think, a wider range of consultation mechanisms between NATO and the OSCE, NATO and the EU, and certainly I think our hope would be that that would continue.

I think fora like this and the members of the Alliance, and the partners of the Alliance, who are also members of the other organizations, help, in fact, bring and focus this coordination in a better way.

We just had two Fridays ago, our annual meeting with the OSCE... well, we have it actually four times a year, and in fact, we spent a lot of time on how to coordinate activities in Central Asia. And as I say, those meetings with the OSCE take place four times a year and give us a key way to do it.

It's a little less structured with the European Union, and I might say, if I could be a little bit controversial, I think we have to do more with the commission side of the European Union, which runs many of the programs in these areas.

NATO's role with the European Union has focused on the Council Secretariat, and in fact, in many of the kinds of issues we're facing today it is, in fact, the Commission that runs the programs. And we could do a better job of working with the Commission.

I think there are steps in the direction that way, but it takes work on both sides to make that work better than it has.

GÜL: Well thank you. Someone from there, yes.

Q: (SPEAKING IN RUSSIAN)...

GÜL: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED: (SPEAKING IN RUSSIAN)...

Q: Spasibo.

UNIDENTIFIED: Spasibo.

Q: (SPEAKING IN RUSSIAN)...

UNIDENTIFIED: (SPEAKING IN RUSSIAN)...

GÜL: Thank you very much. Yes. Can you give the microphone?

ALI SHER (BBC Radio Reporter, Tashkent, Uzbekistan): Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I think I'm the only representative from...

GÜL: You have to come close, sorry.

SHER: Yes, is it...

GÜL: You can't hear him. Yeah, come here yes.

UNIDENTIFIED: (inaudible)...

GÜL: Yes.

SHER: I think I'm the only representative from Uzbekistan here...

GÜL: Uzbekistan, yes.

SHER: And this man, and I'm sorry, I forgot his name. Ambassador Totskiy. He said that in order to understand what's going on in Uzbekistan you should live there and to see what's the situation there. And he himself demonstrated absolute incompetence what's going on in Uzbekistan saying that Uzbekistan... that people in Uzbekistan somehow different from people elsewhere in the world.

This is the same people, the same people who needs the same, you know... who shares the same needs as other people in the world. They need food, good clothing, everything. They're all religious, as many of us. Maybe their religion is the only thing that maybe differs, their religion is Muslim. And it has nothing to do with maybe extremists, most of them.

I completely agree with Mr. Emerson. He's... and I completely disagree with Mr. Totskiy because as far as I know, working in Uzbekistan so many years, that none of Russian organizations, NGOs, doing their research there, they don't know anything about this region. They still rely on former Soviet information, which they receive from old period.

But the western organizations has very good networks there. ICG Group, Amnesty International, you know, this is the real deep reports on what's going on and what measures should be taken to develop or to create better environment in this region.

And from another point, what should be done by NATO, and Mr. Totskiy misinterpreted Robert Simmons kind of saying that... Robert Simmons was right when he said that we need dialogue in this region.

But you know, Uzbek government will be... would be happy not to have any dialogue with NATO after President Karimov's press conference, where he made clear that he is against kind of this criticism, against this criticism from West, and that West do not have any moral right to criticize Karimov because look as Mr. Sikorski pointed that international community should kind of gather information, gather information about Uzbekistan. But don't think that Uzbekistan is not gathering information about the West. I mean, if you say something about Uzbekistan, for instance, why they will tell you, what I do in Iraq? It is simple. To manipulate disinformations, and this is also very kind of popular in the world.

Now I think very drastic measures should be taken towards Uzbekistan. Because Uzbek government now winning crucial time, they're winning time. Today it is in the top news in BBC. Tomorrow it will be... it won't be there. It will be less profile. Today they are not participating here, and they will allow you this international investigation after three years, and then you will not find anything there.

And you know, they're winning the time, and tomorrow when international attention will put to another direction, to Darfur, to Iraq and elsewhere, Uzbekistan will survive; this regime will survive this time as well. So how much information do you need about Uzbekistan? What do you need?

Do you need repressions? There are repressions. There are 30,000 political and prisoners... I mean all prisoners. I mean there are political prisoners. They have secular opposition in exile. They have killings, disappearances, everything what you want. Every... every... the whole range, the whole... how do you say. In Russian says "buket"(?). The whole package of violations. What sort of information do you need now to gather? They don't have human rights; they don't have freedom of media. So I mean this is all what I want to say.

Thank you.

GÜL: Could you introduce yourself, of that you forget.

ALI SHER (BBC Reporter): I'm sorry, I'm... my name is Ali Sher(?), I'm a BBC radio reporter in Tashkent.

GÜL: Thank you very much. Okay. Yes.

SATTOROVA: Ali Sher, do you live in Uzbekistan?

SHER: Yes, I live in Uzbekistan. I'm been in Andijan. I've saw everything with my own eyes.

SATTOROVA: Yeah, yeah, yes, you just... I just notice that you're a little bit tense. It's... I think that here is nobody kind of criticizing the fact that Uzbekistan is not here.

We're just trying to find out what is the best way to deal with that situation. And you know, personally because I'm your neighbour from the country... you said you don't know anything, I mean, NGO doesn't collect information. But...

SHER: I mean, Russian NGOs.

SATTOROVA: No no, just let me say what I think. You know, that ... maybe you know that during this year that relationship between our countries were very complicated. First of all there was no diplomatic relationship for some period at all and it's very difficult. I mean Uzbekistan... I'm not saying the people; I'm saying what policy is general. They don't go for any contacts. I mean as a civil society... for example, we invited them for regional programs, projects. They never participated. They never give any feedback. I mean how then otherwise we should know what is going on inside, I mean, your country?

And I think Mr. Ambassador of Russia and none of this... I mean... people were trying somehow. They just expressed their opinion you know and... I, I, I didn't...

(SPEAKERS OVERLAP)

SHER: I'm expressing mine.

SATTOROVA: I'm not clear about what you wanted to say. So do you support Karimov's...

SHER: Absolutely.

SATTOROVA: ...policy or not? Because on one hand you say that he is... but also (inaudible)... it's for some period he was good and only now we are discussing him. So with one hand you say he's not good and on the same time...

SHER: I'm trying to be very balanced.

SATTOROVA: Oh sorry, sorry.

SHER: The government which Karimov leads is very complicated and it's very...

(SPEAKERS OVERLAP)

SATTOROVA: This is what we are also talking about.

SHER: And it's very clever you know. I'm saying that this government can answer your critics.

SATTOROVA: But I think that is the same what we were saying here. I mean we're supporting (inaudible)...

SHER: I think I was telling him... I was talking about completely different stuff.

Thank you very much indeed.

SATTOROVA: I just wanted to say that it's the same what we are discussing here.

EMERSON: I'd like to follow-up some of these interesting interventions. Ambassador Totskiy I would say I agree with two things you said. One is about the drug business. I don't have the statistics available, but I'm sure it is the case that in Europe--I mean the big Europe from EU to Russia included--the number of lives lost or lives wrecked by hard drugs from Afghanistan is a huge multiple every year of the lives lost in 9/11 in Washington and New York.

And so there's no doubt about... this is pri... number one security threat. It's probably bigger now in concrete objective terms actually than the terrorist threat within Europe.

But how do you tackle it? I guess I would join with Simmons. I think it probably has to be tackled most of all in Afghanistan itself. I mean, improvement of border controls all the way through Central Asia, through Russia, Ukraine and to Europe, yes, yes; but those are very large borders, aren't they? Very long, long borders. So I think it's probably something to focus on Afghanistan itself.

Now the second point of agreement with you is that the question is how to avoid escalation in Uzbekistan. Now I would invite you to, if you like, try to answer your own question. I mean I agree with you; that is the question. But my answer would be the continuation and, if you like, accommodation of the Karimov regime is likely to be the best formula for getting an escalation and for feeding further development of radical Islam both within Uzbekistan and its proliferation and extension across the borders of Central Asia.

GÜL: Thank you. Yes, please. Let him finish.

SIKORSKI: I would like to have a suggestion for our Uzbek friend. I would just like to enlarge on a point I made earlier. We have the former dictator of Poland, General Jaruzelski; he cannot travel to the United States, not because of anything that the United States government has done, but because families of workers murdered in the anti-communist demonstrations in the 1970s and 80s have gathered the evidence and have warned him that he faces a civil suit in the United States and the whole world lives in fear of civil suits in the United States, including dictators and former dictators. So that's one way you could do it.

The other way, also by gathering evidence, is you could approach people like Judge Baltazar Garcon in Spain who famously prosecuted, not entirely successfully, but tried to prosecute General Pinochet. I think we need to develop the legal methods for humanitarian intervention against mass violators of human rights and perhaps that's one route.

Thank you.

GÜL: Yes? (inaudible)... yes.

SHER: I just want to make something clear... that in Uzbekistan...

GÜL: Just raise your voice.

SHER: Yes. That in Uzbekistan you have a situation it is different from what happened in Tajikistan. There was civil war between two groups of people. For instance in Ukraine there are two kind of sides, one for Yushchenko, what was voting for Yushchenko; what was voting for former Prime Minister.

In Uzbekistan you have only one side there - government and people and people against government. If you look at what is situation in Andijan, you will find people rise against government and its security kind of services, you know. It is completely different situation. It's obvious situation when you have the whole people who are against their governance and they...

I was talking with one of insurgents in Karasu and there were no kind of administration at the time there and he says no policemen there. He says we are living very well; how lovely... how nice to live without this government at all. We don't need this corrupt government. We can live our lives ourselves without government.

So government somehow becoming an obstacle for normal life in Uzbekistan, but they need someone from inside of them you know? They need some... they need fair elections; a fairly elected government, not a kind of a... proposed by the centre, by Karimov.

So this is my remarks.

GÜL: Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)...

GÜL: Thank you.

SHARIF RAKHIMOV (NATO Ambassador of Tajikistan): Ambassador Rakhimov of Tajikistan. Before giving my comments on this issue, I would like to ask Ali Sher to give us information about this group, because according to media, there were group of 23 businessmen, so-called Akramians in the prisons; there were their relatives who were again in front of Court of Justice. There were a group of people who attacked this military base, who killed few peoples, got weapons, came to prison, released prisoners, distributed weapons. And then government forces came and they fight against demonstrators and so on. I would like Ali Sher if he was in Andijan to give us information about this first part and then I will continue.

SHER: Sorry. I'll try to keep my answer very, very short. Actually these 23 people, these businessmen and so-called Akramias, they are not the case of this... they just spurred this protest. But the protest potential is very vast there. This just... it was just a reason, just a reason for massive demonstrations.

The second thing, I will not specify on what is Akramias because there is no such trend in Islam and it is absolutely untrue to say that this is kind of group or a big group or something.

You know, in Uzbekistan if you don't have good ulemas, good secular, moderate Muslim ulemas and your ulemas work for government and they do governmental propaganda, so you will have then another sort of ulemas. They will come to you and will work in this concealed... you know... how to say? In these hidden cells you know, propagating you something different from Islam.

In Uzbekistan we do not have any moderate ulemas who will tell you the truth, the truth of Islam, that Islam is actually is a democracy and that Islam is actually is a... as Radislaw Sikorski pointed out, is education, is a very, very deep education.

So your question was...

UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)...

SHER: Yes. According to United States latest report on human rights, the people of Uzbekistan deprived of possibility to change their life peacefully. So United States themselves they agree that in order to change your government, you should have arms and these insurgents they knew that. And what they do first they try to posses some arms because they knew that security services will not tolerate them; that they open fire against them and they knew that they have to have something to defend themselves and to defend their stance.

What they demanded, they demanded Karimov to come their place and that's it and to have negotiation with President. Nothing more. But there were no actual negotiations, even though Karimov said that they were long negotiations and they put some demands. There were no negotiations because we had mobile contact with these insurgents and asked them what kind of negotiations you had. They said they had only one telephone call from Interior Minister asking them... not asking them, ordering them... to put their guns down.

But another what I saw in Andijan that they didn't resist to security services... to this government combat. They put their guns down, even though this kind of raid was very bloody affair. It was, you know, they all lay down and say (SPEAKS IN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE)... That means that before Muslim will die he says these words. You know all about it. And they were ready to die there and they were saying us that we know that we were going to die here because the government will shoot us all and there won't be any evidence or any kind of... any man who will know what's actually happened here.

And so now in Andijan it's a situation quite tense, but calm and you know, government forces are still in town, surrounding the town, but the problem is still there. The problem is for the...

UNIDENTIFIED: (inaudible) is not allowing expression of the opinion of the people...

SHER: Yes.

GÜL: ...the people if they cannot express themselves, if they cannot criticize the...

SHER: So I just quoting... yeah...

GÜL: ... if you don't allow this, then that is the danger.

SHER: And I just was quoting this United States State Department report saying that people deprived to change the... to deprive the possibility to change their government peacefully and so United States kind of confirms that this is impossible to do it without force, without blood.

GÜL: Okay. Thank you very much indeed for this information. Is there anyone... I don't... yes, there is one more over there.

PETER KOVACH (NATO International Secretariat): Thank you. My name is Peter Kovach. I work NATO International Secretariat and I would like to ask a question basically to all the participants of this discussion and it's about the Kyrgyz Republic, but also on the future of the whole region.

The Kyrgyz Republic is standing before a very big test. The Kyrgyz Republic, in principle, could serve as a good example for the whole region, all the countries in the region. And this is a test, the elections, if the presidential elections go well and in a democratic way, then we have a country which is worth our attention and which deserves our help and assistance. But this is a test also for the international community. So we have to show - including NATO, the European Union, other international organizations - must show that if people make changes in a country in Central Asia, if they choose the democratic way, then the international community is ready and prepared to help them.

And my question is actually whether the international community, including the European Union and NATO, are ready to assist in the democratic development in the Kyrgyz and in which ways could the international community help, should the elections go really in the right direction.

Thank you.

GÜL: Thank you very much. In fact in my speech I said I paid an official visit to Kyrgyzstan. I was the first Foreign Minister who visited them after the changes. I was very much optimistic, in fact still I am very much optimistic, because the new leadership, they are well aware of the democracy, transparency and accountable of the politicians to the people. And they think that this will be asset for them. They don't have enough natural resources. They think that if they create a country in the centre of Asia, democratically ruled, that it will be very much attractive for the world.

So they are very much aware of that, and they are ready to receive all kind of help(?) from our side. This is what I saw them. If you'd like to add anything?

UNIDENTIFIED: (inaudible)...

GÜL: Yes, yes, please.

SIMMONS: Well I myself was in Kyrgyzstan a couple of weeks ago, or last week in fact. I think many of the instruments that I pointed to are things that we in the Alliance can help Kyrgyzstan with, but I think Kyrgyzstan, given its size and the limits of its resources, is one of those cases where we need to work to establish the access, the presence, so that they're aware of what's available.

It's unfortunate that particularly at the end of President Akayev's time a number of the opportunities, training opportunities and others were not taken up by the Kyrgys and certainly our hope would be within the Alliance, that we get them to take up some of these opportunities, and I know individual allies, our Turkish friends, the minister here, but other allies as well, I think, are prepared to help them to fund their places in training opportunities and things like that, and I think that really should be the highest priority.

The government has a big task ahead of it, and we have to help them and that's the steps we should take.

GÜL: Yes. Yes, please.

EMERSON: Yeah, I very much sympathize with the sense of the question, and indeed the issue of how comparatively to respond to these promising developments in Kyrgyzstan versus disastrous and tragic developments in Uzbekistan is part of the business. And so positive signals for Krygyzia and unfortunately some less agreeable reactions, propositions, pressures, towards Uzbekistan.

But how... on the EU side, which I watch, I think they need some pushing, probably, to activate things. I mean, Javier Solana will certainly go round and say well-chose words of encouragement. Whether the EU will switch on effective assistance fast there I think is an open question. I mean, they are hugely preoccupated(sic) with other things at the moment; not least in Ukraine and Georgia.

And so I think a certain amount of public debate about the interests of the European Union and Turkey, together, I think would be an excellent model case for effective foreign policy cooperation between Canada, Turkey and the European Union to show their faces together more effectively, more vividly, and fast in Uzbekistan.

Mr. Chairman, a proposal for you.

GÜL: Well, I believe this would be very much fruitful. In fact, I already expressed our readiness. The most important thing is the new leadership I saw, I discussed this with them, they are ready to receive this kind of help. They are ready to work together. And I told them that you don't have natural resources, so if you create a democratic transparent country here in the centre of Asia this will be better asset for you than oil or gold or anything else. And it's how Kyrgyzstan can be attractive, in fact.

And I'm very much optimistic, so we can... we can work together, of course. Since the government is ready to work with us, with Turkey, EU, NATO or the other neighbouring countries, and others who want to help them, we can work all together.

Is there... yes, please.

UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you very much, Minister. I'm the Deputy Permanent Representative of Portugal. I'd like to pick up on your words of optimism right now, to say that obviously we have focused on a number of problems which are well-known in each of these countries and all of them together, and of course, very specifically on the dramatic developments on Uzbekistan.

But I think that we shouldn't lose the opportunity of this setting also to emphasize and I think it would be important for the most expert panellists to do so for us. What are the most... the positive trends, the positive potentials within the region that can be called upon and mobilized and helped from the outside in order to generate positive developments? I think that it is a question whose answer is important namely for NATO as a whole, for the EAPC and even for the international community, because this is where we can find the interface between the region and outside institutions and NATO to begin with, and that would be the channel through which, as Bob Simmons has also mentioned, we can help support the region's own potential for positive developments, both at the institutional level, at the economic level, and in fact, in all aspects of their society.

Thank you.

GÜL: Thank you very much. I don't see any other... Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED: (inaudible)... No no.

GÜL: No.

EMERSON: Just a footnote, Mr. Chairman, because it was just in the last round that the thought occurred to me that there should be a joint Turkish-EU project in Kyrgyzstan. Last year in my Centre we had the pleasure of working a lot on the Turkish question, as you may be aware, but in part we developed in a certain paper the concept that in the pre-accession period for Turkey there ought to be really operational integration of foreign policy actions of Turkey and the European Union.

In this particular case we could imagine, I think, some joint operational projects that would profit from Turkish participation, with all of the comparative advances that you have in that area, but coupled with European Union resources; whether this would be civil society development, democratic institutions development, is a whole collection of subjects for plausible technical, political assistance.

And I would like to promote the idea that the European Commission and Mr. Solana might discuss the question of a joint operation with you personally, Mr. Minister.

GÜL: Okay, thank you. I will talk this with him, yes.

SIMMONS: Can I just...

GÜL: Yes, please.

SIMMONS: Just to follow up, let me cite four things that I think would be a good way to proceed with this. One is, I think there is now good cooperation between NATO and the countries of the region represented by the support for our activities in Afghanistan, but as Ambassador Totskiy said we could do more and we could do more, particularly for instance on border security and the drugs, and we could do so perhaps in cooperation with Russians.

Second, as a number of people have pointed out, I think we have to follow up developments in Kyrgyzstan and really look at ways that we can, through the EU, through EU and Turkey, but through NATO itself, follow up and support that government as it comes to grapple with the problems it faces.

I think the model which we began with that the Deputy Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan talked about and the developing and good cooperation with Kazakhstan is also an important thing.

The final thing I would like to say to this partnership is that I think NATO has some tools, the trust funds, the training opportunities, where allies and partners, and particularly ones that don't have representation of these countries can, in fact, bring a limited amount of resources to an effective use to try and help and assist these countries I meeting a number of the challenges that we face today.

At the same time, cognizant of the fact that the Uzbekistan case means that we will also have to face at times the difficulties of transition from time to time and we will have to be honest and clear that it's dialogue and not violence that is how we have to respond to those transitions.

GÜL: Thank you. Okay, I think this was very much fruitful debate. I think that this help us to understand the Central Asia better.