What is going on in Afghanistan? How long ago it appeared to be a major success, both militarily and politically. BICC has a long report on
the security situation in Afghanistan, from the army to the police, from justice to the treatment of women. The report cites many reasons for security failures in Afghanistan:
- The central government does not control most of the country.
- Warlords maintain militias through profits from corruption (especially failing to turn over customs to the central government), foreign states, and narcotics production.
- The army is not integrated, and is regarded by most Afghanis as another faction force.
- The defense ministry has been slow in implementing reforms.
- Taliban forces, reinforced with former Al-Qaeda, have been making advances in Pashtun areas of the country.
- Pashtun’s feel that they are left out of political decisions; in their disillusionment, they turn to insurgent activities.
- UN and other humanitarian organizations cannot operate in most of the country.
In spite of these reasons, all of which are very good, the report points to “donor fatigue” as a major problem as well.
The western countries (US and NATO states) are no longer as willing to commit troops and money to maintain the peace and allow for progress. This one problem has had some effect on all the others, either denying the Afghan government essential resources in order to provide security or withdrawing support.
According to the report, the coalition forces (hereafter
ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)) had not added adequate numbers of peacekeepers in the country. The small army in formation in Kabul has not the reach nor the resources to exert itself over the entire country and integrate (or disarm) the militias. The spaces that are beyond the control of Kabul are open to terrorists. Consequentially the small army is insufficient to undermine the sources of revenues of the warlords (the report writers say that this should be the primary objective of security policy: cutting warlords off from foreign and illegal sources of capital.) The limited presence of the ISAF around Kabul has limited the geographic implementation of democratization in Afghanistan.
The decrease in contributions is also alarming. This report was written before Bush’s request for $87 billion. At this time international funding for programs in Afghanistan was low. Funds that were allocated supported the presence of troops rather than reconstruction. Essential programs to retrain soldiers and police officers were languishing. (Interestingly, the report blames the lack of a central organizing force to see that these goals are implemented; it recommends that the UN take over reconstruction and security buildup.) Available native security forces are underfunded and easily corruptible. There are no institutions to promote justice, and gender-based violence is appearing anew.
Has the world lost interest in Afghanistan? It is very likely. Karzai is no longer the lauded hero of the American media; no one talks about American interest in Afghani culture.
Posted by:
Nathanael / 5:17 PM :
(0) comments
New articles from the think tanks and policy orgs
|
- Building bridges in Mostar. Article highlights how municipal projects in a divided city in Bosnia have helped to ease interethnic tensions and how this model of cooperation at the community level can apply elsewhere.
- Bush travels to the UK. Reprints an excellent article about the effects that US unilateralism is having on the UK's relations with Europe and how the UK cannot say no to Europe. Recommended.
- Free trade area of the Americas. About the Miama conference. I have not looked at it yet.
- Bush policy or Bush philosophy. A reprint of a Washington Post editorial on Bush's confidence in democratization in the Middle East.
Posted by:
Nathanael / 3:24 PM :
(0) comments
Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
|
The Carnegie Endownment has a speech and q&a with
the foreign minister of Afghanistan. Minister Abdullah is blunt and insightful. I was surprised at his candor. He is not critical of Bush policy in his country, but he does not shy away from the truth. Here are some important points from his speech and his responses:
- While no longer a base for Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan has become a land-bridge or a hub that allows terrorists to travel between different parts of Asia.
- Terrorists activites within Afghanistan (including help to the movement of terrorists) has been funded and armed from abroad, and terrorist activities have been legitimized by calls for jihad from clerics in Pakistan. These are the fundemental foreign policy challenges for Afghanistan.
- The government is greatly concerned for the narcotics trade: it sees the irradication of narcotics production as necessary for maintaining foreign aid.
Finally, I want to note a question asked by a rep from the Cato Institute:
what defines a people? What defines a nation? British India divides into India and Pakistan, two nations. Pakistan then divides into Pakistan and Bangladesh, two further nations. We had this problem in the United States. We had a Civil War. Before the Civil War, it's "The United States are." After the Civil War, "The United States is." How do you create national identities, for example, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, that supersede the Pashtun identity of people on both sides of the border?
Where did he get the inspiration for this question? A high school textbook? I am so sick of conservatives who take the US case as the normative case: every nation must form in the manner of the US. Guess what? There have been many roads to nationalization, and not all of them involved a civil war. Get over it! Read some other histories! Educate yourselves!
Posted by:
Nathanael / 12:50 PM :
(0) comments
Do relations between the US and Europe need to be reconsidered?
|
Here is the comment that I placed on another blog about
whether a "new Atlantic Charter is necessary. (This phrase come from one of the presidential candidates. I won't say who in order to keep out of electoral politics.)
Most of the candidates approach NATO and other international organizations as if they are static organizations. NATO is not simply an organization of military powers in cooperation with one another. It arose specifically in the context of the Cold War: it organized international and national defense policies in particular ways that are not really applicable any more.
The prevailing concern during the Cold War was that the dominant threat from the USSR. However, that did not allow the nations automatically to gear themselves to defend against the USSR--Western European nations were still obliged to defend against their neighbors. NATO provided a framework by which the lower level security threats of neighboring states could be dealt with productively by coordinating the security policies of each state. The focus of defense would no only be the state next door, but the Soviet Union.
NATO had the effect of directing interstate conflict and competition away from defense policy. It would no longer be acceptable to express grievances with another state through military expansion or jingoism. The European Coal and Steel Community (later the European Economic Community, currently the European Union) were pioneering and influential in the same way: economics became a field of cooperation between states, allowing them to concentrate more on social policy. Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman should be thanked for the early successes of all these endeavors.
There have been obvious consequences of the demise of the Soviet regime: the USSR is no longer a threat; the European countries have a legacy of peace between them; states formerly under the Soviet system are eager to affirm European interstate cooperation. But in this context, the relevance of NATO was not longer obvious. Europeans would no longer fight among each other--why should they support military development? Fairly early on as the European Union was being formalized, some diplomats began pointing to a number of ethical and moral reasons why Europeans should cultivate military strength. These were the "Petersberg tasks": military power needs to be available to intervene in humanitarian crises. However, the European states were not clear about how to affirm these reasons and redesign their armies in order to meet them. First, NATO did not provide a framework for acting outside of Europe or against anything other than the army of a superpower. NATO was (and still is) poorly conceived for either current security threats or for the goals of the Petersberg tasks. Second, the creation of a European defense force has been problematized by politics. Of course, different states have had different opinions about where, when and how to intervene. More controversially, the European states have not agreed on how to build a European defense force. They may be willing to grant authority to a super-international organization like NATO, but they are uncertain about doing so for the EU. To many European, the EU has stood for peace without resort to military--a brighter future than NATO could provide. Furthering this problem is current US policy. Bush demands the formation of ad hoc coalitions to meet new threats. This undermines efforts to build an EU force. If international organizations will not be facing these threats, why should nation-states invest in these organizations--either NATO or EU. They see that they need to invest in their national defense forces, a proposition which will lead them to added expenses.
The Kosovo War showed Europeans what they wanted from defense policy and their problems in achieving it. First, they wanted to act as a humanitarian force in the world, employing diplomacy and pressure to democratize before force in order to end strife. Second, the war showed that their current regional defense organizations are poorly conceived for humanitarian tasks. The EU could not produce a force at the time to go into the Balkans (despite a military budget of over one-hundred billion dollars). The US was reluctant to allow NATO to go in (remember all those ridiculous worries about "nation-building" that ultimately crippled the state department?). The current answer for the EU has been to develop a force that can respond to humanitarian crises on short notice--what they call the Rapid Response Force (RRF.) The RRF has been slow in emerging because of the US use of ad hoc coalitions that I outline above. Also, national defense purchases by the individual states has been focused on creating a force that could act thousands of miles away (they need to figure out how to move thousands of troops and their equipment on short notice--they imagine that the RRF would be deployable in 30-60 days when fully formulated.)
What could a "new Atlantic Charter" do? It suggests that the US will be willing to cooperate with Europe in any number of defense related tasks rather than simply attempting to direct them. One, it could refocus NATO in purpose: it could maintain its elements of cooperation while providing a context for large scale operations within the world. Two, it would clarify to European nations the support of the US for a European defense policy and help them to realize the RRF. Third, it could provide guidelines for different types of interventions in global affairs, be they humanitarian or defensive.
Posted by:
Nathanael / 11:38 AM :
(0) comments
I have been a little out of the loop--I had a car accident last week. Between the insurance company and the feeling in my gut, I have not felt productive. I intend to write something about European defense policy. I will repost something that I wrote to another blog in a moment. First, a moment to remember my departed 1997 Saturn Station Wagon, which I called the Didge (after that Australian instrument). It was the first car that I bought with my own money.