 Welcome to the New America Foundation. My name is Peter Bergen. I run the National Security Studies program here. It's with a lot of pleasure that I introduce Saad Masseni, who is an old friend of the New America Foundation. As many of you know, he's been described accurately as Afghanistan's first media mogul. He runs many networks in Afghanistan and also in other countries like Iran and Pakistan. He is widely regarded as being one of the most knowledgeable commentators on Afghanistan. And like me, he's a relatively small group of people who is quite bullish about Afghanistan's future. So we're going to have a conversation between ourselves and then open it up to Q&A with you. Saad, first of all, give us a sense of what your business is doing, why you're optimistic about the future, and go ahead. Well, thank you, Peter. It's great to be here and to see your organization, you yourself so engaged in Afghanistan and our region. It's always good to be back here. As you know, we established our businesses in 2003. They've grown from a small radio station to a group that now is made up of 15 or so media companies. We employ close to 1,000 people. And our business has grown consistently over the last almost 10 years. And the advertising market in Afghanistan is, you know, from sort of under $1 million is now $100 million plus ad market. It's still relatively small, but for a country like Afghanistan with all our problems, it's grown significantly, which has allowed us in turn to also expand regionally. For us, the economy, I mean, it's, we are seeing some weakness. And I think a lot of companies are fearful of what may transpire post-2014. But overall, I mean, I, you know, I think that if we can get over a number of obstacles, which I'm sure we'll discuss. I'm fairly optimistic about the future, the country's future and its prospects. And how is Tolo TV being sort of received? What's your market penetration? Tell us a little bit more about the actual business of Tolo TV. Well, Tolo TV is our main channel. We have three television networks. We have Tolo TV, we have Tolo News, and we have Lamar which is in Pashto, and two national radio networks. Tolo has something like a 50, 55 percent market share, which is significant given that there are 60, 70 other television stations in the country. Media has been a huge success for the country, something like 65 percent of the population watches television at some stage during the week. And, you know, it has really helped the country in terms of facilitating social change, informing and entertaining the public. And even the role of, you know, we often talk about corruption and all the problems that Afghanistan has. Media is probably the outlet that people actually go to. It sort of allows Afghan society to let off steam. So it's something that we, it's been an exciting journey for us. But it's one that we can look back and say it's been one of the big success stories of the country. I mean, relative to every country in the region, from Turkey all the way to sort of South Asia, Afghanistan seems to have the most liberal, the most open media environment. That's not to say we don't have our challenges and problems, but it's been an extraordinary success. Also, if you compare it to, you know, relatively recent Taliban, relatively recent Afghan history, under the Taliban, there was voice of Sharia radio, and that was it. So not only is it unusual for the region, it's very unusual in the Afghan, the recent Afghan historical context to have this explosion of media. Yeah, I mean, telecommunications, for example, we had just under 10,000 phone lines in 2001. Today we have 18 million mobile phone users. Same with media. We had one outlet, which was the state broadcaster, just the radio, not television. And now we have 60, 70-hour television stations, hundreds of radio stations, literally thousands of newspapers and weeklies. So it's been a huge change from 2001. What about some of the series that you've done, Eagle 4, the kind of Afghan yes minister, the Afghan star. Talk about these series and what they have presented to the Afghan people. Well, the Afghans, I mean, we've seen a huge change in terms of people's, the demands of our viewers. You know, in a place like the States where the market is mature, people's taste change over time. And Afghanistan is fairly dramatic. The first couple of years we were actually broadcasting in, and so operas were popular. And then we had to go to buying a lot of Turkish content because people related more with the Turks than the Indians. And of course we've also had to develop a lot of our own programming in terms of formats, whether it's sort of Afghan style, which is like the American Idol, or we have a deal or no deal, which is the exact format that you see in the States. We've just secured the voice for Afghanistan. And then of course we have a lot of our own formats, which we've developed on the road, which is a travel show and Eagle 4. What is Eagle 4? Eagle 4 is about this elite police unit that's not corrupt and it's effective and it's not predatory. Unusual Afghan police unit. Yes, but the hope is it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's quite interesting that a lot of police officers watching this show are motivated by the show. But at the end of the day, these are entertainment programs and the ultimate aim, although we'd like to change the way that people see things, it's ultimately to entertain people. And when you started, did you take U.S. government funding? Yes, we did. We started off with a very small grant from USAID when there was no advertising in Afghanistan. We actually weren't even certain it was going to work for the radio station. They came in with some money. It was a couple hundred thousand dollars and we put up three hundred thousand dollars of our own money. But then we saw it working well and we put up quite a bit of our own money to expand the business. And since then we've had another grant from USAID. But it's an example of how public-private partnerships can work well in a place like Afghanistan. What are the sort of red lines culturally about the kinds of theories you can produce? And what are the kind of red lines politically about the stories you can cover or is that not relevant? Well, we have to be always very mindful of social and cultural conventions and religious issues. We've made mistakes and sometimes we do push the envelope. What are the mistakes? I'd rather not discuss them. There have been many, many. For example, the language that we used, the colloquial everyday language on the radio, which we felt that people would relate to our DJs when we first launched the radio station, that was not acceptable so we had to go back. We had, for example, an award show for our version of the Golden Globes or the Oscars. And someone clever came up with the idea of having some background dancers of Afghan, although they had their heads covered. But that was unacceptable and we had to go and apologize to parliamentarians. So we have made mistakes in the past. Who do you have to respond to? I mean, is there some kind of board that oversees media in Afghanistan or is it the Supreme Court? If you do step over the line, who do you hear from? You can hear from anyone. You can hear from parliament. You can hear from the ministries, from the prosecution. Kazai has commented with you about some of your programs, right? Yes. Directly. What was the most recent interchange you had with him? Well, technically there's a commission which is chaired by the Minister of Information and Culture. It's a media complaints commission that deals with any complaints against the media. And then if they cannot resolve the issue, then it's referred to the prosecution. But sometimes the prosecution takes the initiative and they start investigating things. Or it could be summoned before some parliamentary committee. So we've had a lot of issues in the past. We have something like six or seven cases outstanding in the courts. But we're finding our way and so is the government in terms of dealing with these issues. So it's now conducted in a more ordinary manner than it was, say, four or five years ago. And if you have a case in the Afghan judicial system, is that a kind of neutral exercise or is that highly dependent on who the judge is and who they're being influenced by directly or indirectly? Yeah. It has a lot to do with the judge. It has a lot to do with the prosecution. It has a lot to do with who in the office of the President is talking to them. For us, because we're a media organization, corruption is probably not an issue. But for a lot of other people, it's about the price who's willing to pay more. Right. And it's an issue that we deal with and everyone else is dealing with. I mean, ironically, as we're all finding our way, even the judges within the system now, you could expect a relatively fair hearing on a lot of these cases. We're trying to resolve a couple of the outstanding cases I've been dealing with for the last five or six years. So the Afghan judicial system, in your view, is more professionalized than it was five years ago. Yes. But starting at a very low bar? Yes. I mean, don't forget a lot of the judges had, you know, basically a lot of people who came in in 2002 had no experience within the judiciary. So they're finding their way. But slowly, I mean, I think that this is how things improve with time. Rupert Murdoch has taken a minority stake in your company. Yes. What is your relationship with him and why is he doing that? Well, I mean, News Corporation is an international company. Unlike NBC and others, 50% of its business comes from outside the U.S. They have been very active in Asia with star and safe in India and, of course, in China, in Indonesia and those sorts of places and also now in the Middle East. So I think that they view that for them to continue to expand the business, their business, they need to be in all these new markets. And for them, we present this opportunity, you know, as we're going into newer markets, markets that will grow substantially in the coming decades. I suppose they want to have a stake in it. I recognize Tom Fresno who's sitting in the front row, who's a member of the National Security Studies Advisory Council and also who's on the board and was sort of a mentor of yours when you were starting the company. He's still a mentor. And Tom was the founder of MTV. You're, in a sense, sort of, you know, starting something equally creative. Do you think people in Afghanistan, are you widely admired? Do you have a sense of that? Well, it's difficult to say and it's important not to care too much. I think it's important to focus on what we're doing and what we're going to have our supporters and detractors. The most important thing for us is to basically open up the world to Afghans. I mean, it's a business, but we also care about our country and our people. We actually care about the region. And I don't know, history will judge us to how well we went. And what about your ventures in Iran? Well, we launched the channel there in 2008 and it's, you know, we opened up satellite television to, you know, actually there was satellite television before, but we pretty much introduced good entertainment to the Iranian public. And, you know, we've had our challenges. Are you doing that out of Dubai or where are you? Well, technically we're doing the uplink from Europe. It's a fairly complicated, we do the dubbing in one country and the translation in another country and the editing in one country and sales in another country. And how do you, I mean, is the Iranian regime trying to block your programming? Yes, they have. How do you circumvent that without getting into too many details? Well, they've tried to interfere with our signal. There are various ways that they interfere with satellite signals and intimidate advertisers. They've arrested people who work for us, past and present employees. In Iran they've arrested people. Yes. Most people go back or they quit and they go back after six months and they're still hassled. The Iranian regime is obviously, understandably, very paranoid. And they, you know, up until a few years ago they had a monopoly in terms of the airwaves and the eyeballs, the Iranian eyeballs, and for them they've lost that monopoly and, you know, understandably they're very paranoid. Switching now to sort of the political future of Afghanistan. Do you think Karzai, I mean, there's a lot of discussion in Kabul that Karzai's trying to set something up and, you know, essentially remain the power behind the throne, a sort of Putin-Medved type deal or that he'll bring in a brother maybe or that he's going to fix it in some way. Yet all his public declarations have been, you know, I'm leaving, I'm retiring. What faith do you have that he will go quietly into the presidential retirement or do you think he will want to stay in the game? And could he fix, as I understand it, the Afghan constitution doesn't allow you to have three consecutive terms but it doesn't say anything about having a third term later? It's, well, you know, we don't know. I mean, we have to take his word for it. I think, you know, at this stage he's genuine in terms of his wish to just walk into the sunset and not for someone else to come in. But I think as he gets closer to 2014 he will be mindful of his family, of his tribe, of the different business interests that people are closely associated with him have in the country. So he will be reluctant to, I would say, if I was him, I'd be reluctant to just walk away from power without ensuring that his interests are safeguarded, even as legacy you could argue. So he would probably prefer someone friendly coming into the palace. I think as, you know, if he mentions it often enough the international community continues to move forward in terms of ensuring that the elections take place that we have a smooth political transition, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think it's so important to ensure the elections take place that we have fair and free, but at least credible elections, that the right candidates emerge, that we have an environment that people that do step forward if they want to run for office. And I'm in favor of ensuring that we don't have a situation post-2014 that people basically have a go at the former president for personal reasons. I think that he should be given a degree of immunity, not a blanket immunity, but I think that we have to give him some guarantees. In 100 years I think we'll forget about some of the minor issues but we will remember a smooth transition. It will define the country for the next few decades. Absolutely. And do you think the measures are, I mean, it seems to me that we, the United States government has put a lot of eggs in the reconciliation basket and it hasn't really produced anything. But as yet, and maybe this has begun to change, very little effort in the highly predictable 2014 election and making sure, as you say, credible enough that, you know, when we look back 50 years from now it will be seen as a major milestone. I mean, what needs to be done for it to be credible enough and are those measures being taken? Well, you know, quite often, because we've seen this in the last 10 years, you know, there's a disconnect between what Washington wants and what people in Kabul do on a daily basis. For example, with the elections today, with the elections, the commission that handles the elections in Kabul. They're dealing with the U.S. Embassy. The U.S. Embassy is reluctant to offend Karzai. So they tend to insist on things that Karzai is after. Whereas people in Washington have a totally different view. But the problem is that if we don't deal with some of the major challenges, like for example, monitors, independent monitors, or for example, the ability of the commission to decide as to where we have ballot boxes, then we're not going to have free and fair elections. And therefore we will not have credible elections come 2014. For example, in the south and the east of the country, parts of the country where we're not going to have security, should really be up to the elections commission to decide that we're going to have ballot boxes there. Because if we don't have the security and the monitors there, it's going to be impossible to ensure that we have, people are not going to stuff ballot boxes, something that's happened before in the country. But people say the embassy in Kabul insist on a guarantee that we will have ballot boxes right across the country. So these are small things that we have to ensure. I think there's someone almost in Washington needs to deal with these sorts of issues going forward. And I think because if we somehow emerge from the elections and people believe, and some of the political players believe that they've been cheated out of an opportunity to win office as a member of a team that, for example, the last elections, I think the results will be fairly violent potentially. Yeah, the one way to kind of guarantee a precipitation of renewed civil war would be a horribly flawed election, right? Yes. So do you think that people are aware of this and making the right decisions to prevent it? People are aware of it, but I don't think people are making the right decisions because people tend to be very myopic. If you have a diplomat whose tenure is going to end in June 2013, he's going to worry between now and then. Or if you have a special envoy for a particular country who's aiming to run for a big office in Europe, he's going to be more concerned about emerging from Afghanistan unscathed so he could go and say that he was successful in Afghanistan and vote for me to be the next Prime Minister of XYZ country. I mean these are real stories about individuals who are currently engaged in Afghanistan. So this is the problem that we have. They're fully aware of the pitfalls and yet they have their own ambitions and they have their own reasons for doing certain things. In the last quite flawed presidential election, how did total TV cover that? Well, we tried to be as free and fair and as transparent as possible. I mean we were the ones who first did the... we had the footage of the ballot boxes being stuffed from all sides actually and we questioned what the commission was doing and we were very aggressive in the way we pursued the flawed process and the way it was being handled. As a result we, you know, our relationship with the government deteriorated but we had to do the right thing. I mean for us it was a no-brainer. Going forward to the coming election, who do you think will be the big names that will be in contention and which parties will be important players? Well, Afghanistan is one of those countries that I think almost every single Afghan has ambitions of running for office. So we have, you know, I think everyone is testing the water right now but if one was to categorize just, you know, the different types of candidates, we have Pashtuns within the state who have been, you know, who were former Mujahideen, affiliated with different jihadi groups who are close to the president. I think the chief of staff, Dawood Zai for example, for the education minister, these sorts of candidates are very interested in running for office. You have technocrats, western educated, people like Ashraf Ghani, Ali Ahmad Jalali and others who would have an interest in running for office. But last time they either didn't run or they did terribly. But, you know, they're very hopeful that things will be different now. Right. You have the non-Pashtun northern lines types who may run. I mean, they may feel that there's an opportunity for them, especially if the Pashtuns do not come out to vote because of security or because of apathy. You have people very close to the president, his brother and some of his key friends and allies. This is Qayyum. Qayyum Karzai, I believe and a number of other people are very close to him, his trusted friends. And then you have others, you know, like we have other former Pashtun ministers, people like Hani Fatmar and Mirai Siosini who was the deputy speaker of the House. So we have a, you know, it's a good bunch of people who are interested in running for office. Your media organizations don't do endorsements? No, we don't. In terms of the economic outlook, I have seen figures that suggest that in an optimistic scenario, Afghanistan's economy might contract by 12% in the sort of, as the aid and foreign forces come out. The non-optimistic scenario is 40%. Now, a 12% contraction was the size of the Great Depression in the United States. So even in an optimistic scenario, you know, this could be pretty rough. You mentioned that you, are you already seeing that in your advertisers or is there any, you know, and how do you assess the sort of post-aid Afghanistan economy? Well, that's why it's so important to, again, work with the Afghan government in terms of ensuring that the right things are put in place for the development of the private sector. I think that there are a lot of opportunities that have been lost in terms of developing the agricultural sector, for example. You know, we still don't have a lot of electricity. I mean, this is something that's been 10 years and the question a lot of Afghans ask is whether it would have been so difficult to construct three or four hydroplanes, for example. We have, the roads have improved significantly, but more could have been done. So there are some, you know, we look back and say that, you know, we could have done more, but at the same time, I think Afghans are very resilient. They've survived in conditions that we could only imagine certainly in the 90s. I think that, you know, you may be surprised in terms of how resilient we are, but I think most of it is psychological. I think that we have seen the numbers drop off in terms of advertising, but I think it's just companies being preemptive, being concerned. We haven't seen an actual, any real signs in terms of the economy contracting, but I think it is 80% psychological. And I think that's why it's so important that if the message is that we're going to continue to remain engaged, that we have plans in place to ensure the economy doesn't just collapse, then I think that the landing will be a soft one. Who are your big advertisers in what sort of sectors and related to that? Which businesses are doing well in Afghanistan? Clearly the telecommunications, the media, is there anything else? Well, you know, the FMCGs, the, you know, the eulonevers are selling a lot of products. I mean, for them, if you look at the products and how they're, you know, in terms of the sales, quarter by quarter, the growth has been phenomenal the last few years. Again, because they've come off a low base, we're talking about the bottlers. For example, Pepsi is going to start bottling very soon. Coca-Cola has been hugely successful in the country. The banks, although we had a banking crisis of sorts a couple of years ago, they're sort of beginning to come back. But there have been some enormous opportunities lost. I mean, one of the areas that we've struggled to kickstart is boom in the construction sector, for example. The banks still can't issue mortgages. We still have problems with our land titles. I mean, no economy can develop without a boom in the building sector, as you very well know in the States. And, for example, this sort of opportunity has been lost in the country. So these are simple things the international community can do in terms of working with the Afghans to ensure that we have a fairly stable two or three years post-2014. How would you score the surge of 30,000 troops? I mean, it was designed to blunt the Taliban momentum. It was, I think, secondarily designed to bring the Taliban to the table. And thirdly, kind of buy space for the Afghan government to kind of get its act together. Out of those three kind of goals, which ones were achieved or partially achieved? There's absolutely no doubt that it had an impact. I think the impact has been a positive one. I mean, what we expected and what we got are two different things. But in terms of the situation before the surge and the situation afterwards and for us to look back, if you look at Helmandi, look at Kandahar in particular, the changes have been significant in terms of there's more security, there's more activity that the Taliban are a lot less influential than they used to be. Where we failed, when I say we includes all of us, we were not able to really fill the vacuum with a credible, honest government that wasn't predatory, for example. But still, despite the problems that the Afghan state has had, it's been a success. And we've seen other things like, for example, people rising up against the Taliban in parts of the country, in the east, in Ghazi, in those places. That seems to be very under-covered in the western media. Yeah, but it's been significant because we've been following these stories. I mean, these people have risen up not just against the Taliban, but also against the state. They've been leaving us alone. We can take care of things. And then in the north, for example, in Kunduz and Barlain, you have local militias in a place like Kunduz, although we had some bombings recently, but in terms of their influence in the province, the Taliban have been eradicated in a province like Kunduz, which is such an important province. Are these ALP? Yes. The local police that is basically set up by U.S. Special Forces. Because there's been a kind of controversy about this that somehow these were going to be arming the next wave of the Civil War by setting up these local militias. They could still do that. I mean, this is the concern that we have. I mean, there have been stories about rapes and intimidation. And these are things that we've covered. So the flip side is that although the Taliban have been pushed out, you are creating militias that could potentially endanger the country. But when you talk to the people involved in setting up these local militias, there are certain safeguards that make them a little bit different from militias of the past. You know, it's all kind of the ministry of the interior kind of have to sign off, and the village council has to kind of elect the right people and they're not given heavy weapons and these kinds of things. Do you think that has, I mean, has this program basically worked or is it sort of too early to judge? Well, you know, we've had issues. As I said, there have been a number of high-profile incidents where women have been raped and people have been beaten up. But I think overall, I mean, the jury's still out. It's a bit early to judge. In terms of the safeguards, who knows I mean, if they work or not. What about the Afghan National Army? I mean, you know, competitive, if you go back to Iraq in 2007, you know, the Iraqi army was capable of taking on large-scale operations without much any U.S. support. It's pretty obvious that the Afghan National Army isn't there. Are they just going to collapse like a house of cards in, you know, 2015? Or is there any reason to presume that they'll be able to kind of sustain? You know, I mean, Donna underestimated the Afghans and their ability to fight. As long as they have money and as long as they get their paychecks and they get their food on a daily basis, they will fight. And I think they will prevail because the situation, the difference was that the Taliban were being actively supported by the Pakistani Fauji, by the Pakistani military at the time. And the Afghan forces, you know, it wasn't the Afghan National Army, it was a bunch of jihadi groups, totally discredited amongst the people. So the situation is a little bit different, but a lot will also depend in terms of the psychology at the time. If they feel that the state's about to collapse, you will see people abandon the Afghan National Army. But, you know, I'm quietly optimistic. I think that there's, you know, the Afghans will do it their own way, but I think they'll be effective. And I think in some ways, they'll be a lot more effective than the Americans because they understand the culture, they'll adapt, they'll work things out with the villagers and the elders. And, you know, they will be superior in terms of, you know, if you compare them to the Taliban, I mean, I don't think the Taliban force will, I mean, we've seen different numbers, but I would say somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000 men. Right. With, you know, only AK47s, you have the Afghan military that will have helicopters, will have heavy weapons, will be well into six figures, potentially with help from the U.S. and its international allies. So it's going to be difficult for the Taliban to prevail. What sort of help post-2014 should the U.S. and its allies be offering? I mean, in terms of, I mean, we have the Strategic Partnership Agreement till 2024. You know, I was surprised during the vice presidential debates Vice President Biden said, he was leaving Afghanistan in 2014 period and he repeated it. And I mean, the U.S. government has gone through quite a lot of trouble to negotiate this agreement, suggesting the United States will be in Afghanistan for another decade after 2014. So what should that post-2014 American presence looks like? What is it, you know, if it was in your dream of vision and what do you think, what do you assess as the likely kind of post-2014 American presence? Well, I think it's important to know, at first and foremost, I mean, if we look at the glasses being half full and one of the frustrations we have with the Afghan government, it doesn't really reflect the views of the Afghan public. I mean, if you look at the situation today, 10 years after the war, the Afghan public remains supportive of international forces and international engagement. As a matter of fact, they're deeply concerned about a total abandonment of the country. I think the numbers I've seen range between 15-60% in terms of the approval rating of the international forces there. And Afghanistan is a different place. I mean, you and I talked about this a few weeks back in Dubai that something like 30-odd percent of the population is literate today, which is a big change from 1978 where literacy was at 8%. But what's even more interesting is that if we keep the number of students consistent with our schools, we will overtake Pakistan in the next decade. And our literacy rate could get up to 80-odd percent in two decades. I mean, that's an enormous change from today. You're talking about the population, 60% of which is under the age of 20, median age of 17. Afghanistan is becoming urbanized very, very quickly. Something like half the population now resides in major cities and smaller towns. That's really important because, you know, once people are city dwellers, they stop, you know, the tribal and sectarian affiliations are no longer relevant. And in the big cities, I mean, women have to work because it's difficult to survive. So you're seeing a lot of women enter the workforce. And Afghanistan is could become a model for the entire region. I mean, the most basket case of all the countries in the region becomes the most progressive. But in terms of the American presence, is it important that the United States keeps, you know, 5,000 troops in Afghanistan, 500, zero? I mean, is there a kind of psychological number that would sort of say to the Afghans and also to regional of the neighbors that, you know, the United States is here to stay and we're not abandoning Afghanistan as we did in 1989? The question is, I mean, for the Afghans, if it's going to be 2,000, then the Afghans will say, well, we're going to alienate our neighbors and upset people within the country. But with 2,000 people, you're not going to be able to do much. So that, in some ways, could be counterproductive. But I think that the numbers that people have talked about range between 10 and 20,000. But the numbers the Obama White House is really looking at now is much lower than that. I mean, they're looking more in the 3 to 9,000 range. And it's possible they might say, you know, my understanding is 3,000 would keep background open and that might be enough. Well, we don't know that. But I think a lot will depend on the terms of the conditioning of the Afghan public. Just like they're trying to condition the U.S. public. I think it's important for people to understand it for it to be explained. But in my discussions with the military, seeing the military people, both here and also in Kabul, American military officers, the feeling is that we need to have at least in order for us to do what we wish to do, we need to have 10 to 15,000, which would include international troops as well. So it may be a combination of both. Right. I guess if the United States says we'll provide eight and the other seven will come from other NATO countries, that's plausible. But I mean, I'm telling you that I think that the U.S. military's desire and what the Obama White House is willing to approve, I think are very different. Well, I think that's why, but people, I mean, this is, I suppose, one of the, we're seeing these sorts of debates go on probably in Washington right now as we speak in terms of what numbers, you know, the residual forces post-2014. And also the drawdown right now, I mean, how many troops will you withdraw immediately? And then, you know, and the drawdown in terms of the numbers as we approach the end of 2014, that's also going to be important in terms of building capacity within the Afghan forces. But of course the residual forces are going to be very important in terms of the psychology for the entire region. But I think one of the things that, you know, Americans need to think about is that this has been the longest war for the U.S. You've spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the country. If in short, and the damage to the credibility of the U.S. in the region and internationally is going to depend on 3,000 extra troops, that needs to be, you know, taken into consideration. One final question before throwing it open to the audience. How would you score what has gone on in the reconciliation front? I mean, I just read today that there are apparently 30 or 40 countries that are in some form of talks with some elements of what they think of the Taliban, which obviously is pretty confusing. And obviously, the United States and Afghanistan and Pakistan, there's a degree of sort of mutual distrust which makes kind of a deal. Any kind of deal difficult. On the other hand, Pakistan's released, you know, a number of kind of Pakistani Taliban figures that will be important to a negotiation. Afghan Taliban who are living in Pakistan. So how would you score all that? And is it, I mean, you know, the history of these kinds of negotiations suggests that they are very lengthy. I mean, think about the prediction in the IRA. It took 30 years. So do you see this as something that's desirable? Do you see this as something that's actually producing any results? Do you see the Taliban producing any kind of explanation of what they see their very own future in the system in Afghanistan to be? Well, you know, we're talking about the force that its approval rating has never really exceeded 10 percent. Right. We have seen the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. We know what they're capable of doing. So I think people are very reluctant to support them wholeheartedly. And if anything, in some provinces and some districts where they have prevailed, it's mostly, it's been out of fear. And also because the people, the government has been so bad that, you know, the people have resorted to bringing back the Taliban. But the key thing for us is, I think that both sides are not being particularly honest. All sides, you know, I think the Americans are deceiving themselves to believing that we can have a quick peace deal. The Afghans probably think that they can divide the different leaders within the Taliban. And they will prevail by promoting certain individuals within the Taliban leadership hierarchy. And then we have the Pakistanis who are probably just buying time. The Taliban themselves, I mean, why would I do a peace deal if the Americans are leaving in 2014? It's just, it's a no brainer. I mean, no one disagrees with the principle of talks. You know, every conflict has ended in some sort of a negotiated settlement. But if I was a Taliban commander, why would I want a peace deal? The Americans are leaving. I mean, the biggest supporter of the Afghan army, the people who've been doing the fighting are leaving. So why would I want a peace deal before 2014? In my humble opinion, I think that what will happen is the time is on the Taliban side as they often say. But quite the reverse is going to be true post-2014. Every single day after 2015, the Taliban have not prevailed in major towns or districts or major cities. Their myth will be destroyed. I think that the Taliban will, the pressure will be on the Taliban to do a lot more post-2014. And every single month that they haven't done enough, they'll be weak in psychologically. I think the real peace deal will happen in 2016, 2017. That's one. The second thing is that the Taliban, you know, pretty much, I mean, for me, if I was to do a deal with the Taliban, I'd do a deal with them at the regional level. Not at the national level. Because their policies and their ideology is not something that resonates across the country. So if there's a prominent Taliban commander, I'd put them, make him a district chief in Helmand or a governor in Kandahar. You know, you don't have to do something. You don't have to dilute the entire system because of a force that has an approval rating of 10%. And the question to a lot of your government officials is why are you imposing a force that's so unpopular on the Afghan nation? And I think a lot of people, again, in your government are motivated by things like a Nobel Peace Prize and so forth or credit for ending this war. And I think that they have the wrong attitude and the wrong approach. This is a very complex issue. I mean, you could make the argument. There is an argument for withdrawing all international troops at the end of 2014 because it would basically take away the sort of stated reason the Taliban are fighting the war. They fought before 2001 and there were no international troops in the country. That may be true in some districts in some parts of the country where people don't have a good view of the American troops but I think nationally it's not true at all. And you think, I mean, when I talked to Dr. Abdullah on this question, I've asked him, yeah, what could you live with? I mean, it sounds like your views and his views about the Taliban are similar, which is district governorships where appropriate, a provincial governorship where appropriate. Well, they're not qualified. I mean, you're not talking about very sophisticated people. Yeah. So why would you hand them a ministry? They're going to screw that, basically, even if they had the best of intentions. So what you would do is you quarantine them at the regional level. It's a bit like buying a very small company and doing a deal with them at a holding company level. I mean, you do it at a very regional level. And I think that they may do a good job at the district level. Who knows? Great. We'll throw it open to questions. If you have a question, can you raise your hand and identify yourself and wait for the microphone? So this lady here in front. Hi, Peter. This is Mehreen Furuk from Word, the World Organization for Resource Development and Education. I wanted to thank you for providing us with this really great opportunity. It's been very interesting. We're leading a study on Afghanistan's civil society. And you had mentioned earlier that a lot of your TV programs have been critical in facilitating social change. So I'm particularly interested in the capacity of civil society to promote peace and stability in the country. So I was wondering if you can share with us some examples of efforts or programs that are underway or in the works to sort of amplify moderate voices around the country. Well, we have, you know, we have seen a lot of, let's call it movements, predominantly led by young Afghans. Some are supported by the likes of Soros and the Europeans and others. And some just young people putting their efforts together and making things happen. But what's interesting about the media and how we work well with civil society groups and individuals is that we allow them, we give them a voice and a platform. And the continued support of civil society is going to be very important for the country to an extent they are the conscience of our country today. And especially some of these young people that are very encouraging in terms of their views on women, on education, equality for all Afghans. A lot of young people are coming forward talking about private sector development in the country. And, you know, even if you look at our round tables, you know, you see so many young people today commenting, you know, on all types of issues. So there are hundreds of different organizations, civil society groups, active in the country. Some are funded directly, some are funded directly by the U.S. government. But a lot of them are just young people wanting to do the right thing. We don't have the challenges that say that people in Russia have or people in Pakistan have. You know, to an extent, Afghanistan is quite free in allowing these people to operate. A gentleman behind you, Daniel. Yes, thank you. My name is Larry Cohen. I'm going to speak on behalf of one of your TOLO TV advertisers and a former sponsor of Afghan Star. That's okay. You mentioned that the, if I can quote you, no signs of the economy contracting. However, I can speak on behalf of this company that the impact of the transit trade agreement and the interruption of transit trade has had a devastating effect on their company and on others. I would say that perhaps the economy is already in the process of contracting because of the interruption of trade. How do you address that? No, I did say that, you know, we have seen signs that companies are cutting back on some of their costs. But there's no doubt. I mean, we've had problems in terms of transit for 10 years now, especially with Pakistan. Explain what that means. Well, whether it's with contractors bringing in goods for the American military I said whether it is that or Afghan produce going in another country, we've had a lot of challenges and a lot of shipments being held up either at the border or in Karachi. And obviously, it's had a huge impact on trade. But, you know, in Afghanistan, what's extraordinary about the Afghans is they can make things happen. I mean, we don't have shortage of anything in the country despite these problems and these challenges. But these are challenges that we've had for a long time and the trade deal between Afghanistan and Pakistan, although technically as it's a landlocked country we should get goods free of tax. We've had challenges with the Pakistani government for a decade now over these sorts of issues. That trade agreement which was something that Richard Holbrook was really pushing, I mean, what was the purpose of the trade agreement and I think everything's okay. The problem is just in terms of the practical day-to-day things that we have had issues. But I suspect that these issues will keep going for a long time. I mean, we can't import anything from India directly. It has to come via Iran because of this because the Indian goods cannot go through Pakistan, for example. But even our goods going through Pakistan to India, which is such a big, important market especially for our dried fruits, it should really take days, but can take up to two weeks or three weeks or sometimes never get there. And especially if you're talking about perishable items, it has huge impact on our economy in terms of our exports. My name is Jack Pagano. I've been in Afghanistan for five years. I work at ISAF as a cat team and I worked at the government media information center. I taught hundreds of journalists, television. And I keep in touch with them. I'm back here now which right now that's on the bubble. So the question I ask you is how are you getting that information to the public about insider threat because most of the students I've trained, they think that that is a big problem. If another incident occurs, the house of cards could crumble. How does TOLO TV communicate the message to the masses? To make them understand. In terms of insider attacks with the military or with everything? Well, the insider threat that's happening green on blue right now. We're also victims of insider attacks. Afghan government officials have been killed by insiders. I think that almost every organization has been infiltrated by someone potentially including us and we have a fairly elaborate system of gauging who comes in for job interviews and how we do background checks on them. It's a combination of things. I think that one of the problems we've had and the president has talked about this is Afghan government officials at the highest level affiliated with governments around us whether it's Pakistan, Iran or Central Asian Republics or even Russia. And that's a reflection of people wanting to survive. I recall in 1977 or 1976 when my father was a diplomat a colleague of his was forced to resign because his cousin married a Pakistani national. No Afghan official was allowed to go into another embassy for anything without permission of his superior. Those things will fall into place. I think that we will slowly but surely get to that in due course. In terms of green on blue I think that the Afghan National Army is a very rushed job. We don't have everything in place. What is green on blue just to clarify? It's Afghan police and military and other types of officers or soldiers for soldiers attacking their trainers or foreign troops that they work closely with which has been on the rise and it's probably cost more lives of international forces of late. It seems like it's tailed off though recently. Is that because of better safeguards that are in place? I believe so. But also I think that we have to ensure that when we recruit people that we do proper background checks on people. We still don't have a proper ID system. We don't have a huge database. I mean they're building these in time. Sergeant wouldn't the US military have retinal scans and other kind of data or millions and millions of Afghans that could be put in such a database? I think they've done it on suspects certainly of people arrested. But in terms of people being recruited for the military I know that for the police they started doing that but one of the challenges they have again is the Afghan government because the Afghan government is scared of a huge database and an ID card system where they can because of the elections and voting and everything sometimes the transparent system is not something that would suit everyone's purpose. So for that reason we have had challenges but again we'll get there I think that these are you know we face these sorts of challenges and under the circumstances I mean they can adapt fairly quickly and as Peter pointed out I think that we've seen the number of green on blue attacks come down significantly since about three four months ago. Gentleman over here. Hello Richard Lee Smith from the British Embassy covering Afghanistan here. I was also out in Kabul previously. There's been quite a lot of interest in your programming that involves voter participation and the extent to which that might encourage cross ethnic support for I don't know in your case I imagine it's singers and things like that. Do you have any sense whether that's happened as a result of some of your programs whether you're actually getting people voting across ethnic boundaries or not? Well I mean we have a number of challenges the biggest challenge is not security it's apathy if people see a flawed process and their vote is not really counting for much they will not vote so for the participation you know we can do all the promotion we want but it also depends much will depend of the transparency of the process itself so one of the big challenges we have going into 2014 it's convincing people that things are going to be different to 2009 but we have different we have a program called the candidate which is essentially like the American Idol you know to do with young people running for office they have to come with a set of policies and they have to promote their policies give speeches and then people vote for them as far as you know one of the things we have a lot of groups and so forth I mean Afghanistan we are no Yugoslavia I mean it's I have to point that out that Afghans have all ethnic backgrounds in different parts of the country we have seen them come out and vote the Pashtuns in 2004 the Hazaras in you know 2004 and 2009 so the voter participation to a large extent depends on on how credible they feel the elections are going to be I mean in 2009 the biggest I mean we the biggest fall in terms of voters was in Kabul and you know of course the south and the east you could say because of security but Kabul was because of people just didn't feel that it was going to matter and back here I'm Ed from American University what were Soviet expectations when they invaded Afghanistan there's too much diversity what was their expectation I wish I knew I think they got conned into invading the country I mean obviously they had designs on the country and they had they probably had those designs for three four decades before they invaded the country but I think that they they probably felt it was going to be no different to Central Asia in terms of changing transforming the country but actually I mean if you look at if you read books like Afghanski and Afghanis Afghansi and others I mean they pretty much were conned by the Afghan Communist Party to go into the country something they probably regretted as soon as they walked in follow up on that you know some people say I mean the Najibullah government which followed the Soviet withdrawal collapsed after the money kind of ran out if sort of the money tap was turned off in the United States for some reason in 2016 or 2017 that would clearly have a problematic effect on the Afghan National Army because the Afghan there isn't enough revenue to pay for the army and the Afghan budget No I mean it's about six times the annual budget six or seven times but also the size of the army is important I think this whole idea that we're going to actually reduce the number of Afghan police and and militaries is a flawed approach because well I mean you know as soon as they get better we're going to start reducing the number of Afghan soldiers and it's ridiculous the lady in back can you wait for the microphone sir I wanted to know your opinion on the balance of the international handoff and the continued humanitarian assistance need my question is based on my experience with the APPF transition so your president is decision that we could no longer have foreign funded private security which definitely brought many of the development initiatives to maybe not a halt but found drain stage and our ability to perform because we suddenly couldn't have security I wanted to know what you think of that decision by your president private security companies were no longer allowed to provide for development workers in your country when we're trying to finish programs and keep things moving forward was that a good or a bad decision in your opinion well like most things in Afghanistan there is no simple answer to that because you can see it from his point of view that you have armies of security types in the country very expensive large portion of your budgets are going towards security are they effective I mean I have doubts in terms of their effectiveness are they their behavior provocative I would say yes it is more often than not especially in smaller communities where they go into can the Afghans do their job I think they can we've always had Afghan and we're a big target we'd be bigger target than most NGOs in that country they protect us well enough so I think that maybe the decision to I mean I think the decision wasn't an abrupt decision it had happened over a period of months but it's one of the few things that I would say that I probably agree with the president I think that security private security forces you know we've seen a lot of bad things western they're western they're people who are not familiar with the culture they're very expensive they're behaviors very provocative I don't know if they do much good can the Afghans do a better job I would say yes and I think the NGO community needs to be very patient needs to actually put a bit of effort into getting a cheaper security force that could help them complete their tasks one of the concerns that we always have is I mean an average employee of the UN on an annual basis costs hundreds of thousands of dollars you know the things that why should they have a very expensive security force why should they have a land cruiser that's armored they can have a cheaper car why should they have a house that costs $10,000 a month so these are things that you know I mean we really appreciate the money that the world is giving to Afghanistan but could be better utilized well in a sense we've very generously given a lot of money to ourselves I mean if you look I mean I think the Americans are doing an incredibly good job of actually giving the money to the Afghans my impression is Sweden is very high at the list in the United States does a very poor job of actually delivering aid in a meaningful way and you could make the argument it would have been better if we'd just taken 20% of the aid and just given it to individual Afghans who would have done more good yeah I mean oh the Germans have done a brilliant job I mean if there was a road project we looked at TZ the second half by USAID the Germans did it for one-fifth of the price yeah and they completed it the Americans couldn't even complete the project one thing I was always puzzled by driving around Afghanistan is the people working on the roads were Chinese I mean Afghanistan has a huge unemployment problem why were there so many Chinese who were brought in to do these roads it seems very puzzling well that's a whole discussion in terms of the contracting environment that big company wins the contract a regional player could be a Turkish company or a Chinese company which then subcontracts to a local Afghan company so ultimately you may pay a million dollars a kilometer for the road but what you get is a $50,000 a kilometer road so they tend to you know I mean there was a road that I think was funded by the ADV that collapsed and killed six people to Jalalabad I mean literally collapsed and half dozen cars fell into it so there have been a lot of Saudi jobs but then again I mean it's been a difficult journey for us all I mean I think that most internationals didn't expect to actually go in and develop this country from scratch and it's been a learning process but that's just as we're learning I think you're leaving right well speaking of the learning process if you were to score the three biggest failures of the United States and the three biggest successes what would they be well I think the biggest success in the Afghan regime and allowing the Afghans to come back in that's been a big success the process itself I mean people talk about Pakistan that this government is going to complete its term for the first time since 1940 something in Afghanistan we've had two parliamentary elections we're on our third presidential election we've had an interim period transition period I mean you could argue that you know Afghanistan is unique in the entire region you know and there are no questions we know we're going to have parliamentary elections in the next number of years we're going to have presidential elections that's a huge success for us and three I think that and I'm a bit biased about this in terms of media landscape in the country in telecommunications the Americans play the significant role not just in terms of creating the environment but also helping people like us so these have been three big successes the failure I think the biggest failure has been fully post-2004 distracted by Iraq I think that huge opportunity cost not just for Afghanistan but for for America and the region I think the second if you were to call it failure was good use of your money of your billions of dollars it could have been better utilized for the country and I think in absolute terms things have improved dramatically but relative to what you could have done with your money we could have seen a lot more and the third one is a mistake which we're seeing happen is not engaging post-2014 sort of a myopic approach to foreign policy in a place as crucial as Afghanistan the neighborhood given its importance I think will be a big mistake we're seeing it happen as we speak and I hope the third mistake is not going to happen but I'm sort of fearful that it's just they're going to throw the two hardbasket and walk away from so you're over here my name is Jessica from American University what do you see as some of the biggest misconceptions in the American media about the situation in Afghanistan and do you work at all with any mainstream US news sources to kind of rectify that problem or inform the media here well I think that you know with we talked about whether it's education urbanization of the country in terms of how normal things are in Afghanistan the development of civil society of media of the economy which a lot of people believe that you know Afghanistan is just so impoverished so backward these are all misconceptions that we have to deal with on a daily basis I mean we know all the big media players in Afghanistan the reporters and the journalists but you know at the end of the day you know you know you know and we come across this a thankless bunch of people whose country has not really improved or changed that's not true first and foremost I think our mistake us as in Afghans has been the government our government has failed to really communicate the good things which have happened in the country and I think since 2009 since our last elections our president has locked horns with your government that's not true first and foremost I think people are very appreciative of what's happened in the country and very mindful of the importance of the international community and secondly as I mentioned that the people don't agree with the president on the issue of international engagement as pole after pole indicates meaning that they are more sympathetic than the President Karzai has appeared to be yes astonishing life expectancy has gone up 18 years in the last decade from 45 under the Taliban to 62 for women for men and 64 for women it took the United States between 1900 and World War II to get the same equivalent jump in life expectancy and this is something the story I mean that is it's unreported in America and as you say Saad I mean the news business we don't report on hurricanes that become tropical storms that become hurricane sandy so that you know that's just the nature of the news business where the fact is is that I think there is a rather distorted view of Afghanistan because it's mostly bad news that we see on the front page if we see anything well that life expectancy is very important because they've dealt with child mortality and that's where again the US government as well as the international have played such a positive role in terms of ensuring that there's medical care around the country and again it's it's a very challenging environment but you see the results have been mind boggling how quickly they can actually go up from 40 odd to 60 odd in terms of life expectancy gentlemen on your left Daniel there's Steve Affington with the Afghan hand program I had a discussion back in late 2010 with some senior folks from the ministry of higher education and Kabul University regarding the the the production of students coming out of Kabul University in higher education question I have is at the time of the discussion the answer I got was there was no strategic plan for how many students of what type were produced by any higher education system within Afghanistan and that really the only way that they picked how many students they're producing was the size of the building they were using or the number of teachers they could get are you seeing any one is the the higher education system within Afghanistan producing the type and the numbers of people that you need to support or businesses within Afghanistan need to support continued growth and two are you seeing any kind of public private partnership between the higher education system and the business community to engender that kind of development well it's a good question because it's just to just go back to the basics back we some of the some of the Afghans that we dealt with in the government we talked about the vision for the country so let's say in 2030 or 2040 what will Afghanistan become will we be a agricultural hub for the region will we be the banking hub will most of our people go and work in the Gulf as electricians or carpenters so the education system to a logic that needs to reflect the country within the region itself so do we have to establish vocational training centers do we have to establish new universities agricultural universities so I think that's one area we failed and I think this is an area that our international friends can help us with as far as the practicalities of day-to-day business for us is concerned we are dealing with say the American University in Kabul in terms of media we are working with Kabul University we are giving scholarships we have interns from the university who come through we give them a small salary and then when they finish the university they come and work for us we send out teams to different universities around the country we try to engage them as as much as we can we believe as far as we can and very enthusiastic very aspirational you know they are the future of the country so we want to engage them with so many different levels and we are trying our best but more could be done from a policy perspective I would say this lady here my name is Raghad Alsadi I'm a congressional fellow and my question is that I'm assuming that the US relationship with the Afghan government is moving forward post 2014 will be more of a partnership relation and with that more development and funds will go through the capacity building and development for the society so what kind of conditionality that could be in a place in order without offending of course the Afghan government but to hold it accountable as well as the US taxpayers make sure that the money is well utilized on behalf of the Afghanis thank you well that's one of the challenges it's hard to ensure that the money that you're giving to the Afghan government is not stolen and I would say that this is where the private sector comes in as much as we like to see the Afghan government more engaged there's no reason for the private sector to go down why does it have to go through the Afghan government it could be actually given to a private company tender the Afghans could be involved as they are today like with the mining industry the Afghan ministry of mines works very closely with the DoD and the World Bank and others in terms of tendering various concessions and as a matter of fact people are fairly pleased with the results so I think that there is an argument that individuals within the Afghan government who and we have some good ministers and we have some good bureaucrats can work with our international friends to create the framework through which assistance is actually not assistance but development projects happen in an accountable way in an accountable way I mean you know accountability is a challenge for countries like Singapore and South Korea so I think we're not unique in that respect gentlemen here ladies sorry Hi I'm Ross Mason I'm a resilience trainer and I've been pleased to hear you mention on several occasions just now that resilience of the Afghan people and I'm curious to what do you tribute your own resilience and your ability to be someone you stuck your head above the parapet and I'm curious if you could explain you know what has enabled you to do that and allows you to continue to do so I mean we're very lucky I mean we're in a very good place and we have foreign passports myself and my siblings we can get on a plane and leave the country and for us you know we're not the ones facing problems real problems I mean ultimately if Afghanistan was default God forbid it's the Afghan nation that's going to suffer for us we're going to have the easy option of being able to walk out ultimately but for us I mean I think we have no choice really for a lot of Afghanistan and Tom Fressen who's sitting before us lived there in the 1970s I mean we I listened to him for inspiration and when I want to hear about how what we can go back to ironically going back is a positive thing but so there is you know the people of Afghanistan are good people I mean I know that's a it's not a technical term but they're good decent people as Kipling said you know we're the only nation in Asia that doesn't have any inferiority complex we're comfortable being ourselves and if given the opportunity I think they will they will prosper I mean you have to understand that we got involved in this mess as a pawn of the superpowers in the 1980s and then neglected hence the Taliban we've had a good 10 years good 10 12 years but I think that we just need time I think that time will allow us to to develop from within cannot be imposed on us it cannot be forced it has to be organic to a large extent with some pushing some funding and you know and again we've been lucky that we've had a lot of support internationally and domestically and we've been lucky in more ways than one gentlemen in the back here Hi, Jason Smith International Executive Service Corps I was wondering if you could talk a bit about infrastructure particularly electricity telecommunications to impact on economic growth maybe some ideas for progress I don't have the numbers in terms of electricity in terms of the you know the demand of the country in terms of megawatts but I know that in Kabul most of the suburbs now have access to electricity at some stage during the day which is a huge difference to 2001 for us for example we have our own generators which operate 24-7 but for the first time we're looking to switch to the city grid so that's a it's a you know this is 2013 so and we've been in the same office same office since 2002 and we import a lot of electricity from Central Asia we've had a lot of refurbishment projects in terms of rebuilding some of the old hydro plants and we have a lot of mini plants which we've constructed around the country especially in the north and of course some of the bigger projects like Helmand I'm not even sure if that's going to actually end up producing any electricity Kajaki Dam Kajaki Dam I know that they've almost finished the work but it's a it's a serious thing for us I mean could the industry develop without electricity? How could the country enter the 21st century without electricity? but what's interesting is that we've discovered that we've we have a lot more gas than we thought we did so that's going to allow for more plants to be built in the north and our USAID is working with a number of companies to do that and I think they have a Chinese company now actually working on the project but we need more help obviously and this is one of the barriers that I think that the the internationals can help in terms of road infrastructure I know that our roads are not the best as we've described but it's more than we've ever had before this is this is what's extraordinary about Afghanistan what we've built and how we've connected different parts of the country and of course we can't travel by road to certain provinces and certain districts but the road system that's been put in place is the best we've had ever So I have a quick question in late December when Rasmussen big US polling company polled the American public 33% of the country said you know 33% of the people polled said the country's getting in the right direction now Asia Foundation and their big poll late last year found that 52% of Afghans think their country's getting in the right direction do you think there's a problem with these polls I mean a lot of people say you can't poll in Afghanistan or do you think these polls broadly represent sort of the underlying reality Well it depends on how the question you know have you do you have everything you've been promised the answer is no but things as good as what you were promised in 2004 they will say no but they say well if you look at the Taliban period how has your life since then it's been a great journey and we're very thankful so it depends on how that question is asked I think that if you ask most Afghans to take a step back and look at the look at the last decade they'll be more positive but everything is relative to expectations You cited the finding which is pretty universal in polling that only less than 10% of Afghans have a favorable view of the Taliban you are confident that that's a pretty good number I'm pretty confident that that's a good number I mean you know the government is unpopular and in some parts of the country the people sort of reminisce about the Taliban days but there's an old opposition's never when governments lose so it's mostly a reflection of the weakness of the Afghan government than the Taliban being more popular Any other questions? Two here Yeah On the economy after we 2014 take yourself to 2020 or 2050 whichever is easier and list to me where the Afghan economy what are the biggest industries and where will the economy see its growth top three top five Well agriculture is going to be a huge part of our future 90% if you look at Afghanistan today 90% of our economy is agriculture so for us the important thing is how to you know food security is a major issue in our neck of the woods whether it's the Saudi Arabians or the Kuwaitis or the Qataris investing in Africa in different parts of our region Central Asia for example in terms of ensuring that they have enough food I think Afghanistan could play a significant role in the region you know we're the size of France with a population of 30 million people if you look at Pakistan it's got a hundred 80 million people a much smaller country and we have enough water in the country but it has to be managed well enough and I think this is where we need again foreign investment in terms of not just developing the agricultural sector but in terms of value-added industries packaging and so forth and there's a huge market for us in India in the Gulf even in Europe you know we're only five or six hours away from Europe and so we have this opportunity it's going to take time and this is one of the regrets we have that this sector wasn't developed well enough I think the other area which is interesting is because you know we have still a small government relative to a lot of other countries that from a regulatory as far as a regulatory environment is concerned Afghanistan can actually change fairly quickly we can have fairly liberal banking laws for example allowing banks to come and establish in the country we can become the electricity hub of the region importing from different parts of the region and re-exporting to South Asia a plan that the ADBs work on once we have the grid and we have the infrastructure which they're working on so there are different things that we can do manufacturing is expensive obviously because we're landlocked and we don't have railways and of course but not least is the resources sector that needs to be explored exploited where Afghanistan seems to have significant reserves of natural gas potentially of oil of different minerals gold copper coal just a gentleman here good afternoon I'm Chris Doyle from American University one thing I notice is when you mentioned you know sharply rising literacy rate you have a younger a younger generation that's getting some opportunities that the previous one did not do you expect any generational tensions and a possible threat to sort of national cohesion as a society as a result of a generational gap with things like literacy opportunity things like this yeah I would suspect that we will see that the power of the purse will has already transferred to the younger generation of Afghans in most households it's the young individuals who basically finance the entire family and they will demand more you know there is a lost generation the generation that in the 80s and 90s were in refugee camps a lot of them seem to be in power and government and in the different ministries but I think we will see that transformation happen fairly quickly as to whether we have tension you know I think the tension is going to be that significant but certainly they will play a much more active role in politics and business and culture and we're seeing that on the cultural side but I think you'll see them more in politics and business as well I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Saad for a really brilliant presentation about Afghanistan's future politics, economics and