Lyse Doucette - BBC: Here in the Afghan Capital of Kabul, Afghans are celebrating the Eid-ul-Quruban. While it’s a time for celebration, it is not a holiday for everyone. Even though the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) in Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi is continuing his meetings, he has agreed to meet us here in his residence in Kabul to talk a bit about the international community’s continuing support to Afghanistan no matter what.

Lakhdar Brahimi, here in Kabul everyone says that the international community will continue to support Afghanistan even if there is military action in Iraq. But you know how aid works. The coffers are virtually empty for international aid. If there is a competition for scarce resources and there is a crisis in Iraq, Iraq will win out, won’t it?

SRSG: I think what you have here in Kabul are some of the most important and distinguished members of the international community - those who more likely than not would be involved in a military action as you call it elsewhere. They have been saying and repeating all the time at the highest levels - I heard it from [United States] Secretary of State Colin Powell just a couple of weeks ago in Washington and I think the Afghans have heard it from [US Deputy Secretary of Defence] Paul D. Wolfowitz when he visited here – a very firm commitment that no matter what “our commitments to Afghanistan will not change”.

BBC: They are saying the right things but I understand from the United Nations that donors are not yet committing as to just how much money they will give to Afghanistan. They are keeping their options open because they know that if there is reconstruction in Iraq it will cost a lot.

SRSG: You see there again, what we hear is that Iraq is a rich country and that probably the reconstruction will be done with money from Iraq. As a matter of fact we have some people who are saying that Iraqis are already paying for everything else now. What I was going to add was that we do not doubt that the people who are giving these assurances are totally sincere and that they mean every word of it. What I have been telling them is that there are only 24 hours in a day and if you are forced to give 20 hours in a day because Iraq is messy then obviously it is not a question that you don’t want to but simply because you do not have anytime any more. So these assurances are welcome. While they go someway towards reassuring us, what I tell people is “look –seeing is believing”.

I am also telling the Afghans to brace themselves for difficult days ahead. As you know in post-conflict situations, even without a catastrophe such as a war in Iraq, promises tend to be forgotten as time passes. Why should Afghanistan be any different? If in addition to that you have the horrors of war – then not only will be resources be a little less but I think there will be other complications – the whole region will be destabilized and that destabilization may very well affect the situation here. So at the end of all this what I say is let’s have no war in Iraq and everything will be much better for everyone.

BBC: But if there is a war in Iraq in the coming weeks does it particularly concern you, as it will take place at a time when Afghanistan is embarking on extremely sensitive if not explosive political issues such as trying to disarm the militias of some of the regional commanders. Is it not a time when Afghanistan actually needs more support and not less?

SRSG: Sure – that is true. But what I also say is look – the people of Afghanistan are very poor and are used to being left alone. Last year when we were preparing for the Loya Jirga, we were pleading for support as well as security. That security was not available but it was done all the same. So I think what the Afghans have to brace themselves for is – look this is our country this is our responsibility and we desperately need all the help we can get. I don’t think that help is going to go away completely. And [although] we need more rather then less, if we have to make do with less we will do with less.

BBC: But how grave are the consequences? Is it still possible that the situation here is so fragile that it could unravel if the support does decline?

SRSG: I don’t think that the situation will unravel because of the decline in support. Again what I tell both my Afghan friends and internationals here is that there is absolutely no room for complacency. Things may unravel. What I pointed out last year when we were all singing praises for the refugees who were voting with their feet - we saw nearly two million of them come back – that this was the surest sign that the peace process was working. This is great, this is welcome, but please remember 1992; two million also came back then and three million left two years later. So I think if you want to [prevent] things unraveling, international/foreign assistance is important and perhaps even necessary, but is not enough. There are a lot of other things that need to be done. In particular there can be no relaxing.

BBC: Is that the greatest danger then? You refer to the period in the nineties when the Mujaheddin commanders turned their guns on each other. They are still in power now in Kabul. Do you believe they pose the greatest threat to the Government of President Hamid Karzai?

SRSG: Not them as such or alone. But I think that as long as you have a State that is not strong enough, destabilization is something you have to fear. And it can happen through a combination of factors – internal and perhaps even external.

BBC: What is the greatest danger then in your view? Is it the threat posed by some of the recalcitrant warlords; or is it what we see as the upsurge and infiltration by the remnants of the Taliban and al Qa’ida from across the border in Pakistan with the alleged support of the military intelligence of that country?

SRSG: I don’t know who is supporting whom. What I say is that when there is conflict borders are not much use. The impact is on both sides. The conflict spills over outside of the place where it started and it is also influenced from the outside. So I don’t know now what is happening. But I very much hope that the countries who signed the Good Neighbourly Declaration on 22 December 2002 will cooperate actively to prevent those elements that may exist on either side of the border from creating problems in Afghanistan. Let me add here that I followed very keenly the visit of President Mohammad Khatami of Iran to Pakistan one day after the signing of the Declaration in Kabul and I am very encouraged by the discussions that took place between Iran and Pakistan. As the two important neighbours of Afghanistan, the discussions that took place between them were very encouraging.

BBC: You have repeatedly called on the international community to give more support to Afghanistan; to expand the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) beyond Kabul; to keep to their pledges and to give even more financial assistance. But is it not the situation now that Afghanistan’s moment at the top of the charts is over? They will have to live with what they have and that they will have to live with what they have even if it is the minimum that the international community can give?

SRSG: The international community will continue to give and I think it is our duty to continue campaigning for the maximum. But I think realistically, yes, when we were talking about budgets and the aim of the UN for next year, and even without Iraq, I was saying look; unless we work extremely hard what is going to come in next year is not going to be as much as this year – it should be less. As a matter of fact we are hoping from the promises made that we will have at least as much as we had last year. But I think that the Afghans are very dignified and very realistic people; as I told you they are used to looking after themselves as well as they can and I think that they have to do that.

BBC: After September 11 [2001] the international community started talking about not just aiding a country, but in Afghanistan’s case rebuilding it – talking about long-term commitment. But the reality of aid is that it is short-term commitment isn’t it? Energies and attention go away and it would be impossible for the world to rebuild both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time. So do we have to say at the end the world will - because of any lack of goodwill - fail in its commitment to stay with Afghanistan and rebuild it?

SRSG: I am going to be very frank: I will not stop reminding people about their promises. They did not make these promises under torture. When I went London the Prime Minister said publicly “we made a mistake in 1990 when the Soviet Union left. We gave up on Afghanistan and we have paid the price. We shall not repeat the same mistake”. I didn’t say that – the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, said it. And the President of the United States has spoken repeatedly and again very recently about the commitment to help Afghanistan rebuild itself. We will keep reminding them about these promises. Because they can afford it and it is in their interest. They have made these promises. As I told you we did not extract it from them. They have seen what has happened to them and they say they have learned a lesson. So we will keep reminding them. They can do it, they must do it and I hope they will. And if they don’t I think the people of Afghanistan will find the resources to do it.

BBC: Lakhdar Brahimi, I wish you a happy Eid Mubarak, thank you very much for making time for us.

SRSG: Thank you.

_______________