 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Press Briefing by
Ambassador David Johnson Lakhdar Brahimi and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah
AMBASSADOR JOHNSON: Thank you Mr. Ambassador. We just concluded a meeting here at the UN facility to talk about how the international community can assist Afghanistan in rebuilding the kind of security structures that are necessary to have a successful state. We all know that success in security is the key ingredient to being successful in any other aspect of the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. It's the necessary framework in which humanitarian assistance can take place and in which reconstruction can take place. The security area was broken down at several parts where what we are calling lead states are acting as coordinators. The United States is taking the lead in training the Afghan National Army. Germany is helping to reconstruct and reform the police in Afghanistan. The United Kingdom is leading an international effort on counter-narcotics, and Italy, in close cooperation with the United Nations, is working on reform in the judicial sector and reconstruction of that area. In addition to that, we heard a very compelling presentation by the United Nations, by Mr. Brahimi's staff, about how we can best go about reintegrating and demobilizing those who have participated in the very long war in Afghanistan. We believe that this was a reasonably successful meeting. We had good presentations from all of the lead states and we are beginning to get the type of specificity in terms of contributions that are needed in order to have these programs go forward and be successful over a long period of time. I am pleased to have been able to convene this meeting on behalf of the United States and to have the very strong presentation of Mr. Brahimi and Foreign Minister Abdullah, both of whom I consider heroes in this process and I am very pleased to be working with them. Mr. Ambassador. REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: Dr. Abdulllah, you may wish to say a few words before we all take your questions? DR. ABDULLAH: Thank you very much. Today, we had a very constructive meeting with the donor countries addressing one of the most important aspects of the situation in Afghanistan namely, security. The Afghans, to start with, and the international community, and humanity suffered because of instability and insecurity in Afghanistan. The Bonn agreement in the formation of the interim government created a new hope for a better situation in my country. Today's meeting was a symbol of the collective effort of the international community to address one of the most important issues in Afghanistan. Today, there is an opportunity, an opportunity for the people of Afghanistan, for the region, and for the world. We have to utilize this opportunity and make every effort to make it a full success, a full success for everybody. The opportunity is now or never. Following the last meeting in April, today's meeting, thanks to the lead states and the other donor countries in the organization, we are more optimistic about the future of Afghanistan. Some countries came up with specific proposals and suggestions, and promises. Other countries promised that they will came up with specific ideas and programs in coordination with the lead states and also with UNAMA and the Afghan Interim authority, in order to make those programs a success. This is a great step and I hope that today's meeting will be followed by immediate actions, speedy actions, by all countries, Thank you. QUESTION: I understood that certainly the Afghan Delegation was hoping for firm cash commitments given that the outline had already being sketched back in April as to who would be responsible for which area. Were there any solid, concrete offers, of either cash or in kind made today and if so how much? BRAHIMI: Yes there were some cash commitments and offers of contributions of various kinds. I am afraid I can't give exact figures because it was given piecemeal and mainly verbally. But we asked the members to send that in writing. QUESTION: But could you give us just an idea of the magnitude, I mean are we talking about hundred of thousand of dollars or are we talking about millions? BRAHIMI: We are certainly talking about millions. It's not enough but I think, as both Dr. Abdullah and Ambassador Johnson said, there is a clear indication that there is a commitment to these projects. We are hopeful, as Dr. Abdullah said, that all this will be followed by concrete actions and that the international community would indeed support the police and the national army in Afghanistan. QUESTION: There is clearly unrest in Afghanistan around places like Khost and Gardez and the international force in Afghanistan is still restricted to Kabul. Bearing in mind the state of the security situation at the moment, what does Dr. Abdullah think the window of opportunity is in terms of having your own, up and running, security force. ABDULLAH: Of course, the formation of the Afghan National Army and national police force will take time. The process has already started and it is good news for the people of Afghanistan. There are some security problems in different parts of the country which have to be addressed. And one has to look for the alternative. At this stage I think we have to focus on some alternatives rather than the expansion of ISAF, which is a preferable option for the Afghans and the Interim Authority, but knowing the constraints and practicality of that option, we should focus on alternatives. I think some ideas were discussed, but further elaboration is needed in order to come out with some alternatives. In the regards to security, despite the reports, despite the incidents in some parts of the country, I should say that the security situation has improved to a large extent since the inauguration of the interim government. QUESTION: I wonder if you take just what would happen now, presumably you are going to meet again, so do you have a date for when you all next meet? Also given the fact that the security arrangements are so vital, is it not a little bit surprising you have two meetings and that you still don't have anything that concrete given the priority that must be given to this? And also, just a third one, if the fact that you have coordinators for each area, does that involve some financial commitment, for example on the part of the U.S. and the training of the military, Germany for the police. JOHNSON: I would take issue with the premise of your question. I think things are fairly far along. The United States in its area, for example, has a well fleshed-out training program which would last upwards of 18 months which will produce a significant Afghan National Army. There are still issues to be filled in, but I think it is a very large step in the right direction. We have significant funds to back that up, but we are also needing contributions from other states as well in order for that entire program to be effectively financed. And for the other part of the army beyond what our training effort will produce, to be created as well. So, I think, we are fairly far along in this process. I don't accept the notion that this is, somehow, not where we need to be at this time. But what we do need, and what we are asking for now, is some fairly specific offers from other states in order to provide additional resources, not only for the training program that we have envisaged and we have planned, but also for the other aspects of an army that need to be built beyond what the U.S. training program will provide. Likewise the other lead states in their areas have also created some significant programs. I think that you all know that the United Kingdom, for example, which is the lead state on counter narcotics, has not just talked about developing a program but they've also stepped forward and actually take some rather strong steps, in connection with some courageous actions of the Afghan Interim Authority, to directly and negatively affect this year crop. So, this is not a holding pattern. This is something where we are moving out but additional resources will be required, and this is what today's meeting was all about. In terms of having a next meeting if you will, we don't have one on the schedule, but the reason we don't is because what we need is, based on the presentations today, the specific offers that will be then integrated in the various plans of action that the coordinators have presented. At that point, we might wish to schedule an additional meeting, but putting one on the calendar is not what we need. What we need is greater specificity from the contributors and I think that's what we are going to be getting in the very near future. QUESTION: Just a follow up, the figure that we had this morning, I think it's 290 million dollars a year for this time. Is it possible to give us some indication on how much you have actually got? You said the U.S. has made a great commitment, but what are these additional warm commitment from other countries we are looking for? JOHNSON: As Mr. Brahimi said earlier, we were getting various offers and bits and odd pieces from people around the table. We are not there yet, even with those. But we have made a substantial move in the right direction and I think we have the kind of commitments that will allow us to do more than just get started. But the process is ongoing. I think we are confident that we can move forward, but we all are going to require more than what was indicated today and that means that people like me and my colleagues are going to have to not just work with our own governments, but motivate those who have not yet made specific offers or specific indications that they are prepared to move out. But I think the resources can be made available. Its just a lot of hard work that's going to be required in order to do so. QUESTION: It is written in your paper here that one of the preconditions for successful demobilization is reconstruction of the country. But there have been reports that money is flowing to Kabul and not to other parts of the country. The World Bank is also talking about the risk of uncoordinated and ineffective donor assistance and there is a massive flow of refugees also coming to the country. The UNHCR is saying that they will probably have problems with that, too. Can you give me an idea on the reconstruction, how is it going, and if the money is flowing to other parts of the country, or not? BRAHIMI: I think that you are right that for demobilization to be effective, recovery has to move along with that. And we have many, many countries that have made pledges in Tokyo, and every country has its own system of providing aid and that will take time. But I think as some of my colleagues in the Afghan Administration said, I think that we've got to recognize that it is moving faster in Afghanistan than probably it has anywhere else in a post conflict situation. The President of the World Bank was in Afghanistan the other day and he has come with something like nearly 100 million dollars in grants. He has specifically told me that he was going to make sure that the arrears that Afghanistan owes the bank are going to be paid so that Afghanistan can have access to more financial support from the World Bank. But we certainly have problems that need to be addressed. But then again I don't know of many countries that have gone through what Afghanistan has gone through. They have been able in a very short time to come up with a master plan for reconstruction with a budget and all this work that has been done on the security sector which is so essential. Peace in Afghanistan requires as a priority that these security concerns be addressed. So I think there is reason to be optimistic. There is absolutely no reason to be complacent, and after the new administration has been set up, they are going to find that this interim administration in a very short time has laid the ground for them to a very large extent. Again there is no reason to be complacent, but I think the world has to recognize that quite a bit has been done. QUESTION: Could I put a question to his Excellency the Foreign Minister? Sir, a few minutes ago you said that you were now more optimistic. Does this mean more optimistic about raising the necessary financing, or optimistic in general terms about the progress in Afghanistan and could you say what is the basis for that optimism? ABDULLAH: Thank you very much. Both in fact, about the situation in Afghanistan and also about the progress which has been made in partnership between the international community and Afghanistan in the process of reconstruction. As Ambassador David Johnson mentioned before, if I take one example, in the last meeting which we had in this building, we talked about the eradication of this year's crop of opium in Afghanistan. That program has been achieved and successfully achieved. I think that is a great achievement. We are optimistic about that situation, and about the political process moving ahead. There have been minor issues in the process of Loya Jirga in the elections of the representatives. But we are talking about a government that has inherited the burdens of the consequences of 23 years of war and destruction. The political process is moving ahead, the process of reconstruction. We are talking about the reconstruction of security and a national army and a national police force and demobilization. All of these are reasons for being optimistic. Also in parts of the international community I am optimistic because these are not just pledges or promises, there have been countries which came up with specific programs and contributions towards the security aspect. I would have been most disappointed had there been pledges for the reconstruction of Afghanistan without focus on the major aspect of security. We had expressed our concern at the Tokyo conference on that regard. But thanks to the wisdom and vision shown by the international community, we are not in that situation. Not only are we not in that situation, but we have made progress. QUESTION: To the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Abdullah, are we now witnessing the building of an independent state of Afghanistan? And if so, then do you see the presence of foreign troops and the heavy massive presence of foreign nationals in general as a temporary situation or is their presence permanent and continuous? ABDULLAH: Yes, Afghanistan is independent. Afghanistan was occupied. Most parts of the country were occupied by terrorist groups and terrorist organizations. And that situation not only posed a threat against the people of Afghanistan and the stability and security in that country, but it was a major security threat in a regional way as well as globally. And humanity suffered, as I mentioned, as a result of that situation. That situation has come to an end. It is not the end of the road. I am not suggesting that the objectives are accomplished, or that the goals are achieved fully. But there is a big change, a tremendous change from the situation a few years ago up to now. The presence of ISAF forces and international personnel in Afghanistan is with the full consent of the people of Afghanistan and the legitimate government of Afghanistan. And those forces will be there as long as they are required, because this situation is the result of a collective effort. The people of Afghanistan, the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and the international community. And that collective effort should continue as long as we are all satisfied about the situation. It does not compromise the aspect of independence or sovereignty of Afghanistan by any means. QUESTION: Mr. Abdullah, can you throw some light on the support you are getting from your neighbors in building the security infrastructure and particularly on India which has apparently offered some assistance? What has been the dialogue that you have had so far. ABDULLAH: The neighboring countries of Afghanistan have also come out with some ideas and proposals about how to cooperate in the security. Neighboring countries to Afghanistan as well as the countries in the region, including India. We believe that the engagement with our neighboring countries should continue in a constructive manner. They should be engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. They will benefit from the stability in our country. It will be beneficial to all of us. So they should contribute. How to do it and what to do? Today this was discussed. There is a mechanism now, there are leading states, there is UNAMA in Kabul, there is the Interim Government of Afghanistan, and of course coordination is needed in that regard. QUESTION: Related question. Dr. Abdullah could you clarify what is India's engagement in the military security infrastructure where the US is going to engage in providing you the military logistics and the UK the anti-narcotics? What exactly is India's involvement going to be? ABDULLAH: For example in today's meeting, I won't go into every detail of what we discussed, the idea of giving the vehicles for the military was proposed by India. But I think all these things should be discussed with the lead states as well as the Interim Authority. This should be according to the program created by the Interim Government with the help of the International Coalition and ISAF and UNAMA. QUESTION: I'm curious, we are still hearing some stories about rogue warlords. What is the plan to demobilize and integrate those who are not selected to join the new army? BRAHIMI: Those are very loose words, who is rogue and who is not rogue, but I think there is a paper, and a demobilization program. This is one area where we are confident that we have the necessary resources because countries are not used and not very enthusiastic about supporting armies, but supporting demobilization that is done by donors in general and we think that we are going to have all the resources that are needed. Japan is playing in particular a very significant role in this and it has been I think agreed today that Japan would be with us, the United Nations, the lead in working out the demobilization program with the Interim Administration and the next administration in Afghanistan. How is it going to play out? I think that we are going to try to register those former combatants or those who are still under arms in various military organizations and are willing or encouraged to demobilize. And some small experiences that have been made in Kabul in particular show that there will be a great deal of interest. Many combatants will want to join these programs. So this is what I can say for the moment. QUESTION: What sort of incentives are going to be given to people to participate in this program? BRAHIMI: I think the incentive is that they are going to have a job that most likely will pay better than what they get as soldiers for the moment and learn a trade, be trained in some kind of areas, as a carpenter, a mason, a plumber, and as I told you I think a lot of people are tired of this life, and maybe some of those you call warlords have made money out of this, but the poor soldiers have not. And we have very strong indications that they would welcome an opportunity to throw down their Kalishnikovs and start some kind of gainful activity. QUESTION: You can understand that foot soldiers would be happy to become plumbers and painters and all that but to what extent, how can we value the commitment to this progress by regional chiefs, the warlords if you like? Are they willing to become painters and plumbers too. I think they probably would not give up the kind of power base that they have constructed during this long war against the Soviet Union, and beyond. Isn't that a major obstacle? My second question is how are you coping with this return of hundreds of thousands of refugees? ABDULLAH: Once again, one cannot judge the situation in a kind of stereotyped manner. The attitude of different local authorities are really different, but there is a loyalty altogether towards the Interim government. There have been one or two exceptions, one or two bad experiences, or headaches. But as a whole the local authorities have been loyal to the Interim Government. This is one issue. Then there is also a political process which will lead to the transition to an interim government. That will give the chance for the people to be represented in different phases of the political process. Added to that is the construction activities and developmental programs. As a whole it is a part of one process. There are different elements in it. The whole situation has provided an opportunity. I think those who will try to make obstacles for the political process or for stability in Afghanistan have to be dealt with accordingly by the government. Those who are cooperating and show understanding for the situation should be encouraged. But as a whole there is a tendency towards normalization of the situation. That is not to underestimate the challenges which are ahead of us in that regard. The return of refugees is good news. It shows that the people have regained their confidence about the political process, the government and the situation in Afghanistan. From the other side we are not ready to provide the necessary facilities. We hope that the international community will move quickly in that regard. That issue should indeed be considered not only from the humanitarian point of view, but also from the reconstruction and stability point of view. Quick impact projects, rural development, and so on and so forth, all those things will help the situation. But the flood of refugees has been not overwhelming, but surprising to all of us. They started their return very quickly. But then we have to emphasize the need for quick action and looking at it in an urgent way. From the other side the people of Afghanistan have been very understanding of the situation. Their expectations have been very minimal. That situation should not be taken for granted. We have to move, and the international community has to help us. QUESTION: If I may I would have two questions. When one considers the amount of money you need for this whole security issue. Besides what is given by the leading powers, how much do you need from third countries. And I have another question to Mr. Abdullah. Could you please tell us if you think there is any possiblity of integrating people like Hekmatyer or Sayyaf into your future government or the future of the country? BRAHIMI: Let's make it very clear that although we haven't been able to give you numbers, but I think that as David Johnson said, I think we have enough now to start on all these programs. Formation of a National Police, formation of a national army, demobilization, narcotics programs, we have enough and we have enough commitments that we are very optimistic that we can go ahead. QUESTION: I'm sorry but you must have a kind of a budget? How much do you need? BRAHIMI: I think we have said that. For the police I think we are talking about something like 100 million dollars. This is for creating the national police, it is not going to be every year. We need something like 280 or 290 million for the army, but not every year. These are the needs for creating the army plus the recurring costs. The recurring costs for both the army and the police will be much less than that in future years. It will go on decreasing. I would say that we are fairly confident that with the pledges that have been made we are going to be alright. QUESTION: I would like to know how much you expect from third countries? The US is giving a lot, I don't know how much, Great Britain is... BRAHIMI: Well everybody is a third country, and I think what we expect is under 300 million for the army, 100 million for the police and 79 million for demobilization, and we don't have a figure for the drug program, but there again, I don't think we will have problems getting the money. And by the way, the international community, I think the British and others estimate that this modest destruction of the drugs in Afghanistan has destroyed opium and heroin the street value of which is something like 8 billion dollars. So I think it is another good investment from the international community. ABDULLAH: Yes, the political process needs to be inclusive, but not inclusive of everybody. Not inclusive of somebody who has announced a war against the people of Afghanistan again, Jihad against the people of Afghanistan. And while the Interim government has shown enough understanding and tolerance and tried to make every effort to prevent the cycle of revenge against such groups, but that should not be attributed as including people who are part of the problem. Professor Sayyaf has been a supporter of the process. He has not chosen to be in the government himself. But the attitude of the Interim Government and the next government and the nature of the political process is such that those who share the high objectives of peace, sovereignty of Afghanistan, and Afghanistan being a peaceful place for its own citizens as well as for the region and the international community in acceptance of internationally accepted standards and norms, they could be a part of the political process. They could be a part of the government. There are no exclusions. NNNN
|