Interview with Ambassador Said Jawad of Afghanistan, Part I
Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters did a very informative interview with Ambassador Said Jawad of Afghanistan and aired it on his CQ Radio program as part of BlogTalkRadio.
Here is a transcript of the first half of the interview. I typed it up off the webcast, so any errors are mine.
*****
CQ: I'm just going to start off with what appears to be the most pressing concern for Americans, the security situation in Afghanistan at the moment. It is obviously a difficult situation for Afghanistan [inaudible]. Can you describe how much control over the entirety of Afghanistan the central government has at this point in time, and where you see that [inaudible]?
Ambassador Jawad: On the security front we are still facing challenges but overall when the Taliban and terrorists are confronting the Afghan security forces or the international security forces they are not able to be a serious threat. They are losing in large numbers but they are successful in doing suicide bombings, roadside bombings, and others. The control of the Afghan government over the entire country legally is there. Afghanistan has an elected president, an elected parliament, but the capacity of the Afghan government to deliver services , to provide protection for the Afghan citizens, is still limited because of the limited resources we have received in the past five and a half years.
CQ: Limited resources in how, and how much of those resources have come from America and NATO countries, and how much more resources do you think that you'll need in order to improve the situation for your government?
Ambassador Jawad: The United States has been the leading partner in providing assistance to Afghanistan. NATO countries, Japan, India, some of the Gulf countries are also have been very helpful in the process, but the degree of the destruction in Afghanistan was such that the amount of investment that has been made in the past five and a half years to build the national institutions in Afghanistan has been not adequate. How much is needed in Afghanistan depends on how fast we make the necessary investment in Afghanistan, and how effectively we use the resources being available in Afghanistan.
First, there has been an underinvestment in Afghanistan, and second, some of the resources were not used in the most efficient way in Afghanistan, like many other post-conflict countries.
CQ: When you say that they weren't used in the most effective way, of course democracies have a way of being a little bit inefficient, it's one of the drawbacks of democracy that's certainly outweighed by the benefits, but is that what you mean in terms of inefficiency, or is it inefficiency in how it was provided from the United States or NATO or how it's been implemented by these countries that are taking part?
Ambassador Jawad: The existing funding mechanism favors a lot of the donor priorities, and contracts will go to major companies that belong to the donor community. At the same time I am very realistic about the fact the degree of the experties available in Afghanistan by Afghans is limited, so we were facing also a shortage of human capital in Afghanistan. A combination of both made the efficiency of the use of the funds rather limited.
CQ: And is that sort of a fallout from the educational breakdown that occured in Afghanistan, not only of course during the Taliban period, but the pre-Taliban period where there was the Soviet occupation and all sorts of other [inaudible] Your country was facing a tremendous number of problems over the last few decades. Is that where the human capital deficit comes from?
Ambassador Jawad: Certainly. I went to Kabul University School of Law in the 1970s. We were taught in French and the students were able to absorb teaching in foreign languages. Different schools at Kabul University were affilated with various univerities abroad, like Sorbonne, MIT and others, but because of the Soviet invasion and the war the education system in Afghanistan collapsed, and what remained of the educational system became extremely politicized on both extreme right and extreme left.
A lot of the capable Afghans who were educated are even now in their late 60s and 70s, and most of them left the country. So the collapse of the educational system along side with the culture of poverty, living as refugees, have forced a lot of Afghan people to lose really the long term strategic view and vision of rebuilding of the country. Unfortunately when people live as refugees, they acquire the habit of getting handouts, free lunches, free meals. All of themn affect the ethics of people.
CQ: And of course when you're living as a refugee it's hard to plan for the future because there's really no structure for them to make those sorts of plans. They're not settled, they don't have homes, and so shouldn't the first priority of the United States and the western nations contributing in Afghanistan be to get people out of the refugee status throughout the country and try to get them into more stabilized communities where they can make those sorts of plans and build those sorts of educational infrastructure as well as other infrastructure?
Ambassador Jawad: Certainly. In Afghanistan, fortunately 4.5 million refugees have returned back to Afghanistan, an important evidence of the confidence of the Afghan people in the political process, but yet neither the Afghan government nor our donor community have been really ready to welcome these refugees, to provide them with adequate housing, schools and others. If we want to end the cycle of violence and revenge anywhere in the world, we have to treat human beings as human beings, not as a number in a refugee camp, to provide them an opportunity to be back in their village, to have a life of dignity and honor, will certainly enhance the chances of their children [not?] becoming hateful and revengeful.
CQ: Somewhat along those lines, I think Americans don't really understand the interaction of the different tribes of Afghanistan and how that relates to how that relates to how they interact within natitonalities of Afghanistan, and what special issues that presents to the government. Can you explain to the listeners a little bit how tribal politics plays into these issues that you're seeing, and what the government of Afghanistan is trying to do to establish more of a national outlook rather than a tribal outlook?
Ambassador Jawad: Afghanistan is a mosaic of different cultures, tribes, religions even, and that diversity if generally a source of strength, as it is in the United States when you have a peaceful environment. But, in an environment where violence is introduced, where extremism is introduced, where [inaudible] is introduced, some of these tendencies could very destructive. What we have done in Afghanistan is try to channel the richness of the Afghan culture, history and tribal heritage and others in a positive way. The good thing is that Afghan people are very much united. The country has extremely different tribes, different ethnic groups and others, they are very much among themselves, and they would like actually to see the country prosper through partnership with the international community because they know that isolation and fighting each other will bring really deep misery, the way it did to Afghans in the past 30 years.
CQ: Some critics in our country who are opposed to intervention in this region say that long lasting democracy is really not a possibility for Afghanistan, for Iraq, or other nations in that region, and that we should be directing our efforts in different directions. Some of my readers have asked, first off, do you find that criticism [inaudible], and secondly, how would you respond to those critics?
Ambassador Jawad: If democracy means having the peace of mind of going to bed without fearing the secret police, if democracy means having an opportunity to send your daughter to school, if democracy means the possibility of having a decent medical treatment, and being able to express your mind, this is what every human being deserves and demands.
What we are doing in Afghanistan is what of course the Afghan people demand. They would like to have security. They would like to have their village to be connected to the next city so they can prosper economically, so they can sell their products to the markets. All of these measures are the nation of human beings. We all demand freedom. We all hate dictatorship. I don't think that anywhere in the world anybody is either trying or it is possible to impose democracy... Democracy is not imposed, it is a value of a human being. What is being imposed is dictatorship. What you are doing in Afghanistan is trying to prevent others to impose dictatorship and despotism to the Afghan people. [The Taliban are] are teaching people what kind of clothes to wear, schools to go, and this is what you're trying to do, is to end despotism and dictatorship. You're not imposing democracy, you're preventing others from imposing dictatorship on the Afghan people, and to the region, and if they get their way, to the world.
CQ: So you don't see, and the Afghan people don't see, the American effort and the Western effort in Afghanistan as some sort of an imperial effort to colonize Afghanistan in a certain direction?
Ambassador Jawad: Certainly not. You and I, Afghans and Americans, were partners in fighting the Soviets. Our biggest complaint was that you left us when the Soviets were gone. So we were asking for your engagement, we were demanding that. There is so much extremism introduced in the small nation of Afghanistan, that we as Afghans would not be able to save our country without your assistance. It took 9/11 for you to come back to assist us, and we appreciate this very much and we have to work together to prevent another 9/11. That would be a disaster for us, for you, for humanity. But definitely the engagement of the international community in Afghanistan is very much welcome. Of course there are frustrations. When the military operations are conducted in a way that civilians die, or when the expectation of the Afghan people are not met, but there is certainly not resentment. The hope of the Afghan people is to rebuild their country through the partnership of the international community.
CQ: Some critics in the United States say that we helped create the Taliban, and we helped create Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets, and then, as you said, we sort of left without taking care of the problems. Do you see that as partially America's responsibility, having created the effort to push the Soviets out, that we enabled the extremists and then failed to protect you against them later on?
Ambassador Jawad: When the war against the Soviets started, there was a need to economically support the Afghan people and also ideologically. And one ready and available ideology was extremism. Not only the United States but also Islamic countries in the Middle East sent a lot of their unwanted elements to fight in Afghanistan. I think the short term objective was to defeat the Soviets, which seemed impossible back then. Nobody thought there would be a post-Soviet Afghanistan at the beginning. I remember some people said we would fight until our last Afghan. But it did happen, through the courage of the Afghan people, and the commitment of the international community. I think in many instances in international politics we sacrifice the long term priorities for short term gain. It was a short term gain to defeat the Soviets, but we are paying a very high price for that right now in Afghanistan and many other places.
CQ: There's a very real danger that domestic political pressure here in the United States will force an American withdrawal from Iraq before its government is ready to stand on its own. Based on what we've just been discussing, does that sound familiar to you, and secondly, are you concerned that the American commitment is also going to dissipate for Afghanistan now?
Ambassador Jawad: Through my discussions with Americans here, military Americans as well as the Administration and Congress, I think people are making a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq, which is really good for us. I'm really not concerned about the possible withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan. It will come one day, that the job of defending Afghanistan is ours, it is our country, there is no shortage of commitment or courage in Afghanistan, to defend Afghanistan and defeat terrorism in Afghanistan and in possibly the region. What we need is new investment in Afghanistan and Afghans, by building our national police force, national army. And then, we would rather have your boys and daughers who are doing a heroic job in defending Afghanistan to come back home and live in the safety of their own country. I'm sure that the United States will not leave Afghanistan until the Afghan national army and police force are built and the Afghan government has acquired the necessary capacity to deliver services and provide protection to the Afghan people.
CQ: What is the status of the national army in Afghanistan, and the security forces there? Again, with Iraq, we've had a lot of attention being brought to how many brigades are online for the Iraqi army, we don't seem to have the same sort of focus here on the Afghanistan army, and security forces there. What is the status of your forces?
Ambassador Jawad: The Afghan national army and police forces are not yet where they should be. We are in fact paying a price for doing too little on this front. The target of the Afghan national army is at 70,000. So far we have trained about 35,000 Afghan national army, which are performing very well in fighting along side NATO and US forces very effectively.
In the area of police force, where the target is about 55,000, the job is not even half done and not complete all. The quality of the Afghan national police force is not as good as it should be and the quantity is also suffering. There is a new focus on rebuilding the Afghan national police force and the army. The United States will be committing a substantial amount of money in the next two years to rebuild the Afghan police force and the army.
(Part II of the interview is here.)
Here is a transcript of the first half of the interview. I typed it up off the webcast, so any errors are mine.
*****
CQ: I'm just going to start off with what appears to be the most pressing concern for Americans, the security situation in Afghanistan at the moment. It is obviously a difficult situation for Afghanistan [inaudible]. Can you describe how much control over the entirety of Afghanistan the central government has at this point in time, and where you see that [inaudible]?
Ambassador Jawad: On the security front we are still facing challenges but overall when the Taliban and terrorists are confronting the Afghan security forces or the international security forces they are not able to be a serious threat. They are losing in large numbers but they are successful in doing suicide bombings, roadside bombings, and others. The control of the Afghan government over the entire country legally is there. Afghanistan has an elected president, an elected parliament, but the capacity of the Afghan government to deliver services , to provide protection for the Afghan citizens, is still limited because of the limited resources we have received in the past five and a half years.
CQ: Limited resources in how, and how much of those resources have come from America and NATO countries, and how much more resources do you think that you'll need in order to improve the situation for your government?
Ambassador Jawad: The United States has been the leading partner in providing assistance to Afghanistan. NATO countries, Japan, India, some of the Gulf countries are also have been very helpful in the process, but the degree of the destruction in Afghanistan was such that the amount of investment that has been made in the past five and a half years to build the national institutions in Afghanistan has been not adequate. How much is needed in Afghanistan depends on how fast we make the necessary investment in Afghanistan, and how effectively we use the resources being available in Afghanistan.
First, there has been an underinvestment in Afghanistan, and second, some of the resources were not used in the most efficient way in Afghanistan, like many other post-conflict countries.
CQ: When you say that they weren't used in the most effective way, of course democracies have a way of being a little bit inefficient, it's one of the drawbacks of democracy that's certainly outweighed by the benefits, but is that what you mean in terms of inefficiency, or is it inefficiency in how it was provided from the United States or NATO or how it's been implemented by these countries that are taking part?
Ambassador Jawad: The existing funding mechanism favors a lot of the donor priorities, and contracts will go to major companies that belong to the donor community. At the same time I am very realistic about the fact the degree of the experties available in Afghanistan by Afghans is limited, so we were facing also a shortage of human capital in Afghanistan. A combination of both made the efficiency of the use of the funds rather limited.
CQ: And is that sort of a fallout from the educational breakdown that occured in Afghanistan, not only of course during the Taliban period, but the pre-Taliban period where there was the Soviet occupation and all sorts of other [inaudible] Your country was facing a tremendous number of problems over the last few decades. Is that where the human capital deficit comes from?
Ambassador Jawad: Certainly. I went to Kabul University School of Law in the 1970s. We were taught in French and the students were able to absorb teaching in foreign languages. Different schools at Kabul University were affilated with various univerities abroad, like Sorbonne, MIT and others, but because of the Soviet invasion and the war the education system in Afghanistan collapsed, and what remained of the educational system became extremely politicized on both extreme right and extreme left.
A lot of the capable Afghans who were educated are even now in their late 60s and 70s, and most of them left the country. So the collapse of the educational system along side with the culture of poverty, living as refugees, have forced a lot of Afghan people to lose really the long term strategic view and vision of rebuilding of the country. Unfortunately when people live as refugees, they acquire the habit of getting handouts, free lunches, free meals. All of themn affect the ethics of people.
CQ: And of course when you're living as a refugee it's hard to plan for the future because there's really no structure for them to make those sorts of plans. They're not settled, they don't have homes, and so shouldn't the first priority of the United States and the western nations contributing in Afghanistan be to get people out of the refugee status throughout the country and try to get them into more stabilized communities where they can make those sorts of plans and build those sorts of educational infrastructure as well as other infrastructure?
Ambassador Jawad: Certainly. In Afghanistan, fortunately 4.5 million refugees have returned back to Afghanistan, an important evidence of the confidence of the Afghan people in the political process, but yet neither the Afghan government nor our donor community have been really ready to welcome these refugees, to provide them with adequate housing, schools and others. If we want to end the cycle of violence and revenge anywhere in the world, we have to treat human beings as human beings, not as a number in a refugee camp, to provide them an opportunity to be back in their village, to have a life of dignity and honor, will certainly enhance the chances of their children [not?] becoming hateful and revengeful.
CQ: Somewhat along those lines, I think Americans don't really understand the interaction of the different tribes of Afghanistan and how that relates to how that relates to how they interact within natitonalities of Afghanistan, and what special issues that presents to the government. Can you explain to the listeners a little bit how tribal politics plays into these issues that you're seeing, and what the government of Afghanistan is trying to do to establish more of a national outlook rather than a tribal outlook?
Ambassador Jawad: Afghanistan is a mosaic of different cultures, tribes, religions even, and that diversity if generally a source of strength, as it is in the United States when you have a peaceful environment. But, in an environment where violence is introduced, where extremism is introduced, where [inaudible] is introduced, some of these tendencies could very destructive. What we have done in Afghanistan is try to channel the richness of the Afghan culture, history and tribal heritage and others in a positive way. The good thing is that Afghan people are very much united. The country has extremely different tribes, different ethnic groups and others, they are very much among themselves, and they would like actually to see the country prosper through partnership with the international community because they know that isolation and fighting each other will bring really deep misery, the way it did to Afghans in the past 30 years.
CQ: Some critics in our country who are opposed to intervention in this region say that long lasting democracy is really not a possibility for Afghanistan, for Iraq, or other nations in that region, and that we should be directing our efforts in different directions. Some of my readers have asked, first off, do you find that criticism [inaudible], and secondly, how would you respond to those critics?
Ambassador Jawad: If democracy means having the peace of mind of going to bed without fearing the secret police, if democracy means having an opportunity to send your daughter to school, if democracy means the possibility of having a decent medical treatment, and being able to express your mind, this is what every human being deserves and demands.
What we are doing in Afghanistan is what of course the Afghan people demand. They would like to have security. They would like to have their village to be connected to the next city so they can prosper economically, so they can sell their products to the markets. All of these measures are the nation of human beings. We all demand freedom. We all hate dictatorship. I don't think that anywhere in the world anybody is either trying or it is possible to impose democracy... Democracy is not imposed, it is a value of a human being. What is being imposed is dictatorship. What you are doing in Afghanistan is trying to prevent others to impose dictatorship and despotism to the Afghan people. [The Taliban are] are teaching people what kind of clothes to wear, schools to go, and this is what you're trying to do, is to end despotism and dictatorship. You're not imposing democracy, you're preventing others from imposing dictatorship on the Afghan people, and to the region, and if they get their way, to the world.
CQ: So you don't see, and the Afghan people don't see, the American effort and the Western effort in Afghanistan as some sort of an imperial effort to colonize Afghanistan in a certain direction?
Ambassador Jawad: Certainly not. You and I, Afghans and Americans, were partners in fighting the Soviets. Our biggest complaint was that you left us when the Soviets were gone. So we were asking for your engagement, we were demanding that. There is so much extremism introduced in the small nation of Afghanistan, that we as Afghans would not be able to save our country without your assistance. It took 9/11 for you to come back to assist us, and we appreciate this very much and we have to work together to prevent another 9/11. That would be a disaster for us, for you, for humanity. But definitely the engagement of the international community in Afghanistan is very much welcome. Of course there are frustrations. When the military operations are conducted in a way that civilians die, or when the expectation of the Afghan people are not met, but there is certainly not resentment. The hope of the Afghan people is to rebuild their country through the partnership of the international community.
CQ: Some critics in the United States say that we helped create the Taliban, and we helped create Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets, and then, as you said, we sort of left without taking care of the problems. Do you see that as partially America's responsibility, having created the effort to push the Soviets out, that we enabled the extremists and then failed to protect you against them later on?
Ambassador Jawad: When the war against the Soviets started, there was a need to economically support the Afghan people and also ideologically. And one ready and available ideology was extremism. Not only the United States but also Islamic countries in the Middle East sent a lot of their unwanted elements to fight in Afghanistan. I think the short term objective was to defeat the Soviets, which seemed impossible back then. Nobody thought there would be a post-Soviet Afghanistan at the beginning. I remember some people said we would fight until our last Afghan. But it did happen, through the courage of the Afghan people, and the commitment of the international community. I think in many instances in international politics we sacrifice the long term priorities for short term gain. It was a short term gain to defeat the Soviets, but we are paying a very high price for that right now in Afghanistan and many other places.
CQ: There's a very real danger that domestic political pressure here in the United States will force an American withdrawal from Iraq before its government is ready to stand on its own. Based on what we've just been discussing, does that sound familiar to you, and secondly, are you concerned that the American commitment is also going to dissipate for Afghanistan now?
Ambassador Jawad: Through my discussions with Americans here, military Americans as well as the Administration and Congress, I think people are making a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq, which is really good for us. I'm really not concerned about the possible withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan. It will come one day, that the job of defending Afghanistan is ours, it is our country, there is no shortage of commitment or courage in Afghanistan, to defend Afghanistan and defeat terrorism in Afghanistan and in possibly the region. What we need is new investment in Afghanistan and Afghans, by building our national police force, national army. And then, we would rather have your boys and daughers who are doing a heroic job in defending Afghanistan to come back home and live in the safety of their own country. I'm sure that the United States will not leave Afghanistan until the Afghan national army and police force are built and the Afghan government has acquired the necessary capacity to deliver services and provide protection to the Afghan people.
CQ: What is the status of the national army in Afghanistan, and the security forces there? Again, with Iraq, we've had a lot of attention being brought to how many brigades are online for the Iraqi army, we don't seem to have the same sort of focus here on the Afghanistan army, and security forces there. What is the status of your forces?
Ambassador Jawad: The Afghan national army and police forces are not yet where they should be. We are in fact paying a price for doing too little on this front. The target of the Afghan national army is at 70,000. So far we have trained about 35,000 Afghan national army, which are performing very well in fighting along side NATO and US forces very effectively.
In the area of police force, where the target is about 55,000, the job is not even half done and not complete all. The quality of the Afghan national police force is not as good as it should be and the quantity is also suffering. There is a new focus on rebuilding the Afghan national police force and the army. The United States will be committing a substantial amount of money in the next two years to rebuild the Afghan police force and the army.
(Part II of the interview is here.)
Labels: Afghanistan
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home