tv Charlie Rose PBS April 12, 2011 12:00am-1:00am PDT
>> charlie: welcome to our program. we begin this evening from egypt with naguib sawins. he's a businessman, one of the wise men who negotiated with president mubarak and now to form a new political party. >> i'm really happy to see what happened in libya. i've known these regimes, i had to deal with some of them and i seem to -- they deserve a better life than that. the problem now is how to sale vantage this revolution and take it to -- we want to be like europe. we want to be, we want to have a real democracy. we do not want to have a religious state. we want a civilly run country with open mind and so on. we are quite religious all of us, it's a religious nature, it's very nice and very good we we don't want to be governed by
the religion. >> charlie: also joining us this evening, richard engel chief foreign correspondent for cbs news covering the uprising including libya. >> there's a good sign of bringing more democracy and people power to the region because there has been a lot of abuses and corruption. but there's also a real potential negative side. and if unchecked, i think this entire chaos that we've been seeing in the renal right leads to war -- right now leads to war with israel. >> charlie: we end with abdullah abdullah and afghanistan and a look at that country's future. >> to the people of afghanistan, it is proved that it is not for just one person or one group of people but rather for the people of afghanistan into this situation. the people are thinking, the
afghans are thinking that whatever happens the united states will be supportive of mr. karzai and its government and the power of the people of afghanistan. >> charlie: sawins, engel, abdullah abdullah when we continue. every story needs a hero we can all root for who beats the odds and comes out on top. this isn't just a hollywood story line. it's happen ag every day all across america. every time a storefront opens or the midnight oil is burned, someone chases a dream, not just a dollar. they are small business owners. so if you want to root for a real hero, support small
business. shop small. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: i was in cairo exactly to months ago today for the fall of the mubarak regime. it is time to assess where egypt is and the arab spring is. with all the uprising sweeping the arab world, egypt is perhaps the most consequential. a successful transition to democracy there could set an example for others. the ruling military council have made some progress. parliament tree elections are
society for september. at the same time, this weekend, tens of thousands of demonstrators return to the square. they demanded that the military move faster to prosecute president mubarak and his associates. at least two were killed when security forces tried to disburse their crowd early saturday morning. former president mubarak released an audiotaped statement which was broadcast on television yesterday. in it he denied allegations of corruption and said he would cooperate with investigations. joining me is nag win sawins. he's formed a political pier called the egyptian party. i'm employeesed to have him back on -- please to have him back on this program. welcome. >> health low, charlie. how are you. >> charlie: tell me what's going on in your country especially after this weekend and what i expected based on the last time i saw you would be a
transition from to a democracy overseen by the military. >> we're still in this transition but we're hoping for a much more smoother transition. we were hoping for a much more let's say faster recovery so things are improving on the economical side day to day life. but unfortunately the syndrome of the square is still on. there's a lot of energy and capacity going towards revenge from the past instead of building the future. i am more concerned about the future because as you understand it, it principle cull scene very well in egypt, in the most we had two major polls. the national party which was the mubarak party and son. and the movement were allowed to
operate in various manner. however they were always wide disciplined in their fleets and their members. but they were operating like say semi officially. now after the dismantling of the national party and collapse of its system and the burning of their headquarters, the whole arena is completely open only for one force which is the muslim brother hood. and therefore, i've been talking to many people, young people, old people, many different people are forming different parties. i found out people are talking more than working still thinking we have time. but the fact is we don't have time because in five months these elections will take place and they will be unfair because
all the liberal civil parties pro free economy like myself people would have to reorganize, put themselves in one party and go for a competition against someone who has been waiting for that day for eight years. >> you have created a party. you do not want to be president. >> i do not want to be president. i will not even be running for presidency of my party of the party i sponsored when i pushed for because i believe that the party has to be first formed, the members have to elect the president. and i was very keen to show i have no personal gain or wish out of this party except to balance the next coming parliament. >> charlie: but it's interesting, you are reaching out to muslims at the same time you suggest a certain concern about the muslim brother hood. >> the quran is an enlightening
book. it's not, you know, we can have a debate about the shi'a but you cannot have a conversation about the koran. it's like the bible. they are quite enlightened. many of them are liberal. many of them believe in a civil government, not in a religious government. of them are against this current regime in iran clearly and do not want a regime like that. of them joined my opinion that we like the regime in turkey, for example, which is a secular country but still muslim. we're still saying okay it's not about the religion it's about egypt. >> charlie: has the military lost its trust with the people in the square. >> the people, most of the people still have the biggest trust in the military. income the military's being accused now that they're siding with the muslim brotherhood, that they are siding with that and that but i personally believe in the end they will be
very happiy there's a balance parliament in the end, you know. i'm not so convinced they want an extreme parliament. there is a lot of people are worried and believe that there is some kind of decided muslim brotherhood and so on, there's a lot of talk about that, yes. >> charlie: but you tend to dismiss it? >> not dismissing it, i'm saying they might have a point of view in the current security situation in egypt it was wise to at least these people, you know, it's okay. i am let's say i believe that if we do our homework and the problem is many intellectuals think we have the luxury of time which we don't. that's been the most frustrating for me running with this party, people are taking time to think about their choices and we don't have a lot of time.
we have day zero and we have no time and we're confronted with a different regime you know. >> charlie: you think there could be a pro iranian regime in egypt? >> i think if the free egyptians, if all the liberal civil scholars thinkers, people of egypt don't move, there is a risk of that. for me this iranian regime is one of the worse regimes to be because they are shooting their people and their demonstrators, they are oppressing their own people. the people of iran deserve a much more better regime than the regime they have now. the second point they're using religion to corrupt, to steal to alienate and put the opposition? jail. i mean it's a regime that's worsen't than the old stalinist
re regimes we use to have. the minute 1,200 people on facebook start getting an idea they go through this houses they catch them and they disappear. it's one of the worst regimes. it's worse than gadhafi. >> charlie: tell me a scenario -- >> how can you be worse than gadhafi? how can you be worse? >> charlie: speaking of that, of leaders under siege, your own president mubarak, have you spoken with him? >> i have not spoken with him and i feel very sorry you know because i mean it's just, there's a lot of people on the street according for blood. i don't know if where this will take us, you know. i'm sure he made his mistakes but his life was null all mistakes. the economy during that period we had a good sense of direction in the economy.
he has been a peaceful man. any country next to us, we respected our agreements, you know. he had a balanced relation with the u.s. so not everything he did was bad. now if you go out to egypt on egyptian tv and say anything good about him, you're considered an enemy of the revolution. as if you need to say i'm not saying everything he did is right but you know, he deserves a word of honesty, you know. the only thing i would not change my mind about of course is the democracy during his time we did not have a democracy. three opinions were oppressed, we were all afraid to speak. this is a mistake you know. the last elections was a disaster. >> charlie: does much he need
a charismatic reformer to lead the revolution. >> today charisma is something important. i don't know why. it should not be the case because you want a sensible man who knows what we need in this country, a good head system, a good education, a good plan of a free economy that elevates the poverty, take the poor people up to become rich and doesn't take the rich down to be poor, you know. it's a very difficult formula. personally i will vote for someone without charisma who will have the right formula. it doesn't work like that i guess. >> charlie: you have someone in mind. forget the word charisma. is there a natural leader who everybody could rally behind in the election? >> we have two candidates and both of them are capable of doing the job in my opinion.
we have 20 candidates but two candidates i believe have a chance to win. the first candidate comes top with many people including myself. he has spoken against mubarak during his regime and paid the price through the tarnishing campaign that went against him and his family. he was accused of all ridiculous things that he's pro american and then pro iranian then he was accused of the funny part that his daughter was swimming with a swimming suit and had to wear n iranian gown. all sorts of slandering things. he was very clear. he did not change his position. he was the first one of taking the risk of opposing the regime and the highest power. the second candidate is more charismatic let's say, is more
popular because he had a very strong stand against israel and you know, in the arab world if you want to be popular you speak against israel and america. i always wondered how popular and i'm not against america so i got away with that, you know. but he gained a lot of popularity because of that and he's a very intelligent man. he has charisma and a lot of people like him. we have two candidates in my opinion they will be the ones in the final round. >> charlie: why don't you want to run for president? >> to be honest with you i'm just retiring my business and selling my business to a russian company. i want to relax my life. the reason i started this party i don't want to see my country end up in a iranian regime or outcome, you know. i'm fighting and now i'm working again 18 hours again to push
this party. i'm quite confident that we'll get there, we are getting immense numbers and a lot of success. but i don't want to keep my remaining years of my life struggling and like that. that's number one. number two there is a lot of silent minority that are very religious, the muslim mainly who will not be happy with christians heading a muslim countries. i try to explain to them countries don't have religions, people have religions. maybe sometime in life muslim will work for me but winning is not so high and i'm a very bad loser. i don't like to be a candidate and then lose. people tell me it's enough that you try. i'm doing best for the party. i know the party will not win the elections in majority but we will at least stand with a very good positioning and we will balance the parliament.
so in recent days trying to loosen the position and become more open by saying okay for cops and women and next day they say no we're not for cops and women. so i don't know where we'll land in the end. >> charlie: it's impossible for a christian to be elected in egypt. >> i think so yes. i think so. i think the odds of winning in the election is slim. i hope one cop wins because he needs to prove the point we are all equal and we all have the same rights. i just don't want to be the one. >> charlie: what is it that your party is about? is your party about the square. >> the problem is in the square you have different ways, okay. the square was united in the call for democracy and freedom, equity and better life for the
egyptians. now you have some fraction who are more on the left size who thinks the socialist is a good model. you have capitalists like myself who don't believe in socialism who believes it's a tailed system and believed clearly in a capitalistic system that has a social angle to it and can elevate the poor. you have others who are religious so you had the young muslim brotherhood movements religion believed it should be governed through islam. i'm not reflecting all these notions. our party is very clear. we are liberal, secular, civil, pro free economy and capitalism. and we are for equality, freedom and democracy. it's very clear, we have tried to be very precise, not even our aims and our principles are eight point which are written in a very short manner to be very
precise and very clear. >> charlie: how much of your own money is going into promoting and building this party? >> i threw in the joke to my fellow founders i'll match what everybody else will put. they said this doesn't work. they laughed and said no. our party everybody refused i become a higher contributor than the highest contributor. so right now we're a chipping in and i'm very luck to because many of us joined are working with me and my company and with other companies are coming from good many family. so they are all contributing to the funding and very generously i must say. i did not expect that. >> charlie: tell me what you think where the arab spring is today. >> well i hope we see libya soon come to a victory of the revolution there. i mean as usual in the west and they will tell you all the
excuses why we cannot interfere, why it's very delicate and so on. so we start by bombarding only the planes. we should stand request the free will of the libyans. we broke into the safe of his own country, took the cash and throw in cash to all of these mercenaries around him fighting his own people and shooting his own people. we should stand very firm against this man and this regime and stand with the free people and support the revolution. if i had my own army i would be there fighting on their side right now. >> charlie: you are urging the united states and france and united kingdom, as well as cutter and other countries to do more. >> what did you feel today when you heard the french went in and removed this president of ivory coast who just didn't want to respect democratic vote. it's the right thing to do. it's the right thing to do.
we need to leave today in a world that everybody who thinks he will manipulate his own people without any respects to rights. and democracy will be brought to justice even by force. i was so happy today when they got rid of that guy. this is the same thing that should happened with gadhafi, given 72 hours to leave with his kids and leave the country and stop the bloodshed. there's already enough blood on his hands, you know. >> charlie: what about bahrain. >> that's a more different situation. that's more of a security revolution. it is about a certain sect that requires more rights. i think they should do that more in a different manner. the king of bahrain nor is the
construct prince non-democratic people. they are democratic. they have a very high standard of life. you go to libya today it's the same way i saw it 50 years ago. do you know why that worked there and i went up to 40 years it was the same shambles country. you find 35 billion in the states, 35 billion in austria, and 42 in the uk. >> charlie: i'm struck by the fact that a few arab countries have come to the aid of the rebels and libya. >> yes. maybe some of them feel they have the same system. they're worried if they go and start to compare notes. i said that before when george bush was calling for democracy i said you're like singing to the wrong crowd. there's conflict of interest between democracy.
>> charlie: do you think there are other regime that will fall? >> yes, i have no doubt. i have no doubt. i think we'll is a some more movement in syria. maybe they will find a better way to handle the situation but this he have to reform and dismantle the security machine. already with blood on his hands, the problem is once you shot people and killed people and murders there, people are not going to stop. that's the mistake all these regimes do. they shoot people, they kill them. i know myself when i was young and demonstrations. the minute one guy was injured next to me, the anger gave me the power of a hundred people. the anger pushed me forward and i used to go and beat the hell out of the police. if you're human, then the first thing that moves you when someone has assaulted you. >> charlie: you hasaad well.
>> yes. >> charlie: do you think he will survive. >> judging by these events i don't think so. he's a very pleasant person when you meet him. he's very plight and definitely well brought up. he's quite intelligent. you'll like him when you see him. i don't wish to see his end in a bad manner but i can only tell him look here you are young, you might relate better to the younger people, you need to put the whole system, if you dismantle the whole system and the put it into a more x rated democracy maybe you can save the situation. but bullets and shooght at your own people, i don't think so. >> charlie: with respect to the arab spring, even though it's not an arab country, iran, i don't believe that regime can be overthrown? there can be regime change by
their own people in iran? >> look, i believe before the even of this year we will see the regime in iran that least being rocked, you know. now it will not happen without blood so the iranian people need to be prepared to die for their freedom because these revolution guards again privileged and highly paid motorcycles shooting at people, kidnapping pea he -- people on facebook. so unless we see like egypt, two or three million in one place and unless the army will think the same as the egyptian army and that is not to shoot against its own people, it will be difficult but i think we will see it without some rocking in iran. i really hope for them. these people are so beautiful and deserve a much more better
regime than this regime, you know. >> charlie: life has been very good to you and your family and you have worked very hard to earn it. when you put your life in context and look at what's happened in egypt and is happening across the middle east, is it by far the most interesting and exciting thing to happen to you? >> yes. i remember when this revolution started, i mean i took a very clear position with this revolution and as i told you my dad calls me and says what the hell are you doing. there's always a moment of truth, you need to stand with the right thing and this is the right thing for egypt and i was very happy. i'm very happy when i see what happens in libya. i've known these regimes. i had to deal with some of them. they deserve a better life than that. the problem is now how to salvage this revolution and we one to be like europe.
we want to have a real democracy. we do not want to have a religious state. we want to have a civilly run country with open mind and so on. we are quite a religious all of us, you know. it's a religious nature of our people that's very nice and very good but we don't want to be governed by the religion. >> charlie: and you think it's better than 50/50 that your party and people who think like you do will prevail rather than as you have suggested an iranian style takeover? >> no, i'm not so sure. i mean actually, i'm pessimistic and actually i had one principle in life which i'm violating for the first time. the principle says i always tell everybody i never lost a fight in my life so people tell me why are you superman. no, if the odds are against me winning, i won't start the fight. but that's the only one i'm
starting knowing that the odds are against me because at least i want to know i've tried and failed in this because i can't leave my country not feeling i've done my best. i think the odds for us winning are quite low. we're hoping for in the next parliament we can balance the constitutional parliament, you know, like left and right or religious and civil, stuff like that. >> charlie: you're more pessimistic than i expected you to be. >> it's because of, i know the other guys have been there have been organizeed for years. that's one of the biggest mistake of the mubarak he regime. they were not fighting the muslim brotherhood only they are fighting any liberal party that could have helped him. it was a polarization. it's either us devil one or devil two. which devil do you like more. we didn't like both. they disappeared and the other devil is still there.
so if i can lose the devil. i have nothing against the muslim brotherhood movement but i believe egypt deserves more than one choice. >> charlie: thank you for joining us. it's a pleasure to see you again. >> thank you. all the best. >> charlie: to an international correspondent who has covered him richard engel joins us now. he as you know nbc's chief northern correspondent. he has covered rack, lebanon and afghanistan and has just returned from eastern libya. before that he covered the uprising in egypt and tunisia. i'm pleased to have him back at this table. >> thank you very much. >> charlie: you heard naguib sawins say he's worried about the muslim brotherhood. >> he should be. they're an extremely patient organization. sheaf been held down by mubarak and the security services in
egypt and now those services are either gone or so weak and basically defending themselves. so logic will conclude the brotherhood will take over this situation. they can be influential. >> charlie: meaning do you think they will gain control over the egyptian government. >> over time they will gain enough control that they will have, it will set the tone for a lot of what happens in egypt. i don't think the muslim brotherhood necessarily wants to be president. they don't want to rule directly. they want to run the education system, they want to run the lawyer syndicates. and they're willing to wait 20 years, 50 years, a hundred years. so eventually will they have a lot of input in egypt? yes, certainly unless things change. as it is now, they know if they became president and suddenly there's a muslim brotherhood president of egypt, economic repercussions would be severe
and the international world would not like it. they would react negatively. if he this run all the basic structures in society the people who pick up your trash and teach your children, they can have a lot of power. >> charlie: also on this program is abdullah abdullah former foreign minister who you know well. his assessment of afghanistan is not optimistic either because principally he says of the corruption of the karzai regime. >> he should know very well. i was up there when he was running against karzai and that election was wildly corrupted. everyone knew it was corrupt. i was with un officials who were showing me the data how corrupt it was. yet the world and primarily the united states gave karzai a pass and let him steal that election. oorch of everyone, this is not new reporting. everybody said it at the time. i reported it on air that karzai was stealing the elections. one, if i remember correctly,
one in our votes had to be discounted because they were fraudulent. so he knows, he should know this first hand and it hasn't gotten better. >> charlie: what's the option for the united states? if karzai's president until 2014 and 2014 is the date that nato has set for nato forces to leave. >> well the problem is a lot of it has to do with karzai. the u.s. mission right now in afghanistan is to use military force which the u.s. has and under nato umbrella to beat back the taliban and other militant organizations there. so that karzai's government can establish control and it can function legitimately. that's the point. but karzai's government has proven to be so inept and so corrupt and so reviled that the u.s. in a certain sense is working for a goal that has not been even possible. it can fight the taliban and it can fight them as hard as it wants but u.s. soldiers have
suddenly become ambassadors for the karzai regime. i remembe walking around in places and soldiers were knocking -- american soldiers, guys from the mid west and young guys out of the west point and some women as well but not on these patrols. noning on world village doors and telling people we should really back up the government and back karzai. these soldiers, it's a terrible position to be in. they've come from texas and they've been now put to kendhar knocking door to door selling karzai to the people of afghanistan. it's a losing product. >> charlie: so therefore in your judgment should the united states stay there? and if we leave do we risk one more time the afghans saying well you abandoned us again. >> we would be abandoning them again if we left. karzai's government wouldn't be strong enough to survive and a civil war of sorts would almost
certainly begin again. with the taliban gaining control of its areas and the northern alliance and other former northern alliance parties breaking up and others, karzai, abdullah abdullah would be one of them forming their own little mini states within the country. that's an acceptable option or outcome then the u.s. should leave. if not, then they should try and stay. but selling, using american soldiers to sell karzai to the people, karzai needs to do infinitely better to make the american, that job even possible. >> charlie: let me turn to libya. the african union had a deal they proposed to gadhafi and they proposed it to the rebels. what do we make of that. >> that was no deal. the african union and i hate to say this but a lot of the african union leaders in libya's pocket in gadhafi's pocket for years. they've been literally in their
pocket. they take money from libya and have been for a long time. whenever there was a meeting of the african union and gadhafi was in charge, they would even up getting large sacks of money. so he's owned this organization for some time and they've been incredibly quiet up until now there's been very little condepartment nation. >> charlie: there is a perception there's a stalemate today. >> militarily there's a stalemate. nato is set up to fail. it's not strong enough to let the rebels win and it's not strong enough to let the rebels lose. you can have a safe haven but we're not going to defend you as you march board and let you have a military victory. and we're not going to have advisors on the ground which president obama said numerous times, real advisors, military advisors which is very dangerous because you get this friendly fire. it's designed for stalemate. it is design -- >> charlie: what does that
mean, a long civil war, does that mean that gadhafi remains in power in tripoli or that part of libya. >> yes, that's what it mains. there's a coup carried out against gadhafi but militarily there's a stalemate because the anyway toa -- military rebels -- >> charlie: what about somebody carrying out an assassination or counterrevolution within. >> i have no idea. it doesn't seem very likely. it's very hard to read within gadhafi's center circle. >> charlie: let me talk about syria there's some protests. some people think that's serious, do you. >> yes it's very serious. if you look at the governments that have fallen, egypt and tunisia. syria has the most in common with these governments. it's an educated urban country where the government is run by a
single family where there was an issue of the son not being as strong as the father. a lot of what happened in egypt is they didn't want the son to take over from the father. mubarak wasn't that hated on the street frankly. it was the idea that oh no, the son who is pretty young, we're going to get another 30 years of him and all of his cronies and that upset people. the son in syria is not as strong as the father and it's a military or a security regime in an urban population, and that is now decided that they're going to keep this revolt going. >> charlie: what does all this mean for israel? >> i think it means, and this is what we were talking about. i think this is a real problem down the road for israel. there's a good side of bringing more democracy and people power to the region because there have been a lot of abuses and corruption. but there's also a real potential negative side, and if
unchecked, i think this entire chaos that we've been seeing in the region right now leads to war with israel. >> charlie: it leads to war with israel. >> yes, it leads to war. >> charlie: who is on the other side. >> you've empowered the street, you've empowered the public opinion on the ground and public opinion is ferociously anti-jewish. there's a policy with gaza, propaganda that remember forced down the people throats by their own regimes for decades. so you have these isn'tments -- >> charlie: one of the reasons in which they stayed this power. >> no do you think these regimes used this anti-semitism to deflect public opinion away, no doubt. whatever the reason is, it's there and as you empower the street more, logic would also dictate you're giving more power to the peoe who hold these opinions sooner or later it's
going to lead to a conflict with israel. when i was in ben gazi and you seawalls down with gadhafi, he's a dog and terrible thing dictator. but you also see lots of anti-jewish, lots of anti-israeli, israel, jewish trader. you see gadhafi's name in a star of david. we were driving down the road the man leans into our car, he's a rebel and says we're going to liberate tripoli and then we're going to libel rate the people of gaza in egypt. when the people were in tahrir square. all the time we saw after they would burn a security vehicle, that was associated with mubarak forces, it would be burned -- >> charlie: nothing could help the united states better than to see some kind israeli palestinian settlement. >> yes. they need one analysis because when you would see these burned out vehicles in egypt, they would then put a star of david on the burned out vehicles, a
stamp that this was a bad thing, an evil vehicle, they had burned it because it was associated with jewish identity and israel. this whole backlash i think will come to roost. yes, if things can change to find some sort of israel palestinian solution and find it quickly. >> charlie: thank you for coming. >> my pleasure. >> charlie: richard engel chief correspondent for nbc news. from businessman naguib sawins and foreign correspondent richard engel we end up request abdullah abdullah who ran against karzai. he served for five years as foreign minister. this is part how far our continuing series about afghanistan and america's war there. i'm please to do have dr. abdullah abdullah back on
this broadcast. welcome. >> thank you. thank you charlie. >> charlie: tell me how you see afghanistan today. >> in terms of karzai government in itself has turned into a problem rather than being part of the solution. that's i think the main challenge for the people of afghanistan, as well as friends of afghanistan, the international community through the united states. it is now because he it's part of the problems. in terms of the transition and transition of security responsibilities through the afghan side, it will be difficult to envision that the transition will take place is going to take place timely. negotiations with the taliban and consolation, that in itself has not been defined by
anybody -- everybody is talking about it and nobody has worked out how it works in real term in a situation where taliban are thinking of bringing the state down and the state institutions rather than getting ready to be accommodated. >> charlie: so your recommendation to the united states would be what? >> i would say that rather than jumping into the idea of reconciling with the taliban on the idea of helping afghanistan to establish a democratic system in a function of government try to stand by the process and also regain the trust of the people of afghanistan because in today's situation, the lack of trust between the people and the
government of afghanistan, between the government of afghanistan and the international community. the international community and the people of afghanistan has a confusing situation that the enemies of all of us, the enemies of the people of afghanistan as well as the international community are the capitalizing on this and cal ban is gaining strength. the united states should revisit so of its policies. to the people of afghanistan is proved that the support is not just one person or one group of people but rather the people of afghanistan. into this situation the people are thinking, the afghans are thinking, what happens they will be supportive of mr. karzai and his government and the parliament of the people of afghanistan. i'm not saying that this is the actual case but this is the perception of the people of
afghanistan. and that needs to be changed. >> charlie: the dilemma for the united states and the nato countries is that essentially they have targeted 2014 at which time of again governments will reach a point where they can withdraw, correct? >> that's right. that's this target. >> charlie: that's this target. hamid karzai will be president until 2014. and he's going to be mainly responsible for the government. so it's a huge dilemma, is it not? >> that's right. he will be the president until 2014. as i mentioned earlier, i'm pretty sure that he will make attempts in order to stay beyond 2014. according to the constitution of afghanistan, you can't do that, but he might just create an urgency situation or resorting to emergency provisions in the constitution. but at the same time, his failure to deliver to the people
of afghanistan, to bring good governments, to fight against corruption, that had made the prospect of the transition even more difficult and more difficult as we move on. also, the fact that he's putting all the blame against the international community, he's inciting the people and provoking the people. there were a few many examples like what happened in the demonstrations. so that's also in another sense taking the enemies in place of friends and friends in place of the enemies. for him the enemy number one and international community number two is the loyal opposition. in taliban he calls the taliban its brothers. so when a leader of the country loses sense of direction in a complicated situation is what you get. >> charlie: listen to this.
this is from reporting on the administration's response to the kabul bank scandal. after months of smarting with karzai the u.s. administration appears to be paralyzed. we have to work with these people a senior nato officer told me. we have no choice but to work with a man you say is corrupt and has no capacity to win the support of the afghan people. >> of course this situation is also man made situation, noting the wide-spread fraud in the 2009 elections. and also failing to prevent massive fraud before the elections were taking place, is reason forgetting stuck with two days situation. >> charlie: what should the united states do about president
karzai? >> stand firm when it comes to the issues of governance, good governance, supporting democratic progression. bring coherence in the policies of the international community rather than flip flopping on these issues, giving the right message, on a coherent consistent message to the people of afghanistan because sometimes the policies are perceived in the eyes of the people of afghanistan. appeasement, sometimes there are tensions between both sides. if there is a consistency in dealing with this government and its policies, by the united states, the government of afghanistan president karzai will get the right message. if there are inconsistencies,
continue with the mess. >> charlie: you've just suggested that the united states is not sending a consistent message. >> yes. not all the times gu frequently we have been witness to this. >> charlie: general petraeus seems to believe that what he has to do is get the taliban on the defensive. >> the continuation of military pressure is needed. at the same time to think that because of military pressure, taliban will turn to negotiating table. this is a little bit unrealistic i should say. tale pan groups will continue fighting as long as they have sanctuaries outside of taliban and they have an organization that does not call for them to be part of a negotiated
settlement if they kill innocent people, they think that they go to paradise. if they are being filled by fame. they should be understood. >> charlie: this is thomas pickering former secretary of state -- were heading of an afghan possibility and here is what mr. pickering said on this program. >> i think we didn't come to your table to say the taliban are simply plement did. if we came to your table charlie to say look there are pressures on the taliban that are building up, more weariness, people who don't like their strict moral code smg there are things that the taliban have begun to move on, they're not eliminating all women schools, that kind of thing. there's an opening here. when you're in a stalemate or a deep hole it may be time to stop digging. >> charlie: when you hear tom
pickering say that, do you agree with him or is he uninformed. >> i think he needs to be better than informed. while i accept the logic, the logic might apply to other situations but not to the taliban. the idea of taliban changing their policies on women on education, that's absolutely out of question when it comes to the taliban and the taliban leadership. they have not said it, they have not done anything to prove that that's the right conclusion. i would say as far as ambassador and thomas pickering's analysis and work is concerned, i've seen that. it doesn't suggest any fundamental solution are for the problem. it doesn't define the policy of
reconciliation but it's based on assumptions, which is in most cases do not match the realities of afghanistan. my concern is that by everybody talking about reconciliation and reintegration without looking at it thoroughly in a fundamental manner, we are creating a situation that this is like the life circling around and then that becomes a truth or in the eyes of the people becomes the truth. now i don't agree with that conclusion. and it's i think a sort of remote judgment of a situation which is totally different when you look at it on the ground. >> charlie: you imagine any circumstances that can get the pakistani government to do something about eliminating a
safe haven for the taliban in pakistan. >> it seems to me that they're a bit further away from making that decision. a sort of decision which pakistan needs to make, not just for the interest of afghanistan or the international community. but for its own interest based on the lessons of the past few years. the simple lesson would be the stronger afghani taliban the stronger will be the pakistani taliban. and they're fighting against pakistani taliban and they are forming groups which are dying together and killing together and the basis, the quote of their ideology is the same, the agenda is the same sort of support and income in linkages
with the international are the same. they cannot make that distinction between the two groups but unfortunately they continue to do so. >> charlie: do you think the level of strikes by the u.s. military is necessary and productive? >> in most cases, majority of cases i would say yes, that eliminating leadership of the al-qaeda and taliban true strikes their commanded control structure in a serious manner, it is necessary and i think that's, on that basis publicly our friends in pakistan agree with this policy or not. but i'm sure there is an
agreement on that. so if it is not sufficient, that's a different issue but it has eliminated some of the most dangerous threats to peace and stability especially in that region. >> charlie: do you believe that most of the american forces will be able to leave by 2014? >> i have no doubt that there will be a reduction in number of the american troops by 2014. whether it will be very significant reduction or not, that remains to be seen. the and if the failure's' in afghanistan continues, if the situation in pakistan continues as it is, how is it that we can achieve that goal without jeopardizing the sacrifices, the
achievements which are there because of the sacrifices of the african people, as well as the american troops men and women. it seems to me very difficult to envision that. >> charlie: dr. abdullah abdullah thank you so much. the pleasure to have you on the broadcast. >> you're welcome. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
IN COLLECTIONSKQED (PBS) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on