Afghans Will Not Tolerate Vote Rigging Anymore
Interview by: Sara Massoumi / Translated by: Ali Attaran
Iranian Diplomacy: Banners, controversial debates, glamorous promises and of course, sounds of explosion. These shape the electoral mood in a country were presidential polls have a short history. As we get closer to April 5th, 2014, Taliban is increasing its terrorist attacks in an atmosphere mixed with fear and skepticism, just as it was in 2009, to boast its power.
Abdullah Abdullah is perhaps the leading figure in Afghanistan’s 2014 elections. Although charismatic enough to rule the country, his maternal Tajik roots may decrease his chances in a country where ethnicity is a key political leverage, or weakness. Claiming to be a victim of vote rigging in 2009 presidential elections, in his interview with Iranian Diplomacy Dr. Abdullah earnestly emphasized that people will not tolerate another electoral fraud.
A close associate of the late Mujahedeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, Abdullah Abdullah has held several key posts in the post-Soviet invasion and post-Taliban Afghanistan. During the rule of Mujahedeen in the early 1990s, he was a speaker for the Ministry of Defense headed by Ahmad Shah Massoud. He also served as Foreign Minister of the internationally recognized United Front when Taliban had captured Kabul and announced the establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He retained this position during Hamid Karzai’s interim administration from 2001 to 2005. A graduate of Kabul University Department of Medicine, Dr. Abdullah who is running under the slogan Reform and Unanimity is the leading candidate according to most surveys. However, it seems that Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai’s economic promises may take the elections to a second round. Proximity between promises and plans of Abdullah Abdullah and Zalmai Rassoul, the third prominent candidate, create a chance for alliance, if either of the candidates convinces himself to be the second man in this partnership. After interviewing Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai and Zalmai Rassoul, Iranian Diplomacy team met Dr. Abdullah in his Kabul house to dicuss women’s rights, Taliban, security arrangement with Washington and relations with Iran.
IRD: After the fall of Taliban and ratification of the new constitution, Afghan women have been granted significant rights. However, we see that their presence in the social sphere is quite low compared to other countries of the region. What are your plans to uplift women’s position in the traditional society of Afghanistan?
AA: The change in women’s situation after the fall of Taliban has been remarkable. Unfortunately, during the recent years, increasing insecurity and ambivalence in negotiations with the Taliban have cast a shadow on the status of women. As a result, the Afghan society is becoming more and more conservative about women’s presence in the society. So, a relative regression during the past two or three years is a reality, and that is no exaggeration.
However, I have to emphasize that changes have taken place that seemed impossible thirteen years ago. Despite the high rate of illiteracy in remote villages, even women in those areas have become aware of their rights. If I want to be more specific, I have to say that the issue of believing in woman’s rights is important if we want to further realize these goals. In Afghanistan, everything has always been under the influence of politics, even beliefs and values.
The most important point to take into consideration is developing short, middle and long term plans to reinforce the social role of women. In middle and long term policies, the most important issue is to educate not only women, but also men, to shift the prevalent mentality in the society. Today, Afghanistan has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, despite progresses in recent years. Women’s political participation has been mostly symbolic, and unfortunately, those Afghan women who have had the chance to occupy senior positions have used it for personal benefits, not to fulfill their commitments. For instance, rivalry between female members of the parliament led to a line-up and failed the approval of the law of Elimination of Violence against Women. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs did not also function as it was expected.
In economy, there are opportunities for women’s participation which should be considered. Women’s addiction problems, the situation of female prisoners and less-abled women are also important issues that should be taken into consideration. Another issue which needs attention is the need for presence of legal advisors for women in courts. When a woman files a complaint against her husband, the magistrate is usually a male, and this may influence his decision. As you mentioned, the law has paved the way for equal rights between men and women, but the important thing is translating these laws into everyday affairs. This has not been realized so far and needs political determination.
IRD: A major part of insecurity in Afghanistan is a product of Taliban’s action. What role do you see for Taliban in Afghanistan today? Can Taliban join the political mainstream if it lays down arms?
AA: I think at the current circumstances Taliban will not stop its paramilitary operations and join Afghan politics. Taliban still believes that it can topple the government through violence and military actions.
IRD: Are they able to achieve this goal?
AA: They believe in that, but I think they can’t do it. Today, there is a battle between an Islamic emirate and an Islamic republic. Islamic emirate reflects Taliban’s interpretation of governance. They believe in an amir-ol-mo’menin (Commander of Believers) who is appointed for life by a council. Taliban rejects the republic categorically. Besides, Taliban is a supranational force; their Islamic Emirate has no borders, it can be established in any country not only Afghanistan. Their inflexible, extremist interpretation of faith is also important. Support for Taliban from inside Pakistan is another issue.
Another factor, which did not foster the creation of Taliban but helped its survival, is disregard for people’s demands. The truth is that if there are 20 thousand Taliban supporters or members, there are 27 million pro-peace citizens in Afghanistan on the other hand; but adequate attention is not paid to this. For instance, the widespread vote rigging that happened during the last presidential election gave Taliban a chance to ridicule democracy. Neglecting the constitution, bureaucratic breach and lack of social justice can give Taliban a chance to justify their position. Lack of belief in the fundamental role of institutions, whether it is the bureaucratic system or the military, and lack of peace plans also exacerbate the situation. Some people are afraid that Taliban may resurge under the guise of peace plan. Fear from Taliban’s return, and even its current activities, have even affected women’s participation which you discussed earlier.
IRD: What are your suggestions to dilute the role of Taliban in Afghanistan?
AA: This is a long-term campaign that should be carried out domestically. Of course, Afghanistan is facing the problem of support for Taliban by regional countries, which it should also deal with. In the long run, the ideal state is to hold healthy elections with popular support that close the gap between social groups. A government that is born out of such an election could gain the trust of all, or the majority, of the Afghan nation. Such a political achievement could marginalize warmongering groups.
If the next government in Afghanistan can solve its issues with Pakistan, Islamabad’s support for Taliban would also end. In the long run, Taliban should acknowledge that their ideas belong to themselves [, not everyone] and if they want to materialize their ideals, they should opt for political struggle. They should also give up violence. Ending contact with other terrorist groups is another decision that they should make. The problem is that Taliban is far away from the ideals that we said. What we can do at the moment is to attract those members of Taliban who are fed up with their policies and war, and have become aware of the reality.
IRD: Let’s move beyond Kabul, Mazar Sharif and larger cities. How about less developed areas? Are they supporting Taliban?
AA: Yes. I have to say that the Taliban mentality is welcomed in some villages. Of course, the change occurred is that when remote villages ask for establishment of schools and provision of education, this includes both boys and girls. This is a change that we cannot simply ignore. The fact that even in the remotest regions of Afghanistan parents have come to believe that they daughters should also be educated is in stark contrast with Taliban’s doctrine that rejects women and girls’ social presence. However, Taliban’s religious ideas are still popular among some Afghans, even if it is in remote areas. Another point is that in some regions of Afghanistan, presence of foreign troops has lead to human casualty and stirred up discontent. Social injustice and lack of viable alternatives could lead people to the conclusion that the return of Taliban may improve their circumstance. But if you are talking about the majority, I don’t think in any region across Afghanistan the majority want the return of Taliban.
IRD: What is the right channel to negotiate with Taliban? Could direct talks between the central government and Taliban be fruitful or a foreign intermediary is needed?
AA: The negotiations should be basically between Afghans. In the meantime, continuous talks and active diplomacy with Pakistan can help improve the process of negotiations. Unfortunately, these talks have had no results so far.
IRD: What role can the United States play? Even after 13 years of military presence in Afghanistan, it seems that Washington looks at Taliban as a negotiable enemy and is disillusioned with militarily victory.
AA: The US can facilitate the process, but it can’t have a decisive role. In the process of talks with Taliban, there are other decisive factors besides the United States and the general mood of the negotiations; and one of the most basic factors is Pakistan.
IRD: What are Dr. Abdullah’s primary domestic concerns?
AA: Rule of law is the most important issue. Afghanistan is experiencing two transitions. One is political and the other is military and security-related. The second type of transition will minimize the number of international troops in Afghanistan.
Currently, we are facing a shortcoming in international funds, and the volume of donations and aids contributed has significantly dropped. This crisis leaves its impact on economic and security issues. After establishing the rule of law, we should think about providing security and improving the economic well-being of citizens. These should be the priorities for any government that comes to power in Afghanistan. Of course, the challenges facing us are numerous. The gap between annual revenues and expenses are significant. The government needs an annual aid of eight billion dollars, and there is the matter of rapid economic growth. Attracting foreign investment and international aid is one of my priorities.
IRD: Security agreement between the United States and Afghanistan has turned into one of the most controversial topics in the recent months. As a supporter of this contract, how do you justify United States’ military presence? Is it for Afghanistan’s need for foreign aid?
AA: First, let me say that if foreign aids to Afghanistan had been put to better use, we were perhaps facing fewer problems. If military and security aids were used optimally and people were also more prepared for peaceful coexistence, we were perhaps in a better situation. But in response to your question, I have to say that the presence of international forces in Afghanistan is a security necessity. Our military institutions, from police to the army and intelligence agency are not completely self-reliant. The other point is that if we don’t sign the security agreement with the United States, there are no alternatives to compensate for the aids we receive from the US, the European Union and the international community in general. Economically, along with the decrease in number of foreign troops in Afghanistan within the recent months, financial aids have been also reduced. It takes years before Afghanistan can rely on its own revenues, and for a long time, we will remain reliant on foreign aids. So, both security and financial concerns justify the continued presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan.
IRD: So what you say is that the security arrangement is an opportunity and Afghanistan will face no challenges signing the agreement?
AA: Not exactly. The presence of foreign troops is always a challenge. Foreign troops are not welcomed in Afghanistan as much as they were in 2001. Many opportunities were missed during the past 13 years. I pointed to an example, and that was the human casualties caused by US [air] raids. With such actions, Americans are not generally well-received as they once used to be. In the meantime, the continued presence of foreign troops gives Taliban an excuse to continue their attacks, although they were on the same path even before 2001 and the presence of international forces in Afghanistan. Continued presence of foreign troops without any improvement in security status has created many questions for the Afghan people. However, weighing the options and the expenses, we see that we need the foreign troops. However, another challenge that it creates, is tension between Afghanistan and its neighbors, a problem that needs to be handled.
IRD: You served as Afghanistan’s foreign minister from 2001 to 2005. What are your plans for untangling the complicated relations with Pakistan, especially its support for Taliban?
AA: Unfortunately our biggest problem is Taliban’s training bases inside Pakistan. So far, we have made no progress in resolving this issue. On the other hand, Pakistan has not come yet to the belief that it should not use Taliban as a tool to serve its foreign policy goals and its national interests, despite the fact that the majority of the public in Pakistan believe that Taliban is a threat to their national security. However, there are institutions [in Pakistan] that believe the Afghan Taliban can help them achieve their goals. No major progress in this case has been made so far.
Afghanistan can take trust-building measures in areas which are fertile for development of ties, so as to reduce tensions with Pakistan. In the meantime, continued dialogue and active diplomacy without fanfare can facilitate improvement of bilateral ties. Unfortunately, inside Afghanistan there has been lack of balance in taking stances towards other countries. You see that today, Afghanistan and Pakistan are called twin brothers, and tomorrow they are called natural born enemies. None of these terms are objective considering the history of relations between the two countries and deeply-seated problems. If these problems are solved, economic, regional and security concerns can bring the two countries towards extensive collaboration. For example, we can cooperate to tackle energy concerns. We can also define peaceful relations with Pakistan such that there would be no need for Islamabad to use Taliban to serves its national interests in Afghanistan. Islamabad should come to the conclusion that if Afghan Taliban becomes more powerful, the Pakistani Taliban will also become stronger. Islamabad has realized that the Taliban in Pakistan is a threat to its national security, but there is a long way before it cuts relations with Taliban of Afghanistan.
IRD: In the last ten years, Afghanistan has somehow played to role of Washington’s non-NATO ally, while it shares borders with Iran. The present government has managed to keep up its good relations with Iran, and its close ties with both Tehran and Washington have created no tension in Kabul. However, there is much potential to tap in Tehran-Kabul relations. If you enter the presidential palace, where would you put Iran on the map of your foreign policy?
AA: Iran is our neighbor, and has been by our side during the ups and downs of the past three decades. It played an important role in the 2001 Bonn Conference and has made significant contribution to Afghanistan’s reconstruction. So it will have a special place in our foreign policy. I think with the new government in Afghanistan, there will be further opportunities for Tehran-Kabul cooperation.
IRD: US military bases in Afghanistan have caused concern for its neighbors. What steps will you take to alleviate these concerns?
AA: Afghanistan can take trust-building measures to remove some of these concerns. However, while part of such concerns goes back to relations between regional states, part of it goes back to relations with extra-regional forces. Afghanistan cannot do much about the second part. In sections of the security agreement, United States has guaranteed not to use the Afghan territory to act against neighboring countries. The point is that a government which enjoys domestic popularity and support can use this to gain international credibility. Unfortunately, Afghanistan’s credibility has waned during the recent years. There has been no general policy for all governmental agencies to interact with other countries. If these fragmented approaches are put to an end and the country moves in the right direction, we can hope that trust-building between regional states will take shape.
IRD: You withdrew from the second round of presidential elections in 2009, claiming vote manipulation. Is there a guarantee that this will not happen again?
AA: The truth is that there are no guarantees that vote rigging will not happen again, and there are still concerns about that. I have to emphasize that reoccurrence of that fraud, on the same level or on a broader scale, will not be tolerated by the citizens this time. I hope that those who can stop such manipulations are aware of their critical responsibility. Institutions such as the Independent Election Commission, Election Complaints Commission and the government should work hand in hand to prevent electoral fraud. If widespread vote rigging occurs, we may face crisis. Of course, I’m optimistic, and will prevent electoral fraud as much as possible. I hope Afghanistan weathers this period and takes another step to reinforce democracy and rule of law.
IRD: Who was behind 2009 electoral fraud that you believe in? The domestic powers or foreign powers?
AA: I don’t think there were direct interventions by international powers. But they acknowledged the results of the elections anyway, and I withdrew in protest. The truth is that Mr. Karzai did not achieve the 50% vote stipulated by the constitution in 2009. Most cases of vote rigging took place in unsafe regions, and there were areas were no voting had taken place, but figures were given. The international community was responsible too, but the bigger load of responsibility goes back to those who masterminded the fraud inside the country.
Click here to read Farsi version of the interview