a and that action has cost us dearly. it has cost all of us dearly. and so i believe that the investments that we have planned to continue building afghanistan's economy, to continue building its capacity of its people and to continue to set it on a path for its own self sustainability is a critical opportunity that now more than ever we have to recommit too. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all. we're trying to pack a lot in today's we don't have much time for question and answer, but i think we have about 15 minutes

where we can take some questions from the audience. we have microphones that can be handed out, if you identify yourself. i would make a plea to keep your questions or comments short so that we a time for as many people to as questions as possible. so please identify yourself. we will start there, close to the microphone. >> i think probably afghanistan is the only democracy where there are no political parties which are so crucial for any democracy. so why it didn't happen when the world community led by the u.s. was helping afghanistan in several factors. why didn't they help them to mainstream political parties? >> thank you. we will take three or four questions and then come back to the panel. in the very back. >> i had a question about the

cut in humanitarian and afghan nationals duty forces eight. i know there's a lot of aid moved around between accounts and so forth what impact do you think it will have in practical terms and also as messaging? thanks. >> thank you. now up in the front. >> alex, i really appreciated your comments on development, and i wonder if you could follow that thought through, the importance of development in afghanistan in terms of the regional context and the security considerations? >> okay. may be time for one more in the back. right there. >> thank you. [inaudible] my question will be for the

panel, whoever can respond to what is your input on peace building efforts in afghanistan, and how do you assess the current on and off peace talks? giving people favor these peace talks, what's the role of u.s. in peace talks and how they can continue their involvement in the talks? thank you. >> okay, i think why do we come back to the panel. political parties, peace talks, the cuts in assistance, development questions. alex, start with you. >> i think that there are three major areas that are going to boost afghanistan in terms of employment generation, in terms of income and regional development. the first is agriculture. agriculture is enormously important to afghanistan. is by far the greatest generator of employment. it is fundamental in

afghanistan, which has been traditionally one of the most food insecure countries in the world. but afghanistan's agricultural potential is so untapped. this is one of the reasons why u.s. aid in the last couple of years has invested so heavily in that, but part of afghanistan's agricultural potential is also about trade and export. and so when i think about the regional development context, afghanistan as a trading partner for the region and as a place where the region can trade with each other is fundamentally important. there have been some to get finances in this both in terms of infrastructure but also customs revenue. when i talked about afghan government revenue, its customs which has been the fastest growing sector for the afghan government in terms of revenue. we all know that the region that afghanistan fits in with one of the most economically frustrated in the world.

the great dream of trade between south asia and central asia, and then eventually through and up into europe and beyond is growing. but still remains stalled. the opportunity to open up those trade pathways will be, i believe, fundamentally transformative for afghanistan and the region. the last thing i wanted to say which is not related to the regional thing but it's so fundamental, one of the things usaid has been investing so heavily is getting afghan women into the economy. that is half of the people of afghanistan who have not been economic actors. women have great potential in afghanistan, particularly also in terms of the agricultural economy and diversify the agricultural economy. i think some of the greatest growth potential that afghanistan is going to see is actually by generating meaningful economic opportunity for women in afghanistan.

>> iosa couple words about the cuts. those cuts in assistance and people who have used euphemisms, cost and risk. when and risk. little putt at based face on one with the cost and risk. those cuts in assistance been the more people are going to die, and particularly more afghans. i was in afghanistan a short while ago and i visited a hospital and saw a two year old whose foot, a two euro girl, same age as my two year old grandson, here in the u.s. her foot at the glove off by an ied. her parents were despairing about her future because the future of a handicapped person afghanistan is difficult. there will be more children's feet blown off. more afghan policemen and soldiers killed because of those cuts in assistance. when we do our systems less effectively, that makes the ability of the people we are assisting more susceptible to

death and injury. it means more people on this website, as alex pointed out, were able to deliver assistance more effectively. the achievement in public health alex talked about our tremendous. going from six to 60% people who are within an hour of health care is a tremendous accomplishment but to continue that improvement needs continued resources that the u.s. and other countries have pledged in afghanistan. so these cuts that bring our ability to carry out the pledges we've already made inducers question, bring our ability to support the afghan seek a divorce is to be effective are leading the hardship, pain, suffering and death right now. >> so one comment on the question of cuts in the system. i think it's both the question of the reality of what money can buy as david explain and its the question of the message of commitment that was sent into

the afghans, as all discussed. the afghans have us and we're asking the afghans to assume an enormous burden of responsibility for the sovereignty of their own country. but the question is whether their partners are going to continue to send a message of commitment and confidence. on the question of regional economic cooperation, the secretary announced the new silk road secretary kerry has endorsed it and created a new office to follow this up. i think incredibly important initiative. europe after world war ii found a way for the countries within europe to cooperative with each other, at the heart of that was cooperation between france and germany. i think one of the questions for the central south asia region is what is there equivalents? one is trade and transportation which would be critical getting goods from china to go through to europe but there are also others, one of the to highlight i think is the question of energy and power. they would meetings where

leaders came together and what they got really excited about is when they discovered that some of the central asian republics are producing power and kinsella from two to 6 cents a kilowatt power with india and pakistan are buying 13 or 16 cents per kilowatt hour. that's enormous opportunity. energy of power is another, and others i think increasingly are being discovered but in the search original cooperation is what would help create the incentives for peace and stability. >> thank you very much. let me see if i could just adjust the question of the peace process such as it is, i talked about this oval before the session. i would make four points if i could. one is i think it's really important to start as david sedney talked in his intervention to start and remember that the fighting you,

these taliban who continue to attack and attack and attack, as david said, mostly noncombatants but also terrible attacks on afghan national city forces and a continued effort to kill and maim american forces and international forces as well. this is an enemy that is still out there fighting i think any consideration of peace process is going to begin with the question of whether they are interested in doing some kind of arrangement and making reconciliation work with the people of afghanistan. secondly, i think it's also worth saying out loud that i can understand, everyone should understand, why afghans and especially i think afghan women or young people or entrepreneurs, worry about the peace process. because they worry that people are going to make decisions about their heads are over them to have the reconciliation process which might chip away at some of the important progress that's made over the last 12 or 13 years.

that's why it's extremely important it seems to me that this be a conversation, afghans about what they want in terms of reconciliation. if i could put a parentheses here, i think as alex said and also clare noted, it's extreme important that women make their progress inside of this increasingly important afghan -- it seems one of the natural barriers toward going backwards in a reconciliation process is to have powerful women, but powerful economic interests in afghanistan so they can speak for themselves about what the future will be like. and fourth point, just to keep going back and back and back to the point about what is the role for the international community, and particularly for the united states, and that is a clear one. that is to open the doors, maybe make it possible for afghans to talk to other afghans about the future of afghanistan. reconciliation is not about the

united states or the international community making some arrangements on behalf of the afghan people. it's about afghans making arrangements that they wish to see. since you have to make your own decision, but it does strike me as right that this is a conflict that isn't going to in militarily. there will be some political end to this that reconciliation therefore among afghans is important. secondly, as i said in my intervention, it's the reason to be in favor of a signed dfa, reconciliation is a reason to be in favor of american international forces in afghanistan after january 1, 2015 because the taliban is watching what it is we're going to do. they're not going to rise at the own kelly. there still has to be some effort made to fight this terrorist group and finally is the question of the and conditions, to make sure that there is a break with al-qaeda, that there is an

ending of this violence against the afghan people, and also there is a reconciliation that supports the kinds of governments and constitution and effort that our friends here were talking about, especially protecting the role of women and society. so i think there is a role for this. a huge number of questions obviously by the very important thing i think it is for foreign voices to say, like so much of what we said on this panel this morning, this is afghan responsibility that we have the privilege to support. >> let me briefly try to tackle the political party question because i think it's an excellent question, a very important one. certainly in the future if i think parliamentary democracy is going to function effectively in afghanistan, you do need at some point to get political parties stronger and upgrading more effectively in terms of this aggregating and organizing interest to make parliament function. i think the original sin from my perspective goes back to 2004

when the voting system that was selected, not to get too much into the weeds, but the single non-transferable vote. what about the first publications back there was on the voting system as highly critical about choosing that voting system precisely because it works against the interest of political parties and works in the interest of independent candidates. i think that was a deliberate choice, if you want to keep the executive strong and powerful in parliament we can infected, the single non-transferable voting system is a effectively doing that. i think that's now more widely recognized, but, of course, once people get elected, they're the ones in power and have an incentive maybe to preserve the system which is why down it's a recognized problem that's quite difficult to reverse. but i do think it's an area where there does need to be more of awareness raising and political parties need to get a bit more organized themselves and improve their own lobbying efforts to get that voting

system changed in future elections modes. unfortunately, we have run out of time, and i apologize. we don't have more time for the session. we're going to have a coffee break, but i just wanted to end it again by thanking everyone in our panels, in particular. also did want to also recognize the ambassador who have represented afghanistan in washington over the years at a very critical time in afghanistan's history. but also ambassador dobbins and the panelists, thank you very much. i think it was a good session. i think the challenge is, i'm not arguing, let's not be pollyannaish but let's also have a realistic and balanced assessment of what's been achieved. as well as the real challenges and threats moving forward because if we only focused on the failure and have a narrative

of defeat, that i think really fuels the sentiment that we should give up and leave. as alex pointed out, we have paid a very heavy price when we did that 20 years ago. let's not repeat that mistake. thank you very much a plo. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. is very much for coming to this important discussion about afghanistan at about the united states relationship with afghanistan. i'm david ensor, the director of

the voice of america and i will be moderating the second and which will be a little bit looser because i'm a tv guide site like to walk around with a microphone and things like that. we have a very distinguished delegate eleanor just an intimate by what is it a couple things and show you a bit of a videotape. being a television person i can't resist doing that. first of all i spent, and really why i'm here, i spent 17 months in 2010 and 11 serving at the united states embassy in kabul as the director king occasions and public diplomacy. and so like many others in the room i fell in love with afghanistan and with the afghan people. but remark on three things i noticed in the area of the afghan media and struck me and will perhaps help us get started here. the first thing which led me in the into the job i have now at the voa was watching television

and seeing that there was a program on the evening news on the radio television afghanistan, rta, ma very able leader is with us today. thank you very much for coming. but in partnership with rta, voice of america has an hour of news every evening. and what struck me first was that it was a very well put together program, but secondly, all my afghan friends watch it. the effectiveness of that conversation and that reliable news made quite an impression on me. the second thing, and i think practically everyone in the room if you fall afghanistan or afghan media issues at all have been struck by this at one time or another, is the extraordinary adventure called hello tv. the extraordinary impact, enthusiasm, energy that that particular private company has

brought to the afghan media scene. and more about that in a minute, but they're not the only ones. as ambassador dobbins mentioned there are something like 75 television stations and 175 radio stations. and enormously vigorous, buried, conversation going on on the airwaves in afghanistan. among afghans. tolo tv may be the largest but it is one of many. so that's a very notable piece of the media landscape. the third thing is that as an embassy official, i went around the country and often visited little tiny fm stations in villages and small towns around afghanistan. and there are a lot of them. and you go in, perhaps it's a one room fm station somewhere in a small town that doesn't have

too much going for it coming to find young people at the microphone finding some way to get a little music on with some kind of a basic tape recorder, and in many cases these stations were started by locals with help from ngos, prominently, i into news which is represented by some senior people, and thank you for coming. and many of these stations while the run local content, maybe have a local talk show, runs the music, also run the flagship show of that whole network of community radio stations. so didn't another green shoot, edit strong one, an important one, diverse, varied source of strength for afghanistan going forward. so we get an this panel to discuss what i frankly think is one of the most important

advances over the last 12 years. we've heard of many others from the previous panel, but obviously i'm a little biased because i spent nearly 30 years in the business of journalism, and i'm still sort of in the. but freedom of speech, if you don't have that, you ain't got much. you have to have a democracy which afghanistan seeks to be, really has to have a sense that people may say what they think and that the media, maybe there are some limits, but fundamentally can do so as well. and it is that subject that i'd like to get us to talk about, and we want to talk about how can we support the media sector in afghanistan going forward. the our lot of different aspects to this and i'll introduce our panel in a minute, but before you do that, it isn't just about journalists and journalism, important though that is, well

represented that sector is on the panel here, the media is much more than just good newscast. it's entertainment, it's informing, its storytelling. by the way, afghans are some of the best storytellers i've ever met. so in that spirit i think that the effort that we've seen over the last 12 years, by many different westerners, different countries, different support systems, has been much broader than just trying to provide freedom of speech and the news. though that is for me job one. and allow the afghans to find, to learn how to do that, as they so much have, but it's also helping the needy in to become a full part of the country's culture and its strength. so in that spirit i want to show a seven minute clip from a wonderful new documentary produced by a young australian

filmmaker, eva -- i have not got her name in front of me. some of you may have seen this but this would broaden the discussion before we even get started, here seven minutes of the network by eva orner, on some of the broader issues of journalism, of women and other topics that are important about afghanistan. so here's a taste, and this seven minutes focuses on a particular television show on tolo tv. can you roll the film, please? ♪ ♪ spent either not watching.

spent it's a drama series. for afghanistan and probably one of the highest budgets made here and very ambitious. ♪ ♪ >> our instructions from assad was that this was need to be made into an international level, this is going to lift the bar on the production phase in afghanistan. >> it was just such a huge production. we had 78 locations. it was shooting on the streets of kabul, which had problems of its own. [speaking in native tongue]

>> we were filming this very large sequence outside the ministry of agriculture. we had a guy wearing a suicide bomber vests. the eagle for police were chasing the bad guy, and then a police car turns up and he's kind of trapped. every shot kept getting faster and faster. and the last day, we also almost thought our actor was dead. it was frightening. 45 minutes later, our head of security said that the ministry of agriculture wanted to shut down your shoot and they want you to delete everything you shot today. so we packed up our entire shoot in five minutes and left. when we were doing eagle four, we needed someone who could do bullet wounds and scars and burns, you name it. i sat down with karine and

asking what can you do? we had a chat about it and she said she would protect us. ♪ [speaking in native tongue] >> what's amazing about her is that i think out of any local staff member, it is only her who can walk from a set in afghanistan to set in a western country and your job without any problems. she is just fabulous. ♪ a note.

[speaking in native tongue] >> what we're trying to do with that show was to lift the profile of the afghan security force. one of the biggest things in the transition of this country's once we pull up to the city forces will be in a situation. we need to know once the initial forces go, that there's a duty forces are adequate enough to look after people. [speaking in native tongue] >> the idea of the show is to vote a force with integrity and create heroes that you can trust the police that are around you your. >> you have nine provinces.

attitude towards the police have change for the better after watching the show. there was a noticeable spike in improvement during the run of the show. it was highly successful. [speaking in native tongue] >> things changed, people will have to know they are working for them. >> garate. so never let it be said that we don't have entertainment value here at this conference. and that afghans don't have a sense of the theatrical. let me just got also like to read a quoted were introduced the panel. this is a letter from kabul from doren townson. are yo your? you are. i'm going to quote you. this is in foreign affairs.

relevant to this. he worked in kabul. when western legal technicians are asked about these programs, they typically dismiss them as peripheral and propagandistic, a sideshow to the surest basis of institutional dave building the audience surveys just the shows up in a powerful suggestion can bring their own police, lawyers and judges to a more virtuous ones on fictional television. viewers have expressed hopes for a cleaner and more efficient justice system is a new sense of urgency. and he mentions another show, crime scenes, says producers received hundreds of phone calls asking for is to look into the violation highlighted in the shows. so before we get into this and our will, to broaden it slightly. what are we talking we talk about the afghan media. we have a very strong panel to talk about this with us. on my immediate left, peter

bergen, director of the national security program at the new american foundation, author of manhunt, the longest war, osama bin laden that i knew, a cnn analyst and i should in full disclosure, a personal friend. we worked together at seen him, and have been friends for decades, and another member of the kind of tribe that believes in afghanistan here in the united states. next to him, najib sharifi who is director of the afghan journalists safety committee and afghan voices in his own right, a distinguished afghan journalist and afghan patriot. he has worked for the "washington post," "the new york times," the bbc, npr's we also understands the western media and its oddities and they greece in strengths and weaknesses. to his left, danish karokhel, the director, the founder and of the pajhwok afghan news, one of

the sort of bedrock afghan media institutions that has been founded in the last 12 years. a source of strength for so many other media organizations. you can't really have good radio and television stations if you don't have a good wire service or to. those of us in radio know that only table. recently can't cover everything. what danish and his team do is they try to cover everything and, of course, that's impossible but it's amazing how much they do and the quality of the work. so is also the 2008 winner of the international press freedom award from the committee to protect journalists are another great afghan patriot on a panel. and to the far end from the united kingdom james deane who is director of policy and learning at bbc immediate action. so for vehicle safety represents the competition in the way. from the competition, but james

worked with some others i'm probably the best survey and study on the state of the afghan me. i'm not too long ago. and has some interesting findings from the and some strong views about what we need to do going forward, those of us who care about this issue. so let me start by, let me start with you, danish, if i can. and let me ask you, how strong is the afghan media at this point, and how worried are you about its future? >> thank you. thanks voice of america for organizing this such an important event. the first session, the beginning

amount, i really came from the negative aspects of afghanistan, which i hear some positive things, american people community, government of u.s.a., and i'm so happy, we believe we are not alone. we have support which is what a good -- i want to start from one of the recent example. i want to share the one story which i recently need in kabul, one of the barbers in a barbershop, and he told me, he bought a land to build houses family by $6000. and now after those two, three

month fighting, he sells out by $4000. he believed if the afghan government not sign the bsa, if we didn't have acceptable election, he is not sure it will be 100% free election, but he says that if we have not have and acceptable election, it is mean how future will be dangerous but he want to keep those $400,000 -- 400 -- $4000, you know, how to transfer his family to one side of afghanistan to the other and help feed his children. it is mean that now our future in afghan media future in our country future is different on

signing bsa. and so the acceptable election, if we both didn't have that, it is mean our future will be dangerous. i will be worried. afghan journalist will be worried and are people will be worried. these two things are very important and it is like a bridge for our past. we really achieved in last 12 years a good achievement in afghan media. if we compare the taliban time as before i hear that during taliban time there was not tv channel. it was just taliban registrati registration. but now we have a thousand media outlets. now our question is that how we keep that, how we running back, how, you know, and i hope if the bsa signing, if we have a good

election, if we pass this bridge i think our future will be very good and i think will have a good success in our country. >> najib, same question. how strong is the afghan media, how important is it to the country and how worried are you about its future? >> well, it's very strong if we look at the fact that today's afghan me is one of the products of the last 10 years. before that we didn't literally have media in that country. as a nation rightly outlined. -- as danish writer ellen goodwin had one radio during the taliban and two papers which were slowly being used for the propaganda purposes of the government. in terms of highlighting priorities for the central government, in terms of promoting human rights, promoting women's rights, in terms of holding politicians accountable, it's very strong. again, we have to look at the

afghan media in the backdrop of what we had before that, 2001. its extremist important for afghanistan because afghanistan has recently started on the path of democracy. in the absence of a strong and vibrant media, we would not be able to have much success in the endeavor of building democracy in the country. but it's got its own weaknesses and it's imaginable. one of the important weaknesses of the afghan government is mainly on the part of immediate owners, lack of a strategic vision towards the media outle outlets. and it will lead to the bankruptcy of a lot of, or a significant number of media

outlets after the drawdown of the forces in afghanistan. it's because proportionately there will be reduction in the amount of aid in afghanistan. a lot of afghan media, a major source of funding for them is the international aid. >> that's what i want to get too. maybe i'll try with you, james. how worried are you about looking forward, about the future of the afghan media? do you have any sense of how many stations may close if they lose for and support the? >> first of all, let's acknowledge the success. everyone has but i think it's an extranet achievement which is very much down the afghan people about my colleagues on the panel here, others in the audience. there's astonishing achievement, there is a tradition of afghan journalism that goes back to 1911. but there was nothing in 2001. 10,000 people are now employed in the sector. the spectrum, problems have

century with a number of prayer stations that exists. the number of television stations that exists. and this is very much down to the energy and entrepreneurialism and creativity and courage of people, of people like najib and danish and others. so there is a big success story and a success story is also being built on external support, external support by people like into news, by myself, by people like yourself, david. it's dependent upon that and why significant way as well. spent cannot add a code of before? is also due to person doesn't always get his credit for this. it's also due to president hamed card is opened up a space and kept the space open more or less for free discussion in many voices -- karzai. >> registry system in the entire

region. it is quite extraordinary. but how worried and i? really work. this is built on an awful lot of external support. that external support does appear to be drawing up. the domestic advertising market by most estimates, top in something like $30 million a year and probably more like $20 million a year. nothing like enough to sustain the scale of a media that exist in the country. so only two things are likely to happen if the support has continued to dry up and the way it appears to be doing. one, the media will consolidate and shrink, perhaps a little bit of that needs to happen anyway and the best will survive. but it will start also to be fall into the hands of those are prepared to pay for it. those are prepared to pay for it, and it's difficult to verify

the real evidence, numbers around us, but certainly the bigger supporters of immediate in afghanistan from external sources outside from private finances being the u.s., but for many and many consider a second biggest supporter of immediate and afghanistan is iran. we are beginning to see, and this is something we mapped and charted in the report we did which we published in 2012, we are beginning to see a growing cooperation of media life actual forces, why warlords, and perhaps the worry, the worry is if this isn't managed in an intelligent, constructive way, that there is this astonishing legacy that has been built. but is that legacy going to be secured? there are real threats to that legacy at the moment. and yes, we are worried. >> peter, on the neighbors,

iran, pakistan, others, what sort of role are they playing out in the afghan media space, and what are your thoughts about that going forward? >> well, you know, i think it's interesting you compare pakistan-afghanistan -- karzai has been granting licenses in afghanistan, general musharraf, one of the good things he did was really great this space for free press in pakistan, but there is an interesting kind of comparison between pakistan and afghanistan there is to renounce afghanistan's benefit, which is, you know, the freedom of press in afghanistan is a thing in some ways better than it is in pakistan. i did a couple of examples. it would be inconceivable for the afghan government to expel a "new york times" journalist who has been in the country for six years and was a leading journalist for the times. that's what happened to pakistan

relatively recent but as a western journalist trying to cover pakistan when you get a visa, your visa is -- [inaudible] he was beaten up. a bit of the of mine who've gone to baluchistan. you cannot report on very large chunks of the country. you can report in the tribal region. so if you transfer all that to afghanistan where independent journalists can go where they want, and one final point, pakistan i think journalist finds it to be is not the most dangerous country in the world for dangerous, probably the second most dangerous adversary. so i think there's some good things going on in pakistan in immediate but the situation afghanistan looks a lot better. >> but you talked, james, about iranian money coming in to pakistani money coming in to can

you quantify that at all? >> i don't think we can but i don't think this is research well enough and i think we have to be careful about just what the effects of that are. but there is evidence that the channels that that money is supporting our beginning, are getting quite a lot of money, first of all, but also events as we published the report 18 months ago, a sense that those channels are getting more audience anything more traction with the population, and although this hasn't been a polarizing media environment, we heard this morning a little bit about how a lot of the coverage around the election wasn't particularly polarized. there are undoubtedly concerns around where the future of this is going to be. a lot of my work is not just on afghanistan but on fragile states in general. fragile states seem to be structured state. we are seeing an increasingly fragmented and fractured media

in afghanistan, and the most fractured part of that media are arguably getting quite significant injection of something at the moment. it's the last thing and one level for a state that is trying to redefine itself, chart its own future, its own destiny, its own national identity. it's not necessarily a useful way of going, as if the media becomes ever more fragile and fractured in the way it seems to be going at the moment. >> najib, how solid you think is the support that you expect to see after the elections in terms of governmental support for the concept of a free media? i know there was discussion recently about a new media law. perhaps you could give us a word or two on that and what your concerns may be about freedom of the press in afghanistan. >> again, when we compare it to

regional countries, afghanistan has had a remarkable, has managed to create a remarkable space for freedom of media, for the media. and this is because we should, you know, give credit to president karzai, you know, for allowing this and letting it to flourish. but recently we have been noticing pressures from the government. this does not decision looming -- this mainly comes from the ministry information on culture, and their faulty way of solving the problems that the afghan media is undergoing, well, lack of professionalism is a problem and the way that the ministry of information and culture sees to resolve the problem is to pressure the media.

and what the ministry did a couple of months ago was, it proposed amendment of three articles of the media law, which further restricted the space for media workers and gives sole authority to the hands of the ministry of information and culture to punish and tried media workers who are seen as violators of media law, or violators of the profession. i must say that this is not systematic attempts of the government to pressure the media, but there are a lot of individuals in the afghan government who are not very, who cannot tolerate them, freedom that the afghan media is enjoying. in terms of the future of this government, the future

government, it depends on who gets elected. but so far we see that the top candidates, they are all the media friendly and they all believe in the concepts of freedom of expression and expansion of media as a constructive component for state-building and for strengthening democracy in afghanistan. >> forgive me if i put you on a spot. no, but that's the nature of a discussion like this. let me ask you, do you think posh walk and survive? will pajhwok afghan news have fun and three, four, five years time? because it with you an example, an important one. in it, you are canary in a coal mine. will you survive do you think three, four, five years from now? >> in last 10 years we did hard work to sustain pajhwok by news of subscription, but we didn't

find enough money to land a news agency. it needs some support. but based on our learning in the last 10 years, we try to focus on a new stream of revenue in order to sustain pajhwok. but i will tell you an hour coming in 2014, and 15, in our business plan, we are focusing on some new product like election and mining group sites, we want to introduce a new subscription package for the mining company, for economy and politician, which will help us. we have already implemented

that. beside that, we want to focus on our international income revenue, which has also started, and it is good. we want to introduce hospital service which has already started. it will help us. we want to expand our service because, as before, iran's 60 million, afghan have access, it will help us to focus on that, like introduce media service to build a mobile application. we are working on that. we can say, we know that after 2014 or 2014 there will be less money, but if we focus on those things, i think we will sustain pajhwok without aided national donor money spent thinking like a businessman, did you hear.

peter, back when they were in power, the taliban used to tear up the decades. they didn't allow much media of any variety. do you think that their view on changed out of our? seems to me that in some ways they are quite sophisticated practitioners of monteith -- modern media efforts at the their internet presence is impressive in some ways. >> i agree with it. when i was reported in afghanistan when the taliban were in power, and there's power, and there's nobody on the panel does, it was just radio share yet and that was the. that. also bbc had a correspondent on the ap and al-jazeera. but there was enormous and difficult to get a visa or to go as a journalist and want to cut in they would charge huge amounts of money to stay at the hotel where i was the only gue guest. and so they made every difficult. and, of course, the television was banned and so they've

changed template the opposite of a very active spokesman who subscribes to the journal that i added. they have really learned i think from al-qaeda in a sense about having an aggressive media campaign. know how persuasive is it, i leave that to my afghan colleagues, but certainly, and they are making use, interestingly, i'll give you an example. boberg doll was the u.s. army sergeant has been taking hostage by the haqqani network, there was some discussion in the "washington post" that the u.s. was open to negotiating the release of five leading taliban prisoners from guantánamo and the taliban about two days after this report came out very quickly said hey, we are not pushing this issue at all right now. so they are savvy about how to

work any kind of global media environment. spent i guess the question is whether they are going to mature to the level, it is the become more influential in a post-14 afghanistan, they hold a bit of territory or if they decide to our candidates were sympathetic to the taliban and run elections and win is eager to come if they're going to be a part of the game, or if they're going to be fighting which i guess they are in some places. pit in my stomach it engaged in governing, could they possibly tolerate other voices? can they mature to the level with yellow other people to speak as well as them in a more serious afghanistan than the one they ran previously? >> i think the short answer to that is probably not. there's a lot of wishful thinking that has gone on about the taliban. you can imagine the elements that are in the political process but they're a relatively

small part of the equation. i think the single biggest wildcarwildcard here is, will te pakistanis did a series military operation in north waziristan. i think for the first time in a long time that may well happen. i mean i think that the number of people been killed by the taliban in pakistan has reached a point the government has said we are serious. i think that could change a lot for the taliban. if they no longer had critical safe haven, obviously they exist in afghanistan to some degree, but i think the pakistanis see that the united states and nato is leading in some -- in some shape or form in 2014 at the window is closing to do this operation. so that changes a lot of things for the taliban. >> indeed. before get to your questions on the panel i'm going to ask one more, to james. what do you think, james, needs to happen going forward in terms

of support for the afghan media? >> i think the biggest single thing is a clear strategy. there isn't a strategy in this area. when we launched our report in 2012, and then lots of conversations since last year, discussing this with many ambassadors, with many political leaders, with many many leaders and many others, they also -- they all said the same thing, and that is that we've got strategies for just about everything around the transition, for security, the economy, health service, everything you can think of, we've got places and spaces where people meet and discuss and work out what the best way of supporting the future of afghanistan is. except the media. they are was no obvious place or

space within the country where a clear strategic focus can be applied on how best to secure the future legacy of what has been taking quite a lot of money to build up. and they do find that quite remarkable and staggering. and even now after quite a bit of time it's not clear whether space or place actually is. that's what makes us worthy. because i don't think this is principally just an issue of lots of money. i think it's an issue of really smart, intelligent decision-making. and where to support need to be invested in, and how can people like my colleagues on the panel be best supported in the future? i personally don't think the media of afghanistan is sustainable in a short-term. but the role is playing in the future of the society is absolutely fundamental. i've had lots of discussion in

the process and want to be focused in terms of political leadership, what the results of the elections are going to be. but ultimately the future of afghanistan is going to be shaped by its people. it really does need a platform for public debate. we talked a lot about it this point about what the nature of a national dialogue would be in afghanistan. well, where is that platform? what is the foundation around, upon which the people of afghanistan are going to be engaged in what would be a difficult dialogue and debate, to chart their own future destiny. i find that very odd that this element, which i would argue is perhaps one of the most fundamental components of any kind of future success for the country is just rather absent from a planning and discussion, which i think is fragmented across all of the donor

agencies, fragmented across the government, fragmented in the media system. so if i disable thing that needed to happen, we need to get serious come not just about money with strategy and clarity and determination and insistence on this stuff is important. is not peripheral. and i don't see that happening at the moment. >> i'm not a disinterested party. i would just endorse what james said with as much strength as i can offer. there's a reason why the first amendment is freedom of speech in the u.s. constitution. you can't have a democracy that works with any kind of efficiency or effectiveness if the citizens don't know very much. and so i very much hope, i that much endorse what you're saying, james. let us now open it up to questions and points from the panel. i mean, from the audience. can you briefly, can you be brief? can you identify yourself at the very start of when you start talking ?-que?-que x and mostly questions please, not speeches.

but it would mind a few points if people want to make them. the lady there. >> my name is jean mckenzie. with just a quick question about the elections, as media and election specifically, have we seen an exhibition of political figures in the media such as i remember -- a television station before his assassination had a television station. are we seeing political candidates and political figures moving into the media this year? >> thank you, gene. obviously, those politicians will have their own media outlets, and they are going to cover issues in a biased way which means there will be more

favoritism towards the media station that the candidate owns. but the good news is that a lot of the media outlets that are either owned by certain individuals, certain politicia politicians, is sponsoring or that are serving the interests of the neighboring countries, they don't carry much significance because they don't have a lot of politics. i heard the recent survey shows that tolo tv, which is the most piper tv station in afghanistan, has got 60% of the audience's. so imagine a country where we have a round 75 tv stations. ..