Mulling over an Afghan solution

Amidst all the talks of withdrawal of coalition troops from Afghanistan and its far-reaching consequences on security situation, the issue that the mainstream media seems to have conveniently ignored is its immediate effect on the neighbouring Central Asia and Eurasia. The region has been attached with Afghanistan through umbilical cord and have much more at stake than some of the distant nations who are part of the coalition forces.

The changing dynamics in the region has made it essential for these nations to take a closer look at the issue and ponder upon this. The biggest regional grouping, Shanghai Corporation Organisation (SCO), has decided to swung into action and thus, this year's meeting of the grouping was abuzz with the modalities and repercussions of the withdrawal of troops and the integration of Islamists into the power structure. 

Following the meeting of SCO, Tashkent hosted a meeting of experts organised by the Center for Political Studies, the frontal Think Tank among the member nations of SCO. It brought together representatives of ministries and agencies, universities, scientific and analytical centers in Uzbekistan, as well as international organisations and diplomatic corps accredited in Tashkent. 

The current meeting was devoted to “Contemporary US Foreign Policy in Eurasia: Formation of New Parameters or Preservation of Traditional Approaches”. Leading international experts were specially invited - Andranik Migranian, head of the New York offices of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, Irina Isakova, independent expert on international affairs, member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Royal Institute of Defense Studies and the “Chatham House” (UK) and Mikhail Leontiev, a journalist, TV presenter, Editor in Chief of “Odnako” program (Russia) and an independent analyst, who expressed their views on issues of global and regional security.

They noted that the major destabilising factor not only in the region, but throughout the world was the continuation of the 30-year war in Afghanistan. In this context, the Uzbek side again delivered its position voiced by the leadership of Uzbekistan to the highest international platforms. As noted by Mikhail Leontiev, “Today no one was left in doubt that there is no any military solution of the Afghan problem”. An exit from a impasse can be found only through a compromise between the warring parties, the involvement of the Afghans themselves, as well as socio-economic revival of the country with the world community.

In considering such issues as the future of the Afghan mission, the United States and the prospects of its policies after 2014, experts have raised the impact of the revision of US policy in Afghanistan for strategic policy in Central Asia, in general, and in the Greater Middle East.
According to Andranik Migranyan, “a unique situation develops today: Central Asia ceases to be a competitive region, now it is a region for cooperation. The international community has an interest in the Central Asian states to develop stably, and the factor of Central Asia only increases”.

Another aspect of the meeting was the perceived threat perception that Russia has vis-a-vis NATO. In this regard, it is useful to mention the phrases of then-President Vladimir Putin: “Comrade Wolf who knows who he is going to eat,” or, after the 2004 Beslan hostage disaster, when he referred to the foe “who wants to seize the richest parts” of Russia. Even though these messages were indistinct, it was clear from the circumstance that they were aimed at NATO or the United States, both of which are frequently used interchangeably in the region.

Dr. Leontiev was of the opinion that any long term co-operation should be based on mutual trust and that America and NATO has time and again shown they they can not be trusted. Leontyev further added, “There is a term (in English) crazy empire, a psychic empire. The latest illustration of this madness is what is now happening in Pakistan. Musharraf was the only leader who could maintain stability in an extremely complex country like Pakistan, restrain radical Islamists and guarantee that the nuclear potential would remain under control. The so-called opposition's corrupt leaders, let out of an American-English jar, hate each other and are incapable of ensuring either. In the view of responsible American analysts, the Pakistani bomb is much more dangerous than the non-existent Iranian one. Who gets it and what happens to this not quite low-priority, and not the least populated region?”

On the other hand, Dr Isakova was of the opinion that NATO and Russia can work closely in the region. She also opined that since US's point of reference is shifting towards being Eurocentric, it is  only natural that countries outside NATO's ambit in the region are a bit worried.
“Moscow interest in co-operation with NATO on Afghanistan is genuine. It is based on the shared need to counter the drug trafficking from Afghanistan and to deal with the threat of Taliban/ Islamic insurgency from Afghanistan to Central Asia and the Russian mainland. According to the Russian FSS (FSB), the main short term threats to national security of Russia and Central Asia are coming from Afghanistan and Afghanistan/ Pakistan bordering areas, where the Taliban forces and terrorist organisations, managed to regroup and were planning direct military actions in the CA region,”she added.

On the other hand, Dr. Migranyan was of the opinion that to start with “Russia does not believe that NATO has changed the nature of its global military structure, which deals with contentious problems in international affairs by using military force, sometimes without the consent of the United Nations or the Security Council.” “The last several military operations actively involved all NATO members, although not all of the members were engaged on a full scale. Here I am referring to the bombardment of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, the military operations in Afghanistan and the talk about a potential strike against Iran, Syria and a series of other countries,” he added.

Disagreeing with Dr. Migranyan's dim view of a any rapprochement between Russia and NATO, Dr Isakova contested, “Moscow is interested in the success of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, as long as it is guided by the UN mandate. But it is not prepared to accept the permanent military US/NATO presence in Central Asia. Moscow has a long-term interest in opening possibilities for cross-institutional co-operation on Afghanistan, setting a framework for NATO/CSTO security co-operation in the region, or NATO/SCO information exchange channel. Till recently NATO resisted any engagement with the regional groupings over Afghanistan.”

There was no consensus on whether coalition forces will leave Afghanistan by 2014 or will there be a limited presence albeit in different form. Leontyev believes that after doing the cost benefit analysis, US will conclude that it will be better to leave as oil will not shape the coming decades and hence there is no need for presence in the Middle East. The others disagreed saying that there will always be a limited presence and it is a matter of worry for many nations in the vicinity.