 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to CSIS. I'm Ernie Bauer. I'm the Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asian Studies and standing in today for Andy Kuchins, who is out in Eurasia working on some new initiatives there. But he asked me if I would stand in. And it was a real pleasure to do so, because today's discussion is about an important multilateral and security development challenge in Asia and what, I think, a very unique approach. And that approach has been developed by Kazakhstan. And we are honored today to have the Deputy Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan with us years on Ashik Bayev. Before we start, I'd like to invite the president and CEO of CSIS, John Hamry, to join me here at the podium and make convening remarks. John? Good morning, everybody. I apologize. I was out trying to track down two of my panelists. So I welcome. Good morning to all of you. We're delighted to have you here. I'm particularly pleased to welcome the Deputy Foreign Minister to Washington. I will tell you, only a young man can put up with the travels that he has been assigned. I used to be the Deputy Secretary of Defense. I know what deputies have to endure. We're given all of the hard work while the boss is back home having fun, right? You don't have to comment on this, Deputy Foreign Minister. But he's been to Panama. He's been to Paraguay. He's been to Brazil. He's been to Cuba. He's been to Canada. And now America. This is not diplomacy. This is an endurance contest. This is what he's enduring. But a young and very vibrant man can do this. And I must say, we're very delighted to have Deputy Minister Ashik Gubayev with us. This is a really important topic for us to discuss. I think, first of all, I think we need to put in context the enormous significance of the day we're all living in, which is really unprecedented. If you think about, of course, for probably 10 centuries, maybe 20 centuries, the economic dynamic of the world, the crossroads of that economic dynamic, were through Central Asia. But then after the rise of the European imperial states, the dynamic of global economy, shifted dramatically as the global empires pulled the global economy to the coastline. And so all of the commerce of the last 400 years has been dominated by this coastal trade system. But what we're now seeing, this is of apocal significance, is the reconnecting of Asia. Asia is now coming together again, reversing this trend that was started over 400 years ago. And it's a dramatic development. And of course, it centers in Central Asia, and there's no more important country in that region than Kazakhstan. So this is a rare opportunity for us to get a ground level view about this dynamic. And of course, the government of Kazakhstan is championing stronger governance structures throughout this region for this very dynamic. And the Deputy Foreign Minister is going to talk to us about that today for this role that they've been playing in SICA. It's not well understood in America, Deputy Foreign Minister. Let me just tell you right now. You are speaking to, well, most of these people are knowledgeable. The people outside, the people that are at the website, the people that are not here don't know a darn thing about SICA. So you're here for an education purpose, but we will not make you the education minister today, except in Washington. So we look forward very much to your presentation. We think it's going to be a very dynamic morning. Thank you very much for coming. And would you, with your pleas, with your warm applause, welcome the Deputy Foreign Minister. Mr. Bohler, thank you for your introduction. And Dr. Hamreth, thank you for your kind words. It's a real pleasure for me to be here. First of all, I would like to extend our appreciation to the Center of Strategic International Studies for organizing this event to the best of my knowledge. This is the second time CSIS organizes an event for the conference on interaction and confidence-building measures in Asia, one of the flagship initiatives of Kazakhstan. And I thank you wholeheartedly for this. I should also thank Dr. Hamre and his team for the valuable research on the region that CSIS conducts, most importantly, with the new Eurasia from the Inside Out project. This is a new effort to identify the battles to greater regional cooperation across Eurasia. And I'm delighted again to be here with you this morning and I'd like to speak about the opportunities that Kazakhstan sees in this global age as we define our vision for Asia, what kind of Asia we would like to live in in the coming years. So I have a very long thesis, a speech, but let me speak with my own words. First of all, we're all aware of the Asia's pivotal role currently and we're well aware of pivot to Asia, the different strategies to enhance the cooperation with Asian nations. Asia indeed is becoming increasingly influential in so many respects and today we're witnessing the revival of the so-called Silk Road, Silk Road which Dr. Hamre addressed in terms of reconnecting Asia through its land masses, huge land masses that Asia has. So despite all these, Asia still remains in place of complex and contradictory processes and Asia still is the origin and the location of so many challenges, threats and risks. In this regard, we believe that the system of regulation of regional relations needs to be invented. And well, there are different international forests that has been created recently. We can name a number of them, but both traditional ones from the Gulf Cooperation Council in the western parts of Asia to ASEAN in Southeast Asia, there are a lot of them. But, and this is an indication that Asia does require coordination and cooperation. So I would like to emphasize several main factors that contribute to the development of regional initiatives. First of all, the specifics of circumstances in each particular area put more responsibility on the states to abide by the principles of the United Nations and create the atmosphere of trust as this is essential for Asia's future development. Secondly, globalization shows, demonstrates that regional approaches based on principles of mutual respect and trust are becoming guarantee of viability and durability of the states. And thirdly, politically and economically competitive regional structures strengthen the position of the states on the global arena on the global level. So with this in mind, we can securely state that the regional structures in Asia hold a great importance and role. So this is where Kazakhstan and President Nazarbayev at the time saw the potential for the conference on interaction and confidence building measures to play as a vital platform for advancing the course of peace, security, and development throughout the whole region. So the seeker has its specific niche as it concentrates on confidence building measures and its Pan-Asian structure. It was for sin to be the one from the very beginning. So 22 years ago, at his first appearance at the United Nations General Assembly, President Nazarbayev put forward the idea of creating an interstate dialogue platform to develop the confidence building measures. The moving spirit behind this initiative was the aspiration to set up an efficient and acceptable structure for ensuring peace and stability. And the idea was that Kazakhstan was already a member of the OACE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which set certain rules of behavior in Europe while Asia lacked that kind of rule. And from the very beginning, we saw this as an impediment to the stable and sustainable development of Asian nations. Well, that was indeed one of the first international foreign policy initiatives of Kazakhstan. And as in so many initiatives proposed by Kazakhstan, we faced a skepticism at the very beginning and that was a well-grounded skepticism as Asia is the most probably heterogeneous continent in the world. It's Asian nations differ from each other in so many respects, be it religion, social economic development, culture, or the views on different aspects of international agenda. So, seeker process had to be approved in a difficult international environment because the interstate mechanisms that were created during the bipolar world, they turned out to be ineffective to operate in the current environment in the period of uncertainty and in periods of multi-polarity. So over the years, seeker member states have done tremendous work, achieved very significant results, we believe. So current seeker, what is seeker now, you can see it from the map, seeker is truly Pan-Asian structure. It has 26 member states with Qatar and Bangladesh joining quite recently during the fourth seeker summit in Shanghai. It brings together 26 members, seven states and four international organizations as observers, including the United Nations, geographically covering 90% of the Asia's territory and uniting more than three billion people. And there are a number of Asian nations that seriously consider joining this club in the nearest future. Second, basic documents have been elaborated and adopted. One of the most important of them is a catalog of confidence-building measures, catalog of CBMs, a comprehensive and unique document in the history of international diplomacy, we believe, which became an important milestone in the development of Asian security. So this is a real achievement and it concentrates on five spheres. This is, those are very simple measures, simple CBMs, mainly concentrating on information sharing, consultations, exchange of information, but they are vital for Asia as nothing of this kind was done previously in the context of the whole continent. So the third achievement is the institutionalization process of the forum. It has certain stages and currently secretariat and some working bodies are functioning effectively and secretariat is to be relocated this coming July from Almaty to our capital city Astana. We have also created SICA Youth Council and there is also training and educational center for combating desertification in Asia, which will soon open in Turkey. As you see, those structures are quite diverse and they cover quite different areas of interest. The fourth achievement I would say is establishment of a process for enhancing economic cooperation. The newly established SICA Business Council will become, as we believe, a reliable cooperation framework. So the next step is for SICA to establish cooperation with different Asian organizations and we've witnessed the signing of memorandum of understanding between SICA and Shanghai Cooperation Organization on the margins of Shanghai Summit. So SICA is a young forum, often moving on unbeaten passes and it doesn't possess ready recipes for all causes and situations. However, we believe that all the solutions should be elaborated through the dialogue. And well, we have third chairmanship already taking the lead in the organization. We were the first followed by our esteemed Turkish friends who's done a tremendous job in furthering SICA goals and we are now under the Chinese chairmanship which took over several weeks ago and we are looking forward for a new concept of Asian security which was proposed by Chinese leader President Xi Jinping at the SICA Summit. So it concentrates on four main areas, being the common security, where countries should oppose the attempt to pursue one's own absolute security and should assure each other of common existence and recognize others' legitimate security concern. Comprehensive security, which is a fight against new threats and challenges. Cooperative security, it's seen as settling international disputes by peaceful means and opposing willful use or threat of use of force and sustainable security which is a social and economic development and prosperity of Asian countries. This is a platform I believe that we will see Chinese chairmanship in SICA to implement in the coming years and we're looking forward to practical steps of the Chinese chairs to implement this vision on throughout the Asia. One of the notable results of the past Shanghai, the fourth Shanghai SICA Summit was the proposal by President Nazarbayev to transform the SICA into the organization for security and development in Asia. So this is an analog of OSCE in Europe we may say and if you look back at the President Nazarbayev's 1999 to 2002 UNGA speech, then you can see that this was an original idea to create the OSCE-like forum in Asia. Even I have quotes that President was foreseeing as a fourth stage and I'm quoting him now, would consist of forming a unified transcontinental conference on security and cooperation in Eurasia and creating machinery for permanent interaction between the continental systems of collective security in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas with the further prospect of setting up a unified global system of collective security and cooperation and this is taking place, we believe, with the only mistake with the timing as President Nazarbayev was planning that the approximate timeframe would be 2000 to 2005. We are lagging behind that schedule but we are well on the way to the goal itself. In depicting SICA, I should also point out to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the reason being that those two forums were established on the same principles, confidence and trust building between the nations. We may see Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a smaller model, though there are a lot of stereotypes around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization being the military bloc, though it's a universal organization currently but it was based on exactly the same principles of CBMS in political and military sphere. The Moscow and Shanghai agreements of 1996, 1997 created the conditions for pull out of troops and verification mechanisms between the nations of former Soviet Union, namely four nations that had a common border with China from one part, which are Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and the People's Republic of China from the other. So these arrangements, confidence building measures created the basis for such a successful organization as Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It is now the organization which not only deals with security issues on its territory, but also with the issues of economic development and the issues of fostering humanitarian cooperation between its member states. So to conclude, we believe that Asia is undergoing a huge transformation. Asia is a powerhouse, economic powerhouse of the 21st century, but to make this economic growth sustainable and safe and stable, Asian nations do need rules of behavior, do need rules of the interaction in the international politics. So SICA is, we believe, is an answer to the challenges. If we can develop SICA as an operational mechanism which we are trying to do together with the Turkish chairmanship, Chinese chairmanship with other member states, we can see much more stable and safe and secure environment in Asia. And I would also like to underline that though we are proud of being a founding nation of the conference, it's now owned by all 26 member countries. So it's living its own life. Though we are, of course, this is our initiative and we will be attentive to any development in the history of SICA, but it's owned by all member states, it's developing, it's living its own life and hopefully much, a greater number of Asian nations will join and indeed as this map demonstrates, SICA already has a considerable presence in Asia. It's time to expand to Southeast Asia and to Gulf Cooperation Council countries and those are future developments that we will see in SICA. By this, I just have one short remark, which is you may think as propaganda, but I can't help myself saying that Kazakhstan is running as a candidate for UN Security Council non-permanent seat in 2017, 2018 and we believe that we are competing with Thailand for the only seat from Asian group and we believe that our profile of strong proponent of nuclear disarmament, the strengthening of non-proliferation regime and our contribution to Asian security by means of SICA are those merits that will be taken into consideration by United Nations member states while deciding their position on our candidature. I thank all of you for your patience, I'm not the best public speaker, so I thank you and I'm open for any Q and A's to your questions. Thank you. Thank you, Your Excellency and I think we will, if we could, we'll have the panel respond to your remarks and then we'll open it for Q and A and we have a distinguished panel to respond to the Deputy Foreign Minister's remarks. On the left of the Foreign Minister is David Sedney. David served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia and was the DCM or deputy in the U.S. embassies in Beijing, Kabul and Baku. Next to him is Ambassador William Courtney who you know was the former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan and a career Foreign Service Officer with a distinguished career and on my far left is my colleague at CSIS, Mr. Bulent, Ali Riza, who is the Director and Senior Associate of the Turkey Project here at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. We, David, I'll start with you and we'll move down the line for some brief remarks and then we'll open it up to question and answer. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ernie and I actually think it's particularly significant in a discussion like this to have Ernie chairing it because I'm more likely to be at an event where Ernie's talking about Thailand or Indonesia or other countries in that part of Asia and to have Ernie part of this, I think is actually a symbol sitting up here on the stage of the kind of vision that the Vice Foreign Minister talked about that lies behind Sika. I have to apologize a little bit because the first part of my remarks were taken by Dr. Hamry but I'm gonna persist with them anyway but I'm gonna shorten them a bit because I very much believe that he's right from an era in which political, economic, military power was focused on the maritime domain and so the offshore islands for the Eurasian land mass, the offshore islands of Japan and the offshore islands of the United Kingdom were the dominant powers during that period of time that shift back to in a sense but I would say it's actually beyond the past to dominant land powers, China, Russia, Germany, Europe some kind of Islamic entity in the Middle East, whatever that turns out to be. That's a, I see that as a long-term historical trend and I think Dr. Hamry captured it and it has a lot of major consequences that if you just look at today, you're going to miss. That for example is my critique of the administration's so-called pivot to Asia because of course it's not a pivot to Asia because it's a pivot away from one part of Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq which if you look at the map that's all one land mass. It's actually a movement from one part of Asia to another so it's not a shift, it's not a pivot and it's not to Asia because it's all part of Asia. Why do I stress that in the term of Sika? I think the vision that the Vice Foreign Minister laid out and as he correctly pointed out, first enunciated by the President of Kazakhstan, Norselta Nazarbayev back over 20 years ago of a Pan-Asian regional organization is one that has so much validity that it's endured despite the huge challenges that Sika has faced and continues to face. I was in the US State Department when Sika was formed and there was the debate, should we pay any attention to this organization? Should we send anybody to its initial meeting? And the answer was wrong. We didn't really pay much attention to it. At a time when we thought we were the world's sole superpower and we were focused on trying to essentially maintain that power, we didn't take advantage of not just Sika, but a number of other multilateral organizations are already aware of this trend too. It's only been in the last five or six years that we started branching out and embracing regional organizations because again I think that original vision that President Nazarbayev laid out and the need for such an organization is very much there. And I'm gonna continue to pay tribute and respect to that vision because I think it was accurate, but as the ambassador knows, I will also provide some advice which may not comport entirely with that vision. And as I was listening to the Vice Foreign Minister's description, I was taken by the emphasis on the importance of having it be all of Asia. And I think I would emphasize particularly in today's climate the green country on the eastern edge, which of course is Ukraine. And having Ukraine as part of this as an institution, which as the Vice Foreign Minister said is devoted to peaceful resolution of disputes, I think Ukraine shows that there's a need for peaceful resolution of disputes. Unfortunately, of course, what happened in Crimea was not a peaceful resolution of a dispute. It was a violent, it was the use of military power to take territory from one country and give it to another. So that was the use of violence. That was the use of military force to change the map. And it took place in an area that's right now on the edge of where Tsika is. To me, it shows the need for something like Tsika but something like Tsika to be effective. And I think those kind of stresses and strains are only gonna continue. And we'll make the need for Tsika our similar organization even greater because while I admire the Vice Foreign Minister's emphasis on the role of the UN, I think the role of the UN in resolving disputes in the last 20 years has become questionable. And I know that certainly in the United States we don't look to the UN first, second, or third to resolve disputes where we think they're really important. And that's because of the power of the five veto countries to stop progress on key issues. And so the UN can't be effective in Crimea. And we see this, but we see the same trend elsewhere. In Africa, the role of the OAU has become more and more important. Regional organizations are becoming more important. Regional organizations in Asia have the potential to be important and which one of them will become most important I think is still open. I think there's actually competition here. I think Tsika is in a sense in competition with fora such as APAC, the East Asian Summit. A lot of the same people go to the same meetings and subscribe to the same objectives. And I think people are looking for an organization that's going to be effective. So if people are looking for an effective organization and if Tsika has the right broad vision why hasn't it succeeded more than it has? And I'm gonna offer a couple of comments there. The first is the emphasis on state. During a period of time of globalization of time when power has been being diffused away from states and you see the rise of everything from obviously the power of multinational corporations to the power of individuals that's been emboldened and enhanced by the rise of the internet and the whole cyber world. The role of organizations beyond states, the roles of organizations and individuals, the elements that are often referred to as civil society but I would say go beyond that. That is where the future is more and more. That I think is where, for example, the Vice Foreign Minister mentioned the creation of the business council. But what doesn't happen at the Tsika meetings right now is a parallel civil society kind of forum where groups and individuals, including those that states don't like, that the presidents of China and Russia don't like are able to go and have a voice, criticize what the states are doing, be part of the discussion. That's something that is absent from Tsika now. And if all Tsika is going to be is a 404 state leaders to talk about state priorities and ignore the rest of a vibrant and increasingly important part of the community, then Tsika won't be effective. The Vice Foreign Minister, I think, correctly mentioned OSCE a number of times. And the OSCE, I think, was an amazingly important organization in the 1970s and 1980s precisely because it went beyond governments, because it embraced a series of civil society, rule of law, governance, sets of agendas that went beyond the traditional state to state power kind of relationships. In fact, the basic bargain of the OSCE, in many ways, was that Western Europe essentially recognized the Soviet Union in its role and in return got promises from the Soviet Union to expand into these other areas, recognition of rights that went beyond those that had been part of the dialogue between the West and the Soviet Union at the time. So for Tsika, our whatever organization becomes the dominant regional organization in Asia to succeed. And I think the others I mentioned have the same weakness, that their focus is too much on state power and not enough on the emerging areas that I mentioned. That's a challenge for Tsika. And is it a challenge Tsika can meet? I think it can. Again, going back to the vision that President Nazarbayev laid out originally, I think that vision applies, but it applies to more than just states. The Vice Foreign Minister mentioned the SCO. That's another organization that's in the competitive space. But identifying Tsika with the SCO, I think it would be a huge mistake. SCO has carried out a number of activities, which I would say are counter to the idea that individual states have equal status. SCO has become dominated by Russia and China, particularly by China in recent years. And if that's what happens with Tsika, if the Chinese chairmanship results in Tsika being a China-dominated organization, then it won't be effective. The role of Kazakhstan in countering that is challenging because Kazakhstan, as I've often been told, is a smaller country between two much larger countries. Kazakhstan has to balance. But Kazakhstan, by putting forth the initial vision for Tsika, I think has a responsibility to move it beyond just being a pawn of any individual state. So I think, I agree with the Vice Foreign Minister that it's very important that China is taking the chairmanship. I think it's a period of great danger for the Tsika vision because for the end of five years, all the other countries see as Tsika as a tool of China, then it will have failed. And I don't think that will happen. I hope it doesn't happen. But I think it's a possibility. So anyway, I think I've probably used up a little more than my time, Ernie. I think it's a great vision. I think it has great potential. I think it captures that geopolitical trend that Dr. Hamry mentioned in his opening remarks. And Kazakhstan's role is hugely important. But just as it can be an instrument for ameliorating the tensions and handling the challenges, it could also end up being something that could be used as a tool to crush others. And that's what I hope doesn't happen. Thank you, David. Ambassador? Thank you, Ernie. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. 22 years ago when President Nazarbayev proposed, when President Nazarbayev proposed Tsika, I was in Almaty at the time. And we were a little surprised at first that Kazakhstan was so ambitious on the multilateral diplomatic stage at such an early phase of its life. This was less than a year after President Gorbachev had signed the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But as we thought about it, there were several interesting aspects to it. One, the concern, the concern in Washington and some of the European countries was is this an OSCE without the humanitarian basket? Which is another way of talking about the civil society to mention that David mentioned, which is so important. And so there were some who, in the West, who were negative toward Tsika because it looked like it was an effort to elide the OSCE parameters to move off into something that was more a value mutual or a value absent, if you will. On the other hand, for Kazakhstan, if you don't know anything about the countries, but you know that it has a vast territory larger than Western Europe, not very many people, very wealthy resources, what would you expect from strategic behavior by such a country? That country would want to have close, good relations with all of its neighbors, would want to balance them, if you will, and would want to broaden its diplomatic reach beyond its two great power neighbors as a way of helping to protect itself from potential excess in one of the other great power neighbors. So Tsika fit into this perfectly, actually, enabling Kazakhstan to reach further out to develop relationships with other countries in a multilateral setting. As with some activities, though, it took quite a while for it to emerge. But here we are now two decades later, and suddenly China, one of the great powers of the earth just last month, has really taken ownership of Tsika in a way which, as David points out, poses some threats. On the other hand, it suggests that an activity, a multilateral initiative, by a small country, at the time a small and poor country, has had resonance now on a much larger international stage. That doesn't happen very often. Most major initiatives start with great powers or existing alliances like NATO or other things. So from a strategic perspective, it was really quite foresighted of Kazakhstan to propose something like this. The second aspect I'd like to talk about is the Chinese. As you know, Xi Jinping last month at the Tsika meeting proposed converting Tsika into a regional security architecture or regional security framework. And it sounds a little bit like an alliance, the way he talked about it. For example, in his conception, an upgraded Tsika would have, quote, a defense consultative mechanism, end quote. Sounds like article four, article five of NATO. Quote, security response center, end quote, for major emergencies. Sounds like maybe NATO rapid response force or something else. Quote, a code of conduct for regional security, end quote. Well, that sounds a little bit like what OSCE does to some extent. And then quote, an Asian security partnership program, end quote. So that sounds like something that NATO and NATO member countries do on a bilateral basis as well as within the alliance. That's a pretty ambitious agenda for an organization as diverse as SICA. SICA is incredibly diverse, except for the NIA nations itself. I don't know whether there's any other country. I don't even imagine OAU is as diverse as SICA, yes. So that's clearly a very ambitious agenda. And is that possible for an organization as diverse as SICA? A second aspect of Xi Jinping's initiative, if you will, Vladimir Putin was sitting there. Putin has championed the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Xi Jinping spoke as though, if you will, those either didn't exist or were not all that relevant or were yesteryear's security and cooperation structures. Up until now, up until that meeting, Chinese would go out of their way when talking about Central Asia to pay public tribute, obeisance, if you will, to Russia's geopolitical role in Central Asia, Russia's special geopolitical role. And China was essentially saying, we're only there for economics. But the previous year, as you know, he signed tens of billions of dollars worth of economic agreements and a tour in Central Asia. It's hard to imagine a country, a great power, that has so much economic interest in a region, not gaining political and strategic interest. In the U.S., I think we say, I forgot the phrase that, I forgot the diplomacy follows the, the flag follows the trade, the flag follows the trade. So that's maybe what's happening now with China because China's economic role in Central Asia is growing by leaps and bounds. Russia's economy is suffering, it's much smaller than China's and it's suffering. So we're seeing a displacement, if you will, in a region of the world that is probably, let's say a shift that's probably as rapid as we've seen in any part of the world at any time. The question is, is Xi Jinping serious about turning SICA into this? Or were his remarks not necessarily SICA specific? Did they apply maybe to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? It was a SICA meeting. But if you look at the substance of what Xi Jinping said, talking about regional security, architecture, and defense consulting mechanism, that sounds more appropriate for a smaller, more focused group like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization with China, Central Asia, or most of Central Asia, and Russia. So there's some interesting questions about where China wants to go on this. In the new book that just came out yesterday, Secretary Clinton, in her book called Hard Choices about her years as Secretary of State, recalled that in December 2010 in Kyrgyzstan, in a town hall meeting, a journalist asked her about the US policy of reset in relations with Russia. She said a couple things, but then came down to a really interesting point. She said that it is important for Kyrgyzstan to quote, have relations with many, but not be dependent on any. Try to balance off all the different relations you have and get the best help you can, she said. That was prescient advice, because indeed the challenge of all the countries in Central Asia is to balance themselves between great powers and for the smaller countries like Kyrgyzstan, of course Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are also great powers. So they all have a great balancing challenge there. From Russia's standpoint, it asserts political and security power in Central Asia but lacks economic power. From China's standpoint, China sees increasingly Central Asia as a secure strategic rear, if you will. The more energy China can get from Central Asia and Russia, the more secure China is relative to the capacity of western navies to internet energy supplies on the high seas coming to China from Persian Gulf or other parts of the world. So from China's perspective, western navies have tremendous capability to interdict their strategic economic relationships. But in Central Asia, China sees that as a strategic area where the West may not be able to exert so much military influence. So from China's perspective, Central Asia is a key strategic rear and therefore something that quite naturally should take on political and security importance. Now what's the role of the West in all of this? Well, one of the realities is the West has become increasingly estranged from Central Asia and that will accelerate as NATO forces draw down in Afghanistan. What's the reason? The main reason is the lack of reform. Lack of economic reform, except in Kazakhstan, which is made notable economic reforms, and the lack of political reform, except in Kyrgyzstan, where there are some democratic, so significant democratic reforms. The West increasingly is applying a standard of reform for its relationships with countries around the world or if you will, democracy. Let's say open political and open economic systems. They'll take Georgia, for example. Georgia is a small country, far smaller, much less strategic consequence than Kazakhstan, but it has a democracy and has become a darling of the West. Countries in Central Asia should pay attention to Georgia's circumstance. If countries in Central Asia remain autocratic, it's going to be hard for the West to engage in multifaceted ways that enable constituencies to be built up in Western countries to support Central Asia. But for example, in Ukraine, there's been a pretty free press every day. Somebody can read the Kiev Post online in the West and have a pretty good understanding of the texture of that society. That is very hard with any Central Asian country for people in the West to have a good feel for the texture of societies. Not only is it far away, but it's the political circumstances of Central Asia that make it hard for the West to develop a meaningful understanding and develop commitments, if you will. CECA is not helping on reform. OSCE does help on reform, the political side of reform and human rights. OSCE gets honest assessments of elections in countries, for example. That's not something that CECA or SCO or some of the other organizations are known for. So how are people in the West supposed to react to those kinds of organizations if they're not honest assessments of elections? Those have become very important in Western perspective. So I think looking down the road for countries in Central Asia, CECA can be important if CECA helps them reform. If CECA doesn't help them reform, this will make it harder. And as David said, the civil society dimension of this is critical, and then the economic openness part of that is critical as well, creating a strong climate for foreign investment. Again, an area where Kazakhstan has done much better than the other countries. What's a lesson for this situation in Ukraine for Central Asia? Well, some people believe that if a country is strong, Russia may be less likely to put pressure to intimidate it. Some others would argue that if you supply weapons to a country like Georgia or Ukraine, that will provoke Russia. But I think that what we have seen in 2008 with Georgia and now is that it is weakness on the borders of Russia that lead to vulnerabilities and may tempt the Kremlin to exercise power. I think that's probably going to be also true for China, that to the extent countries are weak, China's influence can grow disproportionately. So as the countries look forward to SICA, SCO, and other things, from Central Asia's standpoint, it's probably more important to apply tests of reform. How can these countries help them reform? Because that's what they really need. Thanks. Thank you very much. Bulin? Thank you. I'll keep my remarks brief, so as to allow maximum time for questions, particularly through the Deputy Foreign Minister. He referred to the meeting, this meeting being the second meeting at the CSIS on this subject. And I was actually at the last meeting, the Deputy Foreign Minister, when Kazakhstan was giving the chairmanship to Turkey. And it's good to have you back and it's good for us to focus on this subject in Washington because, frankly, as the two previous speakers have both underlined, there has been insufficient attention to it. The Deputy Foreign Minister referred to this being a young organization. And I'll continue on that theme for a moment. The original idea goes back to 1992 when President Nazarbayev put it forward, but the first meeting was in 1999. So we're talking about what is, in essence, a teenage organization, which is 15 years old, as it were. And like all teenagers, it has to find its way in the world and it has to establish itself as relevant in its society. First, of course, within its own family and then within its immediate neighborhood and then within the broader society. Now, let's not overlook the fact that the members, which are so diverse, have their own perception of the world and, of course, have their interests. The chairmanship in the past four years ago from Kazakhstan, West Turkey, which is in a unique geostrategic position straddling the Eastern and Western worlds, predominant in the Muslim country, but, of course, a member of NATO. And through the fraternal links between Kazakhstan and Turkey, the past four years saw the development of the organization. Now it's past East to a country which is bigger than either Kazakhstan or Turkey and which has its own very broad regional and interest that go beyond this region and it remains to be seen how the different perceptions of the member countries and the way in which that they reconcile those different perceptions and their different natural interests would sometimes clash in this organization. Like all our organizations, it will evolve to continue with the theme of a young organization and it's not clear what's going to go. Now, we're having this debate in Washington and it's very important for Washington as it grapples with a series of problems and you one seems to emerge every day. I mean, mostly someone being the, what's going on in Northern Iraq with takeover muscle by radical Islamists. Just before that, of course, it was Ukraine a few weeks before that. Who knows what's gonna come next? Now, the question for US decision makers is how this organization fits into its broader view of how the international system ought to be governed. Now, the seeker has made its way in the international system. It is part of the international system. How it affects the international relations is really going to depend on how it reconciles, as I said, the different perceptions and the different national interests that the members have and how it actually begins to move ahead, if it can, with the resolution of the problems, both within and without. Now, we're talking about an organization that's primarily Asian, but of course, through Turkey, it is extended into the Western community of nations. Through Egypt, it's even expanded into Africa. Ukraine is an observer and Ukraine is going through a very difficult period. And we'll just have to wait and see how, if and hopefully, how seeker will actually contribute to the resolution of issues within its borders and without. Now, every, it's important to be hopeful about organizations, particularly as they expand. And I very much want to be hopeful that seeker is going to make his mark on the international system even more than it has made its mark so far. But we have to face the very real danger that the way in which the new chairman of the organization perceives itself on the international stage may actually hamper the ability of seeker to make its mark in the way that all of us in this room would want. But I want to finish on an optimistic note. I welcome the fact that you came to Washington with this new message of hope about the organization. And certainly at CSIS, we are very hopeful and ready to cooperate with you in underlining the importance of seeker and the way in which Kazakhstan has not only made this organization coming to being by having first proposed it as a vision of the president and then having led it for a number of years. And we very much hope that it will actually be a useful part of the international system. Thank you. Thank you very much. Those are very thoughtful comments responding to the foreign minister's wide-ranging remarks. I'd like to start with a question and then to the deputy foreign minister and then open the floor to additional questions for the deputy foreign minister. And the panel is welcome to comment as well. Your Excellency, in Asia, we can see that in terms of regional frameworks, regional organizations, a lot of the Asian countries view economics as the foundation for security. So in this, in essence, security frameworks can't be built without economic engagement. I wondered in that context whether you see a future in SICA for an economic union, a free trade agreement within SICA, something that broadly based or maybe an energy-based coordination effort. Thank you. Well, thank you for your question. And I first and foremost should thank panelists for your valuable remarks on SICA and its future. Let me make some comments on your remarks first and then I'll try to answer your question. Well, while organizations are, when organizations are created, of course founding fathers have something in mind. So whether you lay down as a foundation of the international organization principles and which principles you put into that organization or you orient that organizations to certain results is a matter of choice for founding fathers. So I would say the depiction of the SICA as all you see without humanitarian basket or the one lacking humanitarian dimension is a well-grounded remarks. But the very spirit of SICA is based on member states feeling comfortable sitting at one table. You, at SICA meetings you can see the countries which don't even have diplomatic relations between them sitting at one table and discussing those issues. If you think this is not an achievement, then why don't they have engaged in bilateral talks on the same issues? Well, this is what we actually are trying to do to make member states, nation states feeling comfortable in dealing with those pressing issues. I don't exclude in the future that some member states may have other ideas about the future of SICA. Well, you have to be present at the internal discussions at SICA because different countries have different interests and the issue of humanitarian dimension is being constantly discussed but one of the founding principles of SICA is consensus rule. So you have to, and this keeps countries comfortable. And well, if in the future countries, all the member states decide that this is an issue to follow, then SICA will develop that way. I don't exclude this either. So Asia is often portrayed as a group of nations which has one blanket but which see different dreams. So the role of SICA is not to give one dream for each and every nation, but to have some bridges between those dreams so they interconnect with each other. As for economic foundation, I believe that SICA has its own niche in Asia. Being one of the few really Pan-Asian structures, it puts emphasis on political military dimension but at the same time, there are four other dimensions where CBMs are being developed, economy, environmental dimension and so on. So everything depends on member states. And if China, the fear of Chinese chairmanship is was discussed by the panelists but it's again a consensus rule that rules the SICA. It may be an impediment in the future as we've seen that in OEC or the UN bodies but currently SICA is based on that rule and countries are comfortable. Thank you, Mr. Minister. Let me open the floor to questions. Just please introduce yourself, your name and your organization. We'll bring the microphone here for you. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is John Alexander. I'm an academic and a CSIS veteran. Proud of. Thank the speakers for your insights. Triggered a lot of questions but if I may just ask the Deputy Foreign Minister a question you refer to the nuclear disarmament and my question is what world you see the SITI and of course Kazakhstan in terms of the weapons of mass destruction free zone idea and the implementation of weather in the Middle East or in Asia. Thank you. SICA is open to discussing those issues. I believe we've already seen the most recent nuclear weapon free zone was created by largely SICA member states, those Central Asian countries. We are one of the most pressing issues on the international agenda in nonproliferation sphere is the creation of Middle Eastern weapon either nuclear weapon free zone or weapon of mass destruction free zone. So SICA can be an instrument in this area as well but it's up to the countries to decide basically. We are living, SICA is not a supranational authority. It cannot impose its will but it's rather, as I said, the place where nation states where national governments feel comfortable of the dialogue of the issues they discuss and if the reason consensus among the nations that WMD or nuclear weapon free zones issues are of importance for them, they will certainly be discussing them at SICA as well. So you're replacing the SICA and the SICA and the SICA and the SICA and the SICA and the SICA as well. So you're replacing ICBMs with CBMs. That's interesting. Question here in the middle. Yeah, Bill Jones from executive intelligence review. Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, I think you'll realize from the discussion today that you may have a hard sell for SICA here in official Washington. There are two things that are dominating the debate. One is, of course, an increasingly anti-Russian attitude from official circles and also underneath the surface also a little anti-Chinese or at least concerned about Chinese as a dominant factor in people's thinking here. So you're gonna have a tough time in talking about it, perhaps. I would like to take issue with something that David Sedney said about the decreasing role of nation states. I think we're entering into an era where globalization has reached a tremendous crisis, maybe a final crisis in terms of the economic situation. What we saw in Europe in the European elections, I think demonstrates that people want nation states back because they feel that only nation states which are subject to the citizenry, whether people are elected or not, the governments are ultimately responsible to the people, international institutions are not. And I think we'll see a growing role for the nation states. So the fact that all these nations are coming together, I think is very important. And my question is for the Deputy Foreign Minister is a little more in the view of the situation, relationship with China and Russia. I feel that Kazakhstan understands these two powers probably much better than we do and has learned to work together with them and understands the weakness and the strengths. And I think the fact that you are supporting this effort and are in the forefront of this effort indicates you have a little bit different view of the role of China in the region, which I think has over the last 10 years has played a tremendous important role with regard to the economic development. One portion of the statement on this national, on the security architecture issue I think was this idea of the fourth point which had to do with creating the economic basis for development as the basis for security. I think that's absolutely essential in a area where there's still tremendous poverty under development which is creating really the causes for wars and discontent. And I think that's an important point that should be underlined. Thank you. Minister and David, would you like to respond? The question, as I understand, is about our experience of dealing with both Russia and China. Well, we are the country which is not only landlocked, but I would say sandwiched between the two great powers and it's our models we've ended to be successful in this part of the world. You have to be constructive. And Kazakhstan actually enjoyed very constructive relations with both countries. And what we are trying to do now is to build on the Chinese growth and to use it as a vital tool to revitalize our own economy. We are as a landlocked country which is seen as a disadvantage. But we're trying to change, to transform landlockedness into landlinkedness. So this is a concept that we're trying to implement and position ourselves as a bridge between the growing economies, be it China and Russia or East Asian nations and Europe. This is what we've done successfully in the past, but the underlying, the foundation is trust. If you take a look at the statistics, back in 1992, or 92, 93, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our bilateral trade with China was something like $50 million a year. So very small trade turnover. Now our bilateral trade turnover is worth of $25 billion. And China is the biggest trade partner as a single country. The biggest in economic terms is the European Union with $50 billion US dollars. But we are separated by only one country, but it's Russia. So it's a big country and to reach out our customers in Europe, you have to have a good, friendly and constructive relations with Russian Federation. And this is the idea of reaching out to partners outside your immediate neighbors was actually an idea that the principle that guided us in regional integration. And we are now signed the treaty on the creation of Eurasian Economic Union, which is yet another tool for Kazakhstan to reach out to the nations that's beyond our borders. Just as a quick follow-up, I think viewers and listeners would like to know, what is the relationship between SICA and the Eurasia Economic Union, or I guess it's the EEC, right? Well, there are no formalized relations between the two. But I would say the founding principles we are pragmatic. We are doing whatever is in line with our national interests. So we are members in both. I don't see any other immediate connections between the two. Okay, fair enough. David, did you want to respond to the question? Sure, let me make a couple of points. I think you're right, we disagree. But let me expand on that a little bit. As the rise of other systems of governing interactions among people in societies that is broadly called globalization, I see as an overwhelming long-term trend. Yes, there's a short-term reaction against that trend by what I would call localization. Rather than a search for a nation-state, I would say it's localization and the devolution in Scotland, for example, the inability of the Belgian political system to actually govern effectively because of local factionalism. You can look at that in many other places. I agree with you that there is an emphasis on localization, but I think that's a shorter-term phenomenon than globalization, which I think is giving rise. And it's not just my concern about CECA, it's not just humanitarian dimension. I think it's important. I think it's excluding all the other areas, except nation-state interaction. And that's where I have a concern. I agree that CECA has been a success in bringing people to the table, but I actually think that making people feel comfortable. If you're comfortable, you don't actually do anything useful, in my view. So just feeling comfortable, unfortunately, doesn't achieve anything. To achieve things, people in the end have to be uncomfortable. You have to do things that are hard. And having CECA move from a place where people feel comfortable, for awareness-effective, that's a leap that either is going to happen or is not going to happen. And where I think accommodating, not just accommodating, bringing into play all these other areas of globalization would have the power to make CECA really relevant. And as I said, I think it's still a question, will CECA become relevant or not? Finally, just one point on the nuclear side. If you look at the CECA map, you'll see that there's one area that is not an observer or anything, and that's the area that's north of South Korea. And for CECA to be effective in those areas, it's going to have to look at not just countries talking about, again, easy, comfortable subjects like a nuclear weapons-free zone and areas that are already nuclear weapons-free. It's going to have to be able to take a role in areas where nuclear issues are a problem. And that's, I think, the next step for CECA that I think it can do. I think it can do that, but it's going to be hard, not comfortable. Was North Korea invited or purposely excluded from CECA? It was decision of... It is decision of North Korea, North Korean government. If they apply, why not? Thank you. The woman in the back here, the white jacket. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Manos Harrison with Last Mile 4D. Thank you for a wonderful presentation. My question goes to the minister in continuation of what David is talking about. At the beginning of your remarks there, you mentioned the great deal about CECA and security. So is security only seen in the forms of armament and nuclear disarmament, or is it seen in the form of youth bulge in the region, unemployment rising, a shortage of skilled workers really to get involved with the economic opportunities that may arise, rise of fundamentalism, particularly in Tajikistan and some of the CECA members, as well as the absence of CSO. How do you figure this out into the security you're talking about? Thank you. It's more about creating a favorable environment for member states to resolve their problems. The most immediate issue was the military political conflicts between the member states. The CECA itself has no ambition of dealing with everything because there are so many organizations and we should rather be talking about the synergy between them. It's therefore that CECA signed a memorandum of understanding with Shanghai Cooperation Organizations and I believe this model will be followed by other organizations as well. There is an interest from the part of CECA to engage in that interinstitutional relations, but it's not an ambition of CECA to determine or to tackle each and every dimension of security. Okay. A gentleman here. Alexander Malikishvili, IHS. Thank you very much. Your excellency for your presentation and thank you. I'd like to thank the panelists for your informative remarks. I have a question that is fairly specific. You mentioned your excellency, the confidence-building measures, and I'd like to refer to earlier this year the border conflict between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan that ended up in shootout, including use of mortars with wounded on both sides. The issue hasn't been resolved and both members, I'd like to remind the audience here that both of these countries are members not only of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization but also Collective Security Treaty Organization. Now my question to you is how would their membership in CECA prevent such border conflicts? Thanks very much. I'm getting tougher and tougher questions. But, well, CECA is a dialogue platform. This is indeed the most important differentiation between CECA and CSTO. It's, again, I'm reiterating it's designed to create conditions between the nations to avoid such types of conflicts. It doesn't want to interfere into the practical competencies of other regional organizations. The conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is, I believe, is, well, it's a minor in terms of the violence and it can be handled by Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan themselves. There is no need to bring in the outside actors because this is a conflict. This is an issue that both nations are capable of resolving. Would the panel like to say anything about that? No? Okay. Maybe I could just follow up, Minister, and maybe the panel could also address this. I like the constructive sandwich national security policy. I understand it intuitively from working with the Southeast Asians. The need for balance, the need for engagement. ASEAN itself was formed in 1967 in large part because the rest of the other ASEAN countries at that time, the four other ASEAN countries, didn't know what Indonesia wanted or what they wanted to be. I think now Asia faces that same question with China. How will China use its power? What does China want to be? It's not clear because on the one hand, China says that it wants to sign a code of conduct for resolving disputes in the South China Sea with the ASEAN countries. In the next move, it tows a billion-dollar oil rig onto the continental coast of Vietnam. I wonder if you believe that you're sort of facing these similar challenges. What can be some in the confidence-building measures I take your point. I understand it intuitively. But what sort of accomplishments or deliverables do you hope to see, seek and deliver maybe in the next couple of years that you can point to where you are actually modifying the behavior of the big players in your region, which are clearly China and Russia? Well, I can understand your concerns with China and Russia and other big powers in Asia. Well, out of our experience of dealing with those nations, the lessons we draw is that whenever you listen to your opponents, whenever you take into account in your own decisions their concerns, it's a good platform for finding solutions. We were the first nation which agreed upon its borderline with China, and we were only five years old nation. That's indicative. With some nations, with the Russian Federation, we have a very good example of solving disputed territories. We just cut them 50 to 50. And when that refers to the oil fields, for example, they are 50 to 50 joint ventures. And we just invite our national oil companies to develop those oil deposits on 50 to 50 share. This is, I believe, the way to overcome. You may make your point continuously without hearing your opponent, but if the desired outcome of all your negotiations is to benefit from the solutions, then you have to find some ways out of that. Then you have to find a common ground. We don't see a point in making your case and in winning 100% of the issue. So whenever it's possible for the nation to find a common ground and to trade something disputed for something real at the end of the day, then you may think of that option. Excellent. Young lady here. Thank you. My name is Zhang Hong. I'm from China Session Media. I'm also Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister. My question is, what's your observation of Russia's attitude towards China's taking leadership in Sika in the recent summit? And it seems inevitable for the two great powers, two powers in this organization to have some conflict or friction in terms of agenda settings. So from Kazakhstan's point of view, how do you resolve this kind of conflict and to move the agenda forward? And secondly, I would like to ask you about the Silk Road plan that China is promoting in Central Asia. So how does that interact with the Eurasia Economic Union? Is there also potential conflict between the two economic initiatives or could they actually work together? Thank you. The Silk Road plan promoted by China and the Eurasia Economic Union. Thank you. Well, with regard to your first question, the natural solution could be inviting Russia to be the next chairperson of the Sika. Then they will be on equal terms, basically. But indeed, as you pointed out, I didn't see any jealousy or I didn't see any unconstructive approach to form our Russian partners towards the Chinese chairmanship's agenda. Well, it's a forum. It's give and take for consensus-based and no one would blame any member for blocking the decision which it feels uncomfortable with. Russia may be the next chair or chair the organization sometimes in the future, and then shall we ask the same question with regard to China, but China is how China feels about Russian chairmanship. So it's natural and responding or echoing the remarks that we have to make members uncomfortable to achieve something. Then if this is the case, then we can achieve something out of this uncomfortability. With regard to Silk Road plan and Eurasian Economic Union, for Kazakhstan, the more options we have, the better. We are a landlocked country. Once again, underline this fact. We are a landlocked country and it's an issue of diversification of our contacts, an issue of accessing different markets and if Silk Road plan opens up this window of opportunities for us, then we very much welcome it. And the same goes about the Iranian situation. If Iran is the most natural way out for our crude oil export and this has been discussed for so many years and Ambassador Kourtney, I believe, has a good experience in that issue as well and if situation ameliorates with regard to Iran, we would be happy to use that direction as well. I'd like to comment a bit. On Monday, I believe, here in this room, CSIS had a fascinating discussion among Zbigniew Brzezinski, Stapleton Roy and former Australian Prime Minister of Iran on really exactly these issues. The topic was the China-Russia aspects of the meeting in Shanghai. And they discussed exactly what you said. Is it more likely that China and Russia will ally? Are there tensions between the two? And I think the bottom line is we don't know, but it's a possibility. In terms of Zika and the role of Kazakhstan specifically and more broadly the Central Asian states, I would stress that I think if Zika becomes a tool of Russia or China, are of the two of them, then the other countries lose and then the organization will fail and that vision that President Mazurbaev laid out will fail. I think there's a structural weakness in Zika, the five-year chairmanship. You might say the one-year rotating chairmanship in the European Union is too short. I know people criticize that, but I think the five-year chairmanship is too long. It gives one country too much dominance. I'll note, for example, that in NATO there never has been and never will be a U.S. Secretary General of NATO. The executive director of Zika is a very capable Chinese diplomat who I know very well and I have highest admiration for him, but having both the chairman of the organization and the executive director from the same country tends towards that. And then the final point, we haven't mentioned this, but if you look at the map there, a member of Zika wasn't represented at the top levels because of the recent elections, I believe, is, of course, India. In a couple of years, India will be the number-one country in the world in terms of population. India will surpass China in terms of population in a few years. And in all this discussion about China and India and the role of other countries, and I would like to pull back a little bit and look at all of Asia. And you really need to look at the way India will play and will India be? When will India be the chairman, for example? What role will India play in this? Another topic for another panel. Yes, very interesting. Ambassador Jima, I have to stay with you. Let me just mention, I'd like to endorse the Deputy Foreign Minister's support for Kazakhstan's gaining the non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. Kazakhstan's leadership of Zika, in fact the initiation of Zika and leadership. Kazakhstan has chaired the organization for security and cooperation, Europe OSCE. Kazakhstan has chaired the organization of the Islamic Conference. Probably no country has worked harder to build international credentials than Kazakhstan over such a short period of time, particularly a new country. And so by any normal major, merit-based major, Kazakhstan really is at a point where it deserves to be on the U.N. Security Council. And especially also because Kazakhstan really does work, as the Deputy Foreign Minister has pointed out, to have cooperative relations with everyone. And I think here the West can play a helpful role for the countries of Central Asia, balancing China and Russia at times of disequilibrium with China's power growing so much and Russia's political power interfering a bit in the region. And I think the West to work with China, with the countries of Central Asia to help them balance will probably be a very helpful thing and will particularly be very helpful in encouraging Central Asians to have cooperative relations with both China and Russia as they go forward. Let me make a prediction which some of you may find shocking. I think a day will come when Russia will want the West to help offset Chinese power. I think Russia's current policy of trying to exclude the West in Central Asia is a short-sighted policy. Russia should take a careful look at the correlation of forces and how they're evolving over time and I believe someday Russia will have a different view. I just want to pick up from where Ambassador Courtney left off and raise the question yet again about China and Russia and how Sikha will evolve. The Deputy Foreign Minister, very AB has a very good diplomat paired the questions that I can as an analyst raise more freely. I think there's a problem if Russia and China have serious disagreements which are taken into other fora including Sikha. I think there's a problem if they cooperate very closely. So trying to keep that balance is going to be difficult and following on from Ambassador Courtney's final comment about Russia maybe seeking Western support against the rising power of China what we in fact saw with Putin's visit to Beijing was that having come on the increasing pressure from the West over Ukraine he was willing to sign this mega gas deal with the Chinese and in fact send a message to the West that he had an alternative in China which I think infinitely complicates the cohesion for all of us to look at and for diplomats such as yourself Deputy Foreign Minister to grapple with. Time for one or two more questions. I just want to answer any other. Thank you again one more question Deputy Foreign Minister referred actually to the issue of the coming ground. Do you see a role for Sikha for example to try to advance the concept of tolerance, ethnic, racial, religious. In other words the spirit if I may use of Kazakhstan and to follow for example the Pope had done just recently to try to bring together the antagonist and to advance the cause of peace with justice. Thank you for your question and indeed the issue of tolerance is an important one for us and we the Sikha has already taken that into consideration and the dialogue among civilizations among cultures and religions is embodied in the catalogue of CBMs. This is a dimension which we are working on and it's up to the tools in the catalogue to the countries, to member states to use them in practice. We as Kazakhstan trying to engage in actively position ourselves in international arena as Ambassador Courtney mentioned we chaired the OEC, we chaired the ministerial segment of the then organization of the conference but during our chairmanship it changed its name to Organization of Islamic Cooperation and we had almost identical agenda which is not only security issues, not only the issues of non-proliferation and disarmament but also the issue of dialogue of civilizations and the issue of tolerance and it's my pleasure to inform you that Astana will host yet another Congress of leaders of world and traditional religions in Astana next year in 2015 so this is the ongoing effort of Kazakhstan in I would say in a parallel dimension to foster a dialogue between the religious leaders spiritual in a spiritual sphere and we will be possibly trying to see some intersections between different dimensions of how we can combine our efforts in different areas so as to get the synergy of out of different initiatives the issue is taken care of at SICA and we stand ready to promote the dialogue of civilizations further a quick follow up on the trade side I think Kazakhstan currently has its application to join the WTO is that right could you comment on that and why is that important to Kazakhstan and is there any relation to your national security policy and engagement in SICA well Kazakhstan as a member of the customs union with Russia and Belarus is already living under the WTO regulations as Russia is WTO member state so effectively living in the under the regulation of the WTO we have no rights of member states so we are we are doing everything possible without any right of of saying something in this regard so indeed the WTO accession is a matter of huge importance for Kazakhstan we would like the Eurasian Economic Union is only one set of efforts trying to open up the world we again we don't have access to open seas and both Russia and China are our immediate seas they are regarded in Kazakhstan as our seas this is the way it is so what we try to do and as Dr. Hamry pointed out that I've come here to Washington via Paraguay where our delegation attended the 44th General Assembly of the Organization of American States via Cuba Canada is our desire to reach out to the far away partners we don't want to be landlocked in the Eurasian part of the world we would like to be a member of international community a responsible member and therefore internationally we are so active in the foreign policy realm trying to reach out to different partners trying to diversify our engagements diversify our relations and this is we believe this is a guarantee of our stable safe development and the guarantee of our relations as well Ambassador just to come in on the Eurasian Customs Union and then the Eurasian Economic Union which would begin on January 1st the Eurasian Customs Union is relatively protectionist as compared with Kazakhstan's trade arrangements before Kazakhstan's accession to the Eurasian Customs Union has generated some unhappiness in both consumers as well as business so as the Deputy Foreign Minister points out it is important that Kazakhstan have a seat at the table in the WTO so that it can influence other members directly and not just be represented by the representative of a protectionist, a relatively protectionist Customs Union to some extent from Russia's standpoint the Eurasian Economic Union is a way to kind of grasp at this point in time in an area where it is losing relative power so as the Deputy Foreign Minister points out China is the largest single country trading partner for Kazakhstan yet it is now in a Customs Union with Russia as time goes on Chinese trade and Chinese economic arrangements so the challenge for the future in the WTO, which hopefully Kazakhstan can join soon, will be to work to both encourage participants in the Eurasian Union to become more open and less protectionist as well as to improve its economic relationships with the Chinese if you will. Thank you Ambassador I'd like to thank the Deputy Foreign Minister who's obviously there's something good going on in Astana when someone who's young, smart and obviously has got an ability to articulate his country's interests in such a way it's fantastic to hear your views Deputy Prime Minister I think you've actually deepened Oh Deputy Foreign Minister I just I do just intuitively promote people who I'm impressed by and I'm impressed by you and I want to thank our panel which I think shed some very good light on the debate and I'm raised some important questions I think about Sika and its future but something that we need to dig into more deeply here in Washington I think Dr. Hammering was correct I've heard the panel when he said that we don't know enough about Sika now we know a lot more so thank you very much for your time thank you all for coming and please join me in thanking our