Questions and
Answers
Question:
On the issue of Afghanistan抯 Gross Domestic Product, the gap
between rich and poor is widening. How does this impact
security in Afghanistan?
Tom Koenigs:
A sound economy always stabilizes a country and stabilizes a
country抯 institutions. If peace in Afghanistan doesn抰 bring a
peace dividend to the people they will be frustrated. The
international support to Afghanistan and the efforts of the
government to create an atmosphere of prosperity in the country
has brought food and fruits to everybody. The assumption of
achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Afghanistan has
underlined that without this constant growth it will not be
possible to reach these goals, so I am happy that at least for
this year (and the forecast for the next year) a significant
growth rate is possible because this will be a condition
necessary for the [MDG] promises to be met. We have a
relatively good regional economic situation at this moment and
that is why I say this is the moment to build bridges.
Question:
If you go near the Iran Embassy you can see a lot of people who
are seeking visas to go back to Iran. Does it not mean that
there is prosperity in Kabul, but not in the regions?
Tom Koenigs:
I did not say that the poverty in Afghanistan has changed from
one day to the other and can change from one day to the other.
We all know that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in
the world, and this will not change fast. Nevertheless, without
this growth it doesn抰 change at all and the distribution of
wealth is a big problem particularly in a country with big towns
and a rather neglected countryside, a countryside which has been
neglected for centuries. So Afghanistan faces all these
problems and it will not go away in one or two days,
nevertheless these figures raise a certain optimism.
Question:
My question is about your
statement that Pakistan should stop the Talibanization inside
Pakistan and Afghanistan. Can you elaborate more on this? Do
you think Pakistan is directly or indirectly supporting the
Taliban? And secondly, the security situation is getting worse
day-by-day in Afghanistan and the British Defence Minister says
there will be more attacks by terrorists in southern Afghanistan
as we have been witnessing since the beginning of the year. What
is your assessment? And how long will this continue?
Tom Koenigs:
First of all I did not say that the Talibanization comes from
Pakistan. I said that we should stop blaming one country or
another for Talibanization, or for the security situation.
Cooperation is needed. I also said that the government of
Pakistan is well aware that for the sake of the stability of
both countries, Talibanization has to be prevented. Pakistan
and Afghanistan are fighting in the border regions the
Talibanization through military actions against Al-Qaeda and
Taliban extremists. You know that the Pakistani Army and the
Afghan National Army are losing soldiers in this battle.
Civilians are dying on both sides and there is a clear knowledge
that stability in Afghanistan and stability in Pakistan are
closely linked. We all see that the security situation this
spring, particularly in the south of Afghanistan and north of
Pakistan has not improved. This should give rise to increased
and coordinated efforts [in order] to come to a success. But
any strategy must have different elements. One is the military
element, the other is the administrative element and the third
is the economic element. Certainly the Afghan National Army and
Afghan National Police, together with the Coalition Forces and
ISAF, have to continue to fight the insurgency in the south and
all other provinces. But at the same time, governance has to be
improved through the cooperation of the governors, the security
agencies and the international community. And I think the
efforts being made at this moment in the southern provinces are
very promising. Looking back over the last four years, the
security situation has improved and quite a number of conflicts
have ceased to exist, and that is why we are optimistic. Three
quarters of the country is on a good path, and the positive
economic figures are mostly due to progress in these three
quarters of the country. Nevertheless I know that in one
quarter of the country the security situation has not improved
and that is where we have to improve. I say explicitly 憌e
because UNAMA will try to take its share [of responsibility] to
improve the situation. We will try to increase our presence in
the southern provinces in the course of this year to support the
government to function and to improve their functions.
Question:
My question pertains to the security situation. In the last
month the security situation has deteriorated, and don抰 you
think that challenges which have created the foreign relations
of Afghanistan are driving the insurgency and the deterioration
of security and who is to blame for getting these challenges?
Also will your trips undermine these challenges and will it be
effective for the security, peace and stabilization of
Afghanistan?
Tom Koenigs:
My approach is a bit different. I think the security situation
in the region is so interlinked that it is worthwhile not to
blame each other but to cooperate. Throughout history the
security situation in Afghanistan was driven by national, local
and international factors. My wish would certainly be that a
trip to the neighboring countries by the Special Representative
of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan will lead to better
understanding among Afghanistan抯 neighbors. The future of
Afghanistan is so much embedded in the region that on all levels
I will try to improve regional cooperation. As you know, the
Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board for the Afghanistan
Compact will include the most important neighbors. The spirit
of this body will be a spirit of cooperation too, and this is
the key to success. I certainly know that one trip, of one
person, in one moment will certainly not change the world but I
will certainly try to do my best in this respect.
Question:
(translated from Dari) In your remarks you talked about the
stability of Afghanistan, about the repatriation of refugees,
and about regional cooperation. But in some quarters there is
the possibility of the return of the Taliban as stated by
British Prime Minister Tony Blair. What do you think would be
the impact of that happening?
Tom Koenigs:
Within the [recent] history, and from speaking to Afghans, I
know what you have all suffered from the Taliban. So a return
of the Taliban is one of the worst things that could happen.
Peace lies in tolerance and not extremism. Extremists,
terrorists and other enemy action in Afghanistan will only lead
to what you have experienced in the last decades. The
international community and the United Nations are clearly
committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan in their fight
against terrorism and extremism.
Question:
(question inaudible)
[Paraphrased: In the context of the Iran situation is regional
cooperation going to be likely?]
Tom Koenigs:
I certainly see the problems between parts of the international
community and Iran. There is worldwide tension to be observed.
For the particular situation of Afghanistan this must not affect
the neighborhood and the good relations between Afghanistan and
Iran. I think all the actors here in Afghanistan coincide in
[thinking] that. So my trip to Iran is also a clear signal that
we think that the cooperation of Afghanistan with all their
neighbors, even in difficult situations, is the key to success
and stabilization. International tensions must not affect or
contaminate the good relations Afghanistan has with Iran.
Question:
You summed up your introduction by saying that blaming your
neighbor does not help. But then Afghanistan is a landlocked
country and is very much dependent on its neighbors and
unfortunately even the farmers here cannot take their produce to
its neighboring territories. This is in fact causing a lot of
harm to the economy. If these kinds of irritants exist, how do
you think they can stop themselves from hating each other?
Tom Koenigs:
How can I convince people not to blame each other? Only by
telling them they have a common interest. The common interests
between Pakistan and Afghanistan are manifold, but at least
three are obvious: The past and present refugee situation, the
economic situation, and the security situation.
On the refugee situation,
millions of Afghans have been taken up as refugees in
neighboring countries throughout history. Out of the three
million refugees who are now in Pakistan, half of them are born
in Pakistan. The hospitality on one side, and their return, has
been organized and must continuously be organized in a friendly
manner.
On the economy, throughout
history Afghanistan has been a country of trade. Trade from
south to central Asia and back. The figures clearly indicate
how important this trade is. And you have clearly said
Afghanistan is a landlocked country and depends on this free and
friendly trade.
And the third: security.
Talibanization is threatening Afghanistan and Pakistan alike.
Terrorist activities of Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups are
threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan alike. These three fields
are reason enough to cooperate and not blame each other and what
I抳e seen in my visit to Pakistan with all the interlocutors is
that there is a growing conscience of this situation. And if
you speak in Pakistan with businessmen they certainly know that
a lot of business from Pakistan is made in Afghanistan. As in
any long term perspective of Afghanistan抯 economy it is clear
that Afghanistan must be the country that links south Asia with
central Asia.
If you look at the neighbor
Iran, the trade that comes in and out of Iran has brought a
certain level of prosperity to the region of Herat. Incoming
investment has helped this region a great deal. And the
situation of Afghan refugees in Iran might be equally important
for the cooperation of these two countries.
Question:
The American Defence
Secretary has said that the presence of American troops in
Afghanistan is a deterrent against Iran. So how will this help
you on your visit to Iran? Did you discuss your trip to Tehran
with the American Ambassador here?
Tom Koenigs:
I certainly will
not venture into commenting on the remarks of any minister from
nations friendly to Afghanistan. I have openly spoken with all
our diplomatic friends that I am traveling to Iran. But what you
underestimate might be the role of the United Nations. The UN
has 191 member states. Two of them are Afghanistan and Iran.
UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) has a
liaison office in Tehran, as we have in Islamabad, because we
know that relations between these two countries, particularly in
the field of refugees, are so important. I will certainly see
these offices frequently in Tehran and Islamabad. And I will
meet with the authorities in both countries with the intention
to sort out any possibilities of improving the relations with
Afghanistan. On the Joint Monitoring and Coordination Board (JMCB),
all the friends and neighbors of Afghanistan will have the
opportunity to cooperate in an institutional manner. I
appreciate very much that the international community in
Afghanistan is united on this point.
Question:
Despite the presence of
national and international security forces and calls for greater
co-operation from both countries the problem (security) is not
getting better and the insurgency is increasing day-by-day.
Don抰 you think there is a need for reconsidering the current
strategy of the international community and the government
against the growing insurgency?
Tom Koenigs:
First of all the
military forces present here have clearly said that this is not
a short term presence. So the presence here includes the
knowledge that this is a medium term challenge. The Afghanistan
Compact, which has a clear part referring to security, is one
element. I certainly agree that the strategy has to be adjusted
according to what is happening on the ground, taking over the
command in the southern regions gradually by ISAF (International
Security and Assistance Force) is one of the elements of
revisiting the strategy but the strategy must include civilian,
administrative and military and police elements.
What at the moment is
underestimated is that in the southern regions, where the
insurgents at the moment make so much bad news, the number of
international soldiers engaged will increase enormously. At the
same time the quantity and quality of Afghan security forces
police and army is increasing. So there is good reason for
being optimistic - if not in the short term then at least in the
medium term.
Question:
What has the UN done, and what is the UN planning for poppy
eradication? And as you have told us regarding regional
co-operation, we have neighbors like India and Pakistan, what
are they doing in this regard?
Tom Koenigs:
First, the United Nations supports the strategy elaborated in
the last year against drug related crime including the
cultivation of poppy. You know that from UNODC, the UN抯 anti
drugs and crime organization, the strategy developed has been
adopted last year and is part of the Afghanistan Compact. So it
will be supported by international donors. Poppy eradication is
only one part of it [the strategy]. The most important part is
the crackdown on dealers and laboratories. Reading the strategy
closely will convince everybody that this is not a short-term
effort but it must be a long term strategy, and as such the
strategy has been elaborated. Referring to the support of the
neighbouring countries, the visit of President Karzai to India
was apparently very successful and India has committed more
funds to support Afghanistan. The three countries, Iran,
Pakistan and India are among the major donors to the
reconstruction process of this country and there is a variety of
projects in this country sponsored, paid, improved or inspired
by the neighbouring countries. They all co-ordinate on the Joint
Monitoring and Co-ordination Board which will meet on [April]
the 30th which is Sunday.
Question:
With regard to the joint coordination and monitoring body for
the Afghanistan Compact, has this body been established or not?
And if not, when will it be established?
Tom Koenigs:
It
will be established next Sunday.
Question:
You said that in your
visit to Pakistan, you talked with the Pakistani authorities
about trade relations between the two countries. But we know
that Afghanistan is a landlocked country, and that much of the
trade that comes to Afghanistan goes through Pakistan. And at
the same time we know that Pakistani authorities, on some
occasions, blocked the transit of some goods that were supposed
to be transported to Afghanistan via Pakistan. Have you touched
on this issue in your discussion with them? And also have you
talked about the issue of construction of the Delaram Highway
and Trabajar-Delaram in which the Indian government is involved,
did you talk about this issue as well?
Tom Koenigs:
In my visit to
Pakistan, I did not talk about particular projects because the
United Nations is not involved in that. Also, I did not touch
upon Indian development projects. At that time when I was in
Pakistan, the President of Afghanistan was in India.
I know that there are several
initiatives: One has given rise to two conferences, Doha I and
Doha II, to improve the border management. In the Doha II
conference, the two countries, Pakistan and Iran, have committed
to joint projects of improving the border management, and it is
very positive. I know that Pakistani businessmen have a great
interest in the smooth border transfer of goods because out of
the trade deficit that Afghanistan has, quite relevant
percentage is in the trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Question:
In your remarks, you
painted a bright picture of economic and security improvements
in Afghanistan during the past four years. This is the picture
that is most often painted by the Afghan government as well. But
most people do not agree with you and with the Afghan government
on this. A new strategy seems to be needed for dealing with
problems on security and economic areas. And also people have
complaints that functions of the United Nations in Afghanistan
have not been transparent enough.
Tom Koenigs:
First of all, we
will always have complaints because even increasing the wealth
of a country does not necessarily touch everybody. I have not
given a bright picture of the economic situation of Afghanistan.
We have to realize that Afghanistan is among the five poorest
countries in the world. I haven抰 given a bright picture of the
security situation either. I know the problems. Nevertheless I
am optimistic. I know that for many people progress is not fast
enough, myself included. And I certainly agree that strategies
have to be adjusted. And nevertheless, in a situation where we
have the international community committed to support to a
certain and limited degree Afghanistan, knowing that the figures
on economic growth, the macroeconomic figures, on economic
growth, are sufficient to uphold the faster development
designed in these strategies feeds some optimism.
Referring to the projects and transparency of the U.N., we
discuss all projects with the Afghan authorities. The
transparency we give is given to the Afghan government because
for us, the interlocutor, the representative of the Afghan
people is the elected government. So we guarantee transparency
of all the projects and the support of the international
community to the Afghan ministries.
The whole spirit and letter of
the Afghanistan Compact is [about] a leading role for the
Afghanistan government. And leading role means also that they
have to know all the details of the project, and they will know.
Question:
I have two
questions. How do you justify UNAMA抯 approach to the case of
[Christian convert] Abdul Rahman? And do you have a specific
definition of terrorism?
Tom Koenigs:
The United
Nations is committed to human rights and this commitment is
shared with all the 191 member states. So we have strongly
advocated in the Abdul Rahman case to follow this element of
human rights which is religious freedom. The Constitution of
Afghanistan guarantees this religious freedom and guarantees
human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It is in this spirit that we are operating, and that抯
why we give our opinion and we acted as we did in support of the
Afghan government.
The definition of terror has
been subject to long and controversial discussions. One element
of terror is always that the terrorists try to pressure
governments or groups of the population through sacrificing
civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict. To make the
difference clear between war and terror: if soldiers attack
other soldiers it is war; If combatants fire a rocket into a
school, killing school kids who have nothing to do with the
conflict and who are not an army nor involved in any war like
conflict, [this] is terror.
The civilian population in
Afghanistan has suffered a lot from terror and is still
suffering and in none of the value systems or religions of the
world [will] you find a justification for terror, because terror
is taking hostage innocents and uninvolved civilians for
conflict which has nothing to do with them. In the international
community there is unity on the definition of terror with one
exception this exception is that there is not unity on how to
define national liberation wars.
Question:
The propaganda that the
Government and the international agencies have made about the
fight against narcotics is fictitious. I believe that the
Ministry of Counter Narcotics and the other agencies involved in
addressing the problem of narcotics have not helped even one
Afghani farmer involved in cultivating poppy, and they have tons
of employees sent to these provinces in the name of addressing
these issues and the extent of the problem. What is shown on TV
about the eradication of poppy fields is not true. The fact is
that the local authorities are working together with the poppy
farmers, and they choose areas where the crop is not good and
they film these areas and then show them as areas whose crops
have been eliminated. I believe that the local authorities are
working together with poppy farmers and they have imposed taxes
on the farmers who cultivate poppy and that the increase in
national wealth is to a large extent due to the narcotics
economy.
Tom Koenigs:
First of all [on
your point that] that the national wealth is to a large extent
due to the narcotic economy I don抰 believe this. Because the
increase in the gross domestic product (GDP) is the legal GDP.
What the gentleman [who asked
this question] has experienced in [terms of] poppy eradication
may be true. [However] it is more likely that it may be a view
on one particular location. I don抰 think that the international
community should offer those whose drugs are eradicated
compensation. I think Government policy and international
community support should go to the direction of alternative
livelihoods. At the same time the legal proceedings against drug
cultivation and even more [against] trade and fabrication must
be improved. Eradication alone certainly does not solve the
problem, and a strategy that is based only on the police and
army against this problem will not succeed either. Nevertheless,
we need police action against dealers and cultivators because it
is illegal what they do. And a legal economy must be the
backbone of the reconstruction of Afghanistan, a national legal
economy. I think the attention of the Government and its
strategies go into that direction. I know that we are realizing
in some of the areas you have seen or I have seen that [the
progress] is not yet optimal.
Thank You.
