An interview with Mohamood Saiqal, former Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, regarding the outcomes of the Kabul International Conference

Q: In your opinion, what makes the Kabul International Conference different from other eight international conferences held on Afghanistan?

A: In my opinion, the main criterion which makes Kabul Conference different from other international gatherings is that this conference was held at the end of international community’s mission in Afghanistan. The Bonn Conference, held in December 2001 was the beginning of international community’s mission; and the London Conference, held in January 2010, paved the way for Kabul International Conference.

It does not mean that international community’s mission is over in Afghanistan, or that what the international community and the Afghan people expected from this mission has been achieved. In order to end its missions successfully in Afghanistan, the international community should have forced the afghan government to wake up in the Kabul Conference.

On the other hand, (in the Kabul Conference) it was necessary for the international community, especially for the United States, to seek both a regional and global consensus for Afghanistan’s challenges before it decides to withdraw its troops.

Now the international community is trying to push the weak government of Afghanistan to take a greater part in tackling the country’s challenges. In fact, the international community is trying to convince the world that the result of its mission in Afghanistan is a government that is able to address the country’s problems.

Q: Will the commitments that the international community and the Afghan government made in the Kabul Conference be implemented?

A: As we have already seen, the government of Afghanistan has not been able to show its capacity and creativity in implementing successful programs and effective management over the past nine years. We had a good start: in the first four years, a number of open-minded and educated people passionately started to work in Afghanistan. As a result, we developed a Constitution for Afghanistan and had many other remarkable achievements. But unfortunately, this positive process gradually moved backwards and headed towards inefficiency and dishonesty. 

A group of individuals who did not believe in reforms and the people’s will were given a share in power and these individuals were the main cause of this dishonesty and inefficiency. Those who surrounded President Karzai convinced the international community to promote the interests of this narrow group. The outcome of such a situation was widespread corruption, which created a big gap between the people and the government, as well as between the government and donor nations.     

As a result, the international community lost its confidence in the capacity of the Afghan government. We saw that despite the international community’s commitments to the Afghan government in previous international conferences, the donor countries are still not ready to completely fulfill their pledges.

On the other hand, the Afghan government could not carry out its promises in tackling corruption, reducing poppy cultivation and building capacity.

Therefore, in my opinion, the implementation of commitments made at the Kabul Conference depends on bringing reforms in the government of Afghanistan. And I think the Kabul Conference is the last chance for Afghanistan.

Q: The Kabul Conference showed that the international community now believes in the capacity of Afghan government. For example, there is now agreement over channeling 50 percent of international contributions through the Afghan government, handing security responsibilities over to Afghan forces by 2014, and supporting President Karzai’s proposals for reconciliation with the Taliban. In your opinion, does not it show that international community now trusts the Afghan government?

A: The international community has no replacement for President Karzai and his team. I think international stakeholders are obliged to support the Afghan government. But it does not mean that international community, particularly the United States, accepts anything Karzai says. The United States has spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan and every day it loses its soldiers in this country. But they have their own conditions for such commitments. It was clear in Hillary Clinton’s speech that there are conditions for international commitments and the Afghan government should make itself ready to accept such conditions.   

The precondition of donor countries for channeling 50 percent of international contributions through the Afghan government is that the government should adopt strict measures to tackle corruption. On the other hand, the international community has preconditions about reconciliation with the Taliban, as well. It was clear in Mrs. Clinton’s speech that in order to negotiate with the Taliban, they should cut links with Al-Qaida, accept the Constitution and the latest achievements of Afghan government and international community, women rights, freedom of speech, and human rights.

Hence, Karzai is not totally authorized to negotiate with the Taliban without considering the abovementioned issues. On the other hand, no Taliban fighters have been ready yet to quit the insurgency, accept the Constitution and latest achievements of the country.

Q: Once you were Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Karzai administration and you were helping to organize international gatherings, including the London and Paris conferences; as well as working on the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS). But many analysts now believe that the previous conferences showed no effective results in solving Afghanistan’s problems. In your opinion, what was the reason that the national and international commitments of previous conferences were not implemented?

A: The Bonn Conference was held at a time when Afghanistan had just recently been rid of terrorism and the Taliban regime. After a long period of inattention, the international community decided to adopt strict measures in the War on Terror and bring stability to Afghanistan.

At the conference, the international community signed an agreement to establish a sound government in Afghanistan. The international community also agreed to conduct an Emergency Loya Jirga to form a transitional state and another Jirga to establish a Constitution. They agreed to hold presidential and parliamentary elections, and to form different branches of government – executive, judicial, and legislative. They also agreed to establish and train the Afghan National Security Forces and to build the capacity of the government.

This agreement was followed by the Tokyo and Berlin conferences, and the donor countries pledged huge financial contributions for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. But until the 2006 London conference, only 20 percent of international money was spent through the government budget; the rest was given to other stakeholders without having a specific framework and program.

The government of Afghanistan presented the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS) to the London Conference to avoid such inefficient expenditure of money and it proposed an organized plan for building Afghanistan’s infrastructure.

From that time up to the Kabul Conference, the government of Afghanistan always emphasized the implementation of ANDS and the commitments of international community in Afghanistan.   

Q: Why did the international community not pay attention to the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS) and not give more than 20 percent of the contributions directly to the government budget? Was the reason ineffectiveness of ANDS or something else?

A: I think there were two reasons: one was the lack of honesty in the working approach of Afghan government, which the international community criticized harshly. This issue has resulted in a situation in which, whenever any donor country promises something to Afghanistan, they place some conditions on the Afghan government to properly spend such contributions. A lack of awareness about Afghanistan’s situation is the second reason. Such issues have caused those who were controlling power in Afghanistan to benefit, and world opinion about Afghanistan has changed.

Fortunately, international community’s knowledge of Afghanistan’s situation is increasing by the day, and hopefully the international community will focus on establishing a sound system in Afghanistan, rather than relying on individuals. This would mean it could successfully end its mission here.

Q: In your opinion, what was the main achievement of Kabul Conference?

A: The conference, fortunately, was held in Kabul with no security problems; it hosted foreign ministers from more than 40 countries of the world as well as representatives from key international foundations. It showed that the international community still pays attention to Afghanistan and the country is an important focus of international relations. But we should keep in mind that this was the last chance for the Afghan government and for the people of this country. So the government should wake up and get the most benefit from this golden chance by reforming the system and winning the trust of the Afghan people and international community.

The Afghan government should act decisively in tackling corruption and supporting the democratic process in Afghanistan.