Russia, concerned about the Taliban’s growing influence in Afghanistan, preferred to abstain in a vote on the UN Security Council resolution. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin is seen in the photo.
Photo: AP
|
 |
Russia Abstains in Afghanistan Vote at UN, Opposed to Talks with Taliban
// Russia was the only country to abstain in a UN Security Council vote on Afghanistan
The UN Security Council passed a resolution late Wednesday to extend the mandate of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan for another year. Russia was the only country to refuse to support the move. Russian officials say they abstained out of concern about a clause on maritime forces. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has long been worried about developments in Afghanistan and afraid that the Taliban may rise to power again.
Russian vs. Japan
The routine vote at the UN Security Council which extends the mandate of the coalition forces in Afghanistan turned into a scandal this year. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin paid particular attention to a passage which expresses appreciation for maritime interception forces on duty in Afghanistan. Earlier resolution did not contain this clause. Vitaly Churkin suggested discussing and clarifying the issue.
Everyone in the Security Council saw the point of the additional passage. The wording was included in the final draft as a move to support the Japanese government. The opposition Democratic Party of Japan, which won control of the country’s the upper house, objects to the participation of Japanese navy in the Afghan mission in which Japan is supplying fuel to U.S. and other ships in the Indian Ocean. The opposition insists that the Japanese mission in the Indian Ocean was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council, therefore the ships should come back home. In a move to make Japanese opposition leaders change their minds, UN Security Council members decided to include in the resolution words of appreciation of naval forces in the Afghan operation. Russia abstained in the vote as no one in the Security Council wanted to discuss Mr. Churkin’s objections. Other 14 members voted to pass the resolution.
Russia’s objections to a new clause in the UN resolution were most likely a formal cause. Moscow has recently focused attention on developments in Afghanistan seeing that the situation is nearing a new crisis. Russia needed this demarche to show that it has its own view on the issue and wants to invite foreign partners into talks.
Iran vs. Pakistan
Opinions of UN-sanctioned NATO forces in Afghanistan have recently been split into two. The military men no longer understand who they fight against. The command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), for example, believes that it is fighting the well-organized Taliban movement which is sponsored by foreigners and has enough money and resources to pay mercenaries. “The Taliban can be beaten only by force,” says ISAF Deputy Commander, Canadian Brigadier General Marquis Hainse. “We are fully cognizant of the fact that the way the Taliban are recruiting some of their personnel, it’s in some ways through terror and in some other ways it’s trying to get them by giving them money. Our way to counter that is to make those young people realize that regardless of how much money they [the Taliban] give them, there is not future for them with that. The Taliban will not offer them a future.”
However, other military men believe that there is no organized Taliban army. Nor there are mercenaries. Adherents of this theory believe that UN soldiers are confronted with local residents who till the land in daytime and take up tommy-guns at night. They have no idea that the NATO are there to restore order and ensure security in Afghanistan. Simple Pashtuns, who live in southern Afghanistan, consider it their duty to drive away NATO soldiers who they call invaders. NATO army officials are no longer trying to understand the hierarchy of the Taliban and now refer to any Pashtun with a tommy-gun as a Talib.
Nicholas Lunt, NATO’s civilian spokesman in Afghanistan, believes that the situation in the country will remain unstable until all influential forces are represented in the administration. Therefore, one should hold talks with the Taliban rather than wage an all-out war against it.
The position of the Taliban in Afghanistan is quite different now, six years after a swift military operation. They retreated in one month and seemed to have dispersed for good, handing power to the pro-Western administration led by Hamid Karzai.
The Karzai government has failed to mobilize enough forces as the Talibs have had time to rally. Afghanistan experts say that the Taliban now controls up to 40 percent of the country. Former Taliban members and their allies continue to enjoy support of Pakistan. Authorities in Kabul virtually have no influence on southern regions of the county.
Iran currently stands as a major anti-Taliban force in the world. Teheran officials acted as the Talibs’ major antagonists even before 2001 when the Talin was ruling Afghanistan. Iran, Russia and India alike were active sponsors and supporters of the so-called Northern Alliance, a union of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, to make sure that the Taliban does not extend control over the whole country. Iran and the Taliban are still hostile to each other.
Afghanistan’s West-leaning President Hamid Karzai refers to Iran’s influence as a positive factor in Afghan policies. He even dared to argue with George Bush when the U.S. president accused Iran of secretly shipping arms to Afghan militants. President Karzai insisted that Iran’s influence is only positive and plays an important role in preserving stability in Afghanistan. In fact, the weakness of Afghanistan’s authorities is playing right into Iran’s hands as Teheran now virtually controls Herat in the northwest and the west of the country. Still Hamid Karzai describes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as almost the only devoted ally.
Afghanistan is to elect a president in 2009. The popularity of the incumbent head of the state is waning, and his chances to retain power are very small. He fell out with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, accusing him of supporting militants. So, Pakistan will be desperate to lobby any other Pashtun candidate. The United States in its turn became disappointed in its former protégé. Hamid Karzai is so weak that he is looking for support in Iran. The United States will most likely try to find a new man by 2009 to take on the role of the Afghan crisis manager. As Washington is striving to undermine Iran’s growing influence in the region, stateside officials will apparently stake on a moderate Talib, a choice that Pakistan is also pushing America to.
Russia vs. the Taliban
It has been a while that Russia started to act an outside observer in Afghanistan rather than the main participant. In 2001, Moscow preferred not to go back to Afghanistan and confined its efforts to throwing complete emotional support behind the international coalition. The toppling of the Taliban delighted Russian diplomats and military men as Moscow had long been staking on the Northern Alliance against the Talibs.
However, current events in Afghanistan make Russian diplomats deeply concerned. The emboldened insurgents of the Taliban, willingness of NATO and the U.S. to negotiate with them and the upcoming presidential election which can tip the balance of power in Afghanistan make Russian officials worried that the situation may go back to that in the year 2001. Kommersant sources report that a session of the inter-department commission on Afghanistan at the Russian Foreign Ministry convened in Moscow in August to discuss possible developments in the country and whether Russia has any tools to influence the situation. The unexpected abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Wednesday must have been a way to engage the West in talks and make it listen to Russia’s position.
Mikhail Zygar
All the Article in Russian as of Sep. 21, 2007
|
|
|
