NATO, Karzai and the relics of Kabul
By M K Bhadrakumar
The long-term security document signed between the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and Afghanistan on Saturday at the alliance's summit meeting in
Lisbon has a 50-50 chance of becoming a historic milestone or ending up as yet
another forlorn artifact in the vandalized Kabul museum.
Having come to the region seven years ago on a UN-mandated "out-of-area"
operation hunting down al-Qaeda, the Western alliance is suo moto broadening
and deepening its "commitment" in the hope of taking up long-term residence in
the Hindu Kush. But Kabul museum has many relics of history.
A beleaguered and politically battered Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president,
meekly put his signature as a junior partner on the
document with Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's secretary-general. Regional
capitals as far apart as Tehran, Moscow and Islamabad would have taken note.
Quite obviously, notwithstanding the phased transfer of security responsibility
to the Afghan government by the end of 2014, the NATO forces hope to stay on in
Afghanistan. The United States President Barack Obama said:
confident [what] we will still be doing after 2014 is maintaining a
counterterrorism capability [in Afghanistan] until we have the confidence that
al-Qaeda is no longer operative and is no longer a threat... And so it's going
to be important for us to continue to have platforms to be able to execute
those counterterrorism operations.
My goal is to make sure that by 2014 we have transitioned, Afghans are in the
lead, and it is a goal to make sure that we are still not engaged in combat
operations of the sort that we're involved with now. Certainly our footprint
will have been significantly reduced. But beyond that, it's hard to anticipate
exactly what is going to be necessary to keep the American people safe as of
2014. I'll make that determination when I get there."
added to the strategic ambiguity by confirming that a long-term agreement
between the US and Karazi's government would be signed. The Americans have put
Ashraf Ghani (the former World Bank official whom they robustly projected as
presidential candidate in last October's Afghan election) in charge of the
"transition", effectively bypassing Karzai, and clearly hope to micro-manage
Obama publicly snubbed Karzai by insisting he will have to learn to live with
US military strategies, including the controversial night raids about which
Kabul frequently protests. Jettisoning his usual charm and persuasive ways and
even discarding the courtesies of inter-state behavior, Obama cut Karzai down
"If we [US] are ponying up billions of dollars, if the
expectation is that our troops are going to be there to help secure the
countryside and ensure that President Karzai can continue to build and develop
his country, then he's got to also pay attention to our concerns as well… he's
got to understand that I've got a bunch of young men and women from small towns
and big cities all across America who are in a foreign country being shot at
and having to traverse terrain filled with IEDs [improvized explosive devices]
and they need to protect themselves. And so if we're setting things up where
they're just sitting ducks for the Taliban, that's not an acceptable answer
The best spin that can be given to the blunt-speaking
is that Obama might have been grandstanding. (There were reports that General
David Petraeus, the senior US commander in Afghanistan, might throw in the
towel.) But Obama overlooked the proud culture of the Hindu Kush and severely
wounded Karzai. As his words get played out in Afghanistan in the days and
weeks ahead, Karzai's standing is going to plummet to zero. Karzai cannot
easily recover from this rebuke - except, perhaps, through more audacious
display of his "Afghan-ness".
One hell of a belief
The Declaration on an Enduring Partnership signed in Lisbon provides the
framework for the NATO to fulfill not only its "long-term commitment" to
Afghanistan's security, stability and integrity; it also recognizes Afghanistan
as "an important NATO partner" in "contributing to regional security".
In turn, the "commitment" given by the Afghan government that Kabul will act as
"an enduring partner to NATO and provide NATO with the necessary assistance to
carry out its partnership activities" also recognizes the "importance and
relevance of broader regionally owned cooperation, coordination and confidence
building between Afghanistan and its regional partners."
The Declaration states that NATO and Afghanistan will "strengthen their
consultation on issues of strategic concern" and develop "effective measures of
cooperation". Thus, there will be "mechanisms for political and military
dialogue" and for a "continuing NATO liaison in Afghanistan".
While the "common understanding" between the two parties will be that NATO
won't seek to establish a "permanent military presence" and that it will not
use its presence against other nations, future cooperation between the alliance
and Kabul will be "drawing as appropriate upon NATO's menu of cooperation
Most important, the two sides pledged to "initiate a discussion on a Status of
Forces Agreement" within the next three years. While the Declaration is between
NATO and Afghanistan, it provides for "opportunity" and "encouragement" to
non-NATO countries engaged in the Afghan war (eg, Australia, Japan, South
Korea, and others) to "contribute to activities resulting from this
Three things must be noted. One, Rasmussen quintessentially acted as
Washington's agent, which is natural as the US contributes 73% of the 28-member
alliance's budget and calls the shots. Therefore, the US' imprimatur on the
NATO-Afghan declaration is unmistakable. This is all about the open-ended
strategic presence of the United States in Central Asia.
Obama wisely highlighted to the Western audience the 2014 timeline, which
suggests the war is ending. He also addressed growing public opposition to the
war. At the same time, he is moving on two parallel tracks by forging
agreements for long-term military presence in Afghanistan as well as "aligning"
the US allies in NATO with Washington's approach on the way forward.
However, it all presupposes, as Obama put it, "we're now achieving our
objective of breaking the Taliban's momentum... I am confident that we can meet
our objective." Whether he truly believes in his self-confidence we do not
know, but it is doubtless one hell of a belief.
Second, Karzai doesn't have his heart in this enterprise, and his angst kept
surfacing in different forms in the run-up to the Lisbon summit. Just a week
ago, Karzai made a scathing attack on the US strategy. Evidently, Karzai has
been arm-twisted. The fact that Ghani has been brought in to handle
"transition" along with Obama's dressing down to Karzai are clear hints to the
Afghan president not to push his luck. Whether he will accept this rebuke or
heed the warning is a big question.
The Afghan bazaar will be keenly watching. A realignment of political forces on
the country's chessboard becomes almost inevitable. Significantly, former
president and Tajik leader Burhanuddin Rabbani (who heads the High Council
appointed by Karzai to negotiate with the Taliban) arrived in Tehran over the
weekend for consultations.
The "Ustad" rarely travels abroad. While receiving Rabbani, the powerful
speaker of the Iranian parliament [Majlis] Ali Larijani expressed Iran's
support for the policy of national reconciliation attributed to Karzai, which,
Larijani said, is also the will of the Afghan people. It has been announced
that Tajik strongman Mohammed Fahim (First Vice-President of Afghanistan) will
also visit Tehran "in a near future".
The NATO-Afghan declaration becomes a major hurdle for Karzai's reconciliation
strategy. The declaration - and the two status-of-forces agreements on the
anvil - should have happened within the ambit of a settlement. Clearly, the US
is prepared to negotiate only from a position of strength. NATO's approach
spelt out at Lisbon underscores the US grit to weaken the Taliban militarily
before engaging them in talks.
Therefore, the period between now and July 2011 (when the drawdown of US forces
begins) will be decisive. Of course, no matter what happens, Petraeus is a
favorite of the Republicans, and a strategy associated with him gets bipartisan
support in Washington.
But Karzai's preliminary work so far for eventual negotiations with the Taliban
has virtually stalled and it is difficult to resuscitate it until at least the
results of Petraeus' work on the battlefield get known by early summer.
Meanwhile, Petraeus has brought in M1 Abrams tanks as his ultimate weapon.
But M1 Abrams can't distinguish between friend and foe, and the "collateral
damage" will become Karzai's political burden and Taliban's mileage. Besides,
what if Petraeus fails to dent the insurgency militarily? Obama might then as
well give up the hope of negotiating from a position of strength. Which, of
course, will render the NATO-Afghan declaration a museum piece.
Unsurprisingly, Pakistan sounds skeptical about the 2014 timeline, et al. While
Rasmussen and Karzai were putting their pens to paper in Lisbon, gunmen near
Peshawar torched yet another NATO convoy ferrying supplies for Petraeus'
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.