Ambassador Karl Eikenberry
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
Television Interview – BBC Farsi/Pashto
October 27, 2009
Question: Thank you, Ambassador, for your time.
The first question is: the second round of election was decided to be held after immense pressure from the international community and particularly from the U.S. government side. Some people think this kind of interference wouldn’t have been necessary. What do you think about that? And if you hadn’t intervened, what would have happened?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Daud, I would make two points here. First of all, the international community, including the United States of America, we were invested in the success of your election. I would never say [there was] interference in your election. Investment in your election was an investment to see the success of the process -- the following of the rules, the adherence to the constitution. Given that Afghanistan’s the world’s youngest democracy, given its tragic modern history, of course getting this first election right and subsequent elections right is critical.
When I say invested in the success of this election, invested in the security of the election -- America lost 50 of our soldiers and brave marines defending the election along with the Afghan National Army and Police Force. We invested a significant amount of financial capital into the training of election officials and the actual implementation of the election itself. So we were invested. But to the question of interference, no.
Let me make a second point then. At the end of the day the election did move forward to a second round. Difficult decisions were made by Afghanistan’s leaders at that point, [including] the final decision, moving forward to a second round.
These are decisions which are difficult in any democratic political system. The United States of America, we had a very tough election in 2004 which was decided by not many votes. Ultimately, political leaders in those situations, they have to address their supporters who believe in many instances perhaps they won the election; and they also then have to address the needs of the state. In the case of Afghanistan, the world’s youngest democracy, those considerations about the needs of the state were especially poignant. That decision then to move forward to a second round has tremendous implications for putting Afghanistan on the proper path to the strengthening of democratic institutions.
I don’t envy the decisions that particular leaders were faced with, the dilemmas they were faced with. But I think that moving forward now with the second round is really a great outcome for Afghanistan.
Question: But the first round was full of fraud. That’s why the election was pushed to the second round. There isn’t any guarantee here that the second round would be without any fraud, or it would be fine, and transparent.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Well, Daud, first, the context of that first round -- the context of the ongoing elections here in 2009 for Afghanistan -- remember that, point number one, the preparations for this election, they really began too late. The preparations for the election should have begun last year. They didn’t begin in the spring for a variety of reasons. Here the international community, the Afghan government, all of us, there’s some blame that has to be apportioned to that.
Secondly, the degree of insecurity that existed in some parts of the country really challenged the election. There were logistics problems that existed. What’s interesting is where there was good security, where the process could be allowed to work very properly here in Kabul City --
Question: But we still have those challenges in this round.
Ambassador Eikenberry: But you can say that where there was good security the process worked extraordinarily well. Now you're asking about the second round. I think there will be lessons learned from the first round. We can seek improvements there. That’s in security, that’s in implementation. There are still going to be a lot of challenges.
All I can say, though, is that the international community, the United States of America, the United Nations, [are] fully committed right now to making sure on the 7th of November we can have the very best election possible.
Question: Dr. Abdullah Abdullah announced this afternoon, said that three ministries should be suspended, and also he demanded the removal of the head of the IEC [International Election Commission]. Is he right?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Daud, first of all I’m not aware of the specifics of what Dr. Abdullah said at a press conference. Let me just -- without commenting on specifics of either candidate and either campaign, which would be inappropriate on my part -- but two principles right now that I think are going to be very important. Having just come out of a first round with really historic success here for Afghanistan, postured to move forward now into -- postured to go forward into the future with the rules intact, the constitution adhered to. I think there are two principles that are important for this second round.
Principle number one, don’t run against the process, so to speak.
At the same time, principle number two, working hard, everyone, to make sure that the standards of the second round are the highest that can be achieved.
Some lessons learned from that first round, but those two principles -- don’t run against the process, let’s work hard at the same time to make sure the very best standards will exist on the 7th of November.
Question: To come back to these comments of Dr. Abdullah, some people or some politicians in Afghanistan consider that a kind of excuse, that a second round is not going to be held. Are you worried about that?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Well again, we’ll wait and see. I haven’t seen Dr. Abdullah’s comments, and --
Question: -- concerns about, there wouldn’t be any runoff.
Ambassador Eikenberry: I think with what we’ve seen working our way through the first round, at the end of the day, [was] a set of extraordinary decisions made here in Afghanistan by Afghanistan’s leaders. Let’s hope that the same wisdom can apply as we move forward. So much has been achieved with this first round under really tough conditions. Things are set now, the stage is set for a successful, a second round, a successful outcome. Follow those two principles: don’t run against the process; work hard to make sure the very best standards, realistic standards, can be applied to a second round.
Question: We have had standards in the first round as well. So many Western officials have been stressing that the elections would be quite fair and free. But we’re faced with a kind of election with fraudulent voting. But there isn’t, again, emphasizing on my previous question, there is no guarantee that there wouldn’t be any fraud.
Ambassador Eikenberry: You know, Daud, nothing is certain, of course, in life at all, and elections are very difficult processes in any country. For Afghanistan -- a very new process with conditions of insecurity, logistics challenges -- but we did manage to get through the first round. Irregularity existed. Fraud existed. But the process is still intact. The fact is that we are still following the rules. We’re still following the process. That’s an outcome that’s called the second round.
A lot of work’s going to have to go in intensely over the next several weeks to make sure that we can achieve the very best second round possible, but it is possible.
Question: What is going to be your expectations from the next Afghan government? As we know that the corruption, fighting the corruption is high on the new strategy of America.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Well first of all, Daud, we look forward to getting the second round behind us and for a new government of Afghanistan, a new administration to emerge. We’re very optimistic that whoever leads that next administration, that more so than at any time maybe since 2002, our strategic interests, the United States of America and our peoples, the international community and those of Afghanistan, the Afghan people, that the interests are converging in ways that are much more evident than they were in 2002.
We see over the next five years the opportunity to have partnership programs where Afghanistan really gains its full sovereignty. What do I mean by that? An Afghan Army of 240,000, a police force of 160,000 -- fully capable of securing its own people. Of course as long as we’re welcome here our international military forces, U.S. military forces here providing training and assistance and some direct support to your police and army.
We see over the next five years the possibility where agreements are made with the government of Afghanistan so that the United States of America does not detain Afghan civilians, does not detain Afghans at all. That’s something that belongs to the Afghan government and to the Afghan people -- your responsibility, your sovereign rights.
We see a very positive program to work together over the next five years.
Now you asked a specific question about government accountability, about corruption. Sure, this is something that’s very prominent on both of our agendas. But I’d say that it’s very prominent on the Afghan people’s agenda as well. We need a partnered approach to do better. Indeed, we have had some success. We have to do better. But it’s a partnered approach.
We have our set of responsibilities here -- for instance, our developmental programs and a lot of our developmental aid. They don’t necessarily contribute to building accountability within the government. A lot of that aid goes outside of the government. So how can the government be held accountable when developmental aid’s not going to them?
At the same time we have good partnership programs where we’re really making progress in law enforcement capabilities within Afghanistan. Most recently, developed under Minister Atmar’s leadership, is something called the Major Crimes Task Force. The United States of America is very proud of our contribution to this: fifteen Federal Bureau of Investigation agents working directly with your major crimes task force to improve your law enforcement capabilities aimed at corruption.
At the same time, when we do talk about partnership, of course there’s responsibility on the government of Afghanistan’s part as well. It requires leadership, it requires decisiveness, it requires commitment. And I think that’s something that the Afghan people expect out of their government.
Question: Thank you so much, Mr. Ambassador.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Thank you.
# # # #