On December 24, 2008, the Institute for Public Policy held a roundtable on "The main results of Kyrgyzstan's foreign policy." Leading experts in the country's foreign policy participated in the roundtable; giving their assessment of the most important foreign policy events of 2008.

List of participants:

Moderator: Muratbek Imanaliev, Institute for Public Policy, president;

Erlan Abdyldaev, IWPR, director;

Valentin Bogatyrev, Analytical Consortium "Perspective", coordinator;

Leonid Bondarets, International Institute for Strategic Studies under the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, a leading expert;

Baktygul Kalymbekova, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, advisor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs;

Mohammed Lowe, President's Administration, expert of the Foreign policy Department;

Kadyr Malikov, Institute of Strategic Analysis and Prediction under the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, expert;

Kuban Omuraliev, independent expert, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary;

Roza Otunbaeva, deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh of KR;

Mars Sariev, a political analyst;

Marat Usupov, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, advisor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs;

Joomart Ormonbekov, AUCA, Ph.D. in Political Science

Muratbek Imanaliev: I am pleased to welcome you all to the Institute for Public Policy. I really appreciate that you have accepted our invitation. During these past three years, we have held an expert roundtable at the end of each year where representatives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Parliament, various Ministries and independent experts participate. The roundtables are dedicated to dicussing the foreign policy of our country.

Usually, we try to identify the mainstream of this work, without focusing on basic direction, and make some conclusions.  We then take these conclusions to make recommendations for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the Administration, and for all other relevant institutions. Today, given some discussion on these issues, which started taking place last year and is still on-going, , we thought that it would be highly desirable to see not only the results of foreign policy of our country but also to look at them within the framework of specific structures - especially those that are called the "Great Game." When we talk about the "Great Game," we use the term invented by Arthur Conolly, a British Army Captain, in the 19^th century, and widely used by Kipling.  However, we actually use the term with quite a different meaning. We are referring to the emergence of other players and their numbers. Nevertheless, some semantic lines remain, first and foremost - a clash of interests. It is the heart of the old game and today's great game. But, when we talk about the "clash of interests," how do we understand it? Is it a contiguity of interests and their parallel development? Or is this a kind of conflict? Or even worse - perhaps, this is the emergence of obvious and very dangerous contradictions, which can lead to unpredictable consequences? We would like, of course, to discuss this issue. In this regard, we would like to talk about the American direction. I am also convinced that there will be some comments, summarizing the results of our relations with China and Russia.

We would also like to see what is, actually, Islam. In terms of subjectivity and strategy building, of course, this factor stands apart from the USA, Russia and China. However, it is important to understand what we have today, how it will develop, how it will affect the formation of certain political tendencies of our country, formation of the elite, people's worldview, state and position of the society. What I have now listed is also related to the USA, China and Russia.

Let me now give the floor to Marat Usupov, adviser to the Minister for Foreign affairs of our country.

Marat Usupov: Dear colleagues, let me thank you for the invitation to participate in this event. I was asked to represent, today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the end of the year, all the foreign policy institutions finalize their reports. Usually, we have a full analysis of the activities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and all foreign policy departments. You know, many events have happened during the reporting period in the world that has influenced the process of foreign policy shaping. New Presidents were elected in Russia and the United States, Kosovo gained independence, there was a conflict over South Ossetia, and the global crisis began. All these external factors have influenced the implementation of foreign policy. Concerning the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we tried to carry out the foreign policy concept, declared by the President, which is a balanced policy based on pragmatic protection of our interests. We sought to participate fully, as far as it was possible, taking into account physical and material resources in international relations, and to cooperate with other states. In doing so, we paid particular attention to the multi-vector principle. Recently, this principle, in terms of Kyrgyzstan, has caused much debate in the media and among political analysts. In its activities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs continues to improve the systematic planned approach. For the first time, a three-year program was developed. We attempted to develop monthly plans for the whole Ministry. This is a purely technical work, but it has improved the executive discipline and coordination between the Ministry and its departments abroad.

Let me now speak on some directions that were identified by Muratbek Sansyzbaevich. As for the CIS direction, this year, the major component was the chairmanship in CIS and another regional organization - Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Under the chairmanship of Kyrgyzstan, there were informal summits in Moscow, St. Petersburg, a meeting of the Council of Heads of Government in Minsk and many industry meetings. In general, summing up, during this chairmanship, we were able to move forward on the question of reform. There was some work to do with national coordinators on regulations. There was great skepticism about numerous documents that had been adopted, but many of which are not implemented. But the position of the Kyrgyz Republic on these directions is to hold the most constructive line of strengthening the integration trends within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), CSTO and Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC); if it does not infringe upon our national interests. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are working on the establishment of a Customs union. Once it is established, we will seek to engage with this work also. Within the framework of the Summits, we should note the Bishkek summit of heads of Central Asian states; which took place after the CIS summit. Almost all Ministries consider this summit positive; some even call it breakthrough because, during this summit the parties managed to agree on the coordinated use of water-energy resources in the forthcoming winter and vegetation periods. After that, a protocol was signed in Almaty.  At that time, Uzbekistan promised to help with the supply of gas. As you know now, it has been quite difficult negotiations with Uzbekistan; and the Minister of Energy is planning to visit Tashkent in the nearest days to agree on gas prices.

Kyrgyzstan proposed a number of important issues in EurAsEC; issues concerning reclamation and labor migration. As you know, both of these issues are very tough for our country and they are supported by UNDP. Despite the fact that there have been attempts to actively address the problems, the Kyrgyz-Kazakh relations have continued to develop most progressively. This is largely due to what has already been achieved: the Parliament ratified the treaties "On border," "On resorts," and an Intergovernmental Council was established. This is a very important achievement. Among important arrangements, we should emphasize the permission for Kyrgyz citizens to stay in Kazakhstan for 90 days without registration. As for Uzbekistan, despite the attempts to solve consular issues on the movement of citizens and delimitation of borders, there is a complex process of negotiation. This year, the number of incidents at the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border has increased. The meetings of competent authorities have been held to neutralize the effects. The attempts to convince Uzbekistan to participate in the negotiating process on the railroad have been also made. As you know, Uzbekistan is not especially active here, and Kyrgyzstan, in its turn, has held talks with China to begin this work on a bilateral basis. There have been intensive talks with Tajikistan, and summits have been held. There have been meetings with Putin and Medvedev. The questions about crimes motivated by ethnic animosity were raised. By the end of the year, as shown by an analysis, the number of crimes against our citizens has reduced, and the number of trials resulting in criminal penalty and persecution, has increased. I think that this is a positive trend. And at the end of the year, I think we should especially emphasize the statement by Putin - that Russia will provide 2 billion US dollars, of which 300 million will be provided to support the state budget.

Regarding the United States, we should say that Kyrgyz-US relations remain positive.  Representatives of the State Department visited Kyrgyzstan, and an agreement on including in the threshold program "Millennium Challenge Account" was signed. The document provides for allocation of 17 million dollars, which will be aimed at the project on rule of law and deterrence of corruption. Continuing negotiations on the airbase took place. I think that here we have great potential and reserves. We have a clear intention to intensify trade and economic sphere.

It should be also noted that many events took place in the area of cooperation with the European Union. For the first time, an EU program-strategy in respect of the Central Asian states was adopted; this program provides resources for technical assistance. In this cooperation with the European countries we have put forward two initiatives - establishment of water and energy Academy and holding meetings on water and energy issues. So far, the initiatives are not widely accepted, largely due to the fact that not all our neighbors agree with the location of the academy.  It is not a very constructive approach. Nevertheless, this work will be continued in 2009.

With regard to the East, I would say that there have been active attempts to increase our cooperation with the Arab countries. Our Ministers visited the region. We have already agreed on the President's visit to the UAE. Preparatory work is being done, and there is plan to open the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Bishkek next year. We have been actively trying to establish cooperation with the Gulf States of Qatar and Oman. Our attempts to join the Interregional Forum and the dialogue on cooperation in Asia, which unites 11 countries in Asia and the Middle East, were successful. There has been a dialogue with Japan and Korea: Central Asia plus Japan, Central Asia plus Korea, which makes bilateral cooperation more active. This year, we took part in the UN General Assembly; we coordinated the promotion of the resolution on the zones, free of nuclear weapons. The resolution was successfully passed. The draft resolution included the paragraphs on the need for rehabilitation of the territories affected by radioactive contamination; the problem of tailing dams has been raised again, and it has been agreed that the International conference on uranium tailings will be held in Bishkek in 2009. There are two components in the resolution: the April conference in Bishkek and an international forum in Geneva in June. Preparations for the Mountain summit are also being made. There have been attempts to be represented in different bodies. Kyrgyzstan was selected to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development for 2009-2012. A diversified work has been done with the OSCE. Here a duty work on economic diplomacy was carried out in various aspects, including the establishment of a coordinating council with the participation of governors. It should be noted that our Embassy in Austria is working with Austrian companies on a master-plan to assist the Batken region.

If you have questions, I will try to answer. In general, we have achieved our main objectives. Many things have not been solved for objective and subjective reasons, but the work of the Ministry, its departments and offices abroad, was not less intensive. I have said everything.

Muratbek Imanaliev: Thank you for your helpful review of the activities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We believe that one of the most important directions of the political work is the relations with USA. We clearly understand that the relations with America are greatly affected by the airbase issue. We will talk about this. There are polar positions on this point. We would like to hear Kubanychbek Omuraliev, who will speak more about other aspects of interaction between the U.S. and Kyrgyzstan. Please.

Kubanychbek Omuraliev: Dear colleagues, firstly, I also want to express my gratitude to the Institute for Public Policy for providing an opportunity to share my thoughts on the state and prospects of foreign policy of our country. Since our independence, the foreign policy of Kyrgyzstan was aimed at economic diplomacy. In this regard, in my speech on the Kyrgyz-American relations, I would like to draw your attention more to trade and economic ties, as well as the programs of assistance. But in the beginning, I will speak a little on political relations, including military cooperation.

I would divide the bilateral Kyrgyz-American relations into two stages. First - was the period of cooperation to ensure sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Kyrgyz Republic. It should be noted that the United States were among the first to recognize the independence of Kyrgyzstan and to open its diplomatic mission in our country. At that stage, special attention was paid to the political development of Kyrgyzstan and democratization and human rights in the republic. The second stage was affected by the fact that after September 11, the U.S. administration, not hiding its interest in promoting democracy and human rights in the region, gave priority to the fight against international terrorism. As a result, Kyrgyzstan, along with other countries in the region, became one of the priority areas for U.S. foreign policy. During the first stage, the U.S. constantly put pressure on Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian countries to accelerate their democratic transformation. Among the tasks in this direction, the U.S. administration named the development of independent media in the country, the establishment of political pluralism and the emergence of active civil society. During the second stage, it seems to me, that the U.S. administration, while forcing the Central Asian states, including Kyrgyzstan, to accelerate their reforms, openly acknowledged that the solution to all the problems of democracy requires a long commitment, a large amount of work and even a "change of generations." It seems that the administration of the President Bush began to understand that democratic transformation in the region is a process, which has a certain sequence. Moreover, the U.S. administration sought to prove to his critics that human rights are only one of the elements of the U.S. foreign policy, while the main priority in the current situation was given to strengthening national security.

In this regard, I will speak on the cooperation in the military field. Cooperation in this field may be divided into two phases: before 2001 and after 2001. Over the past 7 years, bilateral military cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and the U.S. has reached a higher level.

Undoubtedly, the disposition of coalition forces in the international airport "Manas" to conduct operations in Afghanistan greatly contributed to it. The U.S. has a special interest in expanding military cooperation with the Kyrgyz Republic and considers our country as an important link in the fight against international terrorism. In this context, the American side is extremely interested in the further use of the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic as a bridgehead for its mission in Afghanistan. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that new directions in the ongoing operation in Afghanistan will emerge in the near future; shifting from the military phase of operations to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Cooperation in the military field is also developing within the program "Partnership for Peace," which focuses on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ensuring the border security in Kyrgyzstan.  In addition, there are other programs.

I will focus a little on the mission and the activities of the airbase "Manas." It is the main air-mobile center for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the military operations in Afghanistan. This mission has a United Nations mandate; its purpose is to assist the Government of Afghanistan. I will say a few words about the impact of the airbase on the economy of Kyrgyzstan. I have inquired myself (and other different sources have confirmed this), the operations at the airbase bring more than 80 million U.S. dollars income for Kyrgyzstan. According to the estimates, this includes landing and parking of aircrafts, issuance of passes - in total, 24 million U.S. dollars annually. 550 Kyrgyz citizens are working at this airbase, and their earnings amounted to 2.64 million U.S. dollars over the past year. Also this year, Kyrgyz contractors have provided their services amounting to 18 millions of dollars. Recently, our contractors won a supply tender for 90 million. In addition, the rent, which our Governments agreed on in 2006, is 17 million 400 thousand. Total - around 80 million US dollars.

Turning to the trade and economic ties. It should be noted that the development of trade and economic ties has its own difficulties. One of these is  the long distance between our countries and the lack of access to the seaports from our country. But, at the same time, we should take into account that there are good conditions in the aspect of law. For example, the agreement on investment promotion and protection between the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic and the U.S. Government came into force on 12 December 1994. One example is the "KATEL" company. They took advantage of this agreement. Another significant development in the bilateral relations was the adoption in 1998 of a law, ensuring normal trade relations (NTR). It is the normal trade relations, or the Jackson-Vanik amendment. This amendment has been long discussed by Russia, Kazakhstan, and other CIS countries; but they still cannot cancel this amendment. This is an amendment about joining the WTO. It is very important, because there are minimal rates and fees. Our officials from the Ministry of Trade and Economic Development and other agencies know about it. Here is a table - the total foreign trade turnover of Kyrgyzstan between 1994 and 2008. The first column is the total turnover, including the percentage. In 1994 it was 5.4 percent, and for 10 months of 2008 - 2.2 percent. You see the difference. The highest was about 7-8 percent in 2002. For the most part, it is the pharmaceutical production that comes from there, because 4 percent is exported, while the rest is imported. 24 and even more percent of the imports are pharmaceutical products; while the ground transportation vehicles (trucks, tractors, cars, spare parts for cars) constitute 23 percent. I did not have time to specify with customs, but it was informed that more than a thousand cars come from America. Of these, 23 percent over 15 percent of vehicles are for use by citizens. Here is the flow of foreign direct investment. Here, again if you pay attention, the peak was in 2001 - 19 percent, and this year it is not even 1 per cent.

Regarding attracting foreign direct investment, at first the American side tried to do it; they organized conferences both in the U.S. and here in the region, inviting officials and businessmen. A special center called BISNIS in the Ministry of Trade had been established; which for over a decade had contributed to the spread of business and investment information on the CIS countries among companies of USA. It was closed two or three years ago. Some countries took greater advantage of this opportunity, while the other countries could not even provide normal projects. If you remember, in 1995-1996 the Asian Fund for the Support of Entrepreneurship was opened in the region with an investment portfolio of 150 million U.S. dollars. Unfortunately, this project from its outset was accompanied by scandals, including corruption scandals. Did these programs work effectively, or how were these opportunities used? I think that these issues deserve separate discussion. In 1997, the fund was closed.

Next, what I would like to draw your attention to is the U.S. Government programs of assistance to the Kyrgyz Republic. It is impossible to accurately estimate how much assistance we receive. There is a project on the Chamber of commerce and industry. This assistance is not taken into account. There are some types of assistance that are not taken into account. In general, including this year, the assistance amounts to about 906 million U.S. dollars. Of these, more than 400 million dollars came through the USAID, and a portion of this assistance was implemented by organizations of the United States and USAID contractors (which were responsible for democratization programs in our country). They include the National Democratic Institute, the National Democracy Foundation, "Eurasia" Foundation, the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), "Counterpart Consortium," and the International Republican Institute (IRI). As I have said earlier, of the 400 million dollars (including 2008): 203 million was allocated for economic development, more than 46 million - for health programs, about 20 million - for education, 60-70 million - for the development of democracy, and more than 36 million dollars - for cross-sector programs. The American Program "Millennium Challenge Account" has been implemented since 2004, and Kyrgyzstan joined it in 2007. The criteria included the requirements to conduct political and economic reforms, fighting corruption and strengthening other democratic principles in the country. It took a long  time for us to be accepted in this program. This year, a 16 million contract was signed. This program is more oriented to the real sector. For example, Georgia has received more than 270 million dollars, Armenia - 236 million. In these countries the assistance is aimed at restoring the infrastructure, rehabilitation of roads and irrigation facilities. We are now at the threshold stage.

Kyrgyzstan must take into account that if the U.S. offers assistance through international organizations, especially through the World Bank, IMF, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and other organizations, such as the UN, OSCE, etc., they invest directly, but sometimes they do it through the IOM; in particular, for the production of new passports or for construction of modern checkpoints on the borders with neighboring countries. This is also done directly by the U.S. Government.

At the end of my speech, I would like to say a few words on how the outcome of the presidential elections in the USA will affect Kyrgyzstan. A brief analysis of the foreign policy platform of the elected U.S. President Barack Obama leads to the following conclusions. In my opinion, the new U.S. administration, in its foreign policy, will promote two positions with regard to Kyrgyzstan - the use of the airbase and the building of democracy. Concerning the use of the airbase, this issue will be a priority and will always be on the agenda, until the situation in Afghanistan becomes stable. Moreover, the elected President of the United States announced that his Administration would allocate more resources to the destruction of terrorists and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Regarding the second position, as always, the United States will firmly promote "frontiers of freedom" in the region, helping the countries to build democratic institutions. Therefore, human rights, religious freedom, building open society and other issues related to the construction and development of democratic institutions in our country will remain the main issues in the bilateral relations between our countries.

In conclusion I would speak on recommendations for improving our bilateral relations. In a close contact with relevant structures of the U.S. Administration, we should work on greater integration of Kyrgyz organizations (public and private) into the United States programs on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. In recent years, even the trade turnover with Afghanistan has already amounted to tens of million dollars, while earlier it was zero. Our people are present there. Naturally, the active work with the U.S. Congress and American influential public organizations and think tanks should be given a priority in the shaping of foreign activities of Kyrgyzstan and play a key role in attracting private investments into the real sector of Kyrgyzstan. In particular, the work with the "Silk Road" group in the U.S. Congress led by Senator S. Brownback and Congressman J. Pitts should be intensified. We should work actively on a permanent basis with such agencies as the Ministry of Trade and Ministry of Energy of USA, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the US Agency for the Development of Commerce. By the way, we seldom use the latter agency. There are also huge amounts of money. At its time, we spent about 200 thousand for the Telecom and E-Government. And the last thing is the work with the U.S. government on the allocation of further assistance to Kyrgyzstan.

Muratbek Imanaliev: Thank you. Now we will proceed to a complex issue: the Islamic factor, whether it exists at all in international affairs and in relation to us. A specialist on Islam, Dr. Malikov, is going to speak on this.

Kadyr Malikov: Indeed, this issue is topical now. By the Islamic vectored foreign policy, we mean Kyrgyzstan's foreign policy with regards to the so-called diversified Muslim world, which is represented by the Arab countries, as well as Muslim countries of Pakistan and Iran. I would like to make a slight digression. Recently I read the words of Alexei Malashenko from the Carnegie Center. He said that politicians, after a long coma of secularism, are now beginning to understand that it is hard to do without religion in foreign politics. So far, it is difficult to say, whom exactly he was speaking about; but let's think about it ourselves. First, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Central Asian states hoped for support from the Muslim world and for major investments in the economy of their countries; and they were mainly looking for partners from the Gulf countries. Virtually all the political elites of the former Soviet nomenklatura sought to demonstrate their commitment to Muslim traditions; stressing Islamic solidarity. This was done in order to receive financial assistance and attract investment. In the early years of independence, many leaders of the Central Asian countries traveled to Arabia and committed the Hajj in Mecca. Many countries, including Kyrgyzstan, became members of the OIC - Organization of Islamic Conference. After September 11, Kyrgyzstan has become more wary of the Islamic world, suspecting some countries, for example Saudi Arabia, in the imposition and spreading the ideology of Wahhabism. With financial support from Islamic charitable organizations, 1500 mosques have been built in Kyrgyzstan. Before 2005, the main vector of Kyrgyzstan's foreign policy in the greater degree was focused on Western countries: the United States, the European Union, Turkey and China. The foreign policy of Kyrgyzstan in this context revealed some similarities with that of neighboring countries in the region. After the change of political power in 2005, the question of developing the Arab-Muslim vector in the foreign policy of Kyrgyzstan again acquired its relevance. First, I would like to remind everyone about the Presidential decree on the President's support of the introduction of Islamic financing methods in Kyrgyzstan on July 12, 2006. This contributed to a more active development in the relations with international Islamic organizations, such as the Islamic Development Bank. Kyrgyzstan has been a member of this Bank since November 1993. During this period, we have received 60 loans amounting to 60.91 million dollars and nearly three and a half million dollars as a grant. The relations with the Gulf countries were beginning to develop.

Still I would like to mention: perhaps, Kyrgyzstan's attention to the countries in the Arab world may be explained by banal reasons - the West has ceased to provide big money on favorable terms, seeing that Kyrgyzstan is no longer strongly committed to the principles of democracy. It began during the last years of Akaev's rule. Thus, having exhausted the trust, Kyrgyzstan, perhaps, had to turn to the East, in particular, to the Gulf Arab countries, as they shut their eyes to the level of democracy, human rights, etc.

The Islamic world, mainly religious-political parties, which are bearers of radical ideologies, have an interest in Kyrgyzstan and in the region as a whole. Hence, there is an active intrusion of Salafit political ideas. That is, the remaining circles, especially financial ones - as they dictate the actual relations in the political arena - have a rather cool and pragmatic attitude toward Kyrgyzstan. Here, the famous "Islamic solidarity" did not bring expected results. For example, two Arab countries - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Arab Emirates - have invested more than 22 billion in the economy of China, while in all the Central Asian republics during the years of independence, they invested a little over 200 million dollars. In this regard, the question arises: is it really necessary for Kyrgyzstan to activate the "Islamic" vector in its foreign policy? My answer is: it is necessary to take into account that today's situation in Kyrgyzstan is characterized by the growing influence of Islam in many areas of social and political relations, especially after the change of power in 2005. If we are talking specifically about the "Islamic" factor in terms of security and stability in Kyrgyzstan, the cooperation with the Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, may take place in the following areas: First - organization of the Hajj; second - Islamic, religious educational institutions, where Kyrgyz citizens are trained; and third - charitable organizations (i.e., the cooperation with state authorities to prevent the infiltration of radical ideologies in the territory of Kyrgyzstan), scientific centers of moderate Islam and the cooperation to counter the ideology of radicalism.

We have also our own projects of cooperation with governmental organizations in religious affairs. For example, the Kyrgyz Agency of Religious Affairs officially registered the sect of Ahmadits, which is prohibited in all Muslim countries. The image of Kyrgyzstan was remarkably low at the meetings in Islamabad. In this context, I would also mention the specifics of the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia as regional leaders. Another question concerns the complicated domestic situation in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, where the Taliban controls 65 percent of the territory.  They may encourage Central Asian countries to negotiate with Islamic leaders of the northern alliance in the future. I think that, as a neutral country, Kyrgyzstan may benefit from using its territory as a platform for such negotiations. Iran is demonstrating a growing interest in Kyrgyzstan as a market, and in opening of direct trans-regional communications.

Based on the specifics of the "Islamic world," it must be noted that it is varied and quite contradictory. And, unfortunately, the "Islamic" vector of Kyrgyzstan's foreign policy is amorphous and fragmentary. Perhaps, the lack of a national ideology does not allow building a coherent vision of foreign policy with regard to an Arab or Muslim country, grouping or organization. In my opinion, the greatest problem of the Ministry for Foreign affairs of Kyrgyzstan lies in human resource policies, constant shortage of specialists and experts who know the specifics of the Arab countries, their culture and political system of the regions of the Middle East, the ideological-political specificity of the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Palestinian problem. Thank you.

Muratbek Imanaliev: Thanks for the interesting presentation. I would like to thank all our speakers for their presentations. They have been useful. I would like to discuss the foreign policy during the whole year, and if it is possible, to make assessment or recommendations. Who would like to say something?

Erlan Abdyldaev: I will briefly speak on China. The main problematic issues, existing after the change of power in 2005, was resolved in 2006-2007, and therefore, no problematic issues in the Kyrgyz-Chinese relations have been observed this year. The trade turnover is steadily growing, although there are different estimates. A trade representative of China formally announced that the turnover in 2008 exceeded 6 billion U.S. dollars. This is a Chinese estimate. Our customs and our statistical committees speak about the figure, which is dozens of times smaller. There is a question of calculation; it may give error of 10-20 percent, but not dozens of times. Since 2005, Chinese small and medium-sized businesses have been active. Today, according to different estimates, Chinese businessmen have invested more than 500 million dollars in the development of their businesses. They are joint and independent enterprises; sometimes the Chinese buy deposits and real estate using front persons. Nevertheless, these are the estimates. There are no official data. It is estimated that there are more than 100 thousand Chinese on the territory of Kyrgyzstan today. China is implementing major investment projects in Kyrgyzstan. For example, the Kyzylkiya cement plant received a credit of about 100 million dollars. Infrastructure projects are also actively promoted; particularly, I refer to the road to Osh. An agreement was reached on the reconstruction of the second road - Turugart-Balykchy-Bishkek. China, as well as the ADB, will provide certain funding. The net assistance, provided annually by China to Kyrgyzstan, is about 70 million yuan. About 50 million yuan are provided within the framework of assistance through the Ministry of Commerce to implement projects at the request of the Kyrgyz government, and about 20 million are provided to support our special agencies and the Ministry of Defense.

Now about the problematic issues: The problem of Xinjiang separatism and extremism remains painful for China (not only with respect to Kyrgyzstan, but also to other Central Asian states), and there have been attempts to solve it at the bilateral level with the press-services and law enforcement agencies of Kyrgyzstan; as well as within the framework of SCO. The second problem, recently highlighted, is the airbase "Manas." We know the position of China. If the base is limited and operates in accordance with its mandate - Afghanistan - there is no problem. If it goes beyond that framework, it presents problems for China. And, of course, they say that it would be well to define the time frame. But, as the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates, the Chinese party also understands that abolishment of the base on the territory of Kyrgyzstan will not contribute to solving the Afghan problem.

Now on the projects that the Kyrgyz Republic promotes: Energy. Here we have received a complete collapse. The energy crisis, which happened in our Republic, showed complete failure of our calculations: we cannot even provide ourselves with enough energy; not to mention exporting it. If an agreement that we would not be able to realize was reached ten years ago, today, we would have dangerous southern Xinjiang, populated mostly by Uighur population. There are social and other problems. Another problem is the railway, which we have also actively promoted. But, as it was mentioned today, the most important component is Uzbekistan. Without Uzbekistan, it will be a deadlocked railway, which won't have prospects for increased trade turnover, payback, etc. This year, we have heard about some progress and about reaching agreements with China.  However, in reality, China understands that without Uzbekistan, these agreements mean nothing.

This year there have not been great successes or great failures. Relations developed smoothly, at a sufficient level for China. There were two meetings of our Presidents - during the Olympic games and a half-an-hour meeting in Tajikistan. That is all.

Muratbek Imanaliev: Thank you. I would add a few words on the situation, related to China. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, despite the large number of the Chinese here (working in business. We already have Chinese engineers here. This is a significant event, which should be known not only by experts but also by the Government), there is a paradox that, despite the very high level of friendly relations, Kyrgyzstan is the only country in Central Asia, where there is no major Chinese company. No one can name a single major Chinese company. They are in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, where the Chinese are very active. The Chinese presence in Turkmenistan most likely will be more extensive than here in the next five years. In Uzbekistan, it is connected with hydrocarbons, but not only. Please note how seriously the Chinese are working in Tajikistan. Only in 2007, the investment by the Chinese Government amounted to approximately 600 million dollars. They are working on the construction of the China-Afghanistan road through Tajikistan and several other more serious projects, including, of course, hydropower.

Second, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that traditionally China has never required a rigid dependence, unlike many other countries, with which Kyrgyzstan has had to face. Traditional China is a problem of loyalty. Another traditional vector is the "domestication of barbarians" -  although it was very long time ago, some elements remain today. In this connection I wish to draw your attention to the fact that loyalty is a very important positioning element of China's foreign policy. They do not require costs from our side. But there is a very serious and concrete issue. This is the so-called Uighur separatism. In this sense, we need to divide these two groups of issues and work with Uighur separatism more seriously. The only thing I want from our officials and politicians is that we should be careful in our relations with China and, for example, we should not make the Uighur separatism a matter of bargain. This is very dangerous.

As for the interesting presentation by Kadyr: In this case, I think aloud. Pay attention to the words said by Mahathir: "The problem is not that someone loves us or not, the problem is that the bulk of terrorists are Muslims." There are terrorists among Christians, Buddhists, and Judaists. And the second problem, which he identified, as an honorary chairman of the OIC, at a meeting of OIC Presidents: Why we cannot evaluate ourselves with the view that Islamic countries are the most backward in all respects. Developing the Islamic sector of Kyrgyzstan's foreign policy, I think, we should bear in mind these words said by Mahathir.

With regard to the United States: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not just a department, which shapes and prepares recommendations. It seems to me that the information work should be done together with other departments. The grant by the United States amounts to 1 billion US dollars. But I have never heard any public organization or politician say words of thankfulness. Japan, which has granted 600 million dollars, was not thanked at all. At the same time, we thank so much our friends from the CIS, who in some cases bring us harm! I draw your attention to the fact that this is not just a problem of politics, but it is a problem of methodology or a method of thinking, or social consciousness. If we continue like this, not objectively assessing who does what for us, we will not progress.  At the same time, we suspect everyone. This is such a good position to justify ourselves.

I want us to be serious on the international arena. I would like to draw the attention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Finance, and the National Bank. There is a problem of the airbase "Manas," which was turned by us into some kind of bogey. But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, in particular, the Ministry of Defense, have never made a statement and explained to our people what is the airbase, "Manas," I am talking in this case about information work with the public. If to talk about serious politics, I once again want to reiterate my point that the base "Manas" is a very complex multi-level construction.  It is like there is  a penthouse, where the Americans, the Chinese and Russians communicate.  This construction also has a lower deck and its own cellar. We are not and will never be accepted to the penthouse. This must be also taken into account in our own policy. And we must understand these things. And we must not try to only commercialize this situation and get some dividends, but we must seek benefits for the state and the people. It is a complex problem. I am saying this not because I am in support of it.  Any airbase on the territory of any country is always bad. Any base is a problem; there, many weapons are accumulated, and it will always be fired. I do not want to deploy this topic because the countries, lying to the south of us, are also connected with the base. But, hypothetically, imagine for a moment that the Americans withdrew from Afghanistan. Obama decided, and they left within a month. I wonder who would deal with the Afghan problem. I do not see any real force, which will hinder the Taliban. Talibanization is not only an Afghan problem; it is an Afghan-Pakistani problem, a problem of the east of Iran. I do not know what will confront it; who will struggle with this?

We have a bit more time for questions, comments, and statements. Please.

Leonid Bondarets: When I analyze the Internet space, I have an impression that our country is not involved in such organizations as SCO, CSTO, CIS. I have an impression that our Government looks only to the U.S. to pull us through the mud that we are now in. This impression is turning into confidence, especially when there were the events in South Ossetia - the state, which was the chairman in the CIS, was waiting who would win. This shows our attitude towards these organizations. It is fine that we receive U.S. assistance. Frankly, I was even surprised at some figures. A very pleasant surprise it was. But the United States is very far from us; even with all their desire, they will not be able to greatly invest in our country. While our neighbors, especially China, really can invest in our country. In early November, there was a conference in Issyk-kul.  There, a representative of Tajikistan proudly said that China had invested more than 608 million dollars in his country. This is half of our external debt. We missed this chance. We did not seize the moment, and the investment did not come to our Republic. By the way, I believe that this was largely due to the presence of the airbase "Manas" here. Representatives of the Chinese society of Friendship with Foreign Countries visited us, and I was surprised to learn that they were very well informed about what was happening around the airbase; there were especially interested in the arms depot that had been discovered here. Therefore, I would not say that China treats this issue with understanding. China does believe that this base may eventually pose a threat, judging by the policy that we are pursuing. It is not clear which position we take. I do not see a balanced policy. It is fragmentary: today it is oriented toward one side, tomorrow - toward another. That's why I think we have lost the Chinese investment. The second question - Russia offers us 2 billion, of which1 billion 700 million is for investment projects. They ask us what we want to do, what projects to invest. We do not do it. We missed it. I respect our diplomats very much, I have no claims, and I can imagine how difficult it is for you to defend our interests in a situation when Russia and the U.S. have begun to "butt" each other. I am just speaking on our failures.

Next question: Let's take the organizations, where we participate. It was wonderful that the five Presidents gathered here and agreed on something. But recently, an article was published on Uzbek websites. There, they once again criticized Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan for their wrong policies on water use. It seems to me that this issue must be solved within our close range, and we must not seek to get the support of the great powers. So many years have passed, and the border issue with Tajikistan has not been solved. You know what is happening at the border, they buy land in the Batken region and tomorrow they will declare that it is their land.

Roza Otunbaeva: Foreign policy is made by concrete people; by the leaders of the country. We are talking of 2008. I think that we do not have any foreign policy. In doing so, I do not deny the work of hundreds of people working there. However, we are a country that has to balance and survive. 2008 is another year in the chain of our survival. I am not accusing anyone; we have objectively found ourselves in this situation. If we are talking about foreign policy as a system, there should be a system of coordinates, motion vectors and clear orientations. Multi-vector policy is a fig leaf, by which we delicately cover our spiritual nakedness. There is a number of priority countries, which we must speak about and justify the importance of cooperation and rapprochement with them. I do not even want to talk about the quality and content side of our leadership's activity. How can we call it foreign policy?!

Problems of foreign policy are the problems of competence, adequate knowledge and professionalism. I believe that this is a serious problem, which remains topical. We must ask: is the current generation of young diplomats competent? Are there competent people who teach and train our future diplomats? Where and how often do such professional conversations as todays take place? We should write and publish profound works. But so far, there are only fragmentary comments at the malice of the day on tabloids, and we are losing the subject of the conversation. I cannot see and do not read anything meaningful about foreign policy in Kyrgyz language. Even in Russian, we don't talk about something serious. There is no serious journal, except for one or two Internet publications, where we could read about it. When I go aboard, I begin to understand what is missing in Kyrgyzstan. It turns out that we have poor quality of printed media: there are no magazines, no newspapers, nothing serious, with which we could "feed," support and educate ourselves. That's the tragedy. We have to admit that all this literary garbage is a reflection of the real policy.

I want to say that all - China, Russia, USA and Europe - in terms of our foreign relations are organized in an artificial system. If not Afghanistan, the base would not exist. We do not find it very convincing, that the reaction of China to the airbase is sensitive. It is an objective necessity, which we must recognize. We have a bilateral treaty between the United States and Kyrgyzstan. The U.S. air force is located in the civilian airport "Manas" in Kyrgyzstan. It is named after Peter Gansi, and it has a temporary status. We must have control over the base in the part of its activities. We hear the terrible rumors that there is a warehouse of corpses, imprisoned mujahideen there, etc. To prevent such speculations, it is necessary to ensure transparency in the execution of this contract. Letting foreign forces into our territory, we must have control, know in detail what they do, and not only exchange hands and pay formal visits to the base.

With regard to the Russian Federation, we are all pro-Russian in our mentality and education. But when we are inclined towards the West, we are still talking about a democratic path of development. I think that only this way will ensure a better future for the country. We cannot live in a khanate; we should go on a democratic path. Russia and China are major external players on Kyrgyz territory. They are not so much partners, they are rather rivals. Russia is talking about the possibility of a two billion loan to us, it is a "barbate" idea. What do we have today? We have only three Russian companies, and there are many talks on investment from there. Of course, the money from migrants also speaks in favor of Russia. What do we see in reality? As soon as China announces its project, Russia immediately comes here. As soon as Russia announces its intentions, China comes, and again the whole plan is upset. We have allowed big powers to play with each other on our site. And they are large investors. So our country is a pilot site with a weak power, which is guided by personal interests of senior officials. The European Union has a regional approach toward Kyrgyzstan, and we need it. All donors are making efforts to weaken tensions in the country with regard to global challenges. But in specific problems, such as water, energy and investment, we lose terribly, we are alone.

Why is it so? No regional and international organization really works in our region. In the Middle East, the League of Arab States is working very effectively; in Africa, there is the Organization of African Unity. I am amazed that on that continent, a common Parliamentary organization operates. We, as a country, are losing much in the regional aspect and in the country aspect. Nazarbaev has developed a course oriented toward Europe, an entire program "The Way to Europe" has been worked out. They will soon head the triplet of the OSCE, they have a full observer status in the Council of Europe, etc. In Russia, the public understands that Russia should be a part of Europe. Democratic Russia wants to be in Europe. And we are lost in the wilds of underdeveloped countries, among those who during the past two decades have desperately helped us find our identity. We are treated as children, and half-educated mullahs try to make of us obedient brainless robots. Look, even Azerbaijan, where Islamic tradition is very strong, has chosen the path of civilized Europe. But Kyrgyzstan, which seems to be still the most democratic state in Central Asia, has stopped.  We are held in place by different forces because of the weakness of power and lack of competent strong leadership. This is the saddest fact. If we talk about democratization and anticorruption, our path must also be oriented toward powerful civilized countries and continents. Finally, we have had little good and serious discussions about the fate of Kyrgyzstan. I regret that such a poor soil serves as the basis for foreign policy. Our cultural and educational base is sharply narrowing. How can we talk of a competent, professional foreign policy in such circumstances?

Muratbek Imanaliev: Thank you very much.

Valentin Bogatyrev: It is not the first time when we meet and discuss the situation in such a format. We should have gathered after the New Year, because we have spoiled our mood completely. This year was a good illustration of all the issues about which we have spoken of, because it was a year of real politics; perhaps, for the first time in many years. That is, we came into the space of the "penthouse," and we have been asked to start doing something. This situation (it was linked to the Russian-Georgian conflict) showed clearly and distinctly what the foreign policy is in Kyrgyzstan. I want to emphasize that I do not discuss the MFA, and what they are doing. I use the concept of foreign policy in a more thorough sense. Here, we are talking about positioning and aims that a country has, and about political and strategic lines which it holds, in order to achieve its goals on the basis of its position. So in that sense, I absolutely agree with Rosa Isakovna, who said that there is no foreign policy.  The result of this, we have seen this year.

We see that now, the country is really in a situation where it has to respond or to balance between the influences from outside, and from different sides. Previously, it was called multi-vector foreign policy. There was one case in September connected with the base, when there was pressure. I contacted a senior officer and told him: "You could at least sell it as it should be. You could sell this act so that we could at least get rid of the external debt." Unfortunately, we did this all for free. But the problem is that there are always consequences. We are now in a much worse situation. We are now in a rigid dependence on Kazakhstan. In addition to banks, finance, and migrants, we are now even under the political umbrella of Kazakhstan. Bakiev's consultations with Nazarbaev before expressing his position on Russia confirmed this fact. So far, there is little information.  But this is even more complicated, in a sense, that some anti-Uzbek coalition is beginning to emerge, and we participated in it. And everyone understands which side we support. The Tajiks and us participated with the support provided by the big brother, of course. This suggests that our situation with Uzbekistan has changed. Soon it will be strongly manifested. This has resulted in Uzbekistan' tougher position on water and gas, and tomorrow it will include border issues. I am even more afraid of the coming summer, when irrigation water will or will not be used.  A conflict here may begin, That is, there is a possibility of Kyrgyz-Uzbek armed conflict, and then - the peacemakers, CSTO. And I cannot say that we have improved our relations with Russia, because our country has a debt of two billion and now happily takes another two billion. There is a hidden point - the money will be invested in energy, specifically in Kambarata-1. The one, who owns Kambarata-1, will own all the water in Central Asia. That is, they want to obtain control over all the water for 1 billion 700 million; which we will have yet to pay back. Once we sign this agreement, we will lose our only advantage - control over the water. We grant them the last pieces of our sovereignty. In this sense, I would have declared a moratorium on foreign policy for two years, because I feel that the next two years would be extremely difficult for us. At such an "optimistic" note, I finish my speech.

Muratbek Imanaliev: Thank you very much. We are talking about foreign policy of our state, its basic principles and key directions. What has been stated here is, of course, our pain.  But it is a state of affairs today.

I ask those, who did not express their views today, to excuse me. But once again, I would say that our institute holds such roundtables quite frequently. Again, I want to thank all for the presence, speeches and comments. Thank you.