Thursday, August 25, 2016


Interview: U.S. Congressmen Look To Encourage Afghanistan, Azerbaijan

Afghan President Hamid Karzai (left) has questioned U.S. President Barack Obama's (right) announced deadline to start withdrawing U.S. troops.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai (left) has questioned U.S. President Barack Obama's (right) announced deadline to start withdrawing U.S. troops.
On their way to visit Baku and Kabul as part of a congressional delegation, U.S. Representatives Bill Shuster (Republican-Pennsylvania) and Christopher Murphy (Democrat-Connecticut) talked to RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel about Washington's goals in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan.

RFE/RL: In a "Washington Post"-ABC News survey released on April 25, 49 percent of respondents said they disapprove of President Barack Obama's management of the war and 44 percent voiced approval. Overall, the figures have essentially flipped since January, the last time the poll asked the question. What is happening with Americans' support of the Afghan war effort?

Representative Christopher Murphy:
I think the president was very clear when he came into office, that we need to focus our military efforts in Afghanistan, begin to draw down our forces in Iraq and, for me personally, that was the right transition and one long overdue.

That being said, we are dealing with essentially years of neglect in Afghanistan that are difficult to remedy in a short period of time, so many of us have been supportive of the president's plan to reengage for a short period of time so as to be able to effectively transition control of the country to the Afghan forces. There is war weariness in the United States, we are going on 10 years in Afghanistan, we have lost thousands of lives between the two wars.

I hope that we allow the president to move ahead with his plan for transition, but I do think that should the president come back to Congress and ask for more time, he is going to find some reluctance given the amount of money we have spent and the number of lives we have lost.

Representative Bill Shuster: Americans are tired and weary of war, so I would expect that on any given month depending on what happens in Afghanistan [for support] to sort of go up and down depending on progress or setbacks, so that I think is fairly common when you are a nation at war.

Representative Bill Shuster at RFE/RL's Prague headquarters
But I do believe that it is not just Afghanistan, it is Afghanistan and Pakistan that we have to focus on. It is an important region of the world. We saw what happened on 9/11. Al-Qaeda was able to set up a base there and plan their attacks on America and, going back 20 years, we left Afghanistan at the time the Pakistanis pleaded with us to stay because they predicted what would happen and they were right.

So, we have to stay focused and again, this is the spring, when the fighting is most intense, and the American people are going to go up and down but I think if the president comes to Congress and looks for support I think he will have bipartisan support.

RFE/RL: Afghan President Hamid Karzai told a visiting U.S. congressional delegation in August last year that Obama's July 2011 deadline for the start of a troop pullout has given insurgents a "morale boost." Do you agree?

I am someone who believes that we should begin a drawdown of our forces in Afghanistan but I think we have to have a recognition that we are going to need a long-standing presence in that country, whether it be to help the Afghans with security for their civil service, whether it is to continue training missions, or whether it is for selected counterinsurgency efforts. Regardless of when we begin drawing back the size of the American commitment, I think we have to recognize that there are going to be some long-standing needs both for civilian and military partnership.

Shuster: I believe that we should never have a date certain to give to our enemies, I think it does give our enemies, it increases their morale to know at some point we are going to be gone. But that said, even in Iraq we are starting to pull out but there is some negotiation going on as to what size force will we leave in Iraq; I think the same would occur in Afghanistan.

As Chris [Murphy] mentioned, it has to be a long-term commitment, I mean we look in Europe today, in Korea, we are still there 50 or 60 years later, and I think there will be a U.S. presence as long as the Afghanis and Iraqis want us to be there.

Afghan Conflict A Regional Issue

RFE/RL: President Karzai also said at that time that NATO and Afghan forces are faltering in their battle against terrorism. He blamed the lack of progress on civilian casualties in NATO operations and the continued existence of militant sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan. Let's look just at the Pakistan part of the criticism. Can the U.S. achieve its goals in Afghanistan within our present working relationship with Pakistan?

There is no doubt that Pakistan has and is playing a role in the insurgency, whether it is through some of their security services or simply by allowing a safe harbor for the transit across the border.

We need to be approaching our strategy in Afghanistan on a regional basis. Representative Shuster mentioned this, I think one of the failures of American policy has been to view success or failure in Afghanistan simply through the implementation of strategy within its borders and, frankly, the conversation needs to be even broader than Pakistan.

Representative Christopher Murphy at RFE/RL's Prague headquarters
We need to be looking at how India plays into this dynamic as well, we know that Pakistan is more interested in Afghanistan because of how it affects their relationship with India, and I have been pleased that President Obama, I think, understands how broadly the regional politics play into the theater in Afghanistan and I think to the extent that Karzai believes that the Americans have to take a harder line with the Pakistanis about their efforts to root out this insurgency in Waziristan and surrounding regions, he's right, we do.

Shuster: There is no doubt that Pakistan and the sanctuaries that are within Pakistan have caused great problems. The Pakistanis need to step up their efforts working with us. But I certainly understand that the Pakistanis saw us leave 20 years ago, as I think I mentioned earlier, they pleaded with us to stay, so there is some doubt in Pakistanis' minds that we are going to be there for the long haul. But, that being said, we have to send them a clear signal from the United States that we are there, we are going to be supportive of them, and they need to work with us to root out the insurgents who are living across the border.

As far as President Karzai is putting the blame on the United States, he needs to really focus on making sure that he has good governance, on rooting out the corruption that is rampant in Afghanistan. I think that is as big as a problem as insurgents across the border. The people of Afghanistan want to have a government that they can trust, that is not going to come to the table of the highest bidder. I think that is extremely important, as we have learned across Europe, across the world, having a government that you can count on, that is going to do the right thing and not take bribes.

So, President Karzai really needs to focus on that part of building his government and I think that will go a long way in consolidating the government and support of the government.

Thanking, Encouraging Azerbaijan

RFE/RL: Congressman Shuster, you are co-chairman of the U.S. Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus. Could you tell us a bit about the purpose of your visit to Baku?

First and foremost, I think it is important that we thank the Azerbaijani government, the president, for their great friendship and they have been a great ally since they broke away from the Soviet Union in the 1990s. They have been one of our staunchest allies in the world, with a neighbor to the south, Iran, and the Russians to the north, it is a very, very difficult neighborhood and yet they still turn to the United States as a friend and an ally.

Also, though, while we are over there and I talk to government officials we will hopefully have a meeting with the president and reinforce the need to make sure their democratic institutions are intact and their elections are free and fair, because at the end of the day the American people are going to judge a country, an ally of ours, based on that. We see what is happening in the Middle East now and the American people want to have friends and allies that have democratic institutions, whose government is transparent. They believe in humanitarian rights. So those are issues that we will bring up with the president but also just to let him know that America appreciates staunch allies like the Azeris.

Murphy: We are a delegation of six members [of the House of Representatives] and although Congressman Shuster has been a leader of U.S.-Azerbaijani relations, this is the first trip there for the rest of us and we believe it is important to be there, especially since it is a country that is so importantly politically positioned but often doesn't get as much attention from the United States Congress as it should.

And so, as Congressman Shuster said, this is an opportunity for a group of Republicans and Democrats to A) become advocates for the relationship back in Washington through the greater understanding that we will achieve on this trip, but also to show support for a country that doesn't always get high-level delegation visits like ours.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
by: Taxpayer from: USA
April 27, 2011 20:34

Congressman Shuster said: "it is important that we thank the Azerbaijani government, the president, for their great friendship and they have been a great ally since they broke away from the Soviet Union in the 1990s"

I think this professional lair came to be "thanked" by Sultan Aliyev for his faithful services. Neither the population of Azerbijan nor their leadership wanted to break away from the Soviet Union as the results of the 1991 March 17th referendum (boycotted by Armenia) and Azerbaijan's support for the anti-Gorbachev GKChP coup on August 19th of the same year showed.

Soviet Union provided them crucial support in Azeri-Turk war against the local Armenian population with troops, arms and media coverage in their campaign to ethnically cleanse Armenian civilian population from their ancestral towns and villages.

This politician continues the work of Soviet Communist leaders like Lenin, Stalin and KGB General Heydar Aliyev (father of the current dictator Ilham Aliyev) who created this artificial oil state on the lands cleansed of native populations by the Turkish Army in 1918 with a name stolen from a neighboring Persian province.
In Response

by: ANK from: UK
April 28, 2011 03:43
You talk about President of Azerbaijan too much. I wonder if you know anything about him. Here are some facts about him to open your ignorant mind. Apart from his native Azerbaijani, he speaks English, French, Russian, and Turkish. In 1977 Aliyev entered the Moscow State University of International Relations (MSUIR) and in 1982 continued his education as a postgraduate.[1] In 1985 he received a PhD degree in history.[1] In 1985-1990 Aliyev has been lecturing at MSUIR.[1] A doctor of political sciences,[1] Aliyev became an author of several works on geopolitical aspects of oil strategy of modern Azerbaijan. He is very educated man unlike Sargisyan who only knows how to give orders to his solders to murder innocent children.
You can bark as much as you like the fact and reality will remain as such. The fact and reality is; Armenia is heading towards destruction. It survives purely on foreign aid and IMF loans. You seem to me an educated man and you might guess what does this mean. This means these foreign loans must be paid back sooner or later and it will be paid back by Armenians, generations to come. It will be paid back by Armenians who live in Armenia, not who live in Western luxury, like one yourself. Do you know how many international business projects Armenian governments have refused to take part in after 1994. If they did take part Armenia would have been the most prosper country in that region now, like Georgia now. The Armenian Diaspora in Western countries (mainly in USA) holding the entire country and its population to ransom, for WHAT, for their own financial gain. You have no idea how people in Armenia struggle to make living. People don’t know where the next bread money will come from. Dogs live better than people in there because at least dogs can go and hunt for food but old people cannot do that, they have to be looked after and care for. The country is facing mass immigration problem. Even Russian –Armenians are leaving the country now because of recent Russian government initiative to boost Russian population. This is the fact and reality for you
In Response

by: Taxpayer from: USA
April 29, 2011 03:16

It would be nice if you disclosed your apparent affiliation with the dictatorial regime of Sultan Aliyev Jr.

One simple illustration of your copy-paste advocacy lies: in 1985 there was no such school as "Moscow State University of International Relations (MSUIR)" and the prestigious school that Alyev as other children of the Soviet Communist elite was placed to by his KGB general Heydar-baba did not have a PhD program so Aliev Jr could not receive a PhD degree in history from there.

However, he was well qualified to receive a PhD in squandering millions of his daddy's stolen $$ in Moscow and Ankara casinos during the time he was supposed to be attending lectures at MGIMO.

Like his daddy, the famous draft dodger Heydar Aliyev who forged his birth certificate to avoid serving in the army during WWII and later joined his uncle's KGB, Aliyev Jr was partying in world capitals while his daddy was sending tens of thousands of Tolysh, Lezgi, Tat and other non-Turkic youth to die for Azeri-Turk cause in Artsakh.

Sultan Aliyev's current war mongering is a joke as he had a chance to fight like a man during the war but instead preferred to hide in casinos. The dog that barks doesn't bite!

by: PA resident from: PA
April 27, 2011 23:30
" [Azeri government officials] believe in humanitarian rights. So those are issues that we will bring up with the president but also just to let him know that America appreciates staunch allies like the Azeris."

I don't think it's any accident that Schuster used the phrase humanitarian rights, which relate to WAR, instead of human rights. He wants you to read this phrase and understand it has human rights and forget about it. Don't do it. He can raise humanitarian rights - like not torturing prisoners, etc. but it would be great if he could also bring up HUMAN RIGHTS -- political prisoners, suppression of expression, ban on public protests, use of force against protesters, repression of political opposition, etc. Serious human rights problems persist in Azerbaijan and undermine Azerbaijan's ability to be a reliable and respected partner w/the US.

by: Liberty Chaser from: Istanbul Turkey
April 28, 2011 06:37
Dear ANK, let's leave Armenia out of the argument. Comparisons distort things. Aliyev has overseen a personal empire of corruption and repression. How else can you justify that all the ministers became millionaires while in power? You are reading RFE, but RFE journalists have been beaten and detained and in fact RFE is not allowed on the radio there. 2 bloggers were imprisoned for 18 months for a satirical youtube clip and one youth in still in prison for organizing a Facebook page.

Before you praise Aliyev too much, please remember that his anticorruption acts and new youth policy began AFTER Tahrir Square, 8 years after he took power. Remember he has changed the constitution to be elected for life. Remember that in the last election, ALL critical members of parliament lost. It is now a room of nodding heads and clapping hands.

Most Popular

Editor's Picks