Anarchy

Rupert Neudeck is the head of the Grünhelme (Green Helmets) NGO that was founded in 2003. Its main interest is the reconstruction of villages, schools and ambulances in destroyed regions, and collaborating with the local population. He spoke to Deutsche Welle about the future of Afghanistan and said there could only be civilian reconstruction after the International Security Assistant Force (ISAF) troops had left.

Deutsche Welle: Is violence now a part of everyday life?

Rupert Neudeck: It would seem so, looking at the province of Herat, and when you watch TV here you see what is going on across the country and you could say it's almost a state of war. The Afghan army is constantly being drilled, there are war plans being drawn up and people constantly talk of attacks, the ongoing body count, so and so many Taliban being killed. You get the feeling not only that there is no peace but that there is actually anarchy - the state can no longer govern the country. It’s trying to, with the president constantly giving speeches and receiving visitors from all over the world, but even they have to arrive in the middle of the night and can't tell anyone in advance. This feeling of anarchy can't be ignored if you live and work here.

Every year, you travel to Afghanistan to analyze the situation and coordinate aid projects. Would you say the security situation was better five years ago?

Yes, absolutely. Between 2002 and 2004 we had great working conditions because the Taliban had all disappeared. There was a unique enthusiasm with the international community and the Afghans trying to set the foundation stones for reconstruction. And that worked wonderfully. But then the Western community decided to introduce so-called "contingency" operations and things did not work out as expected and they certainly did not lead to greater security.

German President Christian Wulff recently paid a visit to the German troops in Afghanistan and everyone said that the situation was under control and the country had a future. Is that seeing things through rose-tinted glasses?

It's certainly an attitude that is supposed to justify the withdrawal of troops and the end of our Afghanistan policy. But it does not mean great security. I wouldn't argue that the soldiers should stay longer because actually they have brought the opposite of security, and they haven't done that much - they couldn't because they were isolated in huge barracks. Here in Herat there are 2,000 Italian soldiers in a great fortress and they barely dare go out. So the withdrawal of troops has to take place. Only then will Afghanistan's fate be decided. There has to be reconstruction and the economy has to be built up again. In the villages practically everyone - hundreds of thousands of young Afghans - goes to Iran where they can earn money because there is a functioning economy there. We don't have the workers to build schools. We just opened our 33rd school but we can't find anyone to work because everyone is in Iran for the season.

ISAF's goal was not only to bring security and stability to Afghanistan but also civilian reconstruction. Why did this not work out?

Because soldiers are not civilian aid workers. They can be labeled as such but that does not mean that they are. Soldiers exist to fight or use their weapons to deter others, and to guarantee security. History has shown that soldiers don't make good aid workers - and they shouldn’t have to be. It was the wrong label and that's why, as President Wulff announced, the Germans could be understood as friends of the Afghans. Only after ISAF troops withdraw will the reconstruction of a civilian infrastructure be able to begin. It is very urgent that industry and agriculture be built up again - Afghans are very diligent and efficient workers. But first of all the foreign troops have to leave because the Taliban keep using them as an excuse to attack foreign powers - throughout their history, Afghans have had to fight against foreign soldiers.

Interview: Dirk Müller / act
Editor: Sarah Berning