Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, March 29, 2009

World Reactions to Obama Plan for Afghanistan

NATO and Afghan troops raided a bomb-making cell of insurgents in the southern Pushtun province of Helmand, killing 19 guerrillas, it was announced on Saturday.

Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai praised President Obama's plan for Afghanistan on Saturday, and was especially happy about two elements-- going after militants hiding out in neighboring Pakistan, and reaching out to negotiate with the less radical of the insurgents inside Afghanistan.

Although in public, Pakistan president Asaf Ali Zardari hailed Obama's proposals, behind the scenes, there was substantial disagreement with them on the part of both the foreign office and the president's office, though they seemed not to be coordinating with one another. It is not clear what the substance of the disagreements are.

Meanwhile, Pakistani Taliban mounted an attack on NATO trucks and supplies in Peshawar on Sunday morning, torching four and destroying large amounts of food and other supplies.

There are two big conferences about Afghanistan on the world stage these days. One was held in Moscow, in the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. That organization groups China and Russia with the newly independent states of Central Asia. They are neighbors of Afghanistan and are at risk from instability (and narco-terrorism) emanating from it. They also frankly don't want US military bases in their neighborhood. There have been charges that the SCO conference was intended to upstage the upcoming parleys under United Nations auspices in the Hague.

Iran said Friday that the Shanghai Cooperation Council is better able to resolve Afghanistan's problems than NATO.

While many in the United States are worried that President Obama is sending 21,000 new troops to Afghanistan, India, Iran and Russia are more worried about his hostility to Hamid Karzai and his pledge to negotiate with moderate Taliban, raising concerns that he might deliver Afghanistan into the arms of a "Taliban lite" government. In turn, India fears that such a regime would be overly under the sway of Pakistan and might become a support for terrorist groups such as Lashkar-i Tayyiba, which recently attacked Mumbai.

Before the SCO conference, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov had signaled ihis discomfort with Obama's troop build-up, and his confidence that the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai should be listened to.

Russia Today has video:



Meanwhile, Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi laid out his country's priorities for Afghanistan:

1. He advocated an "Afghan-led process of national reconciliation based on genuine dialogue with those local elements willing to forsake the path of violence"

2. To be facilitated by the country's neighbors

3. prioritize the battle for hearts and minds of the Afghans, showing respect to local traditions

4. undertake a massive reconstruction program for Afghanistan, "focusing on reconstruction and social welfare", with a strengthening of Afghan security forces and the enabling of Afghan refugees to return home

5. "Finally, revitalise the trans-regional development agenda. Afghanistan’s potential, as a land bridge, must be realised by promoting infrastructure and energy connectivity." Translation: Qureshi wants to revive the moribund plan to pipe natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and thence India. That plan is going nowhere as long as there is a Taliban insurgency around Qandahar, since nothing is easier to blow up than a gas pipeline. In fact, Turkmenistan appears to be tired of waiting and has signed with Russia, so it will send the natural gas to Moscow for transit to Europe.

The US views Afghanistan as a fertile field for cooperation with Iran, which has substantial influence in that country. The Hazara Shiite minority of some 22% in Afghanistan has strong ties to Shiite Iran. The Persian-speaking Tajiks, also a substantial proportion of the population, have a cultural affinity for Iran. And Iran has good relations with the Uzbeks of the north. Iran dislikes the hyper-Sunni Taliban, with whom Tehran almost went to war in 1998, seeing the Taliban as a cat's paw of rival Sunni, Pakistan. Iran also wants to halt Afghan drug shipments through that country to the West, as does the West. Finally, some NATO countries are eyeing Iran for transhipping their supplies and materiel to troops in Afghanistan.

End/ (Not Continued)

10 Comments:

At 4:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Left alone, the Afghan people want a "Taliban lite" government because they are a deeply religious and conservative people, whether India, or the US, likes it or not.

As Afghanistan creeps out of the Middle Ages, if allowed to, the people will automatically become more secular and liberal, unless the Establishment there invests heavily to keep religion dominant -- as we see in the US and Saudi.

 
At 7:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Karzai is a US puppet. Thus, do his comments have any value? Why are they even reported at all and even worse, they are reported as having objective substance ?

 
At 7:43 AM, Blogger Sikander Hayat said...

I think what Obama is doing by putting more forces on the ground is to escalate the war initially and put pressure on the insurgents and then bribe people away from Taliban. This is classic stick and carrot policy and how much it will succeed; only time will tell.

Another very important aspect is the increase in Afghan national army from 80000 to 134000. I believe that this is most important aspect of his speech as a strong central force will definitely have some impact on the overall situation. If the situation in Afghanistan stabilise to the extent that local army takes charge of the situation (even if the Taliban are not totally defeated) and foreign forces leave than situation in Pakistan will cool down as well.

http://real-politique.blogspot.com

By Sikander Hayat

 
At 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Obama pulling our leg? GlobalResearch has reproduced an Alternet article claiming that Obama will be sending an additional 70,000 mercenaries (on top of the 70,000 already there) to Afghanistan in addition to the 34,000 extra troops for his 'surge.'

This makes the whole exercise seem like a presidential gift to the M-I Complex and other war profiteers. I predict that the Afghanistan war will be over and done with within 9 months of the last 'surge' contingent's arrival. I further predict that the Afghanis will prove to be even better at killing Americans than Russians - once all the targets are in place. Americans are too loud, distracted and inattentive to master the elegant art of counterinsurgency; mainly because they ARE the insurgents. The surge will be just another tragedy for everyone involved except the war profiteers.

 
At 3:34 PM, Anonymous Wade "Griff" Griffin said...

"Afghan and coalition forces killed 12 militants Friday night during a raid of a militant location to further degrade bomb-making and facilitation networks in northern Helmand province," it [the US military] said in a statement.

I presume by "bomb" the US military is referring to what it calls IEDs and EFPs.

Hmmmm. There's no mention of Iran in this context. The IEDs and EFPs encountered in Iraq were continually claimed to have been shipped in from Iran. This must mean that the Afghanis are more technically sophisticated than the Iraqis were. The Afghanis are making their own explosive devices. Another possible explanation is that the Iraqi militia are and were perfectly capable of making their own IEDs and EFPs but it was part of the US government and media narrative to blame the Persians for those weapons being in Iraq.

 
At 3:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is just being Bush, but supposed liberals always wanted a Democratic Bush and now they have one. We want to control Afghanistan and Pakistan and will any resistance we can kill. We will continue to destroy Afghanistan and harm Pakistan, and we will win as in Iraq and Americans will be proud but Afghans and Pakistanis will be dead.

 
At 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.irinnews.org/PrintReport.aspx?ReportId=75365

November 18, 2007

Fifth Least Developed Country In the World
By IRIN

KABUL - Afghanistan has dropped a place in a UN global human development index, which ranks countries based on their citizens' economic income, life expectancy and literacy rate, according to the country's National Human Development Report (NHDR) for 2007.

Afghanistan was ranked 174th out of 178 countries - ahead of only Burkina Faso, Mali, Sierra Leone and Niger. In Afghanistan's first-ever human development report, which was released in 2004, the country was ranked 173rd and was widely expected to improve its human development indicators.

Afghans live almost nine years less than people in other Least Developed Countries, the report's findings show.

"Life expectancy [in Afghanistan] has dropped from 44.5 years in 2003 to 43.1 years in 2005," states the report, which was released on 18 November in Kabul.

The report acknowledges Afghanistan's steady progress in improving its health services and reducing child and maternal mortality figures (1,600 deaths per 100,000 births), but warns that over 30 Afghans still die from tuberculosis every day.

Poverty

Although Afghanistan has maintained double-digit economic growth over the past several years, it has failed to reduce extreme and prevalent poverty and hunger significantly, the report says.

The NHDR ranks Afghanistan as the poorest country in Asia, with a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of US$964.

"Some 6.6 million Afghans do not meet their minimum food requirements, with 24 percent of households characterised by poor food consumption," the report says. Consequently, almost half all Afghan children under five are underweight, it adds.

The report also found that less than 30 percent of Afghanistan's estimated 24.5 million citizens have regular access to clean water.

Education

Widely devastated by over 25 years of armed conflict, Afghanistan has one of the lowest adult literacy rates among developing countries, with the literacy rate for adults over the age of 15 falling from 28.7 percent in 2003 to 23.5 percent in 2005, the report states.

Afghan women, in particular, suffer lack of access to education. "Enrolment rates for women at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels are almost half that of men - 41.8 percent for females and 73.7 percent for males," the report said.

Women are also deemed far behind men in other human development indicators, such as access to health services, employment opportunities and longevity....

[Where we war.]

 
At 5:07 PM, Blogger Howard Swerdloff said...

The Center for American Progress, whose politics, I think are somewhat akin to Obama's, has just issued a disturbing report

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/sustainable_afghanistan.html/#recs

recommending a ten-year commitment to counter-insurgency and nation-building. If this is the "change" in course that the new administration is embarking upon, I would bet that we are in for a long period of bloodshed.

Tom Hayden, in the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/progressive-think-tank-te_b_179174.html fears that Afghanistan may turn-out to be Obama's Vietnam/Iraq.

 
At 6:59 PM, Blogger Les Publica said...

Pakistan wants a process facilitated by Afghanistan's neighbors. How do they define neighbors? Only states bordering Afghanistan? That would leave out Russia and India, both of which have influence in Afghanistan, but which Pakistan has reasons to exclude.

I hope Professor Cole can tell us.

 
At 7:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am married to an Afghan Tajik and the Afghan minorities definitly do not want a "Taliban Lite" government as one poster mentioned. Far from it, they actually support going after Pakistan which has always supported the Taliban. See here:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

 

Post a Comment

<< Home