|
| SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK | |
November 19, 2001 |
|
|
The British U.N. ambassador discusses a larger role for the United Nations in establishing a new government in Afghanistan. |
|
|
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK, U.N. Ambassador, United Kingdom: Good evening. GWEN IFILL: So what is the significance of the resolution that was passed by the U.N. last week? |
||||||||||
| Stabilizing Afghanistan | |||||||||||
|
And the resolution also asks member-states to support the effort to bring safety and security to Afghanistan, and it's on that basis I think that a number of member-states of the U.N. are contemplating offering forces for that security operation. GWEN IFILL: How do you gauge at this point the willingness of the different parties within Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, all the other parties involved in this, to participate in this kind of international action or to accept it? SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, this has been a war, a short one but quite an intense one. And of course those who are holding military territory are going to be interested in holding a political advantage. But I think from discussions so far that Lakhdar Brahimi and his team have had with a number of different political and military players in Afghanistan, people are beginning to realize at the top that this needs to be a new approach to a stable, broad-based government in Afghanistan. Otherwise there will not be the kind of international input, which the people of Afghanistan needs. So of course there is going to be haggling. Of course there are going to be marking out of positions not just in Afghanistan but amongst neighboring states and other states interested. But that's to be expected. And I think the U.N. team is capable of sorting this out and getting us going with some good negotiations. GWEN IFILL: How critical is this weekend's, this meeting we've been hearing talk about all day today perhaps in Berlin among all the parties? How critical is it that this gets it off to the best start? SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, the first step in a long journey is the most important one. And this will be the beginning of a negotiation for a long-term, stable constitution and government in Afghanistan, and to see who turns up, who they represent, how broad that representation is, how they talk to each other, and what mood they begin to discuss sharing power is going to be very important and to set the tone for the subsequent stages. So it is an extremely important juncture that we're looking at now. |
![]() |
||||||||||
| Problems with progress | |||||||||||
|
We didn't think that they would collapse so soon, that there would be more bloodshed across Afghanistan. It means that the humanitarian effort can have access to many more people within Afghanistan particularly in the North and the Northeast where the mountainous terrain is so difficult. So that's good. The whole speed of progress has brought its own problems in terms of the tendency of military men to hold the territory and the political control of the territory that they do. GWEN IFILL: Is that considered a broken promise, the idea that the Northern Alliance, for instance, is in Kabul, where it promised not to be holding territory?
GWEN IFILL: How much important is it in order for this to come together, this plan to come together that there be some sort of international financial aid package in place as an inducement to get everyone to agree? SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well there's already a huge amount of humanitarian money available and that's being dispersed now, but the long-term reconstruction of Afghanistan is going to be an extremely important instrument in persuading people to cooperate and to look after the interests of the Afghan people. So in the medium- to long-term, absolutely vital. GWEN IFILL: One more thing in that resolution that was passed last week, you also call for the parties, the Afghan parties, to refrain from acts of reprisal. Do you have any evidence that there have been any, or are those just fears that you're trying to hedge against? SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: There have been some isolated incidents. The story from Mazar-e-Sharif, which you looked at earlier, was perhaps not as bad as the first reports. We're now very worried about the Taliban cooped up in Kunduz, and there could be killings there if people do not restrain themselves. So it clearly is right for the Security Council to ask for restraint, but there also has to be a structure for defeated soldiers to pass into a prisoner of war camp or to justice in some sort of way, which avoids their being slaughtered on the ground. And that is something that the U.N. is looking at closely at this moment. |
![]() |
||||||||||
| A broad Afghan government | |||||||||||
|
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: You have to persuade people that the long-term is more important than the short-term and that international economic action is not just going to come to one narrow faction. You know, we don't want to move from the Taliban appearing from one end of the spectrum only to have the mirror image with the Northern Alliance from a narrow part of the spectrum elsewhere. This has got to be more broad-based. And I think that the input of the international community in that persuasive act is going to be very important. But I say, again, military commanders who hold ground are going to be difficult to persuade, so wherever you see warlord activity, you can be sure there is going to be a tendency to try and use leverage to get advantage. GWEN IFILL: Does it help the case or does it make it more difficult that the former Afghan president Rabanni has returned to Kabul?
It has to be broader than the Northern Alliance as we see it at the moment. I think he realizes that. He wants to have discussions about power participation. Let's judge it as we go along. But I don't think that many outside nations, the U.N., would be happy if it was just the same old government as the pre-Taliban era. GWEN IFILL: From Britain's point of view, what is the most important goal now? Is it hunting down bin Laden as we have heard increasingly U.S. officials talk about or is it, for instance, setting up an avenue for humanitarian aid? We've heard Tony Blair talk about that. SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, I think we have the same objectives as the United States in this. Terrorism of the kind we've seen in the last two months has got to be eradicated. It's got to come to an end, so dealing with those who did it is one important aspect. Then there's Afghanistan which over the years has become such a failed state that it allowed terrorism to grow so Afghanistan has to be looked after and any other country that harbors terrorism of this kind that is connected to the 11th of September has got to be sure that it begins to deal with terrorism on its soil. That's the business of the Security Council counter-terrorism committee, which I chair. So there's a short-term business to be done: Hunt down the terrorists. Medium term: Restore Afghanistan. Long term: Make sure that nobody allows this to happen on their soil ever again. |
![]() |
||||||||||
| An united front needed | |||||||||||
|
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, we're ready to play our part. The prime minister in London has announced the availability of up to 6,000 UK troops. We are thinking in theory of an international coalition force to come and help security on the ground, if the Afghan leaders want that to happen, it's got to be in cooperation with the Afghans of anything up to 50,000 troops. These things are going to be put together in stages quite carefully to make sure that nobody misunderstands our motives in this. And there has to be general U.N. cover and authorization for this to happen. So people are ready to do this. But the Afghan leadership in charge at the moment has got to be wise, look ahead and see that we've got to do this together. GWEN IFILL: But right now they're kind of resisting some of these offers of help. SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: They're kind of resisting, they're kind of agreeing. Let's make sure that the one kind wins over the other. GWEN IFILL: And when you say they're resisting, when you say that... You don't want your intentions to be misunderstood, are you talking about that they might think that you're there to get into ground combat or to in other ways overextend your role?
GWEN IFILL: Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, thank you very much for joining us. SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Thank you. |
|||||||||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||