President Karzai talks to Yalda Hakim BBC News Special

at the top of the hour, it now though, and one of his last major

interviews as president of Afghanistan, Hom and Karzai speaks

to the BBC's Yalkda Hakim. `` Hamid Karzai.

Afghanistan has come a long way from 2001, from the almost premodern days

of the Taliban, but it has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and

tens of thousands of lives, and as the Afghans argue with Americans

about a bilateral security agreement, its president continues

to be an ally one day and then append the next. , Karzai has had

trouble relationships with Western countries. He has often had very

different objectives. Now there is only six months left until elections

for his successor, so what does he really think about the United

States, the Taliban, Britain's war in Helmand Mister Mark `` hell man?

I have come to the presidential palace to meet him. There is no

doubt that the country has grown, developed and come a long way in the

last 12 years. Why then do the Americans, President Obama, called

you and unreliable, ineffective partner? They call me and unreliable

partner because where they want us to go along we do not go along. They

want us to keep silent when civilians are killed and stop we

will not, we cannot. This is our country. It is my job to protect the

Afghan people. They want us to agree to their terms for relationships. We

have our own interests. Naturally, in a situation like that, they would

call is not an ally, as we would call them not an ally. Is it not the

case that your relationship with President Bush was better than your

relationship with President Obama, because his main focus has been the

exit strategy? How has that been for you? It is not personal. I had a

very good president `` relationship with President Bush, but this

beginning years, there was not much difference of opinion between us,

and we had not experienced what we experienced laser and with `` what

we experienced later on. The worsening of relations began

actually in 2005, where we saw the first incidence of civilian

casualties, where we saw that the war on terror was not conducted

where it should have been, which was in the sanctuaries, in the training

grounds, rather than that, the US forces were in Afghan villages,

causing harm to the Afghan villages `` and people. They tried to attack

me in their media and also in their politics, to weaken me and my

resolve and render me helpless in Afghanistan. It did not happen. The

Afghan people thought other ways. It is not that we do not want to have a

relationship. We want to have a relationship, a relationship where

Afghanistan is respected, the Afghan people I respected, the interests of

the Afghan people are taking in mind, and the dignity of human life

is considered worthy of attention. That is what we want. We are not

trying to do things that run counter to their interests, but the

interests of the US, they must not be at the cost of the Afghan people.

You have also been criticised for talking the talk talk with your own

audience here in Afghanistan, and appearing to tough talk with the

Americans, but at the end of the day, they will do what they want.

They are able to do that because they have the means to it. We do not

have the means to it. The only thing that we have is a voice, our voice,

and that we use. Beyond that, we have no other means. The bilateral

security agreement, let's talk about that. That defines the US and Afghan

relationship. At the moment you are negotiating. What is your bottom

line? This is a very important document. In this document, we are

to provide the United States with nine bases in Afghanistan. With

certain arrangements in Afghanistan. And those arrangements

should not run counter to the sovereignty of Afghanistan. Another

crucial thing in this is immunity, the legal protection from Afghan law

for any remainder American soldiers to stay here beyond withdrawal. The

Americans will never leave if they do not have that community. The ``

that immunity. If the immunity does not run counter to Afghan

sovereignty, and if it does not provide them the rights to go and

fire at Afghan homes, launch attacks against Afghan homes, the Afghan

people will consider how to grant that, but in order to have that

happen, the Afghan people must be sure that security and peace is

brought and that's violations are not brought by them and Afghan lives

or Afghan property. So it is possible for an American soldier to

kill an Afghan family, as has happened in the past, and they may

not be prosecuted here in Afghanistan stop. Is impossible.

That would be considered a premeditated murder. Immunity

can... If it is provided, it can only be provided when an American is

on his official duties and during the performance of his duties by

accident. Who determines this accident? This has to be thought

out. These are issues that we are still working on. They could be on

tour of duty, they could shoot an Afghan. Who determines then that it

was a mistake or an accident Mister Mark these are issues that we are

still working out, and that is why we have not reached an agreement

yet. I know you are in a difficult position. You cannot Tommy whether

American soldiers will have immunity from Afghan law. After brutality.

Dylan acro they will not have immunity from aft damn lot...

All of these issues, all of these comments concerning immunity are

still under discussion. We have not yet reached an agreement. At the end

of the day, and Americans will do what they want, and if you push too

hard, they may not stay. Is that something that worries you? If the

agreement does not suit us, they can leave. The agreement has two suits

Afghanistan's interests and purposes. . If it does not suit us,

and if it does not suit them, then naturally, we will go our separate

ways. If this agreement does not provide Afghanistan peace and

security, the Afghans will not want it. That is very clear. If this

agreement does not provide Afghanistan to Georgy and peace, the

Afghans will not want it. That is the only reasons the Afghans would

ever agree to the presence of foreign forces beyond 2014. What

would you like to see the British forces do here? Written does not

want to have a large presence in Afghanistan. They want to stay in

train our forces, especially our military and police. They have

already began to build a nice Sandhurst type institution for us,

for which we are rightful. Could US ask for me what went right and what

went wrong for the British here in Afghanistan? What went wrong was of

course the casualties of their forces, for which we are sorry. That

is also exactly what went wrong for Afghanistan. We had so many

casualties of our people. They spent their money more accurately, in

better places, and through the Afghan... And the criticism and

feelings that were experienced in Helmand Mister Mark it is not only

Britain. It is not only Britain. On the security front, the entire

exercise was one that cost Afghanistan a lot of suffering and a

lot of loss of life, and no games, because the country is not secure.

`` no gains. What we wanted was absolute security and a clear cut

were against terrorism. If there were politics played it, it was by

the whole lot of NATO and the United States. Britain was not alone in

that. You said that relationships reached rock bottom a number of

times, and you have made some extraordinary claims against the

Americans. You said earlier this year that after an attack, those

bonds said `` set up in the name of the Taliban with the service... What

were you thinking when you set that? I was thinking exactly the

same thing. I was thinking the words that I said. I meant what I said.

What are you implying? This means... You see, let's put it this

way so I can explain it better. When we began to speak of 2014, when we

began to speak of the transition, when we began to speak of the

strategic partnership and the security agreement of the United

States, and when 2014 became the deadline for that, the Western media

began to undermine confidence in Afghanistan. They began to tell the

Afghan people that if the US is not here, they would have daggers drawn

at each other. If the US is not there, they would be dying of

starvation. If the US is not there, they would be in Civil War to stop

all things would go wrong. That was wrong. They were doing that in order

to force us to agree to the terms and conditions that they set for

their documents. It was not just the Western media. The US special envoy

to Afghanistan and Pakistan said that Afghanistan is already in a

state of civil war. He was wrong, and I read two President Obama about

that. If Afghanistan was in a civil war, then the United States was

conducting a war in Afghanistan with one Afghan against the other

Afghan, and the Afghans would never allow for power to come into play

one Afghan against the other. Therefore, the whole state of the

United States and NATO and Afghanistan in the past 12 years

becomes illegitimate and an interference in Afghanistan's

internal affairs. If this war is not a war on terror, if this war is not

a war against Al`Qaeda, and if they are here to side with one Afghan

against another Afghan, then this becomes an interference in our

internal affairs. The US president, from President Bush to President

Obama, they have repeatedly said they are here to defend their

interests and security. But when you say that statement, that in the name

of the Caliban they work for the Americans, are you implying that

they support the Caliban `` Taliban. It would be a very serious statement

if I said that directly. But I can tell you this. In the country, in

the villages of Afghanistan, a lot of people believe that the supplies

are given by the foreign forces. Are these conspiracies? This has been

coming to us for a long time, and I have raised this in comments and

with Western powers. In the countryside people believe that the

Taliban are being kept from across our borders. Also the day before

yesterday I received a report from the governor near Kandahar that in

one district, in one village, the NATO helicopters dropped containers

in an area which is beyond the reach of the Afghan government. We are

investigating this. To potentially support the Taliban? What else could

it be? If there are drops of containers, in that area, from the

helicopters, and they land there and they bring in things, where the

Afghan government is not present, the Afghan forces are not present,

what else would it be? In any case we are not saying this is exactly

how it is, that they are doing this to support the Taliban, we are just

bewildered and confused. The Afghan people do not know what it is that

is happening here, whether there is really a war on terror, or an effort

to create instability to find reason to continue the presence here. After

billions of dollars have been spent and thousands of US and NATO troops

have been killed on the intention could be something else? Probably.

We are not saying that it is something else. We are simply not

clear about the intentions. This lack of clarity that drives you in

different directions. Direction one, this is generally a war against

terrorism, direction too, it is not. What it is can only be a broader,

bigger, international thing. For example, in the peace process when

we bring the Taliban to Afghanistan in the pursuit of peace, suddenly we

find them taken as prisoners. Be part of this country's prosperity

and peace, and participate in the revision of this country. In this,

if the Taliban have reasons for which they cannot come, they must

spell this out as to what it is that prevents them from coming. If it is

the Afghan constitution, they must come and talk to us, and allow the

Afghan people, through the mechanisms that we have, to amend

the Constitution. Other than that, we see no reason for them not to be

in the country. According to the Constitution of

Afghanistan, they can vote in elections wherever they want. Yes,

as Afghans, they are welcome to the Afghan garment come alike all other

Afghans. A British or an American audience watching this would wonder,

what does all this for Mister Mark 12 years of fighting and the Taliban

would just walk back in and be a part of government. When the

Americans have told us to ourselves, in Washington in my last visit, that

the Taliban are not their enemies, that they will not attack the

Taliban anymore, and we welcome that, and our question then was,

well, then, who is your enemy? They say they are here to fight Al`Qaeda

and their affiliates. They want to have bases here in order to continue

their fight against Al`Qaeda and their affiliates. The The West is

saying to us now that they are here to fight the Taliban and Al`Qaeda

for the last 12 years, but now they are not here to fight the Taliban,

that's beyond 2014, they will not be fighting the Taliban, that they will

only be concentrating on Al`Qaeda and their affiliates, who are very

few in number, they say, in Afghanistan. So Al`Qaeda is not a

threat in Afghanistan or its borders? We have asked this

question, if you say you are here to fight Al`Qaeda from 2014 onwards on

the and nobody else, then how strong is Al`Qaeda? If there are less than

100 and Afghanistan, that is a very insignificant force. It is

individuals, it is not a force. This country needs to have peace. You

have witnessed the village, the people who were killed by the US

soldier last year. There are daily losses to the Afghan people every

day in our villages, either by the Taliban or in attacks against them

by the Afghan Government or the US forces. Right now we have women in

the cities benefiting from the freedoms and the opportunities that

the new government has given. In the villages of Afghanistan, Afghan

women suffer like hell. Don't those women also have the right to be part

of a better future? Don't do those little girls also have the right to

go to school and to have safety and security? Or should part of our

country be in peace and prosperity and the other part of our country,

little girls cannot go to school? So women in Afghanistan should not have

the fear of the return of the Taliban? None at all. I can speak

with absolute confidence on that, on behalf of the Afghan people. Let's

talk about the election process. There are a number of very good and

capable candidates. Who do you see as a likely successor? I cannot say

that. The only thing that I have done so far is to arrange an

election that is national, that brings the Afghan people together,

that brings people together, joining hands with one another, so we can

have a national scene of candidacy for presidency and vice presidency

and the Afghan people can decide. There is not a single living Afghan

leader. They have all been killed in a very violent way. Are you

concerned about her safety when you leave office? Not at all. I will be

safe, and when the time comes, I will not be there, it is not a

concern. Will you stay in Afghanistan? Shore. The government

is building a house for me just behind this office. A better house

than the one I have now. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Good to talk to you. Thank you.