• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
18.03.2010

AFGHANISTAN: PEACE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

   

Gagik Harutyunyan

The programme address of President Barak Obama on December 1, 2009 at West Point on the situation in Afghanistan essentially activated the processes around South Asia. Let us remember that main postulates of the new American strategy were:

  1. to obtain the overwhelming military dominance in the region and to negotiate with the “more moderate” part of the extremists,
  2. to form “coalition administration” and to begin the withdrawal of the allied troops from June 20111.

Most of the analysts that follow the developments around Afghanistan issue suppose that the most difficult part of the programme is not so much to establish power dominance (it is real in the limited time interval) as to form viable and at the same time oriented to the West “coalition administration”. Such distrustfulness has real grounds because Hamid Karzai did not even manage to unite his supporters after the recent elections. The most part of the representatives of the so-called “Northern Alliance”, to whom the president owes his success at the elections, due to different reason, have not been included in the new Afghani government (taking into consideration the fact that in Afghani realities “the elections” are of rather peculiar character). The developments for the recent two months in that country are indicative of the fact that the situation is out of control.

Reaction of “Taliban”. The peaceful policy of the US was perceived by the Afghan fighters in rather peculiar way. Making more active their actions in general they attacked the UN office in Kabul in December and in several days their agent (who, as it turned out, also cooperated with the Americans) penetrated into the CIA base and killed 7 American intelligence officers. On January 18 seven Taliban fighters attacked the Pushtunistan Square which is supposed to be one of the most guarded in Kabul and where several ministries, Central bank, trade centre, hotel complex and, at last, the presidential residence are situated. The later has three cycles of defence and the third is guarded by the American soldiers. In consequence of that attack, according to different sources, there were many victims and at least 70 people were wounded; the chaos and confusion had reined in the city for quite a long time and in media the materials appeared which contained very negative evaluations both for the security system organized by the Americans and the possibilities of the local authorities,

According to the commentators, these actions of Taliban showed who the real master of the country was and the former UN representative in Afghanistan Thomas Retting stated that this step by Taliban came to prove that it can attack wherever it wants and whenever it wants. It is quite natural that terrorist attacks even more reduced the rating of the Karzai administration and questioned the ability of Karzai to govern the country independently. Today some analysts tend to believe that there is no uniting force at present in Afghanistan and they expect the dismemberment of the country. Some “softer” variants are also considered, e.g. Simon Koshut supposes that Afghanistan should be decentralized from the administrative point of view and a kind of confederation consisting of autonomous districts like cantons in Switzerland should be formed2.

In any case, the complication of the situation made the Afghani issue topical and the international conference in London was devoted to that issue. Let us mention that the conference in London devoted to that issue was also arranged in 2006.

“The English trace” of the peacemaking programme. On January 28 2010 the Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki-moon, the prime-minister of Great Britain Gordon Brown, the president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai and the heads of the foreign offices of about 70 countries (H. Clinton and S. Lavrov among them) gatheres at Lancaster House in London in order to discuss the issues connected with Afghanistan. Despite the numerous appeals of the organizers the Iranian delegation did not come. The tough statement made by that country a day before was full of unacceptable in the diplomatic practice expressions: “… the meeting is useless… it will not contribute to the solution of Afghani problems… just the opposite, it aims to increase the military presence in that country and do not touch upon the real roots of the problem”. According to the official Tehran which has a real influence on the developments in the neighbouring Afghanistan, the only way to solve the problem is the cooperation between different powers in Afghanistan and the countries of the region.

Back on London conference let us mention that it, as it was expected, went on from the new, “peacemaking” stance of president Obama. There is every reason to believe that this “new” strategy was elaborated with the direct involvement of their British partners and this is conditioned not only by a centuries-long experience of the English in South Asia. In recent years one can meet publications in press saying about the contacts and the negotiations between the British secret service (MI-6) and Taliban. It should not be also excluded that those materials appeared on the media field at the “instigation” of that very MI-6. Further to that, the British officials have always been much softer and careful while speaking about Afghanistan than their American allies. So it looks like the British has been sure long time ago that only military means are not prospective and they prepared the ground for shifting to the “peaceful strategy” by their actions and political positions.

At London conference the schedule of transfer of the security responsibilities to the local security forces was decided: it is scheduled to begin the process this year and in 2011 some districts of the country should be controlled mostly by local forces. Let us mention that those forces are of considerable number: the national army numbers about 172 thousand people and police forces – about 134 thousand.

Hamid Karzai’s plan to involve Talibs in the peacemaking process if the later would break up with al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations was accepted (it, of course, had been previously conformed). Karzai also offered that Saudi Arabia’s king Abdullah undertook the mediator’s mission between Afghani authorities and Taliban; as it is known Saudi Arabia has leverages on Taliban. But in response the representative of the kingdom put forward a precondition, saying that they would undertake the mediator’s mission only if Talibs betray Bin Laden which, under the circumstances considered, do not seem to be realistic. Talibs did not betray the leader of “al-Qaida” for big money even during the first years of occupation when Americans were fully in charge.

It was decided at the conference that the implementation of the peaceful processes is only possible in case of serious economic investments. Consequently, not only $1.6 billion debt of Afghanistan was written off, but also a bid in order to receive $870 million humanitarian aid was made. The Council for Peace, Reconciliation and Reintegration was set up which would oversee the channeling of development funds to provide “peaceful life” for Taliban fighters. According to the information appeared on media field at this fund about $1 billion should be saved, but the participant countries managed to gather only $140 million.

It is known that the material factor is of vital importance and very often it is even decisive in the strategy developments in Afghanistan. Judging by some memoirs it was realized well by the high ranking officers in the years of the Soviet occupation and the former CIA director George Tenet in his memoirs3 directly speaks about the suitcases full of millions of dollars which were passed to the American agents in order to “enlist” Afghan fighters. In regard to this issue it is appropriate to mention the words of one of the experienced experts of the region: “Afghan fighters cannot be bought, they can be only exterminated”. Thus, the funds of the council established in London will be used to make an attempt to mass “buying”, and this, in its turn, put forward the issue of who will be the next “buyer” in Afghanistan. In this context the fact that more than a half of the gathered $140 million (€50 million) has been invested by Germany deserves attention.

“Germany’s geopolitical nostalgia”. It is known that at the beginning of the military campaign the US, on various pretext, aspired not to assign a big part in “Afghani case” to its continental allies and it mainly relied on the “trustworthy English speaking countries” (Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The analysts explained such a tendency in a spirit that the Anglo-Saxons aspired to lay hold on such a big “geopolitical” trophy as they used to think Afghanistan was. Some time latter the euphoria from the first victorious stage passed and under such unfavourable conditions Americans began to instigate NATO and other partners to more active participation in military and political processes. But for the recent 10 years the situation has changed not only in South Asia: the United States began the war in Afghanistan when there was a one-polar system but it tends to finish it in multi-polar world where different political logic works.

Particularly, in a new multi-polar world the contradictions of the interests of the US and the countries of the European zone, the important representatives of which are Germany and France, can be observed. Those countries, for example, did not take part in the war in Iraq; they at some extent impede the accession of Georgia to NATO and Turkey to the EU. The approaches of the Europeans and Americans to the issues of the development of the global financial and economic systems also differ. Let us also mention that the Germans most of all tend to “carry out independent policy”. If France which won World War II preserved its influence zones (e.g. in Africa) and became a member of the nuclear club, you cannot say the same about Germany. Being one of the biggest economics in the world, having battleworthy armed forces and considerable technological and civilizational potential this state has not wielded an appropriate military and political influence in global plain yet. In order to change the current situation Germany in opposition to the US strengthens relations with Russia, thus standing by the postulates of its own geopolitical school, violation of which cost that country dear in World Wars I and II. In this context it should not be excluded that Germany regard acquiring a “share” in such a geopolitical center as Afghanistan as an extra opportunity to return to “big politics”.

Next conference on the peaceful settlement of Afghanistan issue will take place this year in Kabul. It is expected that the local authorities will introduce concrete plans based on the principles of “democracy, human rights protection”. It is difficult to predict what situation will be in that country at the moment of the new meeting. But at the same time it is obvious that the reduction of the American military presence will noticeably change the situation in the most part of Eurasia. Other geopolitical actors, and firstly the countries of the region will try to fill that gap. Let us note that the Turkish policy of “neo-Ottomanism” and actions of other powers directed to create the counterbalance to the aforementioned tendencies are conditioned at some extent by those tendencies.

1See particularly Գագիկ Տերտերյան, Աֆղանստան. ռազմավարության հստակեցում, Հանրապետական, #1, 2010.

2Геворг Мирзаян, Афганский тет, Эксперт, #3 (689), с. 59, 2010.

3Джордж Тенет, В центре шторма, Эксмо, 2008г.


Return
Another materials of author