By Aaranya Rajasingam
Early this week, President Hamid Karzai reiterated his decision not to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the US in his final address to the parliament. In a recent interview to Washington Post, he explained his position by stating “Afghans died in a war that’s not ours”. His strong resentment stems from the fact that though the US had fought its war on Afghan soil, it had failed to neutralise the Taliban threat emerging from neighbouring Pakistan and has continued its secret operations on Afghan soil without working in coordination with the Afghan security forces. However, this decision does not reflect the sentiment of all Afghans in general. In direct contradiction to the statement given by the Afghan president, Zahir Tanin, the ambassador of Afghanistan to the United Nations, gave firm assurances this week that the security deal will be signed by Kabul. And this seems more likely since many of the leading candidates in the next presidential elections seem favourable to this proposition.
In the rare event that the next elected president fails to sign this pact or come to a mutual agreement of some sort regarding security arrangements, the US will be forced to exercise the zero option. This entails a complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Such a decision will leave Afghanistan on its own to deal with national security challenges. Without a strong US presence it is unlikely that NATO forces will continue to stay, and this has serious ramifications for a country that is ill equipped to combat the Taliban insurgency alone at present. All this is taking place at a time when elections are looming ahead and security demands on Afghanistan have multiplied.
The real problem, however, is that any conversation on preserving the security and stability of Afghanistan dwells almost exclusively on hard security arrangements. While they are huge obstacles, the fact that security concerns have taken centre stage in all the debates on Afghanistan has been extremely counterproductive. Surprisingly, this emphasis on traditional security issues can be found in not only military and diplomatic circles but also in the development discourse on Afghanistan
The transition process in Afghanistan is a multi-levelled process and includes political, economic and security transitions. Any strategy towards Afghanistan needs to take into consideration a more holistic picture of the upcoming transition process rather than focus on selective tactics, which bring short term gains.
The first important issue is to ensure a peaceful political transition of power to a legitimate Afghan government. Without the continuity of a strong central state structure, Afghanistan has little hope of overcoming all its problems, including the fight against terrorism.
Alongside the political transition, the state has to also focus on enabling a smooth economic transition. One of the casualties of the current security environment has been the economic stability of the country. At present Afghanistan is unable to retain millions of dollars worth investments. The state is highly dependent on international financial support for its survival, with over 65% of its national budget covered by external funds. It can be expected that the rapidly increasing financial burdens on the government will undermine its ability to function effectively. While the international community has pledged to stand by the financial commitments made at the Chicago Summit in 2012 and subsequent Tokyo conference, this is hardly adequate to finance all the needs of the state.
As evidenced above, solving hard security issues alone will not address the parallel transitional challenges that the country faces. Prioritising the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) above other considerations or focussing on negotiations with the Taliban has constantly shifted the focus of the “transition of power” debate in Afghanistan towards traditional security challenges. This has often meant that the global anti-terrorism campaign waged by the US and its allies dictates the peace process in Afghanistan. While the challenges from insurgents in the country are significant and contribute to many insecurities, the prioritisation of it above other challenges has not been beneficial for the people of Afghanistan. Civil society reports from within Afghanistan have begun to highlight this issue with more frequency.
The people of Afghanistan themselves are now initiating this much needed change. For example the current presidential debates focus a lot on non-traditional security issues. Election candidates have stressed the importance of good governance, transparency and the fight against corruption in their manifestos. Although this may be cosmetic rhetoric at present, it signals that these issues dominate the public discourse and are issues which Afghans are voting on. Another example is the attempts taken to prevent sectarian violence. While candidates and media outlets remain polarised along ethnic lines, the people have shown zero tolerance for any attempts, by military or government representatives, to incite ethnic hatred. Public outrage during such incidences (via social media and street-level protests) has shown that the population is wary of allowing the outbreak of yet another ethnic conflict post-2014.
The social and political landscape in Afghanistan has changed dramatically over the last decade. More than a million young Afghans have graduated from school and there has been tremendous infrastructure and technological development in the country. The proliferation of mobile phones and internet facilities has brought Afghans closer together and has amplified their opinions on the international stage. It is hard to claim that the people of Afghanistan are not speaking when in fact they are voicing themselves on a myriad of issues regarding health, education, infrastructure, corruption, rule of law and women’s empowerment. This is but one example of a shift towards a more holistic security outlook, one that puts forward human security issues in Afghanistan. To deny their voice would be a disservice to them.
It is vital that the media and international community focus on these conversations as they contribute to developing a vision for Afghanistan: a vision that can act as a blueprint for positive change over the long run. Though there may be no easy solutions for Afghanistan in the near future, supporting Afghans in finding their own answers would be an important step towards paving the way for peace and stability in both the country and the region.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
AFGHANISTAN: RETHINKING THE SECURITY PARADIGM – ANALYSIS
By Aaranya Rajasingam
Early this week, President Hamid Karzai reiterated his decision not to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the US in his final address to the parliament. In a recent interview to Washington Post, he explained his position by stating “Afghans died in a war that’s not ours”. His strong resentment stems from the fact that though the US had fought its war on Afghan soil, it had failed to neutralise the Taliban threat emerging from neighbouring Pakistan and has continued its secret operations on Afghan soil without working in coordination with the Afghan security forces. However, this decision does not reflect the sentiment of all Afghans in general. In direct contradiction to the statement given by the Afghan president, Zahir Tanin, the ambassador of Afghanistan to the United Nations, gave firm assurances this week that the security deal will be signed by Kabul. And this seems more likely since many of the leading candidates in the next presidential elections seem favourable to this proposition.
In the rare event that the next elected president fails to sign this pact or come to a mutual agreement of some sort regarding security arrangements, the US will be forced to exercise the zero option. This entails a complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Such a decision will leave Afghanistan on its own to deal with national security challenges. Without a strong US presence it is unlikely that NATO forces will continue to stay, and this has serious ramifications for a country that is ill equipped to combat the Taliban insurgency alone at present. All this is taking place at a time when elections are looming ahead and security demands on Afghanistan have multiplied.
The real problem, however, is that any conversation on preserving the security and stability of Afghanistan dwells almost exclusively on hard security arrangements. While they are huge obstacles, the fact that security concerns have taken centre stage in all the debates on Afghanistan has been extremely counterproductive. Surprisingly, this emphasis on traditional security issues can be found in not only military and diplomatic circles but also in the development discourse on Afghanistan
The transition process in Afghanistan is a multi-levelled process and includes political, economic and security transitions. Any strategy towards Afghanistan needs to take into consideration a more holistic picture of the upcoming transition process rather than focus on selective tactics, which bring short term gains.
The first important issue is to ensure a peaceful political transition of power to a legitimate Afghan government. Without the continuity of a strong central state structure, Afghanistan has little hope of overcoming all its problems, including the fight against terrorism.
Alongside the political transition, the state has to also focus on enabling a smooth economic transition. One of the casualties of the current security environment has been the economic stability of the country. At present Afghanistan is unable to retain millions of dollars worth investments. The state is highly dependent on international financial support for its survival, with over 65% of its national budget covered by external funds. It can be expected that the rapidly increasing financial burdens on the government will undermine its ability to function effectively. While the international community has pledged to stand by the financial commitments made at the Chicago Summit in 2012 and subsequent Tokyo conference, this is hardly adequate to finance all the needs of the state.
As evidenced above, solving hard security issues alone will not address the parallel transitional challenges that the country faces. Prioritising the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) above other considerations or focussing on negotiations with the Taliban has constantly shifted the focus of the “transition of power” debate in Afghanistan towards traditional security challenges. This has often meant that the global anti-terrorism campaign waged by the US and its allies dictates the peace process in Afghanistan. While the challenges from insurgents in the country are significant and contribute to many insecurities, the prioritisation of it above other challenges has not been beneficial for the people of Afghanistan. Civil society reports from within Afghanistan have begun to highlight this issue with more frequency.
The people of Afghanistan themselves are now initiating this much needed change. For example the current presidential debates focus a lot on non-traditional security issues. Election candidates have stressed the importance of good governance, transparency and the fight against corruption in their manifestos. Although this may be cosmetic rhetoric at present, it signals that these issues dominate the public discourse and are issues which Afghans are voting on. Another example is the attempts taken to prevent sectarian violence. While candidates and media outlets remain polarised along ethnic lines, the people have shown zero tolerance for any attempts, by military or government representatives, to incite ethnic hatred. Public outrage during such incidences (via social media and street-level protests) has shown that the population is wary of allowing the outbreak of yet another ethnic conflict post-2014.
The social and political landscape in Afghanistan has changed dramatically over the last decade. More than a million young Afghans have graduated from school and there has been tremendous infrastructure and technological development in the country. The proliferation of mobile phones and internet facilities has brought Afghans closer together and has amplified their opinions on the international stage. It is hard to claim that the people of Afghanistan are not speaking when in fact they are voicing themselves on a myriad of issues regarding health, education, infrastructure, corruption, rule of law and women’s empowerment. This is but one example of a shift towards a more holistic security outlook, one that puts forward human security issues in Afghanistan. To deny their voice would be a disservice to them.
It is vital that the media and international community focus on these conversations as they contribute to developing a vision for Afghanistan: a vision that can act as a blueprint for positive change over the long run. Though there may be no easy solutions for Afghanistan in the near future, supporting Afghans in finding their own answers would be an important step towards paving the way for peace and stability in both the country and the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment