West not destined to fail in Afghanistan

As he leaves his post, ex-EU envoy in the conflict-ridden country Fransesc Vendrell explains how international forces can overcome past mistakes

Ex-EU envoy Francesc Vendrell believes European countries must to do more in Afghanistan.

By Nick Malkoutzis - Kathimerini English Edition

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai told world leaders this week that the international community has to «redouble» its efforts to help the country's army and police take on more responsibility for the country's security.

It is a view shared by those that know the country well, such as the ex-European Union envoy Francesc Vendrell, who left his post at the end of last month.

Seven years ago, foreign troops landed in Afganistan to help oust the Taliban and chase down al-Qaida terrorists. There are now some 70,000 international soldiers in Afghanistan, who are mostly part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), in which 40 NATO countries, including Greece, are participating.

Vendrell told Kathimerini English Edition that EU countries, including Greece, could have done more, even though some crucial mistakes, especially by the USA, have been made since operations began in 2001.

Seven years after the war in Afghanistan began, you leave your position with, by your own admission, «a sense of regret that we made so many mistakes.» What have been the biggest mistakes?

It's very hard to say what were the biggest because, from a certain point of view, it was Iraq and the obsession with Iraq and the diversion of attention that this led to. At the same time, [another mistake was] the lack of interest in ensuring that the Karzai government had the monopoly on the use of violence and therefore the fact that the DDR [disarmament, demobilization and reintegration] process and disbandment of armed groups has become a formalistic process in which the ISAF and US military have refused to become involved. This meant that there was bad governance on the part of warlords and commanders from the very beginning. Even if the warlords perhaps today hold less power than they did, it still remains that a lot of their friends and people of their ilk occupy key positions and therefore a tradition of corruption and bad governance started. You can't fight the Taliban with people who are also Islamists and, at the same time, who are perhaps more corrupt than the Taliban were when they held power.

That doesn't paint a very optimistic picture for the situation at the moment and moving forward. Are you pessimistic about the situation?

I'm pessimistic about where we are at the moment but I don't believe that we are destined to fail. I believe a thorough review of the strategy and the means to achieve the strategy that we have followed until now, which might be possible toward the end of the year, plus a policy that combines an Afghan policy with a Pakistani policy - because the two issues are now intimately connected - might turn things around.

President Karzai has identified the killing of civilians as one of the key «mistakes» of the campaign against the Taliban because it is damaging public support, which he says is vital for success. Are civilian casualties just something we have to accept and is the public support Karzai speaks of likely to ever materialize?

I think when the American and international forces landed in Afghanistan there was enormous hope and a great deal of support on the part of the Afghans. There had been people saying the Afghans would never accept a foreign military presence. It wasn't true. On the contrary. But mistakes began, such as the killing of innocent civilians, plus lack of understanding of Afghan culture in terms of the way mainly American forces would break into homes and search people, including women, and then arbitrary detentions in Bagram and other places of detention by the Americans and the fact that our military presence has become physically heavier. This has antagonized many Afghans, which doesn't mean that most would like us to leave. But we are certainly not winning their hearts and minds and President Karzai is entirely right in what he says. The problem is how do you carry out a counter-insurgency operation with not enough soldiers on the ground? You have then to change the military strategy that follows. I think the Americans need to reach a decision as to whether it is better to bomb a village where the Taliban are suspected of being and risk killing civilians or whether it is preferable to let them run away. Personally, I think the latter option or at least some kind of approach in which the Afghan government would have to agree to such an operation in advance is what is called for.

What you are saying is: «If in doubt, don't bomb or don't go after suspects.» The person who makes that decision will need a great amount of political will.

Yes, but look at the results of Shindand in terms of the harm we do. We are working for the Taliban when we kill civilians. It is better, in my view, to go the extra mile to avoid killing these civilians.

The burden in Afghanistan seems to have fallen mostly on the shoulders of the Americans and to some extent the British. Can the EU be proud of its role in the country?

I think the European Union can be proud of its role in the sense that it has spent something like at least a third of the total assistance given to Afghanistan. Also, a lot of what we've been trying to do is in terms of civilian institutions and reconstruction. Of course, we could be doing better and our profile unfortunately remains low for a variety of reasons. So much of the media and each government focuses on their troops and by their very nature, the troops are national, they are not EU troops.

Greece has committed some forces to the operation. How do you view its role?

I have to be quite honest. The Greek role has been very tiny and not really visible. I couldn't tell you, for example, how many Greek forces there are. NATO and the Americans love to say that there are 42 countries, let's say, taking part. If some send 10 soldiers, that's great but it does not make much difference whether they come or not. I think it would be good perhaps if Greece became more engaged in reconstruction.

So, you think Greece is one of the countries, such as Spain, Italy or Germany, that could do more to help?

There are two sides: There is military and non-military assistance. On the non-military assistance, I think Germany and Italy are pulling their weight. Spain has failed to deliver on a lot of its promises. Greece has done very little. On the military side, in terms of numbers, the Germans and the Italians have a lot of forces but the question is their profile and what they're doing there. They believed their role originally was to do peace-building and not fighting and they have not come around to realize that they are mainly needed to provide security and not reconstruction. There are always historical reasons for why Germany is reluctant to send forces to fight. Spain could be doing more and I've always advised the government to do more.

Canada has announced it will end its mission in Afghanistan by 2011. It has 2,500 troops in Kandahar and has suffered 97 fatalities over the last six years. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said neither the public nor the troops had any appetite to stay longer. If one of the more notable contributors is saying this, what does it say about the future of the operation in Afghanistan?

Remember that Prime Minister Harper has announced an election for next month and I can imagine that, at this stage of the game, he was bound to say that they would withdraw by 2011. It might allow some other country to take over Kandahar. There is some reluctance on the part of the Europeans but if we were to imagine a President Obama in the White House, I think if Obama asked for more contribution from the Europeans they would find it more difficult to say no to him than to President Bush.

You have expressed some serious reservations about the way that the Bush administration has handled Afghanistan. Does the idea of a McCain or Obama presidency fill you with more hope for the country you have just left?

I would have thought that either administration would probably review policy toward Afghanistan, which will probably include more forces. Whether the review will be deep enough or what its outcome might be is another matter.

The US has said it will send another 4,500 troops to Afghanistan by February 2009 to add to the 33,000 that are already there. The announcement comes as the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has called for a military strategy that covers the Pakistani side of the border as well in a bid to «eliminate [the enemy's] safe havens.» Is this the right strategy or are we about to open Pandora's box?

An overall review of the strategy followed should include Pakistan. But on the issue of Pakistan, one has to look at this very, very carefully. You will recall in the war in Vietnam that when the war was expanded to Laos and Cambodia, it only led to those two countries having the same fate or worse than Vietnam did. So sending forces, particularly ground forces, across the border is something that has to be very carefully analyzed because it could have a counter-productive effect.

And with regard to your successor, the Italian diplomat Ettore Francesco Sequi, do you expect him to oversee a period during which the EU has a more effective presence in Afghanistan?

I certainly wish him success. I know him and am very fond of him and I think he will be a very good representative. But I'm not sure that he more than anyone else can pull rabbits out of a hat. So a lot depends on whether the Europeans agree on their policy and sell it to the Americans or sit together with the Americans at the table and have a major say as to what the new policy ought to be, and a lot depends on what kind of role the various member states wish to play in Afghanistan.