VZCZCXYZ0020
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #0335 2350011
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 220005Z AUG 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY ASTANA IMMEDIATE 0000

UNCLAS STATE 090335 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KISL KZ
SUBJECT: ASTANA COMMON WORLD FORUM 
 
¶1. (U) This is an action message.  Mission should approach 
those involved in planning/preparations for the Common World 
Forum scheduled in Astana on October 17, and other senior 
Kazakhstan officials as appropriate, to achieve the 
objectives at para 3 below. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Background: The GOK has advised us of plans to hold 
a Ministerial-level conference, Common World: Progress 
through Diversity, on October 17 in Astana. Conceived under 
the umbrella of the UN-affiliated Alliance of Civilizations 
(AOC), the forum will focus on enhanced communication and 
cooperation between the Muslim World and the West.  A 
conference planning session is scheduled for August 27-28. 
The GOK appears eager for high-level USG attendance at this 
forum, but has not yet been able to advise us on other senior 
representatives who have confirmed their attendance, nor of 
the reasons that a number of countries have not been invited. 
 We also have serious concerns with the draft communique the 
GOK has circulated for comment. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Objectives: 
 
-- Determine which countries have thus far confirmed their 
participation, and at what level, for both the August 
planning meeting and the October plenary.  (See para 4.) 
 
-- Clarify why the conference invitation list does not 
include many nations in the Eurasian core area with which 
Kazakhstan has full diplomatic relations.  (See para 5.) 
 
-- Note USG concerns with the &Alliance of Civilizations,8 
and confirm that the conference is not officially under its 
auspices.  (See para 6.) 
 
-- Drawing on the talking points at para 8, obtain GOK 
agreement to abandon the far-reaching &Astana Declaration8 
text it has circulated, and instead propose a much more 
limited final communique on which all participants will be 
able to agree.  (See para 7.) 
 
¶4. (SBU) Participation.  In light of the Secretary,s 
inability to attend, we are still trying to determine an 
appropriate level for U.S. participation.  The Kazakhstan 
Embassy in Washington has been helpful, but has thus far been 
unable to tell us definitively which countries are coming and 
at what level they will be represented, both for the October 
forum and the August master planning session. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Invitation List.  The conference invitation list 
appears to focus geographically on Eurasia, leaving out South 
and Central America and sub-Saharan Africa entirely, and thus 
excluding due to geography many states one would clearly 
consider &Western8 (e.g., Argentina, Mexico) or &Muslim8 
(i.e., only 30 of the 57 OIC states are invited).  The USG 
has no objection to that approach, per se.  What is hard to 
understand is why, given this focus, the GOK has not included 
countries like Armenia, Israel, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, 
etc., that are clearly &Western8 in orientation, in the 
core Eurasia area, and with which it has full diplomatic 
relations.  In addition, the GOK has reached out to 
Australasian countries like Australia and Indonesia but not 
to countries like India, Singapore, etc., that are actually 
closer to central Asia.  The overall impact, perhaps 
inadvertent, is an exclusion of many countries that share 
some USG views on interfaith and  intercultural relations. 
Some of these nations are in conflict with neighboring Muslim 
states, but they often also have moderate, fairly enlightened 
track records on the rights of Muslim minorities within their 
own borders. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Alliance of Civilizations.  The USG is neither a 
member of the &Alliance of Civilizations8 (AOC), nor of its 
&Friends Group;8 as a matter of policy we do not 
participate in AOC meetings.  The AOC is a UN-affiliated 
initiative launched in July 2005 as an extension of the 
inter-communal work of Spanish PM Zapatero and Turkish PM 
Erdogan to respond to the Danish cartoon situation.  It has, 
unfortunately, not developed along positive lines.  The 
report of the AOC High-Level Group, issued in 2006, on which 
all subsequent work of the group has been based, asserted 
that three political problems were &at the root of8 the 
misunderstandings between civilizations: &double standards 
in the promotion of democracy and the application of 
international law, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..., and 
events in Iraq and Afghanistan.8  Subsequent AOC efforts 
have been similarly skewed by what is, in essence, an effort 
to challenge US foreign policy in the broader Middle East. 
Unfortunately, in addition to references to the AOC in the 
October conference draft final communique the GOK has 
circulated, it has also posted on the web (attributed to its 
Washington Embassy) a statement that the conference is being 
convened &as an integral part of our National Strategy of 
implementation of the Alliance of Civilizations, our 
contribution to the latter,8 and that the conference &will 
meet the goals and spirit of the AOC.8  In addition, the 
posting said the GOK will formally report the results of the 
conference to the AOC Secretariat. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Final Communique.  The &Astana Declaration,8 in 
the current, far-reaching draft the GOK has circulated, 
includes many elements to which the U.S. is unable to agree. 
It explicitly or by implication commits states, e.g., to 
restrict the freedoms of press and expression; acknowledge 
other governments as &democratic8 irrespective of their 
practices; support the &defamation of religion8 concept and 
limit religious freedom; provide debt relief with a 
preference to Islamic states; support an International 
Convention on religious tolerance and a &Code of Honor for 
Politicians8 primarily to counter criticism of Muslim 
nations; single out the Arab-Israeli conflict as the 
paramount issue driving apart civilizations; endorse the 
Alliance of Civilizations and Human Rights Council (neither 
of which the U.S. is a member), etc.  Should the final 
statement remain in this form, it would call into question 
the possibility of U.S. participation.  Rather than engage in 
a potentially contentious dialogue on these and other issues, 
Mission should draw on the following talking points to 
encourage a much more general final communique on which all 
participants will be able to agree. 
 
¶8. (U) Begin Talking Points: 
 
-- The U.S. will not be able to sign onto the &Astana 
Declaration.8  Many of its elements do not match our legal 
system, foreign policy or cultural practices. 
 
-- A wide-ranging statement of common principles and specific 
actions like this, for such a diverse group of nations, would 
probably need years of intensive negotiation, and even then 
the result would likely be a more focused document, if any at 
all could be agreed. 
 
-- In the context of a friendly meeting like the Astana 
conference, we would not want to be placed in a position of 
having to criticize those with whom we disagree. 
 
-- We would thus propose a fairly brief, straightforward 
&Final Communique8 in which Conference participants would: 
 
a) welcome intercultural and interfaith dialogue, and support 
efforts to acknowledge shared values between Islam and other 
religions throughout the world; 
 
b) encourage efforts to further mutual respect, tolerance, 
and understanding between religions and cultures; 
 
c) promote people-to-people exchanges and the work of 
non-governmental organizations to help improve understanding 
of others, religions and cultures; 
 
d) endorse future meetings like this that focus on common 
values shared by faiths, rather than as fora for the airing 
of specific political grievances; and 
 
e) express their appreciation to the Government of Kazakhstan 
and to the Kazakh people for their hospitality and dedication 
to advance the principles enunciated above. 
 
-- We do not see a more general final statement to be 
disadvantageous, since the main utility of a conference like 
this is to provide a forum where fruitful discussions, both 
in plenary and on the margins, can occur. 
 
-- In addition, simply getting together in the high-profile 
venue that the Common World conference offers will 
underscore internationally, and within the Central Asian 
region, our collective determination to work together 
peacefully towards inter-cultural and inter-religious 
understanding, rather than be driven apart by extremists and 
those who exploit differences through violence. 
 
-- If asked: We do not think a discussion of the 
point-by-point objections that we have to the draft 
declaration, as it stands, would be beneficial or productive, 
but we are open to discussion of general themes. 
 
End Talking Points 
RICE