Military

DATE=05/15/2003

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-01328

TITLE=AFGHANISTAN'S CHALLENGES

INTERNET=Yes

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0038

CONTENT=

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Host: Is Afghanistan on the mend? Next, On the Line.

[music]

Host: U-S Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stopped in Kabul earlier this month to announce that American troops had ended major combat operations in Afghanistan. Mr. Rumsfeld said that U-S soldiers will now focus primarily on maintaining security and on rebuilding the war-torn country. Visiting Kabul a week later, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said, "Although we may be occupied at present in Iraq, the United States is not going to forget our responsibilities here in Afghanistan." Conditions in Afghanistan continue to be dangerous. On May 13th, two Norwegian peacekeepers were wounded when they were shot by a rogue Afghan soldier. In April, several U-S soldiers were wounded and one killed in a gun battle with remnants of the Taleban. And in March, an aid worker with the International Red Cross was murdered along an Afghan road. President Hamid Karzai, leader of Afghanistan's interim government, said that his country "has gone through thirty years of anarchy, war and instability." He said, "We have to give this nation the institutions that will provide it with the administration that is needed." How goes the rebuilding of Afghanistan? I'll ask my guests: Peter Tomsen, former U-S Special Envoy to Afghanistan and former Ambassador to Armenia; Elie Krakowski, senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; and author and defense analyst, David Isby. Welcome and thanks for joining us today. Peter Tomsen, what's the condition in Afghanistan right now?

Tomsen: I think it's still a very challenging condition. I believe that Hamid Karzai hit the nail on the head when he stated that Afghan institutions need to be rebuilt. And this was country that before the Soviets invaded, unlike East Timor and Bosnia and even the Central Asian states, it had a government, a functioning government, a functioning military. It had a functioning civil service. It wasn't, you would say, superb in all these areas, but these institutions were functioning, they were working. And they should be revised. They should be modernized as they return. The international community, unfortunately is not doing enough, I think, to assist the Afghans to rebuild their institutions.

Host: Elie Krakowski, what do you think?

Krakowski: Well, I think that the best way to describe it is as a mixed bag. I think that there are a number of positives and a number of negatives. The unfortunate thing is that people very often, especially in the media, tend to harp on the negative, like that in Afghanistan. It's been like that in Iraq. They are always looking for failures or always something doesn't happen the next day, "It's not working out." I think that's very unrealistic. When you look at Afghanistan, you have, as Peter Tomsen just pointed out, remember that there was a state there, that everything was destroyed through the years of war. That it needs to be rebuilt. So that there is a tremendous amount that needs to be done. Some things are being done properly. Other things are not. And I would say that when you look at a situation in Afghanistan, you have to distinguish whether it is purely internal and there you have a very weak central government that needs to grow and develop. And as Peter was mentioning, develop the institutions, revise the institutions and so forth. Then you have the international situation where the surrounding actors that had been one of the main causes for conflict, I think, have resumed some of their nefarious activities and are supporting different groups and egging them on against others. That is potentially very disruptive.

Isby: Among the things that were destroyed by thirty years of war was legitimacy of centralized Afghan institutions, not just the institutions themselves, but that of government and also the people. The people who were there before the war are now largely old or in exile and the number of skilled Afghans with public administration skills is now highly limited. So we not only have to rebuild the institutions, we have to re-legitimate them. There are many people in Afghanistan, whether divided by ethnic or a religious thing, who have seen nothing good coming out of Kabul since 1978. Now at last, under Karzai, we've started to turn this around. But the key thing which could prevent that is not just so much that the average Afghan does not see their lives improving, but as Elie said, if the neighbors, especially Pakistan get involved, start backing groups inside Afghanistan as was done throughout the 1990s, then that can go right to the heart of preventing the process.

Host: Well, Peter Tomsen, David Isby says that a lot of people in Afghanistan haven't seen anything good from a government in Kabul in their lifetimes. Is there anything that the government of Hamid Karzai is doing right now that has enough of a positive impact to be a plus in that direction?

Tomsen: I think there's a lot of plusses here. First, we can begin by saying that for the first time in about twenty-five years, there is a regime in Kabul with some legitimacy. And that was established in the Bonn process, whereby a loya jirga -- this large gathering of Afghans -- was scheduled for last June. It took place -- there was a secret ballot at the loya jirga and Hamid Karzai won over eighty percent of the votes. Now, the track of the Bonn process goes to a constitutional loya jirga which will meet later this year and approve a constitution for the country. And that, in turn, will lead to elections next year, in which a leadership in Afghanistan will be elected. Let's not forget that from the Soviet invasion through the period of the Taleban and Al-Qaida and the Pakistani I-S-I or the Pakistani military intelligence control of a lot of Afghanistan, there hasn't been a legitimate regime in Kabul, one that's seen by most Afghans as chosen by Afghans. So for the first time since the collapse of the Taleban - al-Qaida rule, we've had a legitimization process. There's a legitimate political entity now in Kabul. It's not strong, as has been pointed out by David and Elie. It's got a long way to go, but it's very important that this core of legitimacy is there. And that's probably the largest contribution that Hamid Karzai has given. [crosstalk]

Host: David?

Isby: Building on the successes. Last year, for example, when we saw [in March] last year the reopening of the school system: I mean, last year that was the first new act that a Kabul government had done since 1970 that everyone in the country approved of. And indeed the fact that they were able to do it was a success. Loya Jirga had problems, but again led generally to success. What's important now is building on the momentum and that's become hard because with the constitutional phase of the Bonn agreement we're seeing the reemergence of Afghan politics. Divisions that were put aside immediately post-Taleban and now are there. And that includes the actions of the neighbors. No one has thrown away their address book. They still know the satellite phone number of patrons in neighboring countries. So that's going to be an issue. Yes it has moved toward legitimacy. Yes, Hamid Karzai is doing a heroic job. But part of legitimacy is going to be at the grass roots, showing the individual Afghan they're going to live better because of this.

Krakowski: I think David pointed out something important here and that is that as you see internal politics and divisions among the Afghans reemerge, there is almost a natural tendency to look -- especially when there's a stalemated situation with opposing Afghan groups -- to look to the outside, as David was saying, to look back in the address book and see who is willing to support so that the external interest interfering within Afghanistan is coupled to an internal Afghan interest in finding outside supporters to break internal political stalemates. So this is where, I think it's very important to address the issue, not simply on the scale of the internal dimension of Afghanistan, but in dealing with the neighbors. And here, I have to emphasize that the United States has been doing fairly good work, but I think where one can improve is in further strengthening the American leadership in dealing with the neighbors.

Host: Now there are reports that there have been U-S talks recently with Iran and that they have dealt with Afghanistan. Is this about trying to persuade Iran not to interfere in these kinds of internal politics in Afghanistan?

Krakowski: I think that to put in a nutshell, I think that the American talks with Iranians have been what I would describe as tactical, on individual issues where the United States has noted some irritants or is worried about Iranian interference, specifically in Iraq, to some degree in Afghanistan. What in my opinion is needed more than that is a discussion on a more strategic level in terms of U-S-Iranian relations. It is very difficult to know with Iran where things stand, because of the different groups that are vying for influence there. But I think there may be an opening there for finding some sort of more common ground. The Iranians are quite worried about the United States being both in the East and the West and the possibility of more genuine democracy developing both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Host: Peter Tomsen, how will the U-S military now, in making this transition to rebuilding efforts as opposed to combat operations, what kinds of things will they be doing and how will they complement other efforts that have been going on already.

Tomsen: The military has done very well, the U-S military. First, they did brilliantly I think in the war against Al-Qaida and the Taleban. They followed that up with attempts at reconstruction in the countryside. Recently they've set up what are called provincial reconstruction teams. Three are operating now in Kunduz, in Gardez, and Bamian, and a total of five more are going to be set up around the country, each having between sixty and a hundred personnel. About half of that is for Security, but the other half is for development. And the idea is that the central government will deploy their ministry personnel out to the provinces. There's thirty-two provinces around the country. Then the local military will also assist in terms of security and rural reconstruction will go forward. The British have agreed to take over one of the provincial reconstruction teams and that's a very positive development. It's also very important that the civilian aid agencies like U-S-A-I-D and D-F-I-D [Department of International Development] in Britain and the international aid agencies, pump money into these regional bases for reconstruction around the country. Because, if reconstruction does not succeed and go forward, Afghans, as David mentioned, won't see a better life ahead. But this is a framework that can work. It's in place. It's growing. It needs sustenance. It needs lifeblood, money mostly, to do these projects out around the country. I think the U-S military is on the right track, but others have to support them.

Host: David Isby?

Isby: Well these are all going to be joined efforts. I mean, one of the things is there will be A-I-D and State Department representatives as part of these teams, as well as the people in uniform. So we can see how things are going at the grassroots level. And this is very important because we need not just to make sure the government's capability and legitimacy extends beyond Kabul. Here we're doing this and trying to do it in a way that we say this is the Afghan government doing it. And Kabul is only going to be legitimate if we say, look, it's Kabul doing this. If you help and support the government, you're going to benefit. If you turn against it you're going to end up poor and fighting another war.

Host: But David, we just had recently in Kabul, however, protests by government workers that they were not being paid. How is the central government in Kabul doing in terms of getting money out to people for the work they're doing?

Isby: I mean, it's very difficult. The money hasn't been there. A lot of the money that was pledged dating back to the Tokyo conference last year and many subsequent ones, the donors have not so far come up with the money. There also are the idea of infrastructure. The ability of Afghan institutions to make things better for Afghans is limited. As we said, most of them were destroyed in the conflict. Some of the [weight] will be carried by these American teams, more importantly by the non-governmental institutions.

Host: Elie Krakowski.

Krakowski: I think there are a number of things here that need maybe to be pointed out. One is why it is very important of course, for the Afghans to see that Kabul, or the Afghans are doing it. I think one has to keep in mind what some Afghans have told me for quite a while now and that is when we're talking about the U-N or the U-S or whatever and they would say, look, you know, it really doesn't matter if it's this country, that country, it's the U-N or the U-S. Everybody anyway will say if it succeeds, it's the Americans and if it fails, it's the Americans. So I think that when Peter would talk about these provincial reconstruction teams, this is a very, very good idea. It's a necessary idea, simply because the security situation is not yet at the point where you can have complete security and therefore, you need that mix of the military. Clearly, when there is a presence from Kabul and the Afghans see that there is a central government presence enrolled there, that becomes associated. What I think is also rather important is that the non-governmental organizations that have been whining about the military and that if the military is there they cannot, [do their jobs] and on the other hand, they complain that there isn't security. I think that they have to own up and face up to the truth of the situation which is that you do need the military, that they ought to cooperate much more willingly with the American military. I think these reconstruction teams are absolutely necessary and there should be more of them to change the quality of life for Afghans in a visible manner. They can do a lot by doing little things at the provincial village level, where you begin to get a picture of things changing throughout Afghanistan.

[crosstalk]

Isby: Building schools, building roads, building bridges, drilling wells, which is Afghans can do this for themselves. Obviously these teams are all short term. In the long-term, if there is money and institutions, the Afghans can drill their own wells.

Host: How important is it that Afghans get jobs doing these things as opposed to the outside groups doing them for them.

Isby: Very important, I mean, culture, in Afghanistan a culture of dependency, even in very independent Afghanistan can take root. So we need to empower the Afghans and not do it for them. I think everyone is aware of that. The question is, there needs to be the money and there needs to be the training and that will also contribute to stability. A lot of Afghans, if they can earn the same money, would rather go to school and do reconstruction than carry a Kalashnikov for some warlord.

Host: Peter Tomsen?

Tomsen: If I could just follow up on that and reinforce what David said bit also add that the way these teams work is that they go out and hire local contractors and then they provide the money to the Afghan contractors who go out and hire the workers. Let me also follow up, if I may, on what Elie said earlier. Money, in pumping money to the state which has no money, which has been totally destroyed by twenty-three years of war -- take the national police. There is a program that the ministry of the interior has to build up the national police around the country. There used to be a platoon of national police in each one of the districts in the country, over three hundred districts. And then there were battalions in the provinces, the thirty-two provinces. This was a network around the country that kept security. However, the police, the ones that are left, which, there's not too many, have not been paid for three months. They're very corrupt. The German government has established a police training institute. There has to be more focus on training, but there most of all has to be more focus on building up the ministry of interior infrastructure and a national police force that can guard the roads and bring security to the provinces and districts.

Host: Well Elie, let me ask you about that. Right now we hear so much about warlords still having control over their particular areas. If you're living in Herat, if you're living in Kandahar, is your local police force, is your local security coming from a warlord or is it coming from the central government?

Krakowski: I think this was addressed in one way or another before and I think the answer is very clear. Right now there isn't much of a central presence whether it is police or military. And as Peter said, one has to work for it, it's going to take time, but there is a need for more concentrated attention and I think the mention of the corruption is an important thing. And I this doesn't go away simply because you wish it to go away. It goes away, again, because you do training. You focus on training. You establish a professional force. You pay them. And for an interim period that has to be done until things take root. And what people I think don't understand -- I'm sorry but I think it needs to be emphasized -- is that what has to happen in Afghanistan is not individual segments being done one after the other. There's a need to do things simultaneously. Many different things need to be done at the same time. And it's not a question of focusing on A or on B or on C. There are a number of things that need to be done, just like you need to train police, you need to build the army, you need to build the central ministries. You need to deal with the neighbors and you need to provide certain income. For that you need to centralize more the whole process. I think it's too decentralized. Too many people do things on their own, whether it's the United States or other countries or even agencies of the United States government.

Host: Well David Isby, we have about a minute left. If you live in Herat, who do you look to if you want to get something done at this point?

Isby: Well, probably in there, you know, Ismael Khan who owes allegiance to Hamid Karzai. So, you know, these supposed "warlords" reflect a continued crisis of legitimacy. They may not have -- their legitimacy may be weak, but that of Kabul has been undercut for all the years of the communists and governments. So, it's going to be a long process. It took twenty-five years to undercut Kabul's authority. It's not going to be rebuilt in one or two years. It's going to take a number of years of Kabul having to demonstrate that it should be legitimate and respected. And if that can be the case, the warlords may end up eventually becoming yesterday's men. But that's more likely to be ten years than two.

Host: We have about ten seconds left. Peter Tomsen, any one thing that's going to make the difference between success and failure?

Tomsen: I think that the outside ring of powers have to cooperate more. There has to be a regional consensus on helping Afghanistan get back on its feet and develop. The outside powers are still interfering.

Host: I'm afraid that's all the time we have for today. I'd like to thank my guests: Peter Tomsen, former U-S special envoy to Afghanistan and former ambassador to Armenia; Elie Krakowski, senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; and author and defense analyst David Isby. Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can e-mail them to on theline@ibb.gov For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.