29 June 2000
Transcript: Pickering's June 9 VOA Interview on Afghanistan
(Terrorism, narcotics and treatment of women discussed) (3520) Under Secretary of State Thomas R. Pickering said that his recent trip to the subcontinent to hold high-level discussions with leaders in India and Pakistan on a variety of issues, including Afghanistan, was "very successful." On June 9, he gave a telephone interview on Afghanistan to the Voice of America While in Pakistan, Pickering said "we talked about the extensive and very difficult subject of a peace settlement in Afghanistan." He said the talks focused on efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the United Nations Six-Plus-Two plan. Pickering also said there was interest in discussing the status of the former king of Afghanistan in any settlement. Regarding any kind of approach to the issue of an overall peace settlement for Afghanistan, Pickering said, "with Pakistan, certainly I think we have broad agreement on many of the questions of major objectives including the need for a peace settlement that's broadly representative and which includes all parts of Afghan society. We reached agreement that that should be done through a negotiating process." Terrorism training camps and Osama bin Laden were also discussed while in Pakistan, said the Under Secretary. Following is the transcript Amb. Thomas R. Pickering's VOA interview: (begin transcript) VOICE OF AMERICA TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH THOMAS R. PICKERING, UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE JUNE 9, 2000 VOA: Mr. Secretary, you had a very successful trip to the region, recently, where you talked with the Indian as well as Pakistani officials on a variety of subjects. And we are actually interested in the Afghanistan part of it. I understand that you did discuss the Afghan situation with both the Indians and the Pakistanis. Can you tell us something as to what was discussed? PICKERING: Sure. I had a very valuable and useful trip. We'll let the question of success be judged by history. But since I went to both educate myself and talk to foreign governments about what was on our mind that, in my view, made it a useful trip and a valuable trip. In India, we discussed Afghanistan, although in both the minds of Indians and in the minds of Americans, India is somewhat more remote from Afghanistan. We had a good opportunity to review views from India on the region where they continue to express hope for a peace settlement and obviously, expressed concern from their particular point of view about the Taliban. I had much more extensive discussions in Pakistan because of the closeness of Pakistan to Afghanistan, and in particular the long-standing interest the Pakistanis have in Afghanistan. The agenda of issues which we discussed included the question of the fact that Osama bin Laden has refuge now in one of the Taliban-dominated parts of Afghanistan; the question of terrorist training and terrorist training camps, which is a great preoccupation of the United States, and very much on our minds; and the development of terrorists' networks throughout the region. We talked about the extensive and very difficult subject of a peace settlement in Afghanistan and what, if anything, could be done with the various processes that are being engaged; that of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that of the UN Six-Plus-Two. There was interest, as well, in discussing the question of the former king and the process in Rome, of hoping to find a way to lead to a loya jirga in Afghanistan. We discussed questions of the human rights treatment of Afghans and particularly concerns about the treatment of women and girls. We expressed, on our side, great hope that that could be improved rapidly. There was a discussion, particularly in Pakistan, which has done a very strong job on its own in dealing with the cultivation and transportation of narcotics from Pakistan, about our deep preoccupations and concerns about what was happening, again in the mainly Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan with respect to drug production and trafficking. While I was in Pakistan, I had an opportunity to meet with some of the leaders of the Taliban, one who had come from Kandahar for consultations in Pakistan. We discussed all of these issues as well with the Taliban. VOA: And did you reach any agreement with any of the two sides, the latter one especially, about any of the subjects that you discussed that you mentioned here? PICKERING: With Pakistan, certainly I think we have broad agreement on many of the questions of major objectives including the need for a peace settlement that's broadly representative and which includes all parts of Afghan society. We reached agreement that that should be done through a negotiating process. The question of making it happen is obviously still a major stumbling block, and we urged Pakistan to use its influence with the Taliban to make that process more likely. Similarly, we reached firm agreement on the need to deal with narcotics, and on the question, obviously, of the treatment of women as well as of minorities in Afghanistan from the human rights perspective. We, I believe, reached a strong agreement that we had a common struggle against terrorism. And clearly, Pakistan has said they would do what they could to help, but they claim they do not have absolute control inside Afghanistan on these kinds of issues. We expressed deep concern on our side that any Pakistani help or assistance to the Taliban would result in helping and assisting the people who were sheltering someone who was clearly an avowed enemy of the United States, and that we had to find more ways to work more closely together to deal with this issue. We had the same discussion with the Taliban. They suggested some ways that they thought could be helpful in dealing with Osama bin Laden. We said that they should test all of them against the United Nations resolution, which requires that he be taken to a country where he can be brought to justice. And since none of the suggestions that we heard from the Taliban came anywhere near meeting that United Nations standard, their proposals were unlikely to be helpful. We told them that we and other members of the United Nations would be urgently examining more sanctions on the Taliban if forward progress could not be made. They expressed concern about narcotics; said that they had made some progress. But we said it didn't seem to us that they were doing everything they could in that regard. They said they hoped to make progress as well in dealing with women and minorities. They didn't respond very much on the question of the peace arrangements. They complained that the other side -- the Northern Alliance -- was planning to attack them, and so on. It was a useful discussion, but I'm afraid I can't say we registered a wide degree of common agreement. VOA: There's one concern, Mr. Secretary, that the U.S. has generally given Pakistan the green light to go ahead and deal with Afghanistan as its, so-to-speak, backyard. Is that really the case? Because, in the past, Pakistan was blamed for not doing enough in the case of Afghanistan. PICKERING: I think that, first and foremost, the United States has its own policy with respect to Afghanistan, and I've already given you our views on where that might broadly differ from Pakistan policy. Secondly, we have not asked Pakistan to become an instrument of, or surrogate for, or agent of the United States. We have, however, urged Pakistan, in areas where we have difference of great importance to the United States, including Osama bin Laden and terrorism, to take firmer and stronger action to meet our common objectives in that area. The feeling that we have at the moment is that there needs to be more attention focused on Afghanistan and the problems of Afghanistan, rather than less. While I was in the region, there was this Russian threat to use military force against Afghanistan in connection with the report that Afghanistan was training Chechens to fight in Russia, and we expressed our concern about that, but also our sense of deep concern about the continuation of terrorists and terrorist training in Afghanistan. So, the United States has not designated any country, including Pakistan, to be its agent of foreign policy. Pakistan has its own foreign policy. It is proud of it and it would not wish to be seen, I believe, or considered as an agent of America. I think the question of Pakistan's special interest in Afghanistan, whether it is its strategic depth, is the subject of debate. Among Pakistanis that I spoke with -- and certainly, not all Pakistanis, and certainly not all official Pakistanis agreed necessarily with that conclusion when we spoke to them about it -- there was a difference of view. Some thought Afghanistan -- probably a minority of people thought Afghanistan -- was a heavy weight around the neck of Pakistan, maybe not worth being carried. Others felt that it had to be carried -- that weight, and that it had to be dealt with because inevitably and inextricably Pakistan and Afghanistan were close together as neighbors and close together as societies. VOA: Recently, the foreign secretary, the foreign ministry in the United Kingdom, which is the closest, probably, ally of the United States, mentioned that Pakistan should be placed on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism. Do you at all share this sentiment? PICKERING: Well, I don't believe that, in fact, it was an official announcement of a friendly foreign ministry. We, of course, continue to look at that because the United States law requires that we do. There are certain requirements that have to be met before countries can be placed on that list, and we examine those very, very carefully, as we do in the case of Pakistan or indeed all others who are on the list. And at the moment, as you well know, we have not made a decision to put Pakistan on the list, and we, of course, continue to examine it. Others may suggest things, but it is an objective review by the United States of the situation that would obviously make that determination. And while that's done every year on a regular basis, I see no basis for changing the present American policy in those regards. If such a basis does emerge, we will have to take it into account. VOA: Mr. Pickering, I have three questions. One is regarding your talks with the Taliban, the second one is on sanctions, and the third one is about your meeting with the delegation of the former king of Afghanistan and the prospects of a solution through a loya jirga. First, about your meeting with the Taliban, I know you mentioned that you spoke about all those other topics, but the main focus was the issue of Osama bin Laden, if I understand correctly. PICKERING: Yes, that's correct, and that's what we spent the most time on, and that has been perhaps the most vexatious issue in our discussions with the Taliban over a period of time, as I believe you well know. VOA: Yes. And in that regard, the Taliban -- we interviewed them after you met with them. They are saying that they are willing to find a solution for this issue. And what they are saying -- and this is a direct quotation -- "that America wants us to put chains on his hands and feet and turn him over to America. They don't want any kind of solution to the bigger problem of terrorism, or putting a cover, or a hold, or something on his activities." Is that true? Is that what we want, or is it that we want the solution for this problem? PICKERING: Well, their precise formulation, I think, is filled with some errors and maybe misunderstandings, and that's too bad because we had plenty of opportunity to discuss this very clearly and very directly. First and foremost, our policy with respect to Osama bin Laden has now been defined very clearly in a very straightforward United Nations resolution, and it's essentially, as I said, in response to an earlier question, that he be brought to a place where he could be brought to justice. And that isn't necessarily America; it can be other places that have reason and right to try him for the crimes that he has committed and where they have the evidence. We presented again to the Taliban the evidence [against bin Laden] and we had an opportunity, obviously, to have further discussion with these Pakistani friends who had examined the evidence, too, and they presented their views of the situation to the Taliban. So I think that part is very clear and very straightforward. I think that that represents a clear statement of U.S. policy on this issue. We are deeply concerned by terrorism in all its aspects and everywhere it occurs. As I said to Mullah Jaleel, who came to that meeting, we're deeply concerned by the terrorist training camps and their continuation and their relationship to Osama bin Laden and others, and we believe that a stop should be put to them. And they said, yes, they do, but they're not engaged in such efforts, or maybe they have shut one or two that were as engaged. So, it is a kind of answer which basically doesn't really address the significant question, the one that you raised and the one that we raised that there are these aspects of terrorism, as well, about which we're deeply concerned that apparently take place or originate in the areas which the Taliban controls, and which we believe they have strengthened the power to deal with, and should deal with. VOA: And the coming back, it's, I think, related to the same issue, on the issue of sanctions. The Taliban are saying, on bin Laden, that they would try or they have tried to not allow him to be active, and, of course, they deny the existence of all those terrorist camps and all those training facilities. And they say due to cultural issues, he's a guest and he had fought during the invasion of the Soviet forces and they can't give him up. And they say that they expect the U.S. to understand. Having said that, we will come to the issue of sanctions. Don't you think, under current circumstances, especially when this major drought is in the country, sanctions will have a negative impact on -- although they are not intended for the people of Afghanistan -- will hurt the people even more? PICKERING: Well, three things or four things are important. One is that they claim they have stopped [bin Laden] from carrying out actions, but as you know, people were arrested in Jordan and the United States at the turn of the year, closely related to Osama bin Laden, who clearly were planning to carry out terrorist acts. So they are ineffective if they have really done that, and that's another reason why that doesn't seem to be a satisfactory answer in meeting the terms of the UN resolution. I think that the notion that pushtunwali -- that traditional hospitality obliges them to take care of a guest even when that guest has committed massive crimes -- not just against Americans, but against Muslims, in which hundreds of people were killed, the majority of whom were Muslims, doesn't, in our view, strike us as reasonable. There is an abuse of the privilege of hospitality that has long been past. Whatever obligation may have been incurred through hospitality and past history seems to me to be totally wiped out by the fact that they now harbor in their midst someone who wishes to pick their enemies and turn their enemies against them. Because that's precisely what is happening. Now finally, with respect to sanctions, it does seem to me that people should listen to what we have been saying: we have no interest in and will be very careful about any sanctions that would harm or go against the people of Afghanistan, with whom we have great sympathy and with whom we've had a long and very traditional friendship, one that we regret has come under pressure from the current [Taliban] leadership with the steps that they have taken. Sanctions can be smart and carefully calibrated and carefully targeted, and sanctions can therefore be effective without damaging the people of Afghanistan. This is the question we are now thinking through, just as we did originally when the last sanctions were instituted. We believe these sanctions have not affected the vast majority of the people of Afghanistan in a negative way. We believe in affecting the leadership who is responsible for these policies. VOA: Mr. Pickering, you met with the delegation from the former king of Afghanistan and promised support -- or expressed support - of the U.S. government for the loya jirga process. Do you think that that process will bring effective leadership to Afghanistan, and will that solve all these problems of terrorism, and narcotics, and human rights, or whatever else might or might not be existing or going on in that country? PICKERING: I would like to say this, which we expressed extremely important interest in the ideas they advanced. Particularly, as you said, the creation of the loya jirgah in Afghanistan. We believe a process that would lead to the creation of such a body, such a conference, such a meeting, which then could address the problems of Afghanistan, would be a process that we could support. It doesn't mean we are providing exclusive support to that process, because we are also deeply engaged in providing support for negotiating processes wherever they appear to have promise. And we will continue to do so. The aim of the United States is to have a government in Afghanistan which is broadly representative of all of the groups in the country and which can command the respect and the adherence of Afghans. These sorts of ideas would be, in our view, the primary basis for our process. But we found the ideas interesting. We listened with a great deal of interest. We encouraged adherence to these ideas to see what they could do to spread them more broadly. We wish them good luck. We hope that they would be able to find others who would work with them in that objective, and we said we would follow their progress closely. VOA: So, the U.S. will not provide the financial or, as the rumor has it in the region, military support for... PICKERING: They didn't ask for that. That was not the idea. The pursuit of an effort to have a loya jirga, in our view, isn't achieved by force of arms; it's achieved by force and strength of ideas. And so that was not an issue. And they didn't ask for funding. We said we would be glad to provide continued support, and if some funding were needed to further popularize this idea, if they could come forward with good proposals, we would certainly consider it. VOA: Mr. Pickering, given the volatility and the importance of the situation, both in India, Pakistan as well as Sri Lanka, you know, Sri Lanka with the Tamils, India with Kashmir and Afghanistan as well, would there be any follow-up on this trip from your side or Assistant Secretary Inderfurth in the near future to measure the progress? PICKERING: Sure. This is all part of ongoing American diplomacy, the highlight of which -- and the keynote of which was President Clinton's important visit to the region. We intend to take a greater and stronger interest in the activities of the region. My colleague, Deputy Secretary Talbott, of course, has led an important dialogue with Minister of External Affairs Jaswant Singh in India, and is deeply involved in discussions at very high levels with Pakistan. And there will be new opportunities for Secretary Albright to meet her fellow ministers from the region. The role that I have played is one that I would like to continue to play. And we expect to have further meetings. So, there is intent to continue American diplomacy reflecting interest in the region, particularly coming out of the president's trip. We would expect to continue to develop our interest in the region and our support for solutions to the problems, our support for the work that is going on to deal with nonproliferation and other issues. VOA: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure talking to you, and we appreciate the time that you gave us. PICKERING: Thank you. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
