Can’t allow Afghanistan to become a threat to its neighours: EU special envoy | World News - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

Can’t allow Afghanistan to become a threat to its neighours: EU special envoy

Dec 04, 2021 05:28 AM IST

EU special envoy for Afghanistan Tomas Niklasson said EU and India are very close on most issues related to Afghanistan, including the need not to isolate the Afghan people.

The European Union (EU) wants to see movement on commitments made by the Taliban setup in Kabul, including on humanitarian access, counter-terrorism and the formation of an inclusive government, EU special envoy for Afghanistan Tomas Niklasson said on Friday. In an interview, Niklasson said the EU and India are very close on most issues related to Afghanistan, including the need not to isolate the Afghan people even as there is no recognition of the interim government formed by the Taliban. Edited excerpts:

A Taliban fighter stands guard in Kabul, Afghanistan. (REUTERS)
A Taliban fighter stands guard in Kabul, Afghanistan. (REUTERS)

Q. Could we talk about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, which is the focus of the world community? But it’s a difficult situation as there is no agreement on the unfreezing of Afghan assets around the world, and there are problems in getting the aid across to the Afghan people.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

A. I think, first of all, Afghanistan is heading towards a rough winter. I should actually correct myself because I’ve been saying this for months – I think today we should say Afghanistan is in a rough winter because winter is already here. The EU, like most partners, has stopped regular development assistance, but at the same time, we see the needs and have multiplied our humanitarian assistance fivefold, from 60 million euros to 300 million euros.

Member states have pledged another 400 million euros. My understanding is that this, together with contributions by others, basically responds to the humanitarian appeal that was launched this autumn. But the needs are enormous and the projections for next year are even bigger.

You rightly pointed at the problems of getting the money in, the uncertainties about distribution, but the EU is in a good position, to the extent that we had people on the [ground] in Kabul and also expatriate staff working for the European Commission and the EU. They don’t distribute the aid. We do that through UN organisations and NGOs, never through the government. And the other advantage is that we have worked in Afghanistan and provided humanitarian assistance for the last 20 years, so it’s not new territory to us.

We have also been working in areas controlled by the Taliban, again not through the Taliban, but they know who we are. They know what we do. They know the rules of the game and most of the time, they respect the rules of the game.

Q. What about the unfreezing of Afghan assets? Do you see that happening?

A. I think it’s a complex matter. As we know, the assets are frozen, the bulk of them in the US in banks [but also in] British, German, Swiss and UAE banks. But the largest amount is in the US. These amounts are somehow locked in court cases by victims of 9/11 and Americans who gave their lives in Afghanistan.

And then there is the issue of who actually owns this money. Is it the government which isn’t recognised? Is it the Afghan people? Is it the donors because a lot of it presumably would have come from partners who contributed 75% to the national budget.

The third question is these are reserves. They’re not meant to be used to prop up the budget. They’re there to guarantee the stability of a currency. You may call that a luxury if you’re starving, but that...just keeps adding to the difficulties and I don’t see solutions.

However, we understand there are discussions going on. I think there are people in the US working to see that some of this money could be released in some form. But I don’t know how quickly or how much. And then an additional challenge would then be to whom should it go?

Would there be a way through UN-led trust funds or a World Bank trust, or for example, to use part of this money for humanitarian or basic needs. I don’t have an answer, but I know the discussion is going on and I’m not hopeful that there would be a major breakthrough soon, but I hope that part of it can contribute to the solution.

Q. You had several meetings in New Delhi and there have been efforts to align the position of different key players in Afghanistan. Was there some convergence with India? Are we on the same page and what were the main areas of your discussions?

A. India and the EU are far away geographically and they’re very different entities with a different history and different geography. But we have found in recent years a strong convergence or even an overlap, to a large extent, in our positions when it comes to Afghanistan. We talked about “Afghan-owned and Afghan-led”, we had the same principles when it came to human rights and rights of women and girls, the call for the Afghan people to shape their own future. This was confirmed shortly before the EU-India Summit in spring in a joint declaration by your minister of external affairs and the EU high representative, vice president Josep Borrell.

Since then, I have been in regular contact with my counterparts at the ministry here and we have compared notes as things changed very dramatically in Afghanistan. I’m pleased to see that we have not moved away and my visit confirms that we are very close on many issues.

I thought perhaps before my visit that India would be even more focused on the security aspects and that would be very understandable. There is a focus on security but I also find that there is quite a lot of similarity. Neither Europe nor India wants to isolate Afghanistan. None of us wants to isolate the Afghan people, [and] none of us is ready to recognise the interim government. But we both, in different ways, try to see that dialogue in some form is still needed. We both focus on humanitarian assistance as a first and immediate priority.

And we both see it as important that countries in the region, including India, Iran and [the] Central Asia [states], and countries further afield such as Russia, the US and the EU work together in defining what we expect from Afghanistan and try to influence a change for the better in the country.

Q. Before coming to India, you met a Taliban delegation in Doha and a statement issued after the talks started by saying that the meeting didn’t imply any sort of recognition. It’s quite clear that nobody is moving towards recognition of the Taliban right now.

A. It is clear that no one has gone for recognition right now. It is also clear that many of us engage and have a dialogue. I think from that point of view, it was useful to point it out in the statement that this doesn’t constitute recognition. I think recognition is a tricky term and it has a legal meaning and we can always come back and say, we do not actually work with those governments, we recognise states. But what about when the nature of the state which has changed from an Islamic republic to we do not know what is it. But you know, these are diplomatic niceties.

I think what we mean is this is not a government that has come to power in a legitimate manner. This is a government that has revoked the constitution, that has broken its promises in terms of negotiating an agreement, a government that is unclear about its international obligations, that calls on its partners not to isolate Afghanistan, but at the same time sends signals that put us in doubt on whether they want to engage with us.

So this is the background...and this is why there is no recognition, but yet at the same time, the Taliban or interim government, whatever we call it...they are the reality for now. We see it as more in our interest to have a dialogue or try a dialogue than to close doors.

Q. It’s very clear the Taliban haven’t delivered on commitments made during their negotiations with the US or under UN Security Council resolution 2593. There are clearly things that they need to do.

A. There are clearly things they need to do, and we could sit quietly in our corners in Delhi or in Brussels and wait for them to do it. We think there is a higher probability that they may do at least some of those things if we talk to them. If we find after two months, four months, six months, whatever the time may be, that they are not moving at all, the appetite for engaging will be less, I don’t mean everything will be delivered in six months and there may be different timescales for some of the things we want, but we want to see movement. We want to see the process, but the process also leading to results. And as long as that happens, I think we are ready to continue the dialogue.

Q. Could you pinpoint some of the issues you raised with the Taliban in Doha?

A. We talked about humanitarian access, issues such as taxation of humanitarian assistance, which they committed not to do. They underlined, as we did, the importance of having women contributing to humanitarian assistance, assessing needs, reaching out to people, and delivering assistance. They made a commitment to what we call safe passage. It is not about opening the borders for everybody to leave the country, but Afghans who are under threat Afghans who may have worked in sensitive positions before, maybe Afghans who worked with Indian development or European projects and feel threatened and want to leave. They should be allowed to leave and there’s a commitment on that.

We talked about human rights, a lot needs to be done. We talked about girls’ education, where there’s a strong commitment now at least on paper...[with] the government saying it is a policy of the Islamic emirate, as they refer to themselves, that girls should have access to school.

This is not what we heard a few months and certainly not two decades ago. This needs to be translated, it needs to happen throughout the country. Those are some of the things we talked about. Where I see less movement is on inclusivity, of having a government representing minorities or ethnic communities, a government having women or a government representing different political affiliations.

And we try to explain to the Taliban [that they] want international recognition, but you also need domestic recognition. If that doesn’t come, there’s a risk that history repeats itself. The winner takes it all and then after a decade or two, loses it all.

Q. Three security-related issues that are a concern are the Taliban’s failure to cut ties to terror groups, an increase in drug production, and the rise of Islamic State-Khorasan. What are the EU’s view on this?

A. Afghanistan cannot [and] must not be allowed to become a threat to its neighbours or to other countries. And this is not something we are waiting to see happen. It takes decisions, it takes action from the de facto authorities.

When it comes to drug production, I think it’s a mixed history. We have seen over the last two decades a very substantial increase in production. It’s debatable to what extent it was driven by the Taliban or they benefited from some of the “taxes” on production and smuggling.

Anyway, it was part of their income...We hear reports that production or smuggling is increasing. We now have the Taliban controlling the borders. So that’s a worrying sign, but we know that drug production provides livelihood for many Afghans...To be able to address it, they will need to find other alternative crops.

When it comes to ISIS-K, they are active...and figures vary and there are discussions about, is it one movement? Is it a set of different movements of people moving from one to the other? I see a few risks. First of all, [there is] the risk [or] the potential of the breeding ground, if you like. The market for recruiting fighters will be there. We have disgruntled or disappointed Taliban who have known for months or years, or sometimes longer, how to use a gun. And suddenly they’re more or less out of a job. They don’t have a salary or a function or belonging. We need to add some kind of purpose in life.

I don’t want to exaggerate it but we have members of the former Afghan national security forces who certainly know how to use a gun or some of them would certainly hold a grudge against the Taliban. And some of them would certainly be looking for an income. I would link this to two things – the humanitarian situation because if winter gets harsh [and] if the economy deteriorates even further, and if the interim government is not seen as delivering and being more representative than it is now, there is a bad old tradition in Afghanistan of having a fighting season starting in the spring.

One of many question marks when it comes to Afghanistan is the financing of Daesh. And I don’t have the answers to that but it seems that they have the ability to recruit, and that they continue doing so.

Q. Two of the most important players in this region, India and Pakistan, clearly have different views on Afghanistan. Is that coming in the way of trying to put together some sort of regional consensus? Is this something that worries you?

A. It does worry me. I mean if I try to be an optimist for a moment, what I see is at some level, a convergence of views between India and Pakistan on what they say they want out of Afghanistan. We come back to some of the issues we talked about – an inclusive and stable government, human rights, not threatening its neighbours.

I think the positive element I see is overall convergence at a rather abstract level. But there is a fundamental lack of trust. As we know from history… the Pakistani version of the story is very much that they have generously been hosting maybe four million refugees, some of them for decades, that the country has been greatly affected by terrorist attacks, and you have figures they quote of 70,000 or 80,000 people being killed, But you also hear another story which is presented by India and others about part of the military so-called establishment, in particular ISI, actively recruiting madrassa students, hosting leaders of various shuras in Pakistan, pulling the strings, calling the shots, and even having played a significant role in putting the current government in place with a very large number of Haqqani Network [members]. Pakistani authorities claim they have lost some influence. Some Indian observers would probably laugh them in the face and say we saw what happened in Kabul. I think what I would hope to see is that there could be some convergence not only of views but also of action.

I’m a little bit sceptical about precisely the role India and Pakistan together can play. What I see as hopeful is regional formats, and some formats where both countries are brought together, the discussions in Moscow for example, and hopefully we think sometimes it’s easier to solve issues or not to focus too much on bilateral tensions. If you try to solve things in a larger context, I think that’s also the European experience.

Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! - Login Now!

Get Latest World News along with Latest News from India at Hindustan Times.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On