Remarks by His Excellency Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States to Uzbekistan, Richard B. Norland

It is an honor to be here.  Even before arriving, I heard from former U.S. Ambassador to Uzbekistan Jon Purnell and Deputy Chief of Mission Brad Hanson that the relationship with AmCham is one that the Embassy prizes very highly, and after two opportunities to meet with the Board of Directors since my arrival on September 13, I can see why.  American Chamber of Commerce President Don Nicholson and his colleagues, and all of you assembled here, epitomize the spirit of entrepreneurship that is at the heart of American commerce.  Given that you are all doing business, or trying to, on one of the key byways of the Great Silk Road, we should refer to you not as venture capitalists but as “adventure capitalists.” I have great respect for what you are doing, and my main message here tonight is that the U.S. Embassy intends to sustain what has been for us, and I hope for you, a very meaningful, vital and enjoyable relationship.

I have always appreciated the chance to interact with American Chambers of Commerce at posts overseas.  Before serving most recently in Afghanistan, I was in Riga, Latvia for two years, where there is a small but thriving AmCham that is addressing some of the same challenges and opportunities faced in parts of the former Soviet Union. 

My last two years, in Afghanistan, were for understandable reasons not focused on promoting American business  though in fact a few American companies have begun to explore prospects there in the areas of textile manufacturing, fruit production, construction and transportation.  I will return to the subject of Afghanistan later in my remarks  suffice it to say, I think it is a very important subject and one that those of us living and working in Uzbekistan can do something about.
I think my background in having also served in the Soviet Union  at our Embassy in Moscow at the end of the 1980s  is going to stand me in good stead as well as I undertake my current assignment and work with you to expand horizons for American business in Uzbekistan.  On the one hand, there has been so much change:  if you had asked me in Moscow in 1990, would I one day be accredited as the U.S. Ambassador in an independent Uzbekistan, I would have given you a funny look.  But the colonial era came to an end, as all colonial eras eventually do, and Uzbekistan is now a proud and not insignificant member of the international community. 

I know that a number of American companies have taken advantage of this new climate, and the fact that you are here tonight reflects that there are profits to be made in Uzbekistan.  I won't list names so as not to leave anyone out, but I will mention, as the latest example of the kind of progress everyone is hoping for, the recent case of General Motors, whose joint venture with Uzavtosanomat holds great promise for creating jobs in the Ferghana Valley and selling lots of Chevrolet-brand vehicles in the Central Asian and Russian market.  I hope GM has added its name to the distinguished roster of AmCham members here in Tashkent.

I've asked my interlocutors how we can follow up on those recommendations to bring them to life.  I am hopeful that as our dialogue matures, we will make progress on this area of vital importance to you and to Uzbekistan.
Let me turn to the broader topic of U.S.-Uzbek relations.  You know better than most that the relationship has seen its ups and downs in recent years.  Some of this may be attributable to the different cultural perspectives that Westerners and Central Asians bring to bear.  Some of it is due to real differences of opinion on how best to expedite or even define reform.  Some of it is due to basic lack of trust in some quarters, exacerbated in the wake of the Andijon tragedy. 

One thing is for sure:  not long ago the United States enjoyed an extremely successful relationship with Uzbekistan, in which our mutual strategic interests were pursued without sacrificing basic principles on each side, such as the U.S. commitment to human rights or Uzbekistan's commitment to its sovereignty.  I firmly believe it is possible to restore such a relationship again, and moreover I believe it is very much in the interests of both countries that we do so.  But I am under no illusion that this will happen overnight  it will take some time. 

I am still new enough here that I continue to assess the best strategy for getting onto this path, and I welcome your input as some of the real experts on the ground.  But as an initial proposition, I see three challenges ahead and will be working over the next few months to devise the best approaches for meeting them.

The first challenge is to rebuild trust at a very basic level.  We have no hidden agenda here.  Our contacts with and support for civil society are about one thing only:  helping the people of Uzbekistan, led by their government, to develop the components of a better life for themselves and their children.
Once progress has been made in building trust, as I hope it will be, the next challenge will be to build transparency.  Without hard facts and figures, without an open understanding of how processes really work in this country, there will never be a common base of knowledge from which leaders in the business community and elsewhere can operate, and progress will stagnate.  Uzbekistan is a major player in this region, and I believe has the self-confidence to withstand the kind of honest self-scrutiny that inevitably comes with market processes.  Greater transparency along these lines will result in better understanding between our two countries and help us understand and overcome those obstacles that inevitably arise even in the best of international relationships.
With greater trust and transparency, we should be able, finally, to tackle the third challenge, namely to galvanize the reform process itself and help Uzbekistan fulfill its potential as a pivotal state in Central Asia. 
With the largest population, some of the best infrastructure, an educated work force, and links that reach out broadly to the East, West, North and South, it is clear to me that the goals the government has set for itself in terms of regional economic leadership can in fact be realized and even exceeded.  The government wants foreign investors to play a role in this process.  Our job is to encourage the Uzbek officials to put in place policies that will bring those investors here.  They certainly won't come just because someone in the U.S. or Uzbek government tells them to; they need to see the incentives for themselves.
 
So I believe U.S.-Uzbek relations do have the prospect of steady, gradual improvement  interrupted, perhaps, from time to time by occasional misunderstandings or differences of view on matters of firm conviction.  One of the reasons why I believe it is so important that we pursue this is precisely because of the regional importance of Uzbekistan, and this also goes back to my earlier reference to Afghanistan. 
 
Consolidating democratic government, peace and reconstruction in Afghanistan remains a top priority for the entire international community and certainly for the United States.  Trade, investment and other business ties are critical to building up the private sector in Afghanistan and promoting the transit commerce that will help the region as a whole by linking Central Asia to the ports and markets of South Asia. 
Before I close, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Jon Purnell, for his hard work as Ambassador here, and to Brad Hanson, who both as Deputy Chief of Mission and during a long stint as Chargé d'Affaires helped ensure that the Embassy's relationship with the AmCham remained close and productive.  I pledge once again that the resources of the American Embassy are at your disposal, and I look forward to hearing your views on how we can work together on behalf of the goal we all share:  peace and prosperity for the people of Uzbekistan and the Central Asian region.