As it braces for its upcoming presidential election, Afghanistan finds itself at another critical juncture, with its unity and territorial integrity at stake after 35 years of relentless war. Can Afghanistan finally escape the cycle of militancy and foreign intervention that has plagued it for more than three decades?
Two key questions are shaping discussions about Afghanistan’s trajectory after this year.
The first concerns the extent to which Pakistan will interfere in Afghan affairs, such as by aiding and abetting the Afghan Taliban and its main allies, including the Haqqani network and warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s militia.
This will depend on whether the US conditions its generous aid to cash-strapped Pakistan on noninterference in Afghanistan.
The second question is whether US-led NATO forces will continue to play any role in Afghanistan.
It is no secret that US President Barack Obama wants to maintain a US military presence in the country — a reversal of his declaration in 2009 that the US sought no military bases there.
Indeed, for several months, the US has been involved in painstaking negotiations with the Afghan government to conclude a bilateral security agreement that would enable the US to maintain bases in Afghanistan virtually indefinitely.
What was supposed to be an endgame for Afghanistan has turned into a new game over the US’ basing strategy.
However, despite having finalized the terms of the agreement, Obama failed to persuade outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to sign it. That means that the US’ role in the country can be settled only after the new Afghan president assumes office next month.
And the election’s outcome is far from certain.
While all eight Afghan presidential candidates claim to support the security accord, this may offer little comfort to the US, given that most of the candidates have directly opposed US interests in the past — not to mention that several of them are former or current warlords.
Moreover, there remains the question of how a residual US-led force, even if sizable, could make a difference in Afghanistan, given that a much larger force failed to secure a clear victory over the past 13 years.
Obama has offered no answer.
Nonetheless, there is strong bipartisan support in the US for maintaining military bases in Afghanistan, as a means of projecting hard power, and the increasingly charged confrontation between the US and Russia over Ukraine has boosted that support considerably.
In fact, former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice explicitly linked Russia’s actions in Ukraine with “talk of withdrawal from Afghanistan, whether the security situation warrants it or not.”
According to Rice, anything less than a residual force of 10,000 US troops will send the message that the US is not serious about helping to stabilize Afghanistan — a message that would embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin further.
What she does not seem to recognize is that the US’ deteriorating ties with Russia — a key conduit for US military supplies to Afghanistan — could undercut its basing strategy.
The US is clearly convinced that a continued military presence in Afghanistan is in its interests.
However, what would it mean for Afghanistan, a country that has long suffered at the hands of homegrown militant groups and foreign forces alike?
Afghanistan has been at war since 1979, when Soviet forces launched a disastrous eight-year military campaign against multinational insurgent groups.
That intervention — together with the US and Saudi governments’ provision of arms to Afghanistan’s anti-Soviet guerrillas through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency — helped spread militancy and terrorism, which the subsequent US military intervention has kept alive.
As a result, Afghanistan is now at risk of becoming partitioned along ethnic and tribal lines, with militia or warlord-controlled enclaves proliferating.
In short, foreign involvement in Afghanistan has so far failed to produce positive results. That is why Afghanistan’s political and security transition would be better served by focusing on three key internal factors:
‧ free and fair elections that are widely viewed as reflecting the will of the Afghan people to chart a peaceful future.
‧ the ability of Karzai’s successor to unite disparate ethnic and political groups — a tall order that can be filled only by a credible and widely respected leader.
‧ the government’s success in building up Afghanistan’s multi-ethnic security forces.
How the presidential election plays out is crucial. If threats and violence from the Taliban prevent too many Afghans from casting their vote, the legitimacy of the outcome could be questioned, possibly inciting even more turmoil, which Afghanistan’s fledging security forces would struggle to contain.
To be sure, the security forces have, so far, mostly held their ground, deterring assassinations and keeping Kabul largely secure.
However, they have also failed to make significant gains, and US plans to cut aid will make progress even more difficult.
Unable to sustain the current force with reduced aid, the Afghan government will have to try to make it “leaner and meaner.” Whether it will succeed is far from certain.
That only increases the pressure to maintain a foreign military presence, even though it is unlikely to bring peace to Afghanistan.
In fact, the risk of becoming locked in a protracted, low-intensity war against militancy and warlordism is likely to outweigh any geopolitical advantages that the US would gain from military bases in the country.
After all, the terrorist havens and command-and-control centers for the Afghan insurgency are located in Pakistan — undercutting the US military effort to rout the Afghan Taliban since 2001.
All of this points to a clear conclusion: Afghanistan’s future must finally be put in the hands of Afghans. Outside resources should be devoted to building the governing capacity needed to keep the country united and largely peaceful.
Brahma Chellaney is a professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
The inauguration of Prabowo Subianto as Indonesia’s eighth president on Oct. 20 marks the official beginning of his “good neighbor” foreign policy. He aims to maintain a delicate balance among major powers, while fostering collaboration to achieve peace and stability, and bolster economic cooperation with countries in the Indo-Pacific region. How does Taiwan fit into Prabowo’s foreign policy agenda? Taiwan is significant for Indonesia due to its role in hosting a substantial number of Indonesian migrant workers. Under his new Cabinet, “merah putih” (“red and white”), Prabowo has established a ministry dedicated to protecting migrant workers. He upgraded the status of