Ambassador Karl Eikenberry
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
Interview - Shamshad TV
October 25, 2009
Shamshad TV: Thank you very much, Ambassador for accepting our invitation for the interview.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Nassim, it’s good to have you here at my residence at the United States Embassy, and it’s always good to be with Shamshad TV.
Shamshad TV: It is always our pleasure to have you on our screen.
Sir, if you can tell us, how do you evaluate the first round of the Afghanistan election?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Nassim, I think the first round of the election was extraordinary in many ways. If we look at the period of the campaign, that remarkable eight week period of the campaign, I can point to tremendous successes. You had candidates traveling all around Afghanistan, crossing ethnic lines, crossing regional and provincial lines to draw the people to their side, to have a chance to talk about their programs.
There were many ideas that were discussed. It wasn’t a campaign just about people; it was a campaign about ideas. For the first time in Afghan history, we saw the drama of having televised debates between candidates.
In the election itself, many Afghans -- under very extraordinary conditions, conditions of insecurity -- they braved those conditions, they came out to cast their votes. There were extraordinarily logistics challenges that existed on that day. There were problems in the process, of course there were, and that was to be expected.
So I think where we are right now, Nassim, is that we’re looking -- the international community, the United Nations, the electoral institutions of Afghanistan -- they’re looking at the lessons that were learned on the first round and then, hopefully, lessons can be drawn from that first round and applied, to lead to a better second round.
But the very fact right now, Nassim, that there is a second round here about to take place on the 7th of November -- this is I believe extraordinary for Afghanistan, the worlds’ newest democracy. In spite of insecurity in many parts of the country, at this stage the process continues to move forward. I think the Afghan people should take great pride in what has been accomplished as they look forward now to the second round on the 7th of November. I think it’s amazing.
Shamshad TV: You stated that despite insecurity, in spite of logistical problems, Afghans were optimistic about the results of the election. But despite their optimism, the elections were going to the second round. Why these elections were taken to the second round?
Ambassador Eikenberry: What’s important, Nassim, is that there were a set of rules that were decided upon. Each country has its own set of rules as it goes into an election. There were a set of rules that were agreed to. The set of rules that Afghanistan has is that if no candidate has more than 50 percent of the votes, then it has to go to a second round. There are other countries where the formula is that the candidate with the most votes, even if it’s not over 50 percent, is the winner. But what was agreed upon and what is in your constitution is the set of rules which were interpreted and are now being enforced. It was then the people’s own voting that led them to this outcome. Based upon the rules, it goes to a second round.
Shamshad TV: What was the mechanism of turning away those votes,the more than one million votes were termed as invalid. Was there a mechanism shared by the election commission with you, also involved in this process, in order to have, in order to harmonize, in order to rein in the crisis which was developing between the two candidates? Were there any mechanisms shared with you as to what basis these votes were termed invalid?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Nassim, the rules that were applied by the IEC [Independent Election Commission], by the ECC [Electoral Complaint Commission], those are a matter of public record. I don’t want to go into the particular calculations that were being used by the electoral bodies under the supervision of the United Nations, under the able leadership of Kai Eide. But I think that all of us have confidence that the rules were applied. At the end of the day, the exact application of those rules, those can be extraordinarily difficult. But the rules were interpreted as they were, and that’s what leads to a second round.
Shamshad TV: The mechanism was: any candidate who got more than 95 percent of the votes, they were termed invalid; and also that if a box could accommodate 500 or 400 [ballots], the boxes which got 600 ballot papers were termed invalid. You know that Afghanistan is an ethnic country and consists of different tribes. Maybe in a region, one candidate could get more votes than other. So is this rule of getting more than 95 percent of the votes, is this rule a legitimate rule?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Nassim, a great question. Again, I wouldn’t want to get into the particular or the technical aspects of the IEC’s and the ECC’s work. I would make a point, though here, where you’re talking about different parameters for them making decisions about voting outcomes, as an example, 95 percent of votes being for one candidate, for any set of 100 or more votes. That was not in itself a reason then to delegitimize or not to count those votes. That acted, as we say, as a kind of trigger mechanism. But then based upon that trigger mechanism, sets of votes under those conditions were looked at carefully, and then, if there were evident signs of fraud, then based upon evident signs of fraud those votes might not be counted. But the very fact that, let’s say, there were 100 or more votes with 95 percent all for one candidate, that in itself did not exclude those votes. That would only serve as a trigger then for people to go and look very carefully within that set of votes. If there were then evident signs of fraud, then those votes might be not counted.
Shamshad TV: The head of the ECC, Mr. Kapkin, he said that they haven’t found any evidence regarding the problem, but more than one million votes were termed invalid.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Again, Nassim, I wouldn’t want to get into the particulars of the mechanisms that were used. That’s for the IEC as an institution and the ECC with the rules agreed upon, the methodologies that were used. That’s entirely a matter under the supervision of the United Nations.
Shamshad TV: But most of the Afghans blame the international community and the international community has interfered in the Afghan election. It was they that turned the first round of the election into the second found.
Ambassador Eikenberry: No, Nassim, I would reject that. Was the international community invested in the first round of the election? Absolutely. In the first round, as in the second round, the international community’s made an extraordinary commitment. The United States of America alone in the first round committed over $250 million U.S. to voter education, to help the processes that were defined in this first round. The United States of American in the first round of the election, we lost over 50 soldiers and marines, over 50 of our forces, fighting together with the Afghan National Army and Police. They lost their lives trying to defend the first round.
So can we say of the United States of America and the world community, “were we invested, were we committed to the first round?” Absolutely. Did we interfere in the first round? No. What our investment was, what our troops lost their lives for with your own brave soldiers and police, was to defend the rules that were established for the first round.
Shamshad TV: In one night five heads of their countries, Gordon Brown, Zardari and some others, and Hillary Clinton, called President Karzai to agree a coalition government. If he did not, then there would be a second round of elections.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Nassim, that’s categorically incorrect. At no time has the United States of America, at no time has the international community advocated a coalition government. A coalition government -- by my understanding of coalition governments in Afghanistan, which mean different things to different people -- coalition government, I believe to the Afghan people, goes back to the 1992, 1993, to men sitting behind closed doors, power brokers, not at all associated with rule of law, not at all grounded within a constitution, sitting behind closed doors and deciding upon dividing up ministries and power between them, dividing territory between them.
The United States of America, with our Afghan partners -- what we believe is indispensable for the success of Afghanistan is all of the work that we do in helping to develop your Army and Police, to develop your security. All of the work that we do to help improve governance in your country. All of the work that we do in partnership to help develop your country and its economy. The road building, the schools, the health clinics -- all of that means nothing unless it’s grounded upon the principle of rule of law.
So what was this, and is this, entire election about? It’s the commitment to the rules of law, grounded within the constitution of Afghanistan. But this is difficult when we talk about trying to interpret rules, define rules. It’s hard work. There’s disagreement. There’s disagreement just as when we talk about it in a sporting event, in a cricket match. We sometimes complain about the umpires. We complain about the referees. But if those referees or those umpires, if they walk off the field, and then there is no cricket match any more -- then it deteriorates just into violence. So the need to fight to preserve the rules, knowing that the alternative, the preservation of the rules is to go back to 1992 and to have the rule of immoral men, to have the rule of guns, to have the rule of power.
So the alternative is far, far worse. And to come back to the question and the United States of America or our international allies talking about trying to impose a coalition government, that would be exactly going in the wrong direction. We categorically reject the idea of the United States of America ever in Afghanistan talking about coalition governments. It’s simply wrong.
Shamshad TV: A member of the Afghanistan Parliament had a meeting before announcing, or accepting of the election results by President Karzai, and they say that, and they had a meeting with the deputy ambassador --
Ambassador Eikenberry: Right.
Shamshad TV: And they said that Ricciadone was insisting on a coalition government. They were saying that Mr. Karzai should accept what we want. They claimed it, a claim which was made by 25 members of the Parliament.
Ambassador Eikenberry: I’ll again categorically reject that this is any policy of the United States of America. Sometimes maybe our interpreters, in communications, sometimes we have difficulty. But no, if Ambassador Ricciadone were sitting beside me, indeed if we would have the 25 Parliamentarians here, I’m sure that I could very quickly qualify that and ensure that there was clarity here.
But what does the United States of America stand for? We stand for, at this point in time, doing everything that we can -- to including, God forbid that we should have to, to have more sacrifice of our American soldiers and marines fighting side by side with your army and police -- to protect this second round of the election. We are absolutely committed to a second round and we do not stand for trying to broker agreements about coalition governments in Afghanistan.
Shamshad TV: There has been more emphasis on the presidential election, on if there was rigging or if fraud occurred in the Afghanistan election. But the provincial council elections and their results were not considered even by the international community. If this much amount of [vetting] has happened, why has it not influenced the provincial council’s election? Because, as you said, in normal cases if someone cannot get 50 [per cent] +1 then there would be a runoff. But this runoff was based on the fraud and rigging. It’s an odd situation. And it only was specific to the presidential election; the provincial elections were not considered.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Two points I’d make here, Nassim. First of all, with regard to the provincial elections, it’s true that there hasn’t been a great emphasis placed on the results yet, although the work goes on. There’s been so much attention that’s had to be given to the presidential elections, now as we’re moving forward with a second round.
So the exact results of the provincial elections are still not known. I’m sure there are going to be some lessons learned there.
Secondly, though, let me correct how you’re characterizing this first round, the presidential elections. You say it’s all about rigging and fraud. That’s simply not the case, Nassim. This election that took place on the 20th of August, it took place under extraordinarily difficult conditions. There was insecurity in parts of the country -- and that insecurity, it worked against certain candidates in certain ways. It’s a fact.
Given the logistics -- extraordinary logistics that we’re talking about, trying to get donkeys across mountains to get ballot boxes to the last polling station -- of course when we talk about the implementation of the election itself, there were shortcomings.
On the other hand, Nassim, I got around Kabul on Election Day, and I have to say of the election here in Kabul: in terms of standards that were being achieved, they were world class standards. They really were. If you’re talking about areas of the country where you have logistics challenges, security problems, were there things that went wrong? Obviously they went wrong.
Now our challenge is to learn the lessons from that first round, see where lessons can be drawn, what improvements can be made, and then hopefully the Afghan people mobilize and they get out and exercise their responsibility in a democracy -- their key responsibility. Get out and vote.
Shamshad TV: It means that you are dismissing all the allegations of fraud and rigging in the first election?
Ambassador Eikenberry: No. Of course not. There were irregularities. There were cases of fraud. But Nassim, the fact that here we are on this day in October, and in a very short time on the 7th of [November] there is going to be a second round. The President of Afghanistan has made an extraordinary decision; he had to face his supporters, he had to then weigh that against the needs of the future state of Afghanistan, and he has made an extraordinary decision for the good of the state, for the good of the strengthening of your democratic institutions in Afghanistan, the world’s newest democracy. The fact that we on the 7th of November are facing a second round here, Nassim -- I don’t look at this as a failure at all. I think the Afghan people should be extraordinarily proud, that in spite of these tough conditions that we’re facing here in Afghanistan, that you’re moving forward in a way which I think all of your grandchildren will read in the history books one day -- looking back, saying there were a bunch of good leaders, and they’re very proud of their grandmothers and grandfathers who went out on a second round and actually voted.
You know, in the United States of America in 1864 we were in the midst of a terrible internal conflict. We conducted a presidential election that year. We had congressional elections that year. It was looked at as the most difficult election with the most irregularities that we ever had in our history.
So look at Afghanistan today. That there are places with insecurity and that we should have a less than perfect outcome, a less than satisfactory outcome, I don’t think we should be discouraged by this.
Shamshad TV: Is there any mechanism for monitoring of the second round of elections which is going to be coming on 7th of November?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Nassim, that’s a great question. First of all I’d say in the security dimension that NATO ISAF I know is going to go to extraordinary lengths to make their absolute priority reinforcing the efforts of your Ministry of Defense and your Ministry of Interior to provide the very best security. It will be challenging. But I talked to General McChrystal two nights ago and General McChrystal is fully committed as the NATO ISAF Commander.
With regard to the logistics, with regard to the procedures that are used to monitor the process, the United States of America, the whole international community, we will use every and all means to help reinforce the work of the electoral bodies in order to see if improvements can be made on voting day with the procedures.
Shamshad TV: The Abdullah election team has concern over the composition of the present election commission and they blame the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Independent Election Commission for fraud and rigging in the first round of the election.
If the concerns of the Abdullah team are not answered, don’t you think that the same things will happen that we have seen in the first round?
Ambassador Eikenberry: As I said, I believe that the international community, the UN, and I think the electoral bodies that are charged with the overall implementation of the election, I think they’re working very hard right now to try to draw the appropriate lessons. Will we have a perfect outcome next time? Absolutely not. This is just too hard. But I think good thinking is going in, good work is going in to try to see improvements.
Shamshad TV: If the second round is the same as the first one and there are allegations by either side and either side does not accept the result of the election, then what other option do you see in order to stop Afghanistan from going to an unstable situation?
Ambassador Eikenberry: I think what’s most important right now is that the commitment of the candidates and the belief in the Afghan people in the institutions. Look -- the process worked. The process worked on this first round. Again, these difficult rules, ultimately they’re interpreted by people. And so there were disappointments among people with the results, clearly disappointments. Understandable disappointments. But the fact is that the process is still working. So what I would urge all Afghans, what I’d urge the international community is: believe in the institutions, believe in the rules, hang onto those. Because the alternative to letting go of the rules, as I have said in many places around Afghanistan before, the price of letting go of those rules is to go back to 1992. So the rules are worthy of defending and I’ve got confidence in the wisdom of the Afghan people and the leaders that a way forward will be found, moving forward in a way that stays on the path of constitutionality and rule of law.
Shamshad TV: They believed in the rules and they have, for that reason they went to the ballot station and they cast their votes. But the results they have seen, they have discouraged them and now they are a bit pessimistic about the second round. So they have opted [to vote] and they had the optimism that their votes would be counted. But seeing the results, they have become discouraged. Don’t you think that Afghans have been discouraged from going again to cast their vote and [now] question the legitimacy of the next President?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Nassim, again I know that, again, I know there’s got to be frustration, there is frustration with the Afghan voters, there’s frustration with the Afghan leaders. Once again, though, as difficult as this is, adhering to the rules, agreeing upon rules and then trying to enforce them -- it’s not perfect, but the alternatives, the options available for anything but that are so disastrous. And when you look at Afghans’ modern political history, it’s replete, it’s full of examples of when a compromise to the rule was made, and immediately then you go on a slippery slope to chaos.
Shamshad TV: Seeing the present instability, the insecure situation of Afghanistan due to the election or due to the insurgency in Afghanistan, what are the long term commitments of the United States of America in Afghanistan?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Nassim, our commitment of the United States of America, of President Obama’s administration -- it’s never been stronger. We’re very eager to see the election process come to a close. We’re very eager then to shake hands with our new partner who will be leading the next Afghan administration.
I’ve served in your country for many many years. I first came to your country in 2002. This is the third time I’ve served here in Afghanistan. I’ve never been more optimistic about the perfect alignment between the interest of the Afghan people and the interest of the American people here.
I can give you one example. For instance, in the question of our desire, and I believe your people’s desire, over the next five years of the Afghan administration -- whoever leads it -- our common desire is to see Afghanistan strengthened so that you really have your full sovereignty.
What do I mean by that? Five years from now the vision is one in which you have an Afghan National Army that you’re proud of, has the strength, the capabilities, at 240,000 strong, that it can provide for the security of your people, it can defend your sovereignty. A police force of 170,000 defending the people on the streets of Afghanistan, respected.
We’ll reach a point in five years where the United States of America is not conducting detention operations, [inaudible]. You’re a partner who we can work with over the next several years to help strengthen your judicial systems, your correctional institutions, so that the United States of America is not detaining Afghan citizens -- something that is your government’s responsibility, which we respect.
We look forward over the next five years in partnership with the next Afghan administration, so that it’s your administration that leads efforts at reconciliation and reintegration of those who are fighting against your government, who want to come home and rejoin their society here. We are going to get behind those efforts and support those 100 percent.
On questions of private security companies, something that’s of great concern to the Afghan people, we want to be in a position over the next five years where those private security companies are Afghan private security companies. And so there’s a degree of complementary policy issues, goals and objectives. Good for the people of Afghanistan, good for the people of the United States. We can see great alignment over the next five years where our programs for security, for governance, for economic development -- they’re going to be a set of programs where our hand is going to be outreached and we are very hopeful that your next administration will grasp our hands, because when they do, when we work together, each of us having our own sets of responsibilities, it’s going to be great for the people of Afghanistan, it’s going to be great for the people of the United States.
As I always say, Nassim, your success, your people’s success, is our success.
Thank you.
Shamshad TV: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador, for giving me the opportunity to share the ideas about the commitments of Afghanistan and also the United States of America with the Afghan people, and the election process. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Thank you.
# # # #