Ambassador Karl Eikenberry
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
Interview - Killid Radio and Magazines
October 27, 2009
Question: The residents of Ghazni, Kandahar, and Paktika have basically had many of their votes from the first election discounted. What do you say to these people who have essentially been disenfranchised by this process?
Ambassador Eikenberry: I say that the election that was just conducted, the first round on the 20th of August, PJ, was in the end a great achievement for the people of Afghanistan. We have to consider the context of this election. The first election led by Afghanistan, at a presidential/provincial level. An election that took place under very difficult conditions. There’s insecurity in many parts of Southern Afghanistan, the provinces that you mentioned. They had insecurity on election day -- many voters braving those conditions of insecurity to go out and cast their vote.
There are logistics problems that have existed. Truly the international community and the Afghan government, we didn’t really get on with planning the election early enough. Preparations should have begun last year. It really wasn’t until the early spring that preparations began.
So against that, the election was conducted. It was not a perfect election. There were flaws in the election. But at the end of the day Afghanistan made it through the election process.
I’m hoping that on the second round of the election that some of the lessons that were learned about the first round will be addressed, and perhaps improvements will be made. I would encourage all of the citizens of Afghanistan on the second round to get out and wherever they are, to carry out their most important responsibilities in a democratic society, and that is to get out and vote.
But we know that this runoff on the 7th of November, there will still be challenges that [we] are faced with, in security. There will still be challenges that [we] are faced with [in] procedures. But hopefully we’ll have a better showing, and at the end of the day I’m confident that this election -- 50 years from now, when Afghanistan’s youngsters have grown up and they read in the history books about the political history of modern Afghanistan, they’ll look back on this election and in spite of all the problems and the flaws, they’ll be very very proud of their grandmothers and their grandfathers for what was accomplished on the 20th of August, and again perhaps on the 7th of November.
Question: You mentioned, in that answer you talked a bit about security and the conditions that Afghan voters braved in order to cast a ballot. In Bala Magrab District, in Badghis Province, there was a deal struck between a Taliban leader and local officials on the ground that basically allowed 7,000 Afghans to vote safely. I’m wondering, and there were similar talks that went on in Helmand before the election, but then the Marine operation began and that deal was taken off the table.
As you are preparing -- or as the U.S. military and government are preparing -- a security strategy for this election, are you taking deals like that into account? Or are you just sort of, are you only looking at the security situation from an ISAF standpoint?
Ambassador Eikenberry: No. First of all, I’m not the military commander; you’d have to talk to General Stan McChrystal, my good friend, about his security preparations for NATO ISAF. But I want to emphasize, PJ, that this is an Afghan-led election. The security for this election is Afghan-led. The Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of the Interior, Minister Wardak, Minister Atmar, they’re in charge. NATO ISAF is in support.
Now I know that on the second round of the election, short notice, time is [of the] essence to prepare. I know that General McChrystal is really pushing his forces hard to provide any kind of support, be adaptable, be adjustable, to help the MOD and the MOI to get ready by the 7th of November.
On the part of the election arrangements that are made, you mentioned different arrangements, different agreements that were made on the first round. I know that right now the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defense, they’re looking at possibilities on the second round. Hopefully some good lessons learned from the first round. Those will be decisions that are made by the Afghans, then ultimately enforced by the Independent Electoral Commission.
Question: The U.S. government and NATO both -- military commanders -- when they talk about this process they do put such an emphasis on this being an Afghan process, but many Afghans that I speak to, and all the Afghans that I work with, feel that much of the post-election process, the vote counting, the investigation into fraud, was essentially controlled, even masterminded to some degree, I think this is their perception, by the international community.
What would you say to these Afghans? And the U.S. and NATO play a very important role in security in this country -- what would you say to the Afghans who feel as if their electoral process and post-electoral process have been manipulated by foreign powers?
Ambassador Eikenberry: I would reject that entirely, PJ. I don’t reject the perception. Perceptions are perceptions, and clearly we understand this. But what I would say is that the international community was absolutely invested in the success of the election. I would never use words like “manipulation.” But indeed I have to say, as the American Ambassador, when I hear charges of manipulation, I then – look, against that, we lost 50 Soldiers and U.S. Marines trying to defend the first round of the election. We sent 50 of our soldiers and marines home to grieving parents, wives, sons and daughters, to defend the first round of the election.
What we are invested in is the success of the electoral process, and that’s the triumph of the rule of law. Rules are made by men, but ultimately the rules have to be defended. The metaphor [is] the example of the referee standing on the cricket field. People will complain about the calls that the referee makes, but everyone accepts the need for that referee, that umpire to be out there.
For Afghanistan, given its tragic modern history, I think the Afghan people know far better than I do that even as we sit here today in October of 2009 and we’re debating the rules, we’re having these difficult discussions about a second round, aren’t we infinitely better off together? Aren’t the Afghan people infinitely better off with these kind of difficult discussions about how to interpret and hold to the rules than they were in 1992, when power change and power sharing was being decided by Katyusha rockets firing down onto the people of Kabul, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians while people behind closed doors, responsible to nobody except themselves, decided how power would be divided with the triumph of the rule of the gun?
So right now this is about a firm commitment to the rule of law and to following the rules. Hard -- but infinitely better than the alternatives.
Question: This second round is largely because the first round of elections. What has forced the second round of elections? It’s largely because of fraud in the first round of this election process. What would you say to Afghans? How can Afghans be convinced that this process will be legitimate, this second round, when the very purpose of this first round, the reasons the first round happened, the second round happened is because the first round wasn’t -- was deemed illegitimate?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Once again, there’s a context. No, the first round was not ruled illegitimate. The process worked. The fact that we’re in a second round right now, the process, the rules are still in place.
Back to the context for this election: preparations began too late. We all bear a responsibility for that.
The campaign itself was an excellent campaign. When we look at some of the results that were achieved in the election, if you look at the results in Kabul, in Herat, in Mazar-e-Sharif. Good security. Candidate agents from all sides watching the results. The results are not in dispute. It’s where you have problems of security, where you have problems of logistics. That’s where problems then, irregularities, exist as well.
So for an American, if I look back in our history, 100 years, a little under 100 years into our history of the American republic, our toughest election with the most irregularities, the most charges of fraud, took place when? It took place in 1864, well into our development. Eighty years into our history. What was the context of the election? We were in the midst of a civil war. And America looks back on that election, one of our toughest elections, the one with the most flaws, and yet great pride that even in the midst of conflict we were able to emerge with the rules intact, with the constitution in place.
So yeah, there was great irregularities that occurred in the first election on the 20th of August, but the very fact that Afghanistan is still moving forward, hanging onto the rules, constitution in place, with the rules being followed as we get to a second round, I don’t think that’s anything that should discourage at all the Afghan people or the international community.
Question: That’s a great analogy, the Civil War analogy. And even still, not with the national elections but local elections, the whole Boss Tweed era in New York. I in no way meant to imply that corruption was just limited to Afghan democracy. I think it’s something that plagues all democracies.
So what is the U.S. doing to partner with Afghan leadership to help keep fraud or irregularities, as you say, at a minimum this time around?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Ultimately, again, you have the electoral institutions, the Afghan electoral institutions, the IEC, the ECC. They’re the leading institutions for the implementation, the oversight of the election. I know that on the security domain, as I mentioned earlier, that General Stan McChrystal is working very closely with Minister Wardak, Minister Atmar, to provide the very best security.
I think there were some lessons learned from the first round in that area. Then with regard to the overall set of procedures that are applied with these monitors, the use of political agents, there are discussions ongoing. I know that some improvements are already being agreed to. Good lessons learned. And the very best, we’re hopeful that the very best election can take place on 7 November with those lessons learned, and that can be applied for a second round.
The international community, we’re in absolute full support. Any and all support that we can provide to help make the second round better than the first, we’re going to avail ourselves to offer that kind of support.
Question: In the past few weeks Senator John Kerry has been in town. I know that Secretary of State Clinton made phone calls to Karzai and Abdullah. Afghans see this, and again, it looks like foreign powers are really playing a significant role in this election. Where is that line between mentoring and helping coax this nascent, fledgling democracy, and basically interfering in a fledgling democracy?
Ambassador Eikenberry: It’s a great question and it’s a question that the Afghan people, I know each one probably has their own very distinct opinion about it.
Look, for the international community, for the United States of America, PJ, we are invested in Afghanistan’s success. And it’s not a trite expression when we say Afghanistan’s success is America’s success. We’re fully committed to trying to help Afghanistan develop the security capabilities, the governance capabilities, the economic wealth that it needs in order never again to be a breeding ground for international terrorism. That’s in our self interest. And so Afghanistan’s success is our success.
All of this -- I believe that the Afghan people and we together, the international community, we know that there can be no lasting success here unless it sits upon a foundation of representational democratic governance.
So this election process was extraordinarily important to Afghanistan. Frankly, it was very important to the United States of America. As I said, we lost 50 of our U.S. soldiers and Marines defending this first round of the election.
But at the end of the day the decisions that were made were ultimately Afghan leader decisions -- hard decisions, which had to be made,to address supporters who truly believed that they had success. This is-- whether it’s Afghanistan, whether it’s the United States in the wake of an election -- we’ve had difficult elections where political leaders have to stand up, candidates have to stand up, and they have to address the concerns of their people. But weighing against that in this particular election, the results, [were] the concerns of the state of Afghanistan. There were the concerns of needing to take tough decisions that might not be popular with supporters, but might be historic decisions that would put Afghanistan on the path towards strengthening its democratic institutions here in Afghanistan, the youngest democracy in the world. And ultimately I think there were some very wise decisions that were made.
Question: You talk about putting Afghanistan on the path and having a baseline of representative government. After this election is over, what does the U.S. plan to do to help foster transparency, eliminate the kind of graft and corruption that has plagued this government for the past few years?
Ambassador Eikenberry: That’s an important issue. We’re looking, first of all, PJ, over the next five years -- whoever leads the next Afghan government, whoever leads the next Afghan administration, we’re very optimistic that we can have five good years and beyond. The United States has a long-term commitment to Afghanistan’s success.
You asked the question of how can improvements be made in government accountability. It’s an important challenge. At the end of the day perhaps more important than the extremist militant Taliban threat is perhaps the threat of the lack of government credibility with its people, lack of connectivity.
But let me make clear that the international community, the United States, we also have a role to play in this. This is partnership here. I have to tell you when we look at the way some of our developmental programs work, how we use our aid programs, those do not necessarily contribute towards government accountability. Too much of our aid delivery going outside of the government of Afghanistan; [it’s] hard to hold government officials fully accountable when so much of the developmental assistance from the international community goes outside of the government of Afghanistan. So there’s a role there.
We have a role to play in a very supportive way, helping to strengthen law enforcement institutions in Afghanistan. Judicial institutions in Afghanistan. But at the same time it’s a partnership role and the government of Afghanistan has an important responsibility too, in leadership and accountability and holding people responsible. But I’m optimistic over the next five years whoever leads this next government, that with the cooperative partnered approach we can achieve more success here, but we have to.
Question: Who’s paying for this round?
Ambassador Eikenberry: Well, the international community is contributing more aid and financial assistance to support the activities of the IEC, of the United Nations and their development organizations. The international community, the United States of America, and we’re committing money for the actual implementation of the election, not to mention a very significant investment in support with our military forces as well.
Question: So the U.S. is paying for the election but doesn’t have a stake in the outcome?
Ambassador Eikenberry: We have one stake in the outcome here. We have one stake. That’s an outcome that is decided by the Afghan people in which the rules are adhered to. An outcome in which the Afghans can say it was their vote, collective vote. It was their will, collective will, that decided the outcome with the constitution of Afghanistan being followed. That’s our one commitment.
I know for the Afghan people that it may be very difficult to understand, and I know that probably very few of them will believe these words as I speak to them. But I would ask that if you look at the conduct of the United States of America here, as your greatest partner, your greatest ally over the last seven to eight years, to look hard at our actions here, and to make your own judgments. Make your own judgments over what’s happened over the last several months. But believe it or not, maybe the Americans are too simple a people or too naïve a people, but I’m very proud of one strength of America’s democratic system and that is an adherence to the rule of law. Because the alternative is to go to the political jungle and the political jungle leads to conflict.
So I’d ask all the Afghan people to just please, whatever your perceptions, at least listen to these words that truly, as your friends, as your allies, what we truly are committed to is the rule of law. We’re not committed to [particular] people, we’re committed to the rule of law, setting the conditions so the Afghan people can make their decisions politically.
Question: Thank you so much, Ambassador. Thank you for your candor. I really very much appreciate it. Thank you.
Ambassador Eikenberry: Thank you.
# # # #