Sir William Patey - British Ambassador to Kabul, 2010-2012 (Retired) HARDtalk

Muslim men and police. -- men and always. It is time for HARDtalk. As

the Western military intervention in Afghanistan failed? This

question hangs over the summit in Chicago. The political leaders set

the seal on a up military retreat while pledging one-term support for

the Afghanistan government. I guessed has just retired as British

ambassador in Kabul. Did the west misjudge this balance between war

Welcome to the show. Until recently you were the British ambassador off

in Kabul. No better than anybody the price the British forces are

still paying inside Afghanistan. Can you say you still believe

that's the price worth paying? obviously a tragedy for any family

to lose a loved one. I know that myself. I preferred to write to the

families of famine and women who have given our lives. Every time I

write to the families I tried once that question is it worth it? My

conclusion is yes. I try to get the sense of what it is we have tried

to achieve in Afghanistan and the prospect of success. I think we are

in line to deliver a withdrawal of British troops and international

troops and leave Afghanistan in a state where it can make progress

and build itself into a more stable state. Having repeated Al-Qaeda and

getting rid of the Taliban. does appear to be a lack of co-

ordination and coherence to the strategic vision of the Western

powers and its best seen in the different messages and timescales

we see when we discuss when to withdraw the forces and how quickly.

I do not agree. I was struck by that, the contrast in Iraq where I

was the ambassador during a difficult period. There is a level

of international coherence. That laid a foundation for agreement to

a transition and wider combat troops will be out by 2014.

things have changed since then. The US Defence Secretary took everybody

by surprise same the US will be out by 2013. Now we have a new

President in France, Francois Hollande saying the French will be

a soon. He clarified that saying the mission will evolve. It will

not be over. We always spoke about 2013 as a milestone. The

responsibility for security throughout the country will be

taken over by the Afghan troops. That will happen in the middle of

2013. The mission will be more a support role. At the end of the

combat role that will be 2014. The you're a diplomat. That's a

diplomatic answer. Douglas Alexander has used the phrase she -

- phrase a disorderly exit. I think we have a plan, the Lisbon plant,

it's still in place. Nobody assumes that all of the troops will remain

at the same levels right up until December 2014. It was always assume

that people would withdraw at different times. Forgive my

interruption that you seem to miss my point Which is the politics

driving this process. Boy example Australia. A few thousand troops

there. Julia Gillard said they will be pulled out a round the time of

the next Australian election, the middle of next year. The unpleasant

whiff of politics and self interest in this strategy one person said.

It's ludicrous to think politics does not play a part. Every country

wants to sell its timetable in the best political way for the domestic

audience and that is inevitable. But I don't give represents a

disorderly retreat. The American troops represent the overwhelming

majority of forces they are. Withdrawal will determine the

strategy. With all due respect to the other countries, they are part

of a broader alliance. Any single country does not defeat this

strategy. The Americans have the overwhelming presence. There will

be a reduction of troops this year and next year and all troops will

be out by 2014. We will stick to the plan. Many countries may

deviate a bit. The overall plan is in place. It's dangerous to stick

to this plan to remove all forces by 2014 when the Afghan government

and the national security forces are not capable as we see it today

of stepping into the breach and fulfilling that responsibility.

disagree. Maybe not today but we have a plan to give them two more

years. But it had this planned for many years and you have always said

it with your predecessors and many other top officials at have assured

me year by year that things will get better. Look at the record. In

the last two years, the record of infiltration by the Taliban and

insurgents. See how much worse that is getting. You say nothing has

happened. Three years ago at the was hardly anything to speak of. If

they said it was fine on afraid that was not. I'm saying that

within a few years we will deliver a reliable Afghan security force.

would have sent three years ago that within a few years, 2014, they

will be an Afghan force capable of maintaining security and taking

over from the international forces. Frankly we have only been at this

for about three years. The Afghan forces only began being built up

about three years ago. It has now reached its peak. That will be

knocked over this year. That is police and national forces. It will

be a split between them. That will not be set. It will evolve. If

there was a political settlement with the Taylor Dent you would need

fewer troops. You've just come back from Kabul. Explain to me why so

many acts of violence and problems against NATO forces by the forces

wearing the uniform of the Afghan National Army for the police?

you talking about attacks on NATO? Most of that is done by the Taliban.

There are some acts, with 330,000 Afghan troops. The start incidents

that have happened this year. is a place where there is conflict

and stress and all kinds of disputes and arguments and personal

acts to be played out. If you take these troops in contact with

coalition troops and the Afghan troops, 16 is not that many. There

is people are supposed to be partners. And in interview the

other day, he said that we now need to take special precautions

whenever we run a joint offer that operation with the Afghans. That is

not symptomatic of trust? Any death, green or blue is regrettable. If

there are things you can do to avoid this you will do it. That's

what he was talking about. Taking special precautions to make sure

somebody does arrive. I seen it in Helmand Province. Despite previous

incidents, the troops get along very well. Day today, they train

together with joint operations and the British troops told me that

they have a great deal of respect and admiration for most of the

Afghans. It's difficult when you and others need to defend the

resources and billions of dollars spent into that Afghan security

forces and then you see things like this. This quote from our

correspondent in Kabul. He said, the reality is that the Afghan

security forces sell their bullets in the marketplace to the highest

bidder and that includes the Taliban or other insurgents and we

pay for weapons turned up on our own soldiers. The general in

Helmand Province is leading troops there and leading the minute into

battle and pushing the Taliban out of previously held territory. There

are lot of examples of the Afghans stepping up. Nobody will dispute

that. There are lot of good troops in the Afghan army but the issue is

if there is a fundamental problem with corruption. Corruption inside

these forces and inside the Government that issues orders to

those security forces which undermines the whole enterprise.

Would you except that? Corruption is a huge problem in Afghanistan.

It's throughout the country. Is it won of the most important factors

in making this enterprise or difficult? I have said many times,

unless the Afghans do more to tackle the corruption and more to

stem the corruption then the ability to achieve what we want and

what they want will become more difficult. We to address that point

about the people issuing orders, political waters, to the military

commanders, and that they are under a cloud of corruption. The people

at the top of the power pyramid in Kabul. The people that you needed

to meet with. Would you accept that many of them at the top under a

sustained cloud of corruption? at the top, talking about President

Karzai, and people around him, I think he tolerates corruption more

than he should as the President for political reasons. There's a sense

of the balance of power there being maintained. Perhaps he is more

reluctant to go after certain people. With that include his own

family? He has been quite good at going up his own family. What

lessons did you learn about the banking scandal in Kabul. People

very close to the top of that pyramid were implicated, politely,

the loss of over $900 million. was the theft of $900 million. It

was a brazen theft. You know the suspicion points to people very

close to the President. Yes, his own brother and the vice-

president's brother, they were the beneficiaries of big loans, there

could be called dodgy. This is a litmus test. It is still being

played out. I have made this clear to the President that how the bank

crisis is resolved will be a litmus test for the west in taking this

corruption at face value. A number of things have happened. The

president's brother and the vice- president's brother have things to

answer for and money to repay. Meanwhile they are still running

around Kabul with other key players in the scandal doing what they have

always done in couple enjoying the good life. The main key players

around the house arrest. They may face trial. House arrest means

something different in Afghanistan and London. But pick up on this

idea that you have faith in President Karzai. Before -- a

former US diplomat, after leaving Afghanistan in controversial

circumstances said that in his view, as in Kasai's he is emotional and

off balance. They can never win their the cause there is

I know him well, I would not always agree with his opinions. The

mistake to make is assuming that Afghanistan is Hamid Karzai. I

think he's doing a good job. But we do not have to rely on him. He will

be the president until 2014, then and there will be at a new election.

We have to worry about the institutions. We should not invest

everything in one man. That man has said he will leave in 2014 and I

believe him. There is the question of establishing an inclusive

political process and bring those outside the process into it. I am

talking about the insurgent movement, the Taliban. I'm getting

very mixed messages about whether the Western powers, led by the US,

warned a negotiating process, a dialogue with the Taliban or not.

Absolutely. I do not think there is a mixed message. The only people

who do not wanted are the Taliban. The Americans have made it clear

they support an Afghan lead process. They offered the Taliban... We have

seen the Obama Administration withdraw the offer to release five

Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. The military in the US is

blocking any meaningful negotiation between the US and the Taliban.

is wrong. I have dealt closely with General David Petraeus, I put this

to him. The world thinks you are against peace and reconciliation.

He said, I am not. I just do not believe the Taliban will do

anything about it. I said, OK, make sure you speak up in favour of

reconciliation. The problem is the Taliban are still believe that when

coalition troops are withdrawn in 2014 they can retake Kabul by force.

Until they changed that mine said, some of them have, there is no

opportunity for negotiation. -- mindset. The real problem is that

from the outset there has been too much emphasis by NATO on the war-

fighting, on the military option, not enough emphasis on diplomatic

solutions. The Taliban were excluded from the political process

from the very get ago. We cannot get into a time machine and go back

to 2001. They were excluded. What I saw when I was there, was a real

commitment. Hillary Clinton made a real surge for peace. The Americans

have been at great pains to create circumstances for a dialogue with

the Taliban. The reality is, the Taliban have not responded. The

Taliban responded by assassinating a professor when he was trying to

make peace. That was their response. Frankly, you might as well say,

look at the US and what they do on the ground. For example, we have

seen their troops the filing Taliban copses. We have seen

Americans burn the Koran. That is not part of the American military

strategy. The international strategy is to keep up military

pressure on the Taliban to buy time for the Afghan National Army to

develop and take over. To convince the Taliban and there is only a

political solution. If we have a ceasefire, the Taliban will think

they have one. Isn't the problem, the West sees a good Taliban and

bad Taliban? Until there is an acceptance that you need to

negotiate with the entirety of the Taliban, it will not go anywhere.

The differentiation we have made is between those who want to talk and

those who want to fight. Nobody has suggested... There is nothing to

stop. People like him could have respected positions as senior

leaders. Your American colleagues, they are totally on board with

that? They do not believe he will... They have not put any limits on it.

There are no limits on who can reconcile. The only principles that

have to be abided by a those made by Hamid Karzai. Things like

Amnesty and ceasefire will come lately. I mentioned Pakistan. In

the end we cannot have a discussion about the future of Afghanistan

without looking at Pakistan. Did it strike you as very odd that

throughout your time in Kabul, we saw a deterioration of the most

important relationship NATO could have, Islamabad? You need to get

Pakistan on board for a peaceful future for Afghanistan. It has been

a roller-coaster. We have seen a deterioration in US-Pakistan

relations. We have seen a deterioration in the Afghan-

Pakistan relations. It is a terrible diplomatic failure. Your

job is to build bridges. Let me finish. I was going to say, great

efforts have been made to reverse that situation. The Afghan-Pakistan

relations are much better. They have resumed contact. We have seen

the Americans, Afghans and Pakistanis have was -- resumed

dialogue. Hopefully we will see a strengthening. It is essential for

peace. It is. The ISI continues to manipulate, used as proxies some of

the most important fighting insurgents inside Afghanistan. If

we assume that to be true, what would you do with the Pakistan

problem? I think we have to engage the Pakistanis. Make sure they are

inside the tent. The Pakistanis have feared that something was

going on behind their back which might be to the detriment of their

interest. Openness and transparency with the Pakistanis. I think that

is happening now. The Afghans accept that... To all of them?

Enough of them. If we cut to the chase, Afghanistan's feature is not

the problem. -- future. There is open talk of civil war as Western

forces pull out. There is going to be a wave of attacks by the Taliban

if there is no meaningful peace process now. We expect the wave of

attacks. The Taliban have said they are going to have a summer

offensive. The previous offensive was a damp squid. What has docked

the Taliban from talking, we cannot make them. -- stopped. They say the

Pakistanis are stopping them. Frankly, they know Western forces

are leaving. They see no reason to talk any more. I think that is part

of the calculation. We come back to the beginning of the conversation,

has Western strategy worked? depends who wins. Everybody in the

West says we cannot win. A senior Afghan once told me, very close to

the President, he did not think the Taliban would negotiate. Not until

they were defeated by an Afghan force in Kandahar. We are creating

the conditions for that to happen. The Taliban will be met by a