UNAMA is going to the provinces. A year ago we had ten offices around the country, by mid-2007 we will have almost doubled this number of offices. Over the past months I have opened offices in Kunar, Badghis, Zabul, and Khost. On Saturday last I opened our newest office in Nimroz province. In the coming months we will open further offices in Daikundi and Ghor. And maybe others will follow.

This commitment to outreach [in the provinces] is shared by UN headquarters and by both Secretary Generals (SG), the ex-SG Kofi Annan and the new SG Ban Ki-moon.

This outreach to the provinces reflects a critical need. Afghanistan needs stability, it needs peace, governance and development. The attention paid to the provinces so far has not been sufficient. In some places corruption in the provincial administrations has served to alienate segments of the population. We have tried to assist the provincial government to establish provincial development plans and to identify the provincial priorities that are to be integrated into the interim Afghanistan National Development Strategy (i-ANDS). We also monitor human rights performance together with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).

Human rights violations including the violence of war, particularly against civilians, occur locally. Allegations of human rights violations have to be verified locally. Human rights must not be compromised by the conflict. Lessons out of these verifications must be learned and wherever possible the victims must be helped. What we find in all the provinces is that people want more development and faster development. UNAMA will be there to bring other agencies and donors into the provinces, to support the local Governors and help co-ordinate the efforts of other aid agencies to ensure that development is efficiently planned. To advocate development support for Afghanistan , over the past month I have traveled to the conference of NATO Foreign Ministers in Brussels , the meeting of the Joint Co-ordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB) in Berlin , and to meet with the UN Security Council in New York . I have spoken to the new Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and found that he is highly interested and engaged in the [UN] mission in Afghanistan . He has been to Kabul several times during the 1980's and knows the President well. On my own and on behalf of the President I have invited the SG to Afghanistan and he said that he will [come] and it's only a question of his schedule. The SG was very supportive of our strategy to expand into the provinces. Soon I will see him again and I will also brief the UN Security Council again towards the end of March 2007. Among the issues raised [at my last meeting] with members of the UN Security Council were regional cooperation, certainly the security situation, the drug economy as a principal spoiler of the reconstruction effort and the human rights situation.

Everybody agreed that everything has to be done to avoid humanitarian tragedies and civilian casualties in pursuit of counter insurgency operations. I will repeat this again – human rights must not be compromised by the conflict.

Afghanistan is not a post conflict country. It's a country in conflict. One can even put it more dramatically – it's a post-devastation state facing a war of insurgency. The aspirations of the Afghans lay in the direction of progress and we should under this difficult situation not forget that enormous progress has been made and continues to be made. Dealing so much with the problems, we have to recall that Afghanistan has made enormous progress in infrastructure, construction, roads, services and telecommunications but also in the democratic process.

We have to consolidate this progress. One important aspect of this progress is freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I have had reports of journalists being intimidated. I have seen the Head of RTA [ Afghanistan 's National TV station] being made to resign. And I hear of efforts to have the Parliament amend the proposed media law in a manner which would harm media development in Afghanistan . It's often said that the first victim of war is truth. We must prevent this from becoming the case in Afghanistan . We don't realistically expect the Taliban to stop its propaganda war, but we must on our side ensure that a space for free media is open. I say again that it is a great achievement of the last five years that we have a free media [in Afghanistan ]. Fighting the insurgency we must not forget what we are fighting them for – we are fighting to maintain these successes and maintain democratic freedoms. That's why I repeat again that human rights must not be compromised as we fight this insurgency.

Questions and Answers:

RFE: We have some reports that local officials in some provinces of Afghanistan are highly involved in human rights violations. Do you have any comments or assessments of this situation?

SRSG: The question is very general and we have to go into the details. That is what our provincial offices try to find out – what the real case is, support the victims and criticise those government officials and inform the Governor so that he can take the appropriate action. For instance one phenomenon that is quite frequent is illegal detention. We try to follow these cases which come to our attention and stop these practises. To be able to follow these cases up we have our local offices and also cooperate closely with the Afghan Independent Human rights Commission (AIHRC). Our focus on human rights and our focus on cooperation with the AIHRC is very well demonstrated by our last two office openings in Khost and Zaranj with the presence of the Head of Deputy Head of the AIHRC at these openings. In some cases it is very difficult to follow up these violations because we have to find out the truth and powerful people are involved. Nonetheless we are working hard to change this situation.

Good Morning Afghanistan : You say you are monitoring the human rights situation. Are you talking about those high-ranking officials who have been frequently named by Human Rights Watch as human rights violators? Do you believe that these officials should be brought to trial?

SRSG: I was very happy when on International Human Rights Day, 10th December, the President launched the Action Plan for Transitional Justice. The President has declared this day, 10 th December every year as the day for victims. As activists for human rights we have to be on the side of the victims. This action plan is meant to enable the victims to speak about reconciliation but also to find out the truth. In Afghanistan we are at the very beginning of this process and a lot has to be done to put things right for the victims. This is the most important aspect. The second most important aspect is the need to find out the truth. After finding out the truth one can speak about forgiving and everything else. But it must be the victims who forgive, not others who think that the victims should forgive. I cannot make on the information available any statements about any persons and I will not do that. But one thing must be very clear – amnesties for gross violation of human rights and war crimes should not exist. I think one of the big progresses in the field of human rights is that the international community has established mechanisms to address gross violations of human rights in times of conflict. The International Criminal Tribunal is one such mechanism. The basic principle of this is to put things right for the victims and prevent any further violations. I have said it here before – this is not a process that can move very fast and we should not expect Afghanistan to be the champion in expediting the process of transitional justice. In some countries this has taken 20, 50 or 60 years. Nevertheless we should do everything to establish the truth, to give victims back their dignity and to proceed to a real reconciliation.

DPA: You were just talking about the expansion of your offices, while the Taliban is talking about an upsurge in violence – aren't you concerned about the safety of your staff, particularly in the southern provinces? And secondly it has been over two weeks since the Taliban have been controlling a town in southern Afghanistan , Musa Qala. What is the UN's stance on this? Are you concerned about the local residents? If the Government of Afghanistan wanted to secure a second similar deal would the United Nations support such a deal?

SRSG: Regarding your first question, we are certainly very concerned about the security situation and we do everything to mitigate the risk. The most important thing is to have good links with the local population and the local authorities. We will not open an office in any area where we see a conflict coming or where it's just too dangerous for us to operate. One of the most difficult situations was our office in Kandahar but we hope that the situation there has now stabilized.

The ceasefire agreement in Musa Qala was a valuable and necessary action to bring peace without further or additional military intervention. We still believe in ceasefire agreements and locally brokered peace deals as a possible future out of the armed conflict. The positive point about the Musa Qala agreement was that the local authorities and the local elders, the people of Musa Qala have kept this agreement going for four months. And they have had no war for four months. I certainly think that it is worthwhile to try such local agreements again but it must be ensured that the security forces are strong enough to prevent spoilers and that was not the case in Musa Qala. I am happy that Governor Wafa is trying to resolve this conflict without further violence because those that would suffer would be the citizens of Musa Qala. In all the conflicts that the United Nations has seen in the world we must over and over again see that we must never lose the perspective of securing a peaceful settlement. Because that is what will prevent civilian casualties. My fear in Musa Qala is for the civilian population. They are afraid and some of them have left the town creating more internally displaced people and refugees so we have to prevent a tragedy wherever we can.

Question ( translated from Dari ): The question is about the Human Rights Watch report where they name some of the Afghan officials who enjoy support amongst the people. If UNAMA wants to try these people, do you think you will face a reaction by the people? Secondly, UNAMA made comments previously which were responded to by the Foreign Minister Spanta who in one case said that UNAMA has no right to express views on certain issues. How do you respond to this?

SRSG: There are two questions. The first on Human Rights Watch report I have tried to answer already. The second, I have spoken with foreign Minister Spanta and I have discovered that there is a misunderstanding along the line. He has reacted to a piece of news which later was revoked by the news agency itself. He has reacted to something which has not been said by UNAMA. Most of you will know that. We have rectified this and so the matter is resolved.

As you might know, UNAMA has excellent relationships with the Foreign Ministry and as you also know, I have a very close relationship with the Minister. So, it is very easy to overcome such misunderstandings.

Question ( translated from Dari ): The question is about the expressions by [opposition leader in the Pakistan National Assembly] Fazlur Rahman who supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and also called on the Pakistani Government to support Pakistan . The Governor of the North West Frontier Province called on the foreign troops to withdraw from Afghanistan and he also asked the US Government to withdraw its support for the Afghan Government. What is UNAMA's view on this?

SRSG: I have read the statements of [ North West Frontier Province ] Governor Aurakzai and I was very astonished. I think the Pakistani Government has to clarify whether this is their official position or whether it is the position of a Governor who should be corrected by the central Government. If you want me to answer the question bluntly - I thoroughly disagree. Those politicians in Pakistan who support the Taliban should make it pretty clear what they mean by that and how they react to the actions of Taliban and other terrorists in their country, in Afghanistan and in the rest of the world.

I know that these voices in the political spectrum of the political parties in Pakistan exist, but I do not think that they are voices from the Government of Pakistan. I think there is a danger and this danger is being seen in the whole region: A danger of Talibanisation of the region, not only part of the regions, but in the neighbouring states and particularly Pakistan . The Afghans know very well where this leads to because they had Taliban rule [before], and other states should look at this experience and make it very clear that they do not want to repeat this experience. In addition to the Taliban there is an international threat to peace and security, and the international community is very well aware of it.

Fazlur Rahman and Aurakzai wouldn't be the first to underestimate the threat for international peace and security which originates from the Taliban. In the ‘80s and ‘90s the whole international community made this mistake – one shouldn't repeat it. This is more or less the same. I tell all those who think that an engagement against the Taliban and an engagement in favour of the peace-loving citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan isn't worthwhile that it is. And it's a lesson we should learn from history. So to be very clear, I say no twice to Rahman and Orakzai.

Question ( translated from Dari ): You referred to trials for human rights violators. In an interview that I did with the human rights commission they have recorded 120 cases of human rights violations being perpetrated by foreign troops. Does that mean that foreign troops will also be brought to justice or is it just Afghans that will face trial?

SRSG: The first thing to say is that everybody understands human rights actions as trials. That is not true, we are far from a trial, for instance of violators of human rights in the past periods. This is a question of through investigation and truth finding. Nevertheless, I agree that human rights violations perpetrated by anybody should be put to a trial. Those cases of human rights violations committed by anyone, international or non-Afghan, in Afghanistan . We have seen lately that a US soldier has been convicted by an American trial for eight years. We think that it is necessary that in cases of proven human rights violations that the perpetrators have to be convicted.

The investigations made for instance by the ISAF troops in incidents of civilian casualties have always the possibility to end up in a trial - if there is criminal wrongdoing involved. But also there, we have a broad range of actions which are not criminal. The so-called collateral damage of a bombing, is a tragedy. Nevertheless, behind that, in no case that I know has there been criminal activity involved.

The verifications are necessary, first to bring victims into their rights and second to prevent further collateral damage. In this debate we should never forget that we have one party in the conflict, the Taliban, that don't care about civilian casualties. Nevertheless, I join the call made by the international Red Cross and the Red Crescent for both parties to do everything to prevent civilian casualties. And we do so in all those cases we verify, and call on all parties involved to do everything they can to prevent collateral damage. I say that very clearly because that is the justification and the aims of our verification work in the provinces. I am happy that the ISAF forces are receptive to that. Receptive in the detail, to change their rules of procedure at both an operational and programmatic level. You have listened to the speech of the recently departed General Richards who stated that the main problem and concern for him was civilian collateral damage.

Question ( translated from Dari ): The question refers again to Governor Aurakzai where you said that the Government of Pakistan needs to clarify its position. But in the meantime, he is the Governor of the North West Frontier Province . He is also a member of the Commission for the regional peace jirga . Do you think that if such expressions continue by the Governor that this undermines holding of the regional peace jirga in the future which are supposed to be held at the end of February and the beginning of March.

SRSG: I see that in the United States on that subject and [about] engaging Pakistan into the fight against the Taliban there has been a lot of debate, information and declarations. The Secretary of State has issued statements. The Secretary of Defence has issued statements. I hope that this will help to come to a better cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight the Taliban. The three Governments – the US Government; the Afghanistan Government; and the Pakistan Government say that they engaged in the fight against the Taliban and in this light, a statement that Aurakzai apparently made is not helpful. But, additionally, I think it is not true what he says.

Question: I'd like to go back to a couple of things that you mentioned in your opening remarks. First was your reference to the amnesty resolution and the attempted changes to the media law. Both of these emanate from Parliament, currently dominated by a powerful minority. The international community, which pushed through Parliament quite early in the stages of the development of this country, which as you pointed out, is still in a state of conflict. How will you deal with this problem?

SRSG: First, to the so-called amnesty reconciliation resolution. We have made a very clear statement on this and we continue to argue along these lines. We will lobby, try to raise consciousness and we will try to convince. I am very happy that the President apparently did not agree at least with the element of amnesty on this so-called amnesty reconciliation bill. The Parliament has in front of it a press law which represents the call for press freedom. Apparently, the Religious and Cultural Affairs Commission tries to introduce some amendments which are not going in the direction of press freedom but in the opposite direction. The United Nations and UNAMA has taken a position that the original draft to the law was much better than the amendments and we should stick to the original draft. As you know, it's our mandate to defend human rights and press freedom is one and we try to be very clear on this.

Thank you.