Australia — Stephen Smith on Afghanistan and Taliban

Min­is­ter for Defence Stephen Smith — Inter­view with David Speers, PM Agen­da, Sky News
DAVID SPEERS: To the break­ing news this after­noon, that Spe­cial Forces in Afghanistan have found and shot dead the Afghan Nation­al Army Sol­dier, Shafied Ullah — believed to be respon­si­ble for killing Australia’s Lance Cor­po­ral Andrew Jones in the Cho­ra Val­ley last month.
This death shocked the nation and shocked Defence forces. They, of course, have been there work­ing along­side ANA sol­diers train­ing and men­tor­ing them in the Uruz­gan province.
Now with the death of Shafied Ullah, what do we know about his moti­va­tion, and what con­fi­dence do Aus­tralian forces have in con­tin­u­ing to work along­side there ANA coun­ter­parts?
Well join­ing me now is the Defence Min­is­ter, Stephen Smith. Min­is­ter, thanks for you time. What more can you tell us about the death of Shafied Ullah?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well it was a coali­tion Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tion, pri­mar­i­ly Unit­ed States part­nered with the Afghan Nation­al Army.

There was some Aus­tralian involve­ment, but-

DAVID SPEERS: What was that?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well I’m not propos­ing to go into the detail of that. Since, he mur­dered Lance Cor­po­ral Jones; he has essen­tial­ly been tracked from Uruz­gan to his home province and dis­trict; Khow­st province, the Lang­hari vil­lage.

DAVID SPEERS: When you say tracked, intel­li­gence knew where he was through­out the jour­ney?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, as the release from the Chief of the Defence Force and the Defence Depart­ment this after­noon makes clear, intel­li­gence was an aid in track­ing him down. I nev­er go into intel­li­gence for the obvi­ous rea­son, but suf­fice to say, he was con­front­ed by a Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tion. He had a gun and was a direct threat to that Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tion, as a con­se­quence, was killed.

Now, in some respects, it’s unfor­tu­nate that he was­n’t able to be cap­tured because we then would be in a bet­ter posi­tion to ascer­tain his moti­va­tion for his bru­tal mur­der of Lance Cor­po­ral Jones.

DAVID SPEERS: Well, first­ly, how sure are you that he was the guy?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, we are pro­ceed­ing absolute­ly on the basis — con­clu­sive­ly on the basis that Shafied Ullah was the Afghan Nation­al Army rogue sol­dier who shot Lance Cor­po­ral Andrew Jones. We had bio­met­ric iden­ti­fi­ca­tion evi­dence of him. It’s been con­firmed pos­i­tive­ly to the Chief of the Defence Force and to me that it is Shafied Ullah. His broth­er was also detained, so he is cur­rent­ly in deten­tion and he will also be ques­tioned as to whether he can throw any light onto Shafied Ullah’s moti­va­tion.

DAVID SPEERS: Well, ques­tioned by Aus­tralians as well, as-?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well he — cur­rent­ly he’s being detained by Unit­ed States forces. Obvi­ous­ly, the Unit­ed States forces know the back­ground to this mat­ter indeed, when I met with Gen­er­al Petraeus in Brus­sels recent­ly. It was one of the mat­ters we spoke about, so they will obvi­ous­ly ques­tion him.

DAVID SPEERS: And will Aus­tralians get access to him as well?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well com­mon sense would tell you that we would want to have access to him, but-

DAVID SPEERS: And, is there any­thing that’s come from him, so far that does tell us about the moti­va­tion?

STEPHEN SMITH: Not that I’m in a posi­tion to dis­close at this stage.

In terms of the detail of the oper­a­tion, time will tell whether the Chief of the Defence Force is able to pro­vide more detail we want­ed on the pos­i­tive iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and the pos­i­tive con­fir­ma­tion this after­noon to do two things; first­ly to let the Jones fam­i­ly know and whilst in some respects this may well be some form of clo­sure or solace, it will be a ter­ri­ble reminder.

And sec­ond­ly, hav­ing told the Jones fam­i­ly because of the nature of the ter­ri­ble and trag­ic mur­der of Lance Cor­po­ral Jones, to tell the Aus­tralian pub­lic-

DAVID SPEERS: Absolute­ly.

STEPHEN SMITH: ‑of the out­come.

DAVID SPEERS: The fact that he was tracked and then found, pre­sum­ably with his broth­er and no oth­ers, does that indi­cate that he was­n’t part of the Tal­iban. But if he was part of the Tal­iban, he would have been pro­tect­ed bet­ter than he was.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well first­ly, from the moment that he fled the for­ward oper­at­ing base — the Afghan Nation­al Army in Uruz­gan and gen­er­al­ly have been very keen to cap­ture him at the high­est lev­els. They were shocked and appalled — as we were — that this ter­ri­ble, ter­ri­ble event occurred.

But that’s the first point. Sec­ond­ly, that effort, togeth­er with the intel­li­gence that I’ve gen­er­al­ly referred to enabled the Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tion to con­front him. He had a gun and was a direct threat to the Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tion. As a con­se­quence, he was killed.

DAVID SPEERS: But, do you think if he was a part of the Tal­iban-

STEPHEN SMITH: Well I-

DAVID SPEERS: -he would — he would have been bet­ter pro­tect­ed? He would have been bet­ter hid­den?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well two things. First­ly, the inquiry into the rea­sons behind, or the cause of Lance Cor­po­ral Jones’ death is ongo­ing, albeit, now with­out the prime wit­ness, if you like.

My instinct has always been that this was a rogue sol­der act­ing on his own. But, an instinct does not a con­clu­sion bring. But what leads me to that con­clu­sion is that a few days after the trag­ic mur­der Andrew Jones, the Tal­iban claimed it. Well, they would say that, would­n’t they? They would do that, would­n’t they? My instinct, and it remains an instinct, is what­ev­er per­son­al moti­va­tion or cause there was, it was per­son­al and gen­er­al to Shafied Ullah-

DAVID SPEERS: It’s not the-

STEPHEN SMITH: ‑not a Tal­iban claim.

DAVID SPEERS: This is the first time an ANA sol­dier has killed an Aus­tralian, but oth­er coali­tion forces — I think there have been 20 this year, rough­ly who have been killed by Afghan secu­ri­ty forces. Has there been a review under­tak­en, or is it still ongo­ing into the bet­ting pro­ce­dure for recruit­ing ANA per­son­nel?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well you might recall the day that the new Chief of the Defence Force was announced, the cur­rent Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Gen­er­al Hur­ley. He indi­cat­ed that we were doing a due dili­gence of that. And that’s ongo­ing.

But there are very stren­u­ous vet­ting pro­ce­dures and process­es. I think we — whilst this has been a ter­ri­ble inci­dent for us and it rever­ber­at­ed through Army and through the Aus­tralian com­mu­ni­ty, we’re cur­rent­ly train­ing in Uruz­gan Province 3500 Afghan Nation­al Army fourth brigade mem­bers. The Afghan Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Forces now num­ber near­ly 300,000. So whilst this has been the first ter­ri­ble such inci­dent for us, there have been a small num­ber for oth­er Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force coun­tries, but in the con­text they are a small num­ber.

But because it’s an Afghan Nation­al Army sol­dier or offi­cer killing or wound­ing Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force sol­diers, then it has a, you know, a mag­ni­fy­ing effect. But- DAVID SPEERS: Talk­ing about the Tal­iban, Afghan Pres­i­dent Hamid Karzai has now said that peace nego­ti­a­tions have begun with the Tal­iban and your US coun­ter­part, Robert Gates, has con­firmed there have been very pre­lim­i­nary con­tacts with the Tal­iban over recent weeks. Do you sup­port nego­ti­at­ing with the Tal­iban?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well absolute­ly. I mean Aus­tralia has made the point for a long peri­od of time, two or three years, that we would nev­er achieve our mis­sion in Afghanistan by a mil­i­tary solu­tion or strat­e­gy alone. We also had to have a polit­i­cal strat­e­gy. And a cou­ple of weeks ago when I was in Brus­sels, speak­ing includ­ing with US Defence Sec­re­tary Gates, I made the point from Brus­sels — and when I returned — that part of the con­se­quence of effect­ing an improved secu­ri­ty posi­tion in Afghanistan, not just Uruz­gan but Afghanistan gen­er­al­ly, was that at some point the Tal­iban would come to the con­clu­sion that they could not win mil­i­tar­i­ly. And as a con­se­quence might sue for peace.

Now, so we’ve been strong sup­port­ers of the rein­te­gra­tion efforts, the rec­on­cil­i­a­tion efforts, and the polit­i­cal rap­proche­ment efforts. But I very strong­ly agree with what Gates said overnight, you need to look at it care­ful­ly. Very-

DAVID SPEERS: So this could end up with some Tal­iban involve­ment in the Afghan Gov­ern­ment.

STEPHEN SMITH: Very pre­lim­i­nary out­reach is how Gates described it, and I think that’s right.

DAVID SPEERS: But would be com­fort­able with some Tal­iban involve­ment, inclu­sion in the Afghan Gov­ern­ment?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well we’ve — 18 months to two years ago there was a very major con­fer­ence in Lon­don on Afghanistan and the theme was rec­on­cil­i­a­tion and polit­i­cal set­tle­ment and we made the point at that con­fer­ence that you would have peo­ple, mem­bers of the Tal­iban who were not ide­o­logues, who were not hard-core inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ists, who would want to see a bet­ter oppor­tu­ni­ty for them and their fam­i­lies where­as-

DAVID SPEERS: But they are mem­bers of the Tal­iban and the argu­ment for 10 years has been that we can’t let the Tal­iban back into pow­er; that these are the guys who gave shel­ter to Al Qae­da.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well there is in our view a dif­fer­ence between hard-core ter­ror­ists, who won’t abide by the Afghan con­sti­tu­tion, won’t lay down their guns, will con­tin­ue to run with Al Qae­da and oth­er ter­ror­ist net­works and those peo­ple who for what­ev­er rea­son came to the con­clu­sion the only way that they could carve out a eco­nom­ic and social role for them­selves was by run­ning with the Tal­iban, and we’ve seen both in Uruz­gan and gen­er­al­ly small scale but nonethe­less emerg­ing rein­te­gra­tion efforts where Tal­iban sol­diers — or sup­port­ers — have said we’re pre­pared to lay down our arms.

We’re pre­pared to abide by the Afghan con­sti­tu­tion.

DAVID SPEERS: But they’re leav­ing the Tal­iban.

STEPHEN SMITH: We’re pre­pared — that’s right.

DAVID SPEERS: We’re talk­ing here about nego­ti­at­ing with the Tal­iban, with active mem­bers of the Tal­iban who aren’t about to leave the Tal­iban-

STEPHEN SMITH: Well — and I’ve said in the past and Bob Gates has said in the past and US Sec­re­tary of State Hillary Clin­ton said in a major speech in Jan­u­ary or Feb­ru­ary of this year that if you have mem­bers of the Tal­iban who are pre­pared to abide by the Afghan con­sti­tu­tion, pre­pared to lay down their arms, pre­pared to work with­in the demo­c­ra­t­ic forums, then there’s no rea­son why they should not be exclud­ed.

DAVID SPEERS: Can you under­stand Aus­tralian sol­diers feel­ing a lit­tle con­flict­ed about this? The Tal­iban has killed 27 of our sol­diers over there, wound­ed many more, we’re fight­ing against them every day, and now there’s talk about sit­ting down and nego­ti­at­ing.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well there’s nev­er been a counter-insur­gency effort which in the end or in the event has not been set­tled in some man­ner or form by a polit­i­cal out­come.

Our mis­sion in Afghanistan which is to hand over respon­si­bil­i­ty of secu­ri­ty to the Afghan Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Forces, to stop Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Pak­istan bor­der area becom­ing a breed­ing ground for inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ism again, that won’t be achieved by a mil­i­tary effort alone, it will be achieved by a mil­i­tary effort which brings secu­ri­ty; by a polit­i­cal set­tle­ment which sees the Afghan peo­ple gov­ern in a man­ner which pre­vents secu­ri­ty breach­es-

DAVID SPEERS: So there will have to be some Tal­iban involve­ment in the gov­ern­ment that we leave in Afghanistan?

STEPHEN SMITH: But only those mem­bers of the Tal­iban who eschew vio­lence, who lay down their arms and who are hap­py to abide by the Afghan con­sti­tu­tion. Those hard-core ide­o­logues, who run with Al Qae­da or who run with oth­er ter­ror­ist net­works, who don’t believe in democ­ra­cy, who believe that points of view should be affect­ed by the bar­rel of a gun; they will not have a role.

DAVID SPEERS: Okay. So they can lay down their guns and abide by the con­sti­tu­tion, but pre­sum­ably they won’t be sup­port­ive of the sort of free­doms for women that we would want.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well time will tell. We have seen in the course of our time in Afghanistan from a very low base the num­ber of women in employ­ment, the num­ber of girls going to school sub­stan­tial­ly increased.

DAVID SPEERS: But that’s not with the Tal­iban involved.

STEPHEN SMITH: No, absolute­ly. But the adher­ence to the Afghan con­sti­tu­tion, the adher­ence to demo­c­ra­t­ic val­ues and virtues car­ries with it those notions. DAVID SPEERS: So that’s a must.

STEPHEN SMITH: Aus­tralia has made that clear.

DAVID SPEERS: A final ques­tion if I can just back on a domes­tic mat­ter. This week of course is the anniver­sary of Julia Gillard replac­ing Kevin Rudd as Prime Min­is­ter. A year on has the change been worth­while?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well the Gov­ern­ment was re-elect­ed, albeit as a minor­i­ty gov­ern­ment, but we were re-elect­ed and the next elec­tion will be I sus­pect in the third or fourth quar­ter of 2013. We’ve got some very sig­nif­i­cant chal­lenges. No-one — no mem­ber of the Gov­ern­ment is walk­ing away from that. We’ve got some- DAVID SPEERS: But has the change in lead­er­ship been worth­while?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well it’s where I start­ed. We won the elec­tion. We-

DAVID SPEERS: You don’t think you would have with Kevin?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well I said on the night of the elec­tion that with­out the change I don’t believe that we would have been in a posi­tion to form a Gov­ern­ment. DAVID SPEERS: Okay.

STEPHEN SMITH: But we — there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge between now and Sep­tem­ber or Octo­ber or Novem­ber of 2013. We’ve got some very seri­ous chal­lenges; we’re work­ing our way through those. But they’re chal­lenges not just for the Labor Par­ty or the Labor Gov­ern­ment; they’re chal­lenges for the nation. And we’re con­fronting them.

DAVID SPEERS: You did­n’t par­tic­u­lar­ly want to hand over the For­eign Affairs role to Kevin Rudd. You did so for the good of the par­ty and the good of the Gov­ern­ment. Is he doing a good job in For­eign Affairs and is he being a team play­er?

STEPHEN SMITH: Absolute­ly. No, no. He’s doing a very good job. He and I work very close­ly.

DAVID SPEERS: So crit­ics of Kevin Rudd should back off?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well the only peo­ple in pub­lic life who are nev­er crit­i­cised are those peo­ple who do noth­ing and Kevin Rudd is not a per­son who does noth­ing. I’m not a per­son who does noth­ing and the Labor Gov­ern­ment is not an insti­tu­tion that does noth­ing.

So any num­ber of com­men­ta­tors will be crit­i­cal of all of us. That’s because we’re actu­al­ly doing things. The only peo­ple in pub­lic life who aren’t crit­i­cised are peo­ple who do noth­ing and Kevin’s not one of those.

DAVID SPEERS: All right, Defence Min­is­ter Stephen Smith, thank you.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you. Thanks very much.

Press release
Min­is­te­r­i­al Sup­port and Pub­lic Affairs,
Depart­ment of Defence,
Can­ber­ra, Aus­tralia

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →