21 December 2001
During an interview with the BBC World Service, The Prime Minister Tony Blair, said that the role of the International Security Assistance Force was to ‘provide help for the provisional government, and to make sure that the environs, the surrounds, of Kabul are secure.’
The following is a full transcript of the interview:
Interviewer
Prime Minister, can I ask you first of all, are there going to be troops on the ground on Saturday.
Prime Minister
There may be some lead elements of the force in Kabul on Saturday when the provisional government in Afghanistan finally takes over, but obviously there are still a lot of details to be worked out before the force proper can get into Afghanistan and start doing its work properly.
Interviewer
And when will the force proper be there at full strength, which I believe is supposed to be 1,500 British troops, 4,000 maximum.
Prime Minister
Well, again, on the numbers there will be probably between 1,000 and 1,500 British troops. There will be several thousand troops overall. We don’t know exactly at this point in time when they will finally all be in, but it will be building up over time obviously.
Interviewer
And what are they going to do? What is their job?
Prime Minister
Well, their job is very simple. The provisional government needs to have the security both of Kabul and the environs of Kabul, including the airport at Bagram which is very important, they need that security to function. So the reason why it is important to have this international force is for the reasons that were set out in the Bonn Agreement. Without that, many of those people who, for example, come from the non-Northern Alliance aspects of the new government, would not feel a sufficient sense of security in coming in and doing their work.
Interviewer
So, it sounds as if you are saying that they are a sort of security guard for the interim government. Because of course you have got the Northern Alliance, heavily armed, in control in Kabul. Is the force going to try and disarm the Northern Alliance?
Prime Minister
No, it is not there for that purpose. It is there to provide help for the provisional government, and also, as I say, to make sure that the environs, the surrounds, of Kabul are secure.
Interviewer
But of course this new interim government is sort of a few Pashtun leaders in exile cobbled on to the Northern Alliance. Is that what the force will be trying to protect.
Prime Minister
Well, it’s not just them. Obviously you have got the people who are going to work with them. You have got various agencies coming in to secure the airport and make sure that it is operable. You need forces to do that. So there are a series of things that will be detailed in the military and technical agreement that will be agreed between the provisional government and the incoming force. Those are the tasks that they will perform. And of course the reason why we are doing this is that it arises out of a specific request by the United Nations that we do this in order to facilitate the agreement.
Interviewer
But not outside Kabul at all, because of course the Russians said it was no problem going into Kabul in 1979, but it took them 10 years to get out. And you have a country where you have local, heavily armed warlords in control in all their little pockets: in Herat, in Mazar-e-Sharif, in Kandahar, all across the South. Aren’t you going to see this totally disintegrating country with this little power-base in Kabul.
Prime Minister
Well, I don’t think that it is a totally disintegrating country. In fact I think it is in darn better shape than it was a few weeks or months ago, and of course the writ of the government will run, and many of those people who are represented in the government are people who have their forces out in different parts of Afghanistan. There is a limit to what the force can do, but the work of the force is nonetheless extremely important. Indeed, I think it is right to say that without a force going in, it would be impossible for the provisional government to do their work properly.
Interviewer
As far as Britain is concerned, does the war against terror end with Afghanistan.
Prime Minister
No, because we have still got to pursue international terrorism in all its different forms around the world, but I think it is worth just saying that in the 100 days that have now passed since 11 September, there has been a fantastic amount achieved. Not merely have we shut down the al-Qu’eda terrorist network in Afghanistan, not merely has the Taliban regime been got rid of, not merely do we have the prospect now of a new government in Afghanistan, broadbased with some chance of reconstructing the country ….
Interviewer
Some of them are still at large.
Prime Minister
Yes, that’s right, and we have got to pursue them, but don’t underestimate what has been achieved and the fact is around the world, governments have tightened up their laws against terrorism, are taking action the financing of terrorism, there are many, many hundreds of people round the world engaged in terrorism that have been arrested. But of course the work doesn’t stop …
Interviewer
But if the military operation moves, say, to Somalia, or to Sudan, or to Iraq, is Britain still the staunchest ally of the United States then?
Prime Minister
Well, we will of course be a very staunch ally of the United States, but as I say, whenever I am asked about these other countries, Phase 2 of this operation will involve other actions against international terrorism, but in respect of each there will be a process of deliberation and consideration before we act.
Interviewer
But of course Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, is saying we will finish doing what we do in Afghanistan and then we will do it somewhere else, hinting very strongly the military operation is going to move elsewhere. It wouldn’t take much to come up with evidence that Iraq, for example, has links to Al-Qu’eda. It would be surprising if they didn’t.
Prime Minister
You say that, but actually what Donald Rumsfeld is saying is precisely the same as everyone else has said, which is that because we shut down the Al-Qu’eda network in Afghanistan, doesn’t mean that it is shut down round the world. It is not, and we have got to make sure that it is. But, for goodness sake, let’s rejoice in what has been achieved, and let’s realise too that the victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan wasn’t just a military victory, it was a political victory. People in Afghanistan have been liberated from one of the most vile and oppressive regimes in the world, in fact most probably the most vile and oppressive regime, and one that was doing enormous damage to its country, to its citizens, in particular in its treatment of women inside Afghanistan. It was a failed state, based on terrorism and drugs, and now is the chance of reconstruction.
Interviewer
But the troops are only going in for three months and limited to Kabul. When does the reconstruction begin, when does the nation-building begin. Who will do it.
Prime Minister
The provisional government, which is precisely why there was …
Interviewer
With whose money?
Prime Minister
… the negotiation in Bonn which resulted in the provisional government being set up and the funds for reconstruction, already of course we are putting in a very large sum of money in humanitarian aid. I have no doubt at all that there will be help also given then with the reconstruction of Afghanistan in the future. We have committed ourselves to that already in principle.
Interviewer
You said how much has changed since 11 September, and particularly since 7 October. One thing that has got far, far worse is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Do you accept Ariel Sharon’s argument that the war on terror is exactly what he is doing against the Palestinians.
Prime Minister
Well, I certainly think that those people who are carrying out suicide bombing attacks in Israel are terrorists. But what I think is important is that we realise that of course Israel will retaliate against people who are committing acts of terrorism, but in the end the only way of making progress in the Middle East, which is why it is not the same as Afghanistan, is by the two sides coming together in a process of dialogue and negotiation, and I have suggested, and repeat the suggestion, that it has got to be based on two fixed points of principle: the State of Israel secure and confident in its own borders, accepted by the whole of the Arab world, and a Palestinian State that is viable.
Interviewer
But that is the hymn-sheet the international community has been singing from since Oslo and before - Madrid. The Palestinians said we have had enough talks and it just gets worse and worse and worse. And Sharon has the argument that the Palestinian Authority again is a terrorist-supporting network. Do you buy into that argument?
Prime Minister
Well, what he says, and what I would certainly accept, is that the Palestinian Authority have a duty to make sure that, insofar as they can, terrorist activities are not run or organised out of the Palestinian authority. But you say that those two principles have been accepted by the international community going back a long time. I don’t think they have actually. I think there is still some ambivalence in the Arab world about the existence of Israel, and I think until recently there were not the full range of western countries that were prepared to come out and say that the Palestinians need a viable state.
Interviewer
Do you think the relations between these two are still the central crux of whether you ever have stability in the region, from Morocco right through to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is it that crucial, or is it a small local difficulty. Is the idea of a Palestinian State one that rumbles up occasionally, but has now been put on the back burner.
Prime Minister
No, I think it certainly couldn’t be described as a small local difficulty no. It affects the whole of the Middle East. And it is also the context with which, and in which, the Arab world views the West, and that is important because they believe that we are guilty of double standards in respect of this.
Interviewer
… double standards now, when you see the bombardment of the Palestinians day in and day out.
Prime Minister
They are indeed saying that, and my response is to say, well first of all you have got to look at the other side of the ledger which is Israeli citizens being killed by suicide bomb attacks, and secondly the only way of getting progress is to try and escape from this violence. We can argue forever about who is right, who is wrong, who started it, who is retaliating, but what the people there desperately need is a political process, because the solution to this has got to be political in the end, and has got to be negotiated, and that is why I think it is in fact important to be very clear about the points of principle. Because once you accept the Israeli state - accepted by everyone - and a viable Palestinian State, well all the rest is negotiation. But I don’t think you can negotiate seriously until those two points are actually accepted. And I think what is happening in the Middle East at the moment is almost beyond tragedy.
Interviewer
We can’t forget in Afghanistan that there is still a war going on while the peacekeepers are moving in. General Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that yes there must be co-ordination between the two, but it is the military operation that takes priority. Therefore, who is in charge?
Prime Minister
There are of course two distinct missions, but there is no doubt at all that CENTCOM, which is the Central Command, has to have the authority for the purposes of deconfliction.
Interviewer
It is notable that the Americans are not taking part in the peacekeeping. Britain is part of the war machine, and part of the peacekeeping mission.
Prime Minister
Yes, I know, but people say this, but there are two things they should bear in mind. The first is that the Americans have committed far greater numbers in the …. capacity than we have, although our forces have done a superb job. But obviously the predominant capability there has been American. But secondly, it is not correct to say that the Americans aren’t supporting any more than by words the international force. They will be providing a great deal of logistical support, the airlift and so on.
delicious
digg
facebook
