What next regarding Aghanistan?

We can't sweep Afghanistan under the rug

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi, the Italian Prime Minister and current leader of the G20, is convening an extraordinary summit of the group for October 12, with only one item on the agenda: Afghanistan. This is an urgent meeting that cannot wait for the annual summit, which is scheduled for the last two days of this month. The concerns about Afghanistan are essentially twofold: the humanitarian drama, already much worsened at the moment, but which will become catastrophic with the imminent arrival of winter; and defining the conditions necessary for the international recognition of the Taliban regime.

The European Union has meanwhile approved a humanitarian package of 200 million euros. Other aid is urgently needed, not least because the donor community pledged more than a billion dollars on September 13, in response to an appeal launched by António Guterres. But, as always, promises are one thing, but their materialization is another. In addition to logistical difficulties and insecurity, the humanitarian agencies need guarantees of neutrality from the Taliban. This is the only way to ensure that food aid, medical and health care, and educational support reaches those in need without exclusion on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion, or power relations.

Still in the humanitarian area, there are three other major issues.

One is the payment of salaries to civil servants and security forces who have not been paid for months. I don't think there is a willingness at the G20 level to finance this. Recently, my former colleague Jan Egeland, a recognized voice in the humanitarian field and who now heads the prestigious Norwegian Refugee Council, wrote an open letter on this subject to the UN Secretary-General. It called for mechanisms to be put in place to find a solution to pay salaries to the Afghan civil service, as was already largely the case under the previous government. The letter was a follow-up to his recent visit to Afghanistan and his shock at the widespread poverty. 

Another issue concerns the electricity supply. Millions in Kabul and the country's largest cities are at risk of being left in the dark. With the onset of winter, this could be yet another cataclysm to add to all the others. Afghanistan imports about 70 percent of the electricity it consumes. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Iran are the suppliers. With the Taliban victory and the administrative chaos that followed, payments for electricity imports have ceased. If the situation does not change soon, it is very likely that some of these countries, especially those that were part of the former Soviet Union and have no sympathy whatsoever for the extremists in Kabul, will suspend supply. If this happens, popular unrest will take on a new dimension. 

How long Afghanistan will need exceptional humanitarian aid is the third big question. Assistance must have a time horizon. The country needs to build an economy that allows it to import the energy and basic commodities it cannot produce, and to have a reasonable standard of living. The economy should not be based almost exclusively on opium production.

Recognition of the new regime, including its representation in the UN, will depend on the position that each G20 member adopts. Recent events show a tendency to establish occasional contacts, while at the political level there will continue to be talk of values, human rights, national inclusion, or the fight against terrorism. And to show a lot of mistrust towards Taliban governance. As time goes by, if there is no extreme migratory crisis or terrorist attack that affects the Western world, the new Afghan regime, whether recognized or not, could be just one more to add to the list of repressive, failed and forgotten states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8  October 2021)

 

 

The EU and its Indo-Pacific Strategy

China, the Indo-Pacific and European illusions

Victor Angelo

This week, Josep Borrell, who heads the European Commission's external relations, and his Chinese counterpart, Minister Wang Yi, met by videoconference as part of the strategic dialogue that exists between the two parties. The day before, Frans Timmermans, the Executive Vice President of the Commission, had been in contact with the Chinese Vice-Premier, to discuss the preparation of the COP-26, which will start in Glasgow at the end of this month.

These talks have their merit. They must be frequent and without naivety. The EU can have no other political stance vis-à-vis China than dialogue, the affirmation of its critical positions and the search for common interests. In this, as in other areas of vital importance to the security and prosperity of Europe, it is essential to demonstrate that we continue to believe in the value of diplomacy, of clarifying positions and of reaching agreements. Where others focus on confrontation, Europeans must be seen to promote strategic interdependence and common platforms that contribute to international security and the resolution of major global issues. By doing so, we will consolidate the EU's role on the international scene and reduce the risks of being involved in conflicts that are not in our interest. We will also reduce our subordination to the USA. 

Returning to the dialogue between Borrell and Wang, several topics were addressed. Most have long been on the agenda: human rights, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the mutual investment climate, international cooperation, support for multilateralism, etc. But between this meeting and the previous one, which took place in June 2020, an eternity has passed, and dramatic changes have occurred, notably in Myanmar and Afghanistan. The policy towards these countries had to be part of the discussions. Nor could a reference to the EU Indo-Pacific strategy, approved a couple of weeks ago in Brussels, be missing. Borrell took great pains to explain that this new policy intention is not aimed at antagonizing China. He would not have convinced his interlocutor.

I am among those who think that the approval of this strategy was a mistake. The document appears to be well written, and the abundance of resources in the European External Action Service means that it has to be. But it is vague, too broad, touching on everything, and undefined in the prioritization of the objectives included in each of the intervention areas. To begin with, the geopolitical content of the Indo-Pacific concept is not well understood. A recent study shows that different member states see the contours of the region in a separate way. What's more, the concept is associated with the anti-Chinese obsession started by Donald Trump and which Joe Biden has been materializing. Thus, for Beijing, the EU does nothing more than follow American policy, albeit in a more sophisticated way, introducing in the document a series of buzzwords about development and cooperation.

It is true that this part of the world, even if imprecisely defined, has a growing economic weight. It accounts for a very large share of Europe's foreign trade: Brussels tells us that the region is the EU's second largest trading partner. It is also a fact that a very high percentage of maritime freight transport passes through the Indian Ocean. But the real challenges in the Indo-Pacific are, apart from piracy, an area where cooperation with China is possible, the disputes over maritime borders between China and its neighbours, the future of Taiwan, or the identity tensions in India, the military dictatorship in Myanmar, the struggle for democracy in Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam, the institutional violence in the Philippines and so on, without forgetting Taliban extremism and terrorist threats. These are concrete issues where the EU needs to define its interests, the role it can play and the alliances that will be needed.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 October 2021)

 

 

In Europe, migration remains a critical issue

Migrations and European fears

Victor Ângelo

 

The Afghan crisis has placed the problem of immigration again at the center of European discussions. In essence, it is the fear that thousands and thousands of people coming from Afghanistan will arrive in Europe, pushed to migrate for a combination of reasons: the flight from the Taliban regime, the economic misery, the lack of future prospects and the attraction that richer societies exert on those who live a daily life of despair and constant struggle for survival. Faced with this fear, the European ministers have identified the lowest common denominator as a plan of action: to try to contain the people within Afghanistan's borders or in the bordering countries. To do so, they are counting on the cooperation of the new Afghan power, the self-interested will of the Pakistani and Iranian leaders, and the experience and good name of the UN humanitarian agencies and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

The President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss Peter Maurer, was in Afghanistan this week for three days for discussions with the Taliban leadership and field visits. Also, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, the British Martin Griffiths, visited Kabul to meet with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, now Deputy Prime Minister, and to obtain minimum assurances necessary for the acceptable delivery of humanitarian aid. These rounds of contacts have gone well, and the EU is likely to be the main source of resources for these organizations to do what is expected of them.

However, many Afghans will end up seeking refuge outside their national borders, particularly in Pakistan. It is not clear how many Afghan refugees were already living in Pakistan. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) officially registers 1.4 million people. But there is a multitude outside the records. It is estimated that since August 15, the day Kabul fell, about 10,000 people a day are crossing the border into Pakistan. This flow will possibly increase because of the political, economic and social situation now in Afghanistan. A significant portion of these new refugees will seek to reach Europe.

Pakistan does not have the economic and institutional conditions necessary to host a new wave of refugees. It needs international support. The Pakistani ruling class knows how to operate. It will ask Europeans for material aid and political favours. It is not that it needs much political support, as it already has the full backing of the Chinese. Still, it will let the Europeans know that its willingness to provide humanitarian reception will be stronger if there is, in return, a cooling - even if discreet - of relations between the EU and India. In this geostrategic game, New Delhi stands a good chance of losing.

In the case of Iran, it is a different story. Relations between Europe and Iran are affected by two types of constraints: the lack of agreement on the limits of Iran's nuclear program and the sanctions and restrictions imposed by the Americans, which the Europeans are not capable of challenging. Despite all this, I maintain that Europe cannot exclude Iran from the humanitarian process. Even more so if we take into account that most of the migratory routes pass through that country. What will Tehran ask in exchange for a collaboration that will prevent the transit of human masses? This question cannot be ignored.

The different European states are willing to welcome those who have worked directly with their military forces. But they have no intention of going any further. The usual Viktor Orbán and company are now joined by a new star, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. And the social networks are already full of catastrophic theories about the impact that an increase in the proportion of Muslims in European lands would have. Not to mention, they say, the possible dangers of terrorist attacks. The reality is that here in the EU, as in other parts of the world, questions of cultural identity are increasingly at the centre of the political agenda.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 September 2021)

 

 

Time to look again at the global order

A new chapter in international relations

Victor Ângelo

Days go by and the world continues to see the dramatic images captured on the perimeter outside Kabul airport, now aggravated by the bomb attack. This is the most visible part of the shock and dread of Afghans who do not believe the promises made by the Taliban. But Afghanistan is larger than Kabul. In the country, especially in the major cities, there is the same panic and despair. Only there, the suffering is far away from the eyes of the world. Those who live in these regions and have the chance, seek refuge in Pakistan or other neighbouring countries.

There are those who think that these images will remain in the memory of humanity for many years to come. And that they will be recalled every time it is convenient to attack Western countries. This will indeed happen. These are scenes that leave a terrible representation of the West, of abandonment, incoherence, and improvisation. The memory issue, on the other hand, is more unlikely. The last two decades have unfortunately abounded in human tragedies. But each new misfortune tends to hide the previous ones. The memory of what happened in Syria, or more recently, of the dramatic situations that the populations of Lebanon, Myanmar and others experience daily, is increasingly faint. At the moment, the Afghan debacle takes up all the screen. 

What we must not forget is that in the eye of the hurricane of conflicts are people. It is time to think in terms of real people, men, women and children, who suffer all the violence, humiliations, terrors and miseries that these crises provoke. International security and diplomacy should be concerned, above all, with the daily lives of those who are victims of extremisms, abuses of power, and all kinds of tyrannies, whether they are in the name of an enlightened leader, a party that holds the absolute truth, or a religious flag.

Three decades ago, the UNDP - United Nations Development Program - helped us to discover an evidence that nobody before wanted or could see. With the release of the first human development report - and the following ones, year by year - it underlined that economic growth only makes sense when it is centered on individuals, in order to lift each one out of poverty, ignorance and ignominy. It is not the GDP that counts, but the progress that each person makes in terms of a life with more dignity.

The scenes around Kabul airport should have a similar effect. And just as the UNDP reports have served to create new alliances in development cooperation, the distress and uncertainties resulting from the handing over of power to the Taliban should be seen as opportunities to build bridges between the great powers, China and Russia included. This week's G7 meeting could have been used to engage Beijing and Moscow in the debate over the conditions of recognition of the new Afghan reality. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The only concern was the vain attempt to convince Joe Biden to extend the US military presence beyond August 31. The meeting confirmed once again that in the West there is no leadership other than the voice of America.

The G7 should be especially concerned about the kind of governance the Taliban will impose. Russia is aware of the risks to the stability of its allies in Central Asia. China is concerned about defending its interests in Pakistan - the Chinese do not rule out a scenario in which Pakistani terrorists and others might operate in the future from Afghanistan and threaten the economic corridor linking China to the Indian Ocean port of Gwadar. Both China and Russia would certainly have a great interest in participating in such a discussion with the G7 countries. This would turn a crisis into an opportunity for a rapprochement between rival powers. Everyone would gain from such a dialogue, starting with the citizens of Afghanistan.

This proposition may seem unrealistic. But the turn of the page imposed on us by the Taliban requires us to look at international relations with a new and forward-looking imagination. Who will take up this challenge?

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Our collapse in Afghanistan

Kabul: And After the Farewell?

Victor Angelo

 

Two days after the fall of Kabul, China conducted a major military exercise at the gates of Taiwan. It was a simulation of an attack, using a combination of air, naval and electronic jamming means. Taipei says that its defence space was repeatedly violated by Chinese fighter jets. And the exercise was seen as a dress rehearsal of what might follow.

It is clear that this military operation has been planned for some time, as part of a crescendo in recent months. But its intensity, level of penetration and intimidation seem to have been deepened, following what had just happened in Afghanistan.

Chinese leaders know that the American administration is fully focused on the aftermath of the chaos in Kabul. The Far East does not fit on Washington's political radar at the moment. More importantly, the new international reality - the image of a great power’s defeat - opened the opportunity to make the exercise more offensive, in a new test of American resolve regarding the protection of Taiwan's sovereignty.

Seen from Beijing, the events in Afghanistan indicate that American public opinion is less willing to commit itself to wars that are not its own, in distant lands, difficult to locate on the map and to understand culturally. Xi Jinping and his people have now become more convinced that the Americans will once again bow to the fait accompli. In this case, the reality that would result from the occupation of Taiwan by force. In this view, Washington would react with much ado, but would in fact hesitate until finally abandoning the hypothesis of a military response.

This may be a misjudgement on the part of the Chinese. But the truth is that the Americans have just projected an image that seems to confirm their choice of a policy of absolute primacy of national interests and that alliances with others only last as long as they do. That is, as long as they serve US interests. This image harms NATO, among others. Besides giving more arguments to those who say that the Atlantic Alliance is just a train of countries pulled by the US, it might make leaders like Vladimir Putin believe that they will not suffer major consequences if they cross certain red lines and threaten the security of European countries. It also undermines the fight for the primacy of rights and principles in political matters. Keeping human rights high on the international agenda when the population of Afghanistan has been abandoned to the primitivism of the Taliban is now more difficult.

Although it is still too early to assess the full consequences of the tragic end of twenty years of intervention in Afghanistan, the evidence is that it has changed the geopolitical chessboard in that part of the globe. We now have, side by side, three fanatical states, each in its own way. One, Pakistan, with nuclear capability. Another, Iran, with nuclear potential. And both in the orbit of China. The third, Afghanistan, is a powder keg domestically, a source of regional instability, and a possible breeding ground for international terrorist movements. Beyond the states, there are the people, who suffer the effects of fanaticism, oppression, corruption, and who live a daily life of misery and fear.

The European Union cannot look at these populations only through the prism of uncontrolled migrations. Unfortunately, this was the concern that guided the speeches of Emmanuel Macron and Josep Borrell, among others, when they spoke publicly about the new Afghanistan. It was as if they only saw hordes of Afghan migrants on their way to Europe. At a serious moment, which requires an innovative diplomatic strategy and an adequate humanitarian response, it is unacceptable to reduce the Afghan problem to a possible migratory crisis. The EU must learn the necessary lessons with regard to security, participation in conflict resolution in third countries and autonomy vis-à-vis the major powers. And it must seek to define a political framework to guide its way of dealing with backward-looking, hostile and inhumane regimes. As, for example, with the bearded men in Kabul.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Looking at Afghanistan's future with great sadness

Afghanistan: So many sacrifices, for what?

Victor Ângelo

 

Coming in like a lion, and then, exiting like a baboon. Perhaps this popular expression does not fully apply to the withdrawal of the American troops and their NATO allies from Afghanistan. It is, no doubt, an inglorious exit after almost twenty years of enormous human and financial efforts. The way in which they abandoned their main military base in Bagram, about an hour north of Kabul - in the dead of night, leaving behind an indefensible and unmanageable situation, namely a prison with more than five thousand prisoners linked to terrorism - has a dramatic symbolic value. It signifies impasse, retreat, and abandonment of the Afghan government and people to their fate. In a word, defeat. With Taliban fanatics gaining ground across the country, the withdrawal will allow them to reach Kabul before the rigours of winter. This is the ideal time of year for military campaigns in Afghanistan and the way is open for the assault on power.

There are many possible reflections on all this. At this moment it is especially important to understand the reasons for the American pull-out. Afghanistan has lost the strategic interest it held for years, when the fight against Islamist terrorism was considered a priority in Washington. The United States now thinks it is sufficiently protected against such threats. This is where they have a huge difference with their European allies. The Europeans continue to see terrorism as a major danger and view the Taliban offensive with great apprehension. But the Europeans in NATO had no choice but to uncritically align themselves with the American position.

For Washington, Afghanistan has come to be seen as an endless war and as a distraction from the new and now far more important focus: China. And it sees the rivalry between the two superpowers as resolved in the region where Afghanistan is located. This is why it does not want to waste any more time and resources in this geopolitical space where China already has the subordination of the two countries that matter most: Pakistan and Iran. The China-Pakistan economic corridor, which ends at the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea, is perhaps the most relevant project of the New Silk Road. In Beijing's eyes, it is guaranteed. On the other hand, Iran signed a long-term economic agreement with China in March 2021. Chinese investments are expected to reach $400 billion in the coming years. It is Iran's passage into China's orbit. In the middle will remain the Afghanistan of chaos and radicalism, but without the capacity to harm Chinese interests in the region. The Taliban are dependent on these two neighbours, especially Pakistan, and should not act against their interests.

But beyond the strategic games, there are the people, victims of a cruel conflict, poor but resilient and dignified. They are deeply concerned, as are many of us here in Europe. First, because a regime based on a primitive vision of life in society has no regard for human rights. It treats all people, starting with women and girls, in an incredibly oppressive and inhuman way. We cannot remain indifferent to the extreme suffering that is looming for millions of Afghan citizens. Second, because potential terrorists in Europe will find in the resurgence of Taliban tyranny a new balloon of oxygen. Third, because radical killers operating in the Sahel and elsewhere in Africa, in countries that are part of our historic alliances, will be able to gain new opportunities for support.

One lesson that will be drawn from all this is that you cannot count on support from Westerners. That support comes and then disappears, in the dark of night, according to convenience, the direction of the political wind and the priorities of those who live far from the problems.

To think that these are some of the outcomes of the long and painful Western intervention in Afghanistan can only leave us desolate. Above all, we are left with a bitter feeling of failure and impotence. Of a Europe that is submissive in foreign and security policy, in a world where it weighs little and counts for less.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

India and elsewhere

India on lockdown can only be big news. That’s an impressive number of people. And it raises deep concerns as we know the fragilities of the health system in the country. I can only hope the virus does not spread out all over the country. And then, I think of other countries in the region, also with large populations and even weaker health facilities. And down the line, we have Africa. Everything must be done to prevent the spread of Covid-19 into the poorest parts of the world. If that is let to happen, we would be moving into massive tragedies. All this constitutes an unprecedented challenge.

Immigrants at the EU gates

Political pundits keep repeating, since the massive arrival of immigrants and refugees in 2015, that the European Union has no unified policy on the matter. And it is true, in so many ways. Mass immigration and refugee flows are issues that have a serious impact on the stability and moderation of the EU. But there is no overall agreement among the member States on how to deal with the issues. The approach has been to sweep it under the carpet and let the frontline countries manage the challenge. That’s what has happened with Italy and Greece, among others. They were left alone with the problems and no real EU support.

What’s happening now at the Greek-Turkish border adds another element to such approach. Close the border crossings, respond by deploying large numbers of police and soldiers, keep the immigrants on the other side of the barbed wire. That is the policy, a policy that is closer to a common one. A no-entry policy.

But is it sustainable? That’s one of the key questions. The other one is about the humanity of such policy. Is it coherent with the values we say we defend? Third point: can we rely of dictators and other strong men, when we ask them to keep the refugees in their countries and add to that a few billions to pay for the camps?

I recognise this is a complex matter. And I see, once again, that when the issue is complicated, we tend to use a hammer to sort it out.

The Taliban deal

I see the deal signed today in Doha, Qatar, between the U.S. Administration and the medieval armed group that is known as the Taliban of Afghanistan, a terrorist organization, as follows:

1.  It gives the Taliban a good amount of legitimacy and political standing. Both within their country and in the international arena. It is therefore a victorious move for them. It puts the Taliban in a much stronger position than the national government.

2. It is an electoral manoeuvre played by the U.S. President. Donald Trump wants to be able to claim, during the coming months leading to the November Presidential election, that he brought the war in Afghanistan to an end.  Or, at least, that he brought the American soldiers back home from a protracted foreign conflict.

3.  It will not lead to inter-Afghan peace negotiations. The deal was not discussed with the legitimate government in Kabul and it is not seen by its leaders as a commitment they own. The official government will keep fighting the Taliban.

4.  It does not include a justice and reconciliation approach. The atrocities the Taliban are responsible for are just ignored.

5.  It encourages other Islamist groups in other parts of the world to keep fighting.

6.  It took the American allies also deployed in Afghanistan, under the NATO-banner called Resolute Support Mission, for granted. They were not part of the process. They are just supposed to follow suit. Those NATO allies have about 16,000 troops on the ground.

Afghan elections: people's determination

Tomorrow, it’s elections day in Afghanistan. It’s the presidential election, with the incumbent President, Ashraf Ghani, running against the leading politician Abdullah Abdullah, who has been the number two in governing arrangement that now comes to an end. There are another 15 or 16 candidates in the ballot paper. But the real contest is between the Ghani and Abdullah. They hate each other but have been able to sit side by side in many recent occasions. That’s striking. In my opinion, the fact that the country is somehow able to organise an elections day is even more memorable. It is true that in some areas there will be no vote because of the security situation. People are desperate for peace. They want to vote; they want democracy and normalcy to win.

It will be a very tense day, a risky process, with the Taliban and other armed groups trying to disrupt the election. I can only wish them a safe day and express my admiration for their perseverance. The Afghan people deserve all the support the international community can provide them.

South of Europe

In the Southern flank of the EU, just next door to all of us, the instability and systematic violations of people’s rights are growing by the day.

The area is a combination of several active political volcanoes. It is the situation in Libya and in most of North Africa plus the Sahel, vast area of absence of government. The Sahel was a semi-desert, now is a full-fledged governance desert. It is the deepening of the conflict between Israel and her neighbours. It is the all-out conflict in Yemen and the war crimes in Syria. Add to that, Iran and its fast deteriorating economic circumstances plus the armed competition with the vicinity and beyond, the violence in Afghanistan, the mess in Pakistan. And, of course, the crazy political line President Erdogan is following in his country.

The different components of this Southern neighbourhood are all extreme violent and with far reaching consequences. Mass movements are one of them. The complexity calls for a much better-defined EU political approach. It also requires more public attention. Leaders in Brussels and the capitals should be speaking about these matters more often and with better words. The words must be explicit, comprehensive and coherent.

Our role is to put pressure on our leaders for lines of action to be defined and the narrative to become strategic. And we should act with a strong sense of urgency.

Cooperating with Central Asia

As I prepare my forthcoming trip to Central Asia, I realise the region is facing a complex set of challenges that remain largely ignored in the European circles of power. We still look at the region as an extension of the Russian sphere of influence. And we keep away. We are convinced there is very little chance of a triangular cooperation that would bring together the five countries of the region – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – plus the EU and Russia.

That might be the case for now. But it is the only path towards addressing the issues and preventing them from getting worse. This includes issues related to the expansion of faith-based extremism.

Cooperation in the region is also critical for the future of Afghanistan. This country is deeply linked to Central Asia and the strengthening of its economic and security ties with the region would bring additional opportunities for stability and growth in that part of the world.

Closing the gates on immigrants

The Balkans route, as it is known, is now closed to the immigrants stuck in Greece. The Macedonian government got the message well before the European media and public opinion. That´s why they decided to prevent people from crossing. And if we look carefully at what they have been doing during the last week, we can say that they have also been informed that Iraqi people as well as Syrians from Damascus will not be accepted any longer as refugees. This means the EU approach is becoming much narrower. Fine. But the big question is about what to do with the tens of thousands of people from those areas and from elsewhere, Afghanistan, North Africa, Iran, etc, etc, that are already in Greek soil? Repatriation? How fast can that go before it has a dissuasive impact on those getting ready to cross the sea from Turkey?  

On UN peace operations

Many political and military leaders are very much influenced by their experiences in the stabilisation missions as implemented in Afghanistan and Iraq and would like the UN peace missions to be somehow modelled on those experiences. That explains also why there is these such a push for more robust UN peacekeeping operations and for enforcement campaigns.

It was a bit the same after the operations in the Balkans in the 1990s. 

Lessons from Afghanistan

This last day of 2014 marks the end of ISAF, the international military mission in Afghanistan. The coalition of combat forces, the largest alliance of states for military purposes in recent history, has been on the ground for 13 years. Throughout this very long intervention, the human and financial costs were immense. Many raise questions. Was it worth the investment, the sacrifices of so many? Was it the best approach to bring together a deeply divided country which had become a breeding nest for violent extremism and negative model of retrograde approaches to life in society? Is the current situation that is left in the hands of the national authorities sustainable? Are we safer at present?

Many thesis will be written about the international assistance to Afghanistan. But beyond the academic papers, the model applied in Afghanistan will also challenge the way we see peace enforcement, international military assistance, and the relations between key international organisations, nation building and national leadership issues. The concept of comprehensive response will also have to be revised. It should include, a few other dimensions, the regional response. Afghanistan is just the inner circle of much larger storm that includes the neighbouring countries. Any military response within the smaller circle can only be effective and sustainable if it goes beyond that circle and brings together a much wider and multifaceted political response.

Beyond these substantive and wide-ranging issues, the points today, at the end of 2014, are to remember all those who have fallen during the many years past and to wish the people of that country and its region a more peaceful 2015. They dramatically need that type of hope.

UN cannot be missing in action

The agreement reached between the two presidential candidates is key for the stability and security of Afghanistan. Ashraf Ghani, the future president, and Abdullah Abdullah,  who will have his nominees in key positions within the new Cabinet and as governors of some provinces, are both top politicians and very reasonable, experienced individuals. They are among the best in the country´s political class. But they represent different domestic interests as their tribal links are based on geography and ethnic politics. The agreement between them should therefore be seen as a balancing act between the tribes from the North, closer to Abdullah, and the South that basically supports Ghani.

The balance was struck thanks to the continued efforts of John Kerry and the US ambassador in Kabul. The US made the agreement possible.

This has shown, as it is nowadays happening quite often, that the UN mission in the country has not been able to play the mediation role they should have. This is no good news. Particularly because the same weak role is now the trademark of the UN in some other conflicts around the world.

It might be the moment to raise one or two questions about the current state of affairs of the UN´s peace-making efforts.

Fortunately, on the same day the deal was announced in Kabul, the UN envoy in Yemen was in a position to convince the warring parties in that collapsing country to sign a ceasefire accord. That´s a bit of good news about the UN. But it is not enough. 

Afghanistan beyond 2014

Still no agreement between the Afghan government and the coalition of countries that would be ready to provide security assistance to Afghanistan after ISAF´s closure at the end of this year.

This is a matter of concern. It is true that Afghan forces are today better prepared than before. But that might not be enough. Actually, the country continues to require international cooperation in matters of internal security. To believe otherwise would be a straight and short road to disaster.  

Afghan elections

The news coming from Afghanistan is good. After a relatively successful electoral day, the counting of votes is progressing well and the presidential candidates are taking it with the required composure.

It is too early, at this stage, to find out if there will a second round or not. But the top competitors seem to be prepared to accept the verdict of the polls. Let´s hope that will be the case. That will send a strong message to everyone, inside and outside the country, a message that things are more stable than many would have thought. 

Afghan elections: lets keep them clean

We should look at today´s presidential elections from a positive perspective. The news is good indeed. The participation rate, estimated at 58%, is very significant in a country that is still confronted with major security threats. It was encouraging to see long lines of men and women waiting their turn to vote. It is true that the logistics were not exemplary. In many places they could even be said to be messy. But flaws were corrected throughout the day and people could eventually vote.

Among the eight candidates, the two leading hopefuls, Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, are very reasonable people. Any of them could be a good leader for the country.

The point is to keep the credibility of the elections. The last ones, in 2009, were too fraudulent. Hamid Karzai was elected then in a manner that made his tenure very fragile and compromised his capacity to fully exercise the democratic authority that was key for a rapid transition to a more legitimate government. He spent his last mandate just trying to balance the interests of very powerful allies, without having the legitimacy to go beyond that.

Karzai will however be reminded as the leader that carried the nation through many difficult years, close to thirteen. The last deed everyone expects from him is very simple: keep the current electoral process clean, do not interfere. His candidate –apparently it is Zalmai Rassoul – might not make it to the second round. But Karzai should make it to the good books of the Afghan history. 

Karzai is making it impossible

Yesterday’s suicide attack against a well-known Kabul restaurant, which killed so many people and also destroyed the little flame of normalcy that the establishment symbolised, reminds all of us that President Karzai has yet to move on the security cooperation agreement with the US.

That agreement is the indispensable framework for any future assistance to Afghanistan after the departure of ISAF, at the end of this year. It was approved by the Loya Jirga (great assembly of elders and local traditional chiefs) in November 2013. Hamid Karzai could have signed it soon after. He has not done it and the delay is making it almost impossible to ensure a proper transition to the period post-ISAF. This will have a major impact on the continuation of key development projects. International staff will be drastically reduced if the security conditions are not properly guaranteed.

What are Karzai´s motives?