There is something discernibly positive that was being worked out on July 27, 2009 in northern Afghanistan between local elders and a group of Taliban for a truce in order to allow presidential and local elections to go ahead on August 20, 2009.
The deal was struck between local leaders and a local Taliban commander in the first move of its kind in north-western Badghis province, near the border with Turkmenistan, reported Reuters on July 27, 2009. The level of violence across Afghanistan this year has reached its worst levels since the Taliban's Islamist regime was ousted in 2001 and the number of British soldiers killed last month was marked as the "bloodiest month" for British troops since the war began.
The death toll for the United States has likewise been on the sharp increase since a major offensive in southern Helmand started last month. Nonetheless, the Taliban are urging Afghans to stay away from the elections. They are characterising the upcoming presidential and provincial polls as part of an "American process." For the same reason, they tried to block the 2004 presidential election, but failed.
The statement highlights the pressure likely to face voters who choose to cast ballots in areas of the country where the insurgents are strongest. These areas are Pashtuns controlled areas, and President Hamid Karzai may be affected by the Taliban's tactic. This year's election is different; there are more demands for normal and ordinary political processes. The truce agreement in Badghis is just an indication of such general sentiment of the nation.
The forthcoming presidential election may prove to be a watershed in the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has said that there is no more sanctuary for Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar in Pakistan. Qureshi said Pakistan does not want the country's soil to be used for carrying out nefarious activities against any other nation. "We are clear we have to deal with all elements that are challenging the writ of the government and making Pakistan or other places insecure," Qureshi said.
Such unequivocal statement is an encouraging and reassuring development. But there is more to do. It is the government of Afghanistan that should take the lead and bear more responsibility. Of course, Afghanistan is not alone in fighting against militants and extremists for its safety and order, which are essential conditions for the development and future prosperity of the country.
The International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan was established by the United Nations Security Council's resolution of December 20, 2001, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Though any UN member state may join the ISAF, there are 42 countries today. These countries are assisting the government of Afghanistan to restore peace and order. They are also contributing to the general development and nation-building processes of Afghanistan.
As of July 23, 2009, there were 64,500 troops from not only from Western Europe, but also such diverse countries as Australia, Azerbaijan, Jordan, New Zealand, Singapore, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and so on. The United States sends the largest contingent of 29, 500 troops to the ISAF on top of 33,000 non-ISAF troops to Afghanistan. Under President Barack Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan, US troop levels have increased from 32,000 at the end of 2008 to 68,000 as projected by the end of 2009.
Why are they participating in operations in such a distant country? The ISAF is authorised by the United Nations Security Council, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, but more important, the international community recognises that terrorism is against humanity. Protection of innocent people by preventing terrorism is a common interest for all wherever we are. It is the fundamental compassion for another fellow human being.
Freedom of travel and movement allow discrete groups and individuals move around across national borders. With today's technological and communication innovations, they can travel afar with clear information. A recent episode attests to it. The Australian authorities arrested a group of Islamic extremists last week in Melbourne who had planned to launch a suicide attack on an Australian Army base. The group allegedly travelled to Somalia to train with the extremist group al-Shabaab.
The international community, of both official agencies as well as non-governmental organisations, is literally financing a large portion of the Afghan government's running expenses. In April this year in Tokyo the government of Japan and the World Bank also hosted the Pakistan Donors Conference and the "Friends of Democratic Pakistan" met at the same time for raising funds for Pakistan. There are 15 countries and international bodies in the group: Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, UK, USA, EU, EC and the UN.
And Sweden, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands and others are expected to join the forum in the near future. For Pakistan's part as well, there is a more need for better co-ordination between the United States and Pakistan for the purpose of securing its long border along Afghanistan. Everybody understands that without the active and effective co-operation of Pakistan it is difficult to control border areas in general and tribal areas in particular.
Barbara Elias of the National Security Archive at George Washington University compiled, edited and released, on August 14, 2007, unclassified documents detailing years of Pakistani support for the Taliban and pro-Taliban sympathisers in border areas. She refers to her analysis as "Pakistan: 'The Taliban's Godfather'?" The war in Afghanistan and the internal security situation in Pakistan are inexplicitly intertwined. Ethnically, the Taliban are all Pashtuns on both sides of the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are far more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.
Pakistan needs Afghanistan as a friendly country to the west when it faces its traditional archrival, India, to the east, and such need is more acute now when India is developing its interest in Afghanistan. Under these circumstances Pakistan cannot afford to alienate the Pashtuns of either side of the border. That is the most difficult point of policy choice, which in the end contributed to the deteriorating condition in the Swat Valley areas infiltrated by the Taliban forces.
Last week the US Central Intelligence Agency's drone attack reportedly killed Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan's foremost Taliban leader. The strike was the result of months of steady intelligence-sharing between the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. It is incumbent on the government of Pakistan to be able to eliminate the safe havens that the Afghan Taliban have enjoyed.
July 2009 was the deadliest month of the war for US and international forces. As the death toll for the ISAF increases, general public support for the war in Afghanistan starts waning, and affected people's concern will turn more to immediate national concerns. And that is happening now as clearly indicated by British foreign minister David Milibank, who, speaking at Nato's headquarters in Brussels on July 27, 2009, called for, among other things, "a political strategy for dealing with the insurgency through reintegration and reconciliation."
He was suggesting "an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, which draws away conservative Pashtun nationalists - separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally - and gives them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with the government." He also called for the other Nato allies to take up a greater share of the military burden in Afghanistan.
The UK is the second largest contributor of troops after the United States, and Canada, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have the next largest number of troops. The Canadians and the Dutch have already hinted that they will withdraw troops soon, however. Premier Silvio Berlusconi of Italy has also said he is contemplating about an exit strategy from Afghanistan after the August election.
The British House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Select Committee issued a very damning critical report on the Afghan war on August 2, 2009. The Report suggests that the Afghan government must take the lead and negotiate a political settlement with broad popular support, saying that is the "only realistic option" for long-term security and stability. The Report states that the Nato's mission in Afghanistan is the first Nato deployment outside Nato's area and acknowledges that "this has now become a most critical and seminal moment for the future of the alliance."
In view of the absence of the equitable sharing of responsibility among Nato allies, the Report further warns, "There is a real possibility that without a more equitable distribution of responsibility and risk, Nato's effort will be further inhibited and its reputation as a military alliance, capable of undertaking out-of-area operations, seriously damaged." Now it seems there is a split within the alliance.
The more the United States is determined to pursue its new strategy in Afghanistan, its closest ally in the war in Afghanistan is having a second thought about it and looking for a new policy change that will focus on the principal concern of the population, ie security.
Thus, the Report states, "No matter how difficult the circumstances facing the military in Afghanistan, the use of air power and acts of considerable cultural insensitivity on the part of some coalition forces over an extended period have done much to shape negative perceptions among ordinary Afghans about the military and the international effort in Afghanistan. "This problem has caused damage, both real and perceived, that will in many instances be difficult to undo," it concluded.