TEHRAN - A top Iranian Foreign Ministry official says the Afghanistan crisis is a regional problem that requires an Afghan solution and a regional solution.

The Afghanization of the country’s internal affairs should be the top priority, Mahdi Akhoundzadeh, the deputy foreign minister for Asia and Oceania, told the Tehran Times in an exclusive interview conducted in the first week of September.
Akhoundzadeh, who represented Iran in talks on Afghanistan in The Hague on March 31, also said, “Without feeling the problem of the Afghan people, you cannot prescribe a solution that is alien to the region, to the people.”
“We have to stick to the regional approach” to solve the festering Afghanistan crisis, he added. “There should be a comprehensive solution based on the regional reality, based on cooperation among the countries of the region, based on Afghan unity.”
The interview was conducted in English.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: At The Hague conference you said that there is no military solution to the Afghanistan crisis. So, what is Iran’s solution?
A: Well, I think there is an international consensus, or better to say, the international consensus is developing that there could be no military solution in Afghanistan. Given the historic effect and having a very close review of the history of Afghanistan… the presence of the Soviet Union with thousands of well-equipped military forces and the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan for the last seven years are testimony to the fact that the military presence may at some peculiar stage have some interim gain, but when you look at it in a broader prospect, you find that it is a repetition of failure, failure, and failure. So this is in fact the practical side of events in Afghanistan. I believe not only the Eastern part of the world but even the Western part, even those who are in Europe, they are obsessed with this view that there is no military solution. But I have to say that I feel one of the most important elements for stabilization of the situation in Afghanistan, as I said in the Hague conference, is Afghanization of the affairs. That means the Afghan people and the Afghan authorities should be able to run their affairs by themselves. So, according to our view, there are some basic or some constant parameters which cannot and should not be undermined, underestimated by any state, and this is how we evaluate the Afghanistan situation.
Number one is full respect for the will and wishes of the Afghan people, non-interference in their internal affairs, helping Afghans develop their own infrastructure, their own country, their own society, and most importantly, helping Afghans to preserve their own legal system to establish themselves through their own methodology. I mean, one cannot really substitute the decision on Afghan affairs for one way or for the other. So we have some basic parameters, and that’s why when Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviet Union, they all said that Iran was the first and only country in the region that vigorously condemned the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.
So we preserve these basic parameters and this basic cooperation. That’s why the Afghan people, when it comes to Iran, they feel that Iran is not only their neighbor but that Iran is a partner of their independence, a partner of their progress, a partner and friend in the stability and peace of Afghanistan.
Q: You said that there is no military solution to the Afghan crisis. Somewhat in line with this view, the Afghan government, NATO, and the United States have proposed holding talks with the so-called moderate Taliban leaders or groups. But if they do not accept the offer, what are the other alternatives?
A: When they say that there is no military solution to the difficulties, it does not mean that if somebody is going to attack you, if somebody is going to disturb you, if somebody is going to create a problem for you, you just watch and look… it is not that. I mean it is the right of the Afghan government initially to tackle all the security problems that they face, and for sure if they do not (show) resolve in their attitude toward the “extremists” who disturbed the stability of the state, naturally, indirectly, you are showing your weakness. So I think when we say there is no military solution to the problem in Afghanistan, what I mean is that those who are responsible for peace and stability in Afghanistan should review their policy and see whether they have correctly addressed the problem of the Afghan people. I’ll give you one example… the menace of drugs. It was said by those countries, by those people who were supposed to establish security and stability in Afghanistan, they made a promise that they would tackle this menace and this issue, but there was a total failure, and production of opium has increased greatly. That means that in that sector, which is a very important sector, a sensitive sector, it is a big failure. What are the causes of this failure? What is the methodology to approach this issue which has an internal impact, a regional impact, and an international impact? The narcotics problem is a problem which can indirectly feed those people who feed instability in Afghanistan.
In other words, the military approach so far on this issue resulted in the multiplication of the production of opium, heroin, and by the way, warlords, terrorists, and extremists were (thus) able to gain a lot of money to sustain their onslaught against the legitimate institutions of the government of Afghanistan that has a legitimacy. So I have to make it clear that when we say military solution, it means a military approach to a problem that basically is not a military problem. Basically the problem of Afghanistan is social fabric… Afghanistan is one of the least developed countries in our region. You go to the airport of Kabul and travel from the airport and go to the center of the city and you look to the other side of the road and you see that it is really not good for a country in this region to have such a situation, an underdeveloped situation.
With thousands of military forces there, it seems the needs of the Afghan people have been completely neglected. And that’s why, when it comes to Iran, we are one of the few countries that has done a lot of service to the people of Afghanistan to help them have a better life because you have got to give a better chance to the people of Afghanistan. Then they can themselves face the problems that may come. But if those who are the guardians of security and stability in Afghanistan cannot do their mission, there will be room for others.
We think making efforts for national solidarity and unity between different tribes in the country, by sticking to the existing rules, is a wise and logical approach for the future of Afghanistan. But the immediate question is the election of Afghanistan. It is a process that gives a chance to the people of Afghanistan to see a better future, and that’s why we have congratulated the people of Afghanistan for the successful conclusion of their election, and we hope that through this process -- the democratic process -- the Afghan people will get a better window of opportunity, and the Afghan authorities will get higher obligation to serve their people. So this is a challenge which the Afghanistan government and people have to face. They have to settle, they have to deal, they have to solve. So let us see how things will move, but we wish them a smooth process of democratization of their country, and that’s why we are trying to help to establish this process in Afghanistan.
Q: What is your analysis of the election in Afghanistan, especially in regard to Abdullah Abdullah’s claim that he was the winner?
A: Well I think all the Afghan candidates, those who really worked very hard, they have to wait for the official declaration of the results, as we are waiting also, because it is a process that has its own course of action. And I believe that in any election there are claims, allegations, counterclaims, counter-allegations, but the most important element is that they have to obey the rules and regulations of their respected country, and this is an accepted methodology or terminology for the media and the public to follow. Otherwise, any claims or counterclaims would simply complicate the situation. So I believe the best thing is to wait… and the independent election commission will naturally announce the winner. And there is also another commission that looks into the allegations of fraud, and right now they are receiving the allegations. I think this is a process where everybody should follow the regulations and rules, and I think our best advice to all those foreign forces that are there… (is that) nobody under any circumstances should intervene in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.
The issue of the election is a purely an Afghan issue, and nobody should directly or indirectly influence the trend of affairs there. And I think this is one of the most important tests for the Afghan authorities, for the Afghan government, and for those who are there to help Afghanis achieve their goals. So such claims and counterclaims are not something very strange -- it happens in different parts of the world -- but I believe the most important factor is to obey the rules and regulations of Afghanistan.
Q: How do you evaluate the U.S. approach in the Afghan election?
A: Well, I can generally say that any action that would directly or indirectly influence the trend of affairs in the process of the election in Afghanistan could further complicate the situation. And all those governments that are there should refrain from involving themselves in affairs that hurt the sentiments of the Afghan government and the Afghan people. Because, as I’ve said, it is purely an Afghan affair, and there should not be any substitute for the government of Afghanistan, which is primarily responsible for the process of the election in that country. And I think this is the first time (that there is a dispute about the election) because in the previous election that was not the case… but this time it is the first test for the Afghan authorities, and we should all help Afghans to be successful in that process. Otherwise, it may not only complicate the situation but also could give the wrong signal to extremist elements that the Afghan government is incapable of completing a process which is a very difficult process -- a process of democracy -- and I think this is the fact. But whoever will be declared the winner of this election, Iran, as the neighbor of Afghanistan and also a country which is hosting more than two million Afghans, will respect the result and will continue to cooperate with the new administration of Afghanistan in order to establish peace and help Afghans develop their country.
Q: Regarding the U.S. support for Abdullah Abdullah in the election, if Karzai emerges the winner, what approach do you think the U.S. will take?
A: Well, we don’t know. I mean, it’s up to them to clear up this allegation. But it’s important to help the process, irrespective of who will be the winner, because for Iran, the most important element is the establishment of democracy and the consolidation of the gains of the Afghan government and the Afghan people. Because it is the intellectuals and people of Afghanistan who have the firm say on their future, their history, and their country.
Yes, I believe the present situation is a challenge, also for the country that claims to be helping the democratic process in Afghanistan. If you take sides, if you support one or the other candidate, that means you are questioning the process of democracy and the Afghanization of affairs.
That’s why I said in The Hague that the Afghan people should be the masters of their own destiny, they themselves should choose the president, and the choice is the choice of the Afghan people. I think those countries that have involved themselves in the internal affairs of Afghanistan will not be successful. They should join countries that are really sincere about helping the Afghan people. I believe one of the big mistakes of the previous American administration, the George W. Bush administration, was that they were dictating their terms in the name of democracy, in the name of helping the people, and this naturally is a challenge for the present government of the U.S. that has claimed to have made a change in its approach… And I believe the people are vigilant enough to understand and to appreciate the actions of different governments, governments of the region and governments beyond the region. What really is important for them, I think, is the Afghanization process, the consolidation of democracy, and helping the Afghan people to be the masters of their own destiny. This should be the most important approach.
And combating drugs is another big test. You see the people of the region, the countries of the region, they are victims of the failure of those countries that were supposed to fight drugs. For example, the UK government -- the area that was under its control has witnessed the maximum production of opium, and there is a big question mark about what they are doing there. They are actually doing nothing. If you take the other side, indirectly they are encouraging the production of opium and narcotics. And this is what I said the countries would be judged (on). You take each and every issue and you see the people of Afghanistan and the people of the region will judge actions not words. If they really want to show they are sincere in this business, they should refrain from intervening in the internal decision-making of the Afghans, and this is a policy which I believe, if collectively followed by all those countries that really want to see a settlement in Afghanistan, this would heed the desire. Otherwise, there is a danger that the extremists will resurface in Afghanistan.
You see nine provinces of Afghanistan were virtually controlled by the extremists. And you see, in spite of the claims of those countries that have forces in Afghanistan, still we are witnessing insecurity and problems in Afghanistan. And that shows that there is something wrong. And that’s why we say we should stick to that point to have a review of what is going wrong and what are the reasons. And that’s why we say Iran and the neighboring countries have a prominent role. First of all, we must address and assess the problem. You know that months ago, we had two regional conferences on Afghanistan. These conferences were initiated by Iran. (Iranian) President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, (Pakistani) President (Asif Ali) Zardari, and (Afghan) President (Hamid) Karzai held the first trilateral meeting in Tehran during the ECO summit. Then we had the second one just two months ago because we feel that this problem is a regional problem and it will be solved through a regional solution.
You cannot impose the will of country X or country Y on a country which has a lot of suffering. The Afghan people were the victims of the superpowers’ rivalries -- the Soviet Union and America. Why did these poor people have to pay the price of those rivalries? Afghanistan was a battleground and these poor people had to pay for it. So we say that the international balance of power is changing, and yes, they have to recognize the change. The bipolar world is finished. There is no single country that can dictate to others how to live or how to behave. It is a collective responsibility. When you look at the problem of Afghanistan from this angle, that’s OK, you have to start from somewhere. The best would be to start from the region. See the opinion of the people who live in the region because we are the immediate recipients of whatever bad or good comes out of Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, what we are getting out of Afghanistan right now is some kind of extremism, terrorism, drugs, and these sorts of affairs. Countries that are thousands of miles away from Afghanistan are the least bothered by what happens there. Of course, I agree that some countries may get an indirect result of this, but we are the immediate recipients of developments in Afghanistan. That’s why Iran proposed a trilateral meeting on Afghanistan, and I think it was successful. We are awaiting the results of the election of Afghanistan. That’s why I said whatever the result is, we will be immediately convening meetings of finance ministers. Then we will have a meeting of interior ministers, and then we will have a meeting of the ministers of commerce of these three counties to see how we can help one another address different issues, different security problems which the interior ministries of these three countries will sit and talk about. We will look into the problems of economy, infrastructure, energy, and other aspects. And this will open up a good opportunity for those countries that really want to see peace and stability in Afghanistan. And they could help this process.
And to the best of our knowledge, without feeling the problem of the Afghan people, you cannot prescribe a solution that is alien to the region, to the people. I said there is no military solution because I had in my mind this kind of approach, and of course, the international community and individual countries also can come and join. For example, we recently concluded an agreement with the Japanese government in Tehran to help in the vocational training of Afghans. So there is a vocational training center in Karaj. We have concluded the deal with the Japanese and this will help the Afghans to learn more, to become expert in professional jobs, and then they could go to Afghanistan and help their own people. Or we are talking now with South Korea and also to the same effect with other countries in Asia. They are interested. I think there is a great interest. I had a meeting with the deputy foreign minister of Japan on Saturday (September 5) in Tehran and this issue was one of the important issues that we talked about. There is a tendency among many Asian countries to see that Afghanistan, which is a member of Asia, is assisted and is helped by Asian governments and countries to preserve its Asian identity. So I think this is another chance that we are touching, feeling, that we are approaching. And I hope that once the election is concluded successfully, we can persuade interested governments in Asia to come and join the stabilization process in Afghanistan.
Q: Do you think the troop surge will work in Afghanistan since opposition to the war is growing in Western countries?
A: Yes, I think the U.S. should reconsider its policy. Because simply an addition of forces and showing military muscle can indirectly give oxygen to those forces that are always waiting for such a scenario… and that’s why it could add to the complication. And you see the resistance of many European countries. They don’t agree, they don’t like to send their soldiers to go and die there. And that’s a legitimate question. You go and ask the people and the parliament of France, you go to Germany -- where I was ambassador before being appointed deputy foreign minister -- I think there is a consensus amongst many members of the parliament and the people of Germany (who wonder) ‘Why should our forces go there.’
OK, if they are there to help the people of Afghanistan, it’s all right, but if they are there for some other reason, which the people of Afghanistan would not like, which the people of the region would not like, then there will be no justification for it. This happened in Iraq. You witnessed the reaction of the American people to their ex-president. Public opinion in the U.S., in our region, even in those countries that have friendly relations with the U.S. was against the military presence and military operation in Iraq, and that’s why the Republican candidate could not win the U.S. election. I think today public opinion is very important, and the U.S. government also should listen very carefully to public opinion.
Public opinion in our region says that there is no military solution to the Afghan problem, there should be a comprehensive solution based on the regional reality, based on cooperation among the countries of the region, based on Afghan unity. The unity of the Afghan people, the Afghan government, and the forces is very important. Any attempt to create disunity amongst the Afghan authorities would indirectly complicate the situation and lead to instability.
Q: There have been reports that the U.S. may ask Iran to allow it to send supplies to its troops in Afghanistan through the port of Chabahar. Will Iran be ready to consider such a proposal?
A: There have been allegations to that effect. There had been some news reporting that some of the forces in Afghanistan are sending their goods through Chabahar, which was unfounded, and it was an allegation. There is no truth in it.
We have always helped the Afghan people. There are two million Afghan people living in our country and we have constantly supported them. But we are not going to let the Afghan people continue to suffer because of the wrong policy of pressuring the Afghan authorities. And that’s why our policy on this question is: If the Afghan government needs the assistance of Iran in solving their problems, we always extend our help and assistance to the Afghan government. This has been our policy -- different ways, different manners -- I remember once we decided to encourage Afghan refugees to return to their own county. Then we received a request from the Afghan government, because of winter, because of the problems, they were not in a position to receive them, and they asked us to delay, and we responded positively to them. They had problems in some sort of fuel sector, for example, the energy sector. For Kabul generators, we supplied them with gasoline and other things. So we recognize the Afghan government and the Afghan people, so our policy is decided based on those considerations.
Q: U.S. President Barack Obama has proposed creating a regional contact group, which would include Iran. Have any steps been taken so far to establish such a contact group?
A: We have not yet heard of such an initiative. It may be some (kind of) speculation. As we have not heard (of it) and as we have not been approached, there is no comment.
Q: But it seems that the U.S. is reaching out to Iran, seeking its help to establish security in Afghanistan. Could this be a turning point in relations between Iran and the United States?
A: The question of Iran’s relationship with the U.S. has a broader context. There had been cases where Iran helped on different issues to settle a problem, for example, the Bonn conference (on Afghanistan) or even the situation in Iraq. You know, we entered into negotiation at the request of the Iraqi authorities, the Iraqi government. There were two to three rounds of talks which we had with them on helping the stability and security of Iraq. That was the request by the Iraqi government. So this shows what importance Iran attaches to security and stability. That request was responded to positively, so it becomes clear. Whether it was a turning point at that stage or not, is a different question. But I think the question or the issue between Iran and the U.S., there are some elements involved in that, and that has to be dealt with in a different context.
But as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the basic parameter of the Iranian policy is stability and security in Afghanistan. This is of utmost importance to us because Afghanistan is our neighbor, and as I’ve said, instability in Afghanistan would have an immediate impact on its neighbors and later on others. This is a question which others have to respond to, whether they are there for the stability of Afghanistan, for the development of the Afghan country, or else, for some other purposes. We don’t know about that, but the people will judge different countries according to their actions. I think we have a very clean bill of health in Afghanistan as far as the government and people of Afghanistan are concerned and this has been achieved because of the huge suffering that we have undergone. We have always been by the side of the people of Afghanistan, and that’s why we feel that this is an important juncture in the history of Afghanistan. Let us see how it will come up.
You see some countries that are not really very close to the issue do not have an understanding of the situation in Afghanistan. They hold conferences and come and go without really feeling the people of Afghanistan, the government of Afghanistan, and this is another testimony (to the fact) that we have to stick to the regional approach, which would be indicative of the will of the neighbors of Afghanistan, in the decision… We will go along with the decision of the people of Afghanistan. We will respect their decision and their choice of president, and we will continue to follow our constructive policy in Afghanistan in all fields.
Photo: Iran’s deputy foreign minister for Asia and Oceania, Mahdi Akhoundzadeh (C), talks to Tehran Times journalists Mohammad Ali Saki (L) and Samaneh Nazerian.