From the beginning of the involvement of Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan we have been very optimistic about their involvement in security assistance. It was a great hope of the people and for the civil society for freedom and for getting rid of the Taliban. I was very optimistic about a joined and coordinated action from all actors. But I think exactly this was then left behind from the very beginning. Instead there have been ad hoc activities, different plans, different actions but no well coordinated approaches for addressing the real problems. Even the concept of PRT is different from one province to the other. And this is although the problem they want to address is a single problem: to deal with insecurity and with the issue of poverty reduction.
There is no common approach that could address all relevant issues and suggest how to solve them. This creates uncertainty amongst the internationals but also amongst the Afghan actors and for the population in general. Commonly people mix up the civil and the military activities. And I ask: Is it acceptable if on the first day you come with a gun and on the second day with a flower? Are we really winning the hearts and minds of the people with our current plans? Or, is it rather first an act of killing somebody in a village on one day and then coming with a flower to bag excuse for what has happened on the next day? I believe that at present there is no cohesive approach and the impact of action has not been properly considered from the very beginning.
On the issue of development and PRTs I want to give one more example: The budget that some PRTs in this country have is higher than the development budget of the whole country. Is it not possible to alternatively use this money to support the national army properly? It is important to establish the national security forces. I doubt that the Germans or others will stay for the next 20 years. This means that they should put more into the capacity building of police and national army. That will also support them in dealing with insurgents and other enemies. Moreover a broader sense of responsibility would develop amongst Afghan people regarding their own security. The international community should shift its focus from the military deployment to the development of the country.
I think that the international security forces should stay. It is impossible for Afghanistan to get out of this volatile situation without the support of the ISAF. But, I would like them to be very well organized and strategically thinking about what they do and how they get involved in establishing security in the country. This is very important. I see more danger for them and for us Afghans in the future if strategies and policies for security are not revised and adapted.
How do you assess the impact of Germany as a lead nation for the establishment of the national police?
My suggestion to Germany, and I have already mentioned this to some of the German parliamentarians, would be to really focus on the establishment of new structures of the national police. The system we are currently using is a very old system that is not going to function anymore. We need to have a modern system in place for the deployment of the police. We need a very well equipped police. And both need very well arranged regulations and the commitment of the government. The selection for a police should be done in a very well established way instead of asking the former commanders to help with it. It does not make sense to train people like this as they will leave the next day and go back to join the former factions.
How would you assess the recent political, social and economic developments in Afghanistan?
The benchmarks of the Bonn Agreement were set up along a very western vision and not along an Afghan vision. And this western vision includes a very different experience and thinking about life, security, rule of law, facilities, economy, everything. For a country coming out of 25 years of war, with huge conflicts along ethnic, religious and many other lines, it is very difficult to bring these manifold people together to vote in a proper way. So was the voting for president Karzai very badly politicized and ethicized. At the same time, while stressing the democratic values, democratic principles were ignored. For example, how can one bring democracy into a country without political parties? During the elections for the parliament the power was still in the hands of the gunmen and commanders and those people who had no legitimate influence to the policy making of Afghanistan. Moreover the Single Non Transferable Vote system created a huge problem of representation. The parliament is actually only representing 25 percent of the country’s population. This is how Afghans see it.
Definitely one other issue is poppy cultivation. There was no strong policy against it at the beginning. No planning for eradicating and stopping poppy cultivation. Instead, especially in the last two years, poppy cultivation increased. Today the most sustainable economy is the poppy economy. It does not need investments or foreign assistance and it is based on local resources and facilities, available without huge payments. People know how to cultivate poppy and have invested in it for the last twenty years.
A third issue is capacity building within the government, throughout the provinces and on a national level. There were billions of dollars available for Afghanistan but there was no capacity building plan for the government to observe the implementation of this money. And there was a civil society, very new and just erupting, not well experienced in transparency and accountability to observe the utilization of this money. It was the big international organizations that actually got and spend the money. This created hostility and competition between the government side and the civil society being seen as linked with these organizations. All government employees had the impression that the international community and the civil society are a competitor trying to dishonor the government.
Another important issue was the missing mobilization of the communities. A lot of time and the right momentum have been lost here. While a lot of work was done, no proper mechanisms were established in the regions. One example is the elections: a huge amount of money was spent but without establishing proper institutions for facilitating the elections again. For the next elections we need to reinvent the wheel.
Finally there are shortcomings in the areas of poverty eradication and disarmament. We talked about disarmament but never considered the issues of demobilization and reintegration. The guns were taken from the people but nothing else was offered instead. That created a very unclear environment for them on what to do next. So perhaps the person who had lost his gun went and borrowed money from the neighbors or from the shop keeper. At the end of the year he had borrowed a big amount of money. So he decides to borrow a gun and stop people to get money from them. He is trained in using a gun and aware about the fragile security situation. But he did not know what to do after he had handed in his gun.
Do you think that for the general public it actually makes a difference which international stakeholder is providing what kind of assistance?
The judgment of the public here in Afghanistan is a very reflective one. Of course nobody can ignore the huge amount of development that has happened over the last years especially in the field of infrastructure development. But the Afghan people will still only see what is directly in front of their eyes. They do not see what is happening behind. People want employment, this is very important. People don’t have jobs, they don’t have money and they don’t have access to resources or services. The issue of housing and corruption is another point that is important. They cannot deny that there is a road being built. But what happens if they have a good road but no food. What happens if they have a good vehicle but no hospital to bring their patients too? This is how people judge about development initiatives.
Mr. Aziz, how do you assess the influence of the neighboring countries Iran and Pakistan on the current situation in Afghanistan?
We cannot separate ourselves from Pakistan or Iran. We cannot live without them and they cannot live without us. It is the politics around this situation that is the problem: Pakistan for example is claiming rights to be involved in the selection of the government in Afghanistan. Pakistan had great influence for all these years and knows this country very well. Compared to all governments before, it is only the current government that is not established by Pakistan. But still most of our policy is influenced by Pakistan on different levels. We also cannot ignore the role of Pakistan in other fields: Our food, our water and even our medicine are coming from Pakistan. And Pakistan is very much aware about what is happening in this country. It is the same with Iran. What recently happened with the Foreign Minister was a very well prepared joined activity between Pakistan and Iran. They were very unhappy with the Minister’s policies and with his way of resolving some policy issues.
Interview by Marion R. Müller, Heinrich Böll Foundation Kabul