Ahmad Wali Massoud, head of the Massoud Foundation and brother of the late Afghan war hero Ahmad Shah Massoud, believes the Taliban has reemerged with such strength because the Afghan government in Kabul is weak, divided, and corrupt.
Speaking to Rudaw English correspondent Robert Edwards in the Afghan capital Kabul in the run up to Afghanistan’s September 28 presidential election, Massoud said a hasty US departure would be a mistake, leaving the country vulnerable to again becoming an incubator for global terrorism.
His brother Ahmed Shah Massoud was celebrated for his military prowess while defending his native Panjshir Valley from repeated Soviet attack in the 1980s. After the Taliban seized power in ’96, Massoud returned to the mountains as commander of the Northern Alliance.
In April 2001, he went to Europe in search of funding to sustain his war. Addressing the European Parliament in Strasbourg, he warned the West would pay a heavy price if it allowed extremism to fester in Afghanistan.
Five months later, he was murdered by Al-Qaeda assassins – just two days before 9/11. His surviving brother says his warning is just as relevant today.
Click here to watch Rudaw’s feature length documentary – Afghanistan: The Missing Peace
READ MORE: Afghanistan: The Missing Peace – Part VI: The Lion of Panjshir
Rudaw: Why has the Taliban refused to talk directly with the Afghan government? Called the election illegitimate?
Ahmad Wali Massoud: Well, for a very simple reason. Because the government of Afghanistan is weak. And no one talks to the weak body. And that is why they refuse. If only we did have a strong government, of course Taliban, branded as a terrorist group, they would never refuse to talk to a government. So because the government is weak, the Taliban feel they are stronger. Otherwise they are not stronger. So therefore we’re at the moment in a dilemma. One way a so-called peace, which the people of Afghanistan don’t know what exactly is the content of this peace process. We don’t know. The only one who knows is Dr (Zalmay) Khalilzad - someone outside Afghanistan, behind closed doors, talking to people we don’t know. But the people of Afghanistan don’t know about this peace programme. Of course we welcome peace in Afghanistan. People of Afghanistan need peace. But peace should be for the people of Afghanistan. But unfortunately not the people, not the government of Afghanistan, no. But at the same time we have arrived at a junction called election. That side as well is not known. Whether that will be a good election or not. Because nothing’s ready. So in fact we are in a sort of dilemma. People of Afghanistan don’t know which way to turn. Either way there is a crisis. We are very worried about the situation.
Will a US-Taliban deal bring peace a step closer or create the conditions for a new escalation? Further civil war?
Well, not really. I mean, I wish it was closer. What happened, as you said rightly, that the United States at the moment is reaching a sort of deal with the Taliban - it’s not peace for Afghanistan, it’s a deal with the Taliban. So in effect, what the United States is doing, they want to pursue their own interests. It’s got nothing to do with the interests of Afghanistan. They say very clearly that you don’t trick me, I don’t trick you. When you in Afghanistan don’t trick me back there and I’ll leave Afghanistan. So they leave Afghanistan to whom? 18 years ago they came to root out terrorism. So they leave it to whom? Are they the same people? They are. Have they stopped violence? No. More violence. More bloodshed. There are not terrorists anymore? There are. So, it’s a deal with the Taliban. It’s got nothing to do with peace for Afghanistan. Now, they said for Afghanistan they want a sort of ceasefire and then an inter-Afghan dialogue. Should we think that when the United States signed that contract or that deal with the Taliban without telling them to denounce terrorism, to denounce violence, to give up your arms, once the Taliban comes inside Afghanistan to start a dialogue with Afghans, thousands of all Taliban will come to different cities. When the thousands of all Taliban comes and pools in different cities, while they feel they are victorious, they have already struck a deal with the United States, should we expect that they will make a dialogue with the Afghan people? Should we expect that they will make a ceasefire? Should we expect that will reach for a durable peace for Afghanistan? No. So therefore it is not a deal for peace for Afghanistan. Yes, there might be some sort of agreement. I hope that this sort of, I don’t know, activity, will continue, but in a positive way. Not that the people of Afghanistan know about it. If it’s peace for Afghanistan, people of Afghanistan have got the right to know what is the content of this peace.
Has Zalmay Khalilzad been pressured by Trump to make too many concessions to the Taliban? Could he have got more?
I do feel there is probably pressure from the United States, but at the same time I do feel that is a sort of personal taste of Mr Khalilzad as well, that’s involved as well. He has got his own agenda as well. That is why people are very worried. Yes there’s pressure from President Trump, yes there’s pressure because they want to see the Afghanistan problem solved in a year’s time before the election. But they know, I’m sure their intelligence service knows, I’m sure that many American’s know that’s not a peace for Afghanistan. That’s not. They know this. It’s not that they don’t know. Khalilzad knows this. It’s not that he doesn’t know. But as I mentioned, it’s a deal for the United States. Probably we can say congratulations, but it’s not peace for Afghanistan.
Has the US been defeated in Afghanistan?
Well if they do sign that deal, the Taliban would certainly claim they are defeated. But we all know it’s not a question of defeat here, it’s a question of ideal, of politics. It’s not a defeat. No.
Why have Taliban attacks continued during the Doha talks?
Well let me put it, I mean, the only thing which added to the advantage of the Taliban is that they have found their way into diplomatic circles, worldwide diplomatic circles. That’s the only thing which was added. Nothing has gone. The violence has been up much more. Fighting erupted everywhere around a lot of cities, there is a lot of fighting. People of Afghanistan are still losing a lot of children, women, civilians, young soldiers, all of that. So let me say that through this peace deal the only thing that has changed for the Taliban is that now they have found their way out to the diplomatic circles, also they can talk, they can communicate. In effect, what happened, that peace deal, that gives them recognition, to a violent group, that is Taliban. Nothing really kind of reduced. They did not announce that they will denounce the violence. They did not say that they would not be linked to terrorism. They did not say that they will give up the arms. They did not say that they will commit to the durable peace for Afghanistan. So therefore nothing has changed except it went from bad to worse.
If the Taliban makes a deal with the Afghan government, might hardened jihadists switch allegiance to ISIS?
Well, let’s put it this way. You mention if the government can give them accommodation inside the government, the Taliban will not accept this government of Dr (Ashraf) Ghani. I mean, Dr Ghani’s government is so weak even they are not ready to sort of talk to the government. They are not ready for that. But let me say that one of the very kind of dangerous effects of this deal is that although the Taliban claims or says that, ok, we made a deal with the United States, we will not attack them, we will just give up terrorism, we will not allow this terrorist group to come inside Afghanistan, but let me say that once if, god forbid, if the Taliban comes inside Afghanistan to rule this country, it would mean that Afghanistan would be a safe haven for terrorism. Worldwide terrorist groups will find a country to accommodate themselves and from here they will attack worldwide. So therefore it is very, very dangerous like that. And I don’t know, Dr Khalilzad knows this so well. And I’m sure many other American experts they know that. They know that the Dr Khalilzad deal is very rushed, premature, it’s not been talked yet with the Afghan people, while these political forces, people have not really kind of agreed with that. But still they continue. Whether under pressure or Dr Khalilzad’s own mission, I don’t know. But it will be a very, very dangerous stage. We really have to be careful. Yes, we all want peace. Yes people of Afghanistan are thirsty for peace. But peace. Not a deal. Peace, not terrorism, not violence. Peace, not submission to a terrorist group. Peace. What is peace? The peace has to be worked at with the Afghan people. This government of Ghani, although he has not been representing Afghan people, but he is still, even that government is not involved. So we really have to be careful.
If the Taliban retakes/shares power with the Afghan government, will it reintroduce sharia law? Restrict women’s rights?
Well, I mean, put it this way. As I mentioned before that they are not ready even to talk to the government. About these rights that you are asking me. About this women’s rights and people’s rights in media and election, democracy, these are all the values that go against the values of the Taliban. That’s another big thing. I mean, I’m not talking about the process - only until now we were maybe talking about that, how is the Khalilzad process. But when it comes to the real peace, how exactly can you solve these very contradictory values between the Taliban and the rest of the people of Afghanistan? What do you do with women’s rights? Taliban do not agree with women’s rights. What do you do with freedom of media and press? They don’t agree. What do you do with election, with democracy? Because if the Taliban accept such things, what it means, it means they have gone against their own values. It means they have gone against all those, in their words, who were martyred, going against those values. They’re going against their own principal. Don’t forget that so far since the creation of Taliban till now their position has not changed. Exactly the same thing as it was before. In anything, it has not changed. Nothing. I mean, as I said, the only thing you can see that has changed is that different countries are inviting them, they just go and talk and come back and the doors are open to really say their own thing. That’s all. But their position as far as their beliefs, their understanding of the situation, their vision, nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. So therefore, I don’t know. I wonder. When the United States came here 19 years ago, said ok, we want to root out terrorism, we’re against these things, what has changed all of a sudden? They want to strike a deal without taking into consideration the interests of Afghan people. What exactly has changed? I mean, Dr Khalilzad says that look, we made our own deal - you Afghans, you have to make your own deal. The United States has finished, it’s going to sign. But you Afghans. How exactly can we do that? Under the same enemy of Afghans as before. So it means once again when they sign that, once again they’ll leave the people of Afghanistan at the mercy of enemies of Afghanistan. Exactly what happened in 1992 when the mujahideen succeeded and the Americans left altogether, and what happened after it was a catastrophe.
Has the Taliban modernised or moderated its message? Is this genuine? The Taliban has retaken half the country. Why was it able to make such a comeback?
Our leaders of 18 years, we did not think about the future, we did not take advantage of the presence of the international community in Afghanistan to really have a national government, to strengthen Afghanistan for Afghanistan. But it doesn’t make kind of sense. Why exactly a group who were defeated, how is it that they can come back? We leaders have to seek the answer behind the deals. Today, why, how they came with that much force? How exactly they can be defeated by one group of Taliban? A lot of questions. I don’t know. I mean, for me, as I mentioned at the beginning, when you asked me has the United States been defeated. No. It doesn’t make sense. I mean, even if the United States at that time, if they really kind of left the Afghan people, especially when my late brother Massoud was alive, before coming, what he asked from the United States, he said even if you don’t give us nothing, at least you say who’s right, who’s wrong. We can do it ourselves in our country. We can have our people, the Taliban is a terrorist group, we can do it. That’s what he said. That’s all he asked. But despite his call, despite his cry, despite his shout to the international community to give me, to really give me some backing, at least give a moral backing, even if you don’t give nothing. I can get rid of these terrorists. They did not. Later they came here with all of their forces, with billions of dollars. How exactly can they be defeated? Your question, how exactly did the Taliban come back? Through which door? Who? It’s not the Taliban. It’s not the Taliban. It’s a proxy group. A proxy war. What is exactly the deal? Who are behind them? Who really finances them? Who gave them all of that? What is the sort of interest of some countries that we don’t know? The people of Afghanistan are the victim of those big interests. So therefore we cannot really discuss this thing in the context of while the Taliban got stronger, the American’s got defeated, the people of Afghanistan getting weak, we cannot discuss. It’s a much bigger game than the Taliban in this proxy war and these groups - much bigger game. And it needs a lot of talks on why exactly it happened here today.
Afghanistan has always been a playground for the Great Game.
Yes, it has been. Let me put it this way. I’ve always said if we take a very short glance at Afghan history, one of the main reasons why Afghanistan is in this situation, that we cannot get peace, is that from the dawn of the creation of Afghanistan, Afghanistan has always been the centre of this rivalry, the field for this rivalry. Why? Because the leaders of Afghanistan were not able to really establish a strong government so that it can deter different countries from attacking, not to come. Since then, even today. Let’s say 19th, 18th century, if there were two powers. It was the British, it was the Russians. The two powers made such a game in Afghanistan. What happened, today we’ve got a lot of powers all around Afghanistan. All of them have got their own strategic interests. All of them have got their own agendas. So therefore Afghanistan once again became the victim of such things. So it’s not a question of Taliban. It’s not a question of religious groups. These groups, how come? How come? It’s not. So, Afghanistan once again is the victim of a much greater game than ever before in history.
How is the Taliban supported by outside forces? Pakistan, Iran, Russia? Will the country ever be truly free of foreign involvement?
Well, you said it rightly, each of them have got their own specific interests. When don’t they want to confront each other somewhere else, Afghanistan is a very good playing field for them. They want to confront each other here to find out who’s stronger. So we are the victim here in Afghanistan. Yes, different countries have different interests, conflicting interests. There are many countries as I mentioned, much more than 18th and 19th century. We’ve got so many players inside Afghanistan, around Afghanistan, intelligence work, there are so many intelligence services and institutions in Kabul, in Afghanistan, all of them, when you put all of them together, obviously, whether it’s specifically the Pakistan interests, the neighbouring interests, the United States, Russia, they all have got their own interests. I’m not saying that they have got an eye on Afghanistan, there are big things in Afghanistan, no. Because once you start this, someone else reacts. So that is why I’ve always said that Afghanistan can only reach peace, either we will have to reach some kind of balance inside Afghanistan or some kind of balance of consensus outside Afghanistan in different countries, regional countries and extra-regional. So for the peace in Afghanistan, foremost important is the consensus of the people of Afghanistan, and should have a national, united government. And the second important value is the value of the regional powers, Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia, Russia, all of them, to come and reach a consensus. And the third is extra-regional, that’s Russia, United States, Britain, Europe and all of that. So, these three values have to come together to really kind of produce a durable peace for Afghanistan. Today we have got imbalance everywhere. Inside Afghanistan Dr Ghani said I’m the power, I’m the Pashto, I have to rule Afghanistan in the name of Pashtun. Somebody else, Dr Abdullah said well, I’m the CEO, I can do something. General Dostum who’s somewhere else outside there. Some ministers. It’s a very fragmented, very weak, corrupt government we have got here. And then different political parties, institutions, they are very kind of fragmented also. No balance here. And different countries have got different interests around Afghanistan. They are not reaching consensus, they are conflicting. So Afghanistan is torn apart between players inside Afghanistan, players outside Afghanistan. So therefore, how exactly can I be optimistic about peace? Just by political manoeuvre of Dr Khalilzad, I cannot be optimistic about peace at all. I don’t know. I’m the victim, I am one of the victims of the war against terrorism, against the Taliban. We lost a lot of people. I lost my late brother, the hero of Afghanistan. I have not been talked to about the peace. No one has talked to me. I don’t know, Dr Khalilzad brings peace to who? We’ve got millions of people here. How exactly can he bring peace? What is this peace? So that is why I’m saying that. We still do not have the beginning, the very first ingredients for peace to be optimistic. I’ve said it very honestly because that is an important issue here. Peace. I cannot do it in a diplomatic way - well this way, that way, we can be hopeful - hopeful for what? There is nothing I can say at the moment. That is why I hope that we really have to kind of review how exactly we can bring a durable peace for Afghanistan. We should not make the mistake of 1989 once again to leave Afghanistan by itself. We should not make a mistake to deal with a terrorist group. We should not put the whole situation in Afghanistan and in the region into jeopardy here. Tomorrow we will regret it. The whole world will regret it. Exactly what my brother warned when he went to Europe, 2001, he said today it’s our problem, tomorrow it will be your problem. Exactly that’s what happened. So what I’m trying to say here, we should not make Afghanistan a safe haven for terrorists. Tomorrow it will end up worldwide, it will affect every citizen of every country.
Any final thoughts?
Well, what we want here, we said the election is an opportunity. We should not miss the opportunity. It’s not that we definitely have to go with the election, or maybe later. What I’m trying to say is that this month we do have an opportunity in the name of change, the government, in the election. One way or another, we have to bring some changes. For example, if you want to go for peace, what exactly are the steps for peace? The first thing is that we should have an entity so that it can be trusted by the people of Afghanistan. Yes, that is the government, I can trust it, it can bring peace. What sort of government? A strong government. How exactly we can bring peace? From the position of strength. To deal with the peace and war. How exactly we can do that? We have to change the two leaders, Dr Abdullah, Dr Ghani, who failed the government, who failed Afghanistan, who failed Afghanistan altogether to bring it into crisis like today we see. And who failed Afghanistan and the terrorists came as we said before. We have to change this, we have to change the structure of this government as well. We really have to disperse the power to all ethnicities in Afghanistan. We really have to bring some sort of consensus. We really have to bring the participation of all ethnicities in the decision making body in the name of the government. Once we do that, then of course the first thing we can start and enter Afghan dialogue. That dialogue amongst the Afghans. We have got here a lot of Afghans. How exactly should we make peace? Once we start the dialogue, soon we can reach a sort of vision for Afghanistan because immediately we can find a common political ground. Out of common political ground we can give a vision for Afghanistan. The third stage it will be around that vision we can build the trust and confidence among different ethnicities and people. The fourth, we can have a national government. The fifth, from the position of a national government, which could be representative of all ethnicities of Afghanistan. We could go for peace, we can talk to different groups, we can talk to the international community. Today we do not have even the first step of that. So that is why the key for that is to go, to use this opportunity for election to change this corrupt government, the failed, corrupt government of two doctors who really brought disaster to Afghanistan. We have to change this altogether. And we should be given the opportunity to do that. And how exactly? We should not allow them to use and misuse all the commodities of the government to do their own campaign. You can see the only two teams which have got a lot of resources to do the campaigning is the two who are in the government. How exactly? Where exactly did they get it? How come the other candidates can’t make it? Because they don’t have the resources of the government. But they do have the millions of dollars to use that on. So therefore, what I am saying, we have to make it an even playing field. In order to make it an even playing field, I am pretty sure this government cannot make it. That’s why my proposal, my specific proposal, is this, because there is only 20 days, less than 20 days before the election, before we go to another disaster, reach a sort of election crisis and another crisis, while John Kerry is not there to compliment it again, before doing that, we really have to somehow postpone the election, bring a new mechanism of sort of caretaker government, and around that we have to build the required trust and confidence so we can really work out how exactly we should go for peace, how exactly we should go for the election. Out of the opportunity we have to use for the good of Afghanistan, not for bringing more crisis to this country.
