Ill-wind blows for a 'neutral' Afghanistan
By M K Bhadrakumar
Maybe there is an air about the brooding Hindu Kush mountains that lends
inscrutability to politics and history. It touched Tuesday's Kabul
international conference on Afghanistan, where the subtext was of far greater
interest than the open agenda. In fact, when it comes to the Afghan problem, it
is almost inevitably the case that the surreal takes precedence over the real.
Thus it was surreal that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is still
not quite done, after failing to win in Afghanistan, with its first "real" war
in its six decades of history as a military alliance, and it is certainly not
contemplating a return to its natural habitat. NATO seems to have fallen for
the adrenalin rush of the primeval tumult that people of the Hindu Kush live
with and
seems to loathe the dull prospect of returning to the predictability of a
settled life in Europe.
NATO's longing for adventure seems to have been a key subtext of the Kabul
gathering on Tuesday, which was attended by 60 countries. The big players at
the conference danced around it, poking a finger or two at it to test how real
it is or could be in the coming days and weeks in a setting like Afghanistan
where nothing is quite certain until it physically arrives.
The statements made by the foreign ministers of the US, Russia and China at the
Kabul conference assume significance in this regard.
Rasmussen's shot in the air
The stage for the shadow play was duly set by none other than the NATO
secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. In an extraordinary "curtain-raiser"
on the eve of the conference, exuding a high degree of optimism about the war,
Rasmussen wrote that NATO was "finally taking the fight to the Taliban" aimed
at the "marginalization of the Taliban as a political and military force ...
[which] will encourage many who joined the Taliban to quit their ranks and
engage in the reconciliation effort."
But tucked away more than halfway down in his highly-publicized article was a
curious sub-text: BLOCKQUOTE> Starting the transition does not mean that the
struggle for Afghanistan's future as a stable country in a volatile region will
be over. Afghanistan will need the continued support of the international
community, including NATO. The Afghan population needs to know that we will
continue to stand by them as they chart their own course into the future. To
underline this commitment, I believe that NATO should develop a long-term
cooperation agreement with the Afghan government. Very
little ingenuity is needed to estimate that Rasmussen would never venture into
the public airing of such a profound thought regarding NATO's future in the
post-Afghan war Central Asian region - the hidden agenda of this Clausewitzean
war all along - without checking out in advance with Washington, nay, except at
the bidding of the Barack Obama administration.
By a coincidence, Rasmussen's idea has appeared on the eve of the expected
award of a contract by the US Defense Department to build a sprawling US
Special Forces base in northern Afghanistan near Mazar-i-Sharif. The US is
undertaking the project on a priority footing at a cost of as much as US$100
million. The base, in the Amu Darya region straddling Central Asia, will become
operational by the end of 2011, or at the latest by early 2012.
According to available details, the 17-acre (6.8 hectare) site of the new
American military base is hardly 35 kilometers from the border of Uzbekistan
and it seems set to become the pendant of a "string of pearls" that the US is
kneading through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and
Kazakhstan along the "soft underbelly" of Russia and China's Xinjiang.
How would the countries in the region size up the startling prospect that the
US and NATO are possibly quitting the Afghan war by 2014 and yet preparing to
settle down for a long stay in the Hindu Kush?
Moscow reacts
The only forthright reaction so far has come from Moscow. Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov pointedly underlined in his statement at the Kabul
conference the importance of recognizing Afghanistan's future "neutral status",
which would preclude any sort of permanent foreign military presence. To quote
Lavrov:
The restoration of the neutral status of Afghanistan is
designed to become one of the key factors of creating an atmosphere of
good-neighborly relations and cooperation in the region. We expect that this
idea will be supported by the Afghan people. The presidents of Russia and the
US have already come out in favor of it.
Indeed, what is
surprising is that Obama not merely seemed to favor the idea of a "neutral"
Afghanistan but explicitly referred to it as a "commitment" as recently as last
month when he received Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Washington. The
US-Russia Joint Statement of June 24 on Afghanistan, in fact, began with the
following opening statement:
The United States of America and the
Russian Federation confirm our commitment to Afghanistan becoming a peaceful,
stable, democratic, neutral and economically self-sufficient state, free of
terrorism and narcotics, recognizing that further significant international
support will be needed to achieve this goal.
Has Obama
backtracked? The point is, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton uttered not a
word about a "neutral" Afghanistan in all of her intervention in the Kabul
conference on Tuesday, whereas she seemed to deliberately circle around
Rasmussen's thought process, preferring to dilate on issues such as the
importance of upholding women's rights in a future Afghanistan.
Interestingly, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi chose to visit the idea of
a "neutral" Afghanistan, but somewhat tangentially. He said on Tuesday:
The
international community must give continued attention to Afghanistan and follow
through on the commitments made in London [conference in January] and the
previous international conferences on Afghanistan. We should respect
Afghanistan's sovereignty and work together towards the early
realization of 'Afghanistan run by the Afghans'. We want to see a peaceful,
stable and independent Afghanistan ... [Emphasis added.]
US holding breath
At the end of the day what really matters is Clinton's silence. It needs to be
carefully weighed.
It indicates the US seems to be wary of a rebuff from the region and is
gingerly going about with the unveiling of the idea of setting up permanent
US/NATO bases in Afghanistan? Of course, it has been fairly well known for
quite a while among regional observers that the Pentagon has been feverishly
beefing up the US military bases in Afghanistan, including construction of some
new ones, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and equipping them
with facilities that enable the American troops to maintain a familiar
lifestyle far away from home, which is of course conducive to the presence of
long-staying GIs into a distant future among people famous for their hostility
toward foreign occupation.
This was exactly what the US has done in Iraq, too, despite the end of the
"combat mission" as such by September.
The US diplomats have been gently persuading capitals in the region in recent
months that, contrary to what Afghan history might suggest, the idea of a
"neutral" Afghanistan isn't all that good for regional security and stability
in a milieu where violent Islamist radicals are at large. Washington hopes to
capitalize on the visceral fears in those capitals of a radical Islamist
avalanche once the Taliban is co-opted in the power structure in Kabul.
New Delhi, for instance, has explicitly used the term "neutral" Afghanistan in
its past policy pronouncements, but the Indian minister S M Krishna used a
noticeably milder variant in his statement on Tuesday - and that too, rather as
a barb aimed at Pakistan than as a well-thought out stance regarding
Afghanistan's neutral status - by merely observing that "India is committed to
the unity, integrity and independence of Afghanistan underpinned by democracy
and cohesive pluralism and free from external interference."
The idea of concluding a Status of Forces Agreement with President Hamid
Karzai's government, which the US officials have been considering with the
active encouragement from London, now seems doable. Compared with the past year
or two, the Afghan leader nowadays gets on fairly well with his Western
patrons. And he may even find physical advantages in having the US and NATO
provide him with a security umbrella to safeguard against any nasty surprises
that the Pakistani intelligence may spring on him in the downstream of the
"reconciliation" with the Taliban.
The fact of the matter is that despite exuding confidence regarding a future
beyond 2014, by when he wanted the foreign troops to end the combat mission and
withdraw, in his heart of hearts Karzai cannot be having the sort of requisite
faith in the performance of the Afghan Army - indeed, whether the army would
even hold together as an entity in the foreseeable future - if there is a
determined, well-crafted putsch by the Taliban with the able backing from its
Pakistani mentors once Western forces withdraw from the battle field in 2014.
Significantly, Lavrov appealed to the "Afghan people" - and not to Karzai's
government, which hosted the Kabul conference - to voice the demand for the
neutrality of their country and the rejection of long term foreign military
presence.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka,
Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
