Syllabus Connect :- GS III (Security challenges and their management in border areas; linkages of organized crime with terrorism)
Context:-
The withdrawal of United States troops from the Bagram military base, its biggest military base in Afghanistan, by stealth at night in early July without keeping the Afghan authorities in the loop marked the formal ending of the 20-year-old military occupation of Afghanistan.
The hasty exit from Bagram demonstrated the lack of coordination between the USA administration and the government in Kabul, even as the resurgent Taliban forces gained ground across the country. The USA administration decided to beat a retreat from Afghanistan much before the September 11 deadline that was originally announced.
In comparison to the chaos that characterised the withdrawal of U.S. forces after their defeat in the Vietnam war, the U.S. retreat from its last operating military base in Afghanistan was an orderly one.
During the course of the two-decade-long U.S. occupation, the Bagram military base, built in the 1950s by the Soviet Union, had burgeoned into a mini city. It was the staging post for the 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan a decade ago.
There are reports that Washington decided to pull its troops out of Bagram in a hurry, fearing that the Taliban would capture Kabul. The capital’s airport is just an hour’s drive from the military base. The Taliban described the departure of U.S. troops from the Bagram base as “a positive step”.
Military allies of the U.S., such as Britain, Germany and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), complained that the hurried departure of U.S. troops left them exposed and the allied Afghan forces were without effective air cover.
According to U.S. media reports, U.S. intelligence agencies have told the USA administration that the Taliban could take over Kabul within six months. At the most, the U.S. intelligence agencies estimate, the government of President Ashraf Ghani could hold on for two years. The Taliban has already made rapid advances towards the capital in the last month and a half. The Taliban claims that it controls two-thirds of the country.
By mid-July, it had seized control of key border posts used for most of the trade with Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Iran. Spin Boldak, on the border with Pakistan, was one of the important border posts to fall.
Danish Siddiqui, the Indian photo journalist who was covering the fighting, was killed in a Taliban attack. Many Afghan army units are either surrendering without a fight or running away, leaving behind expensive U.S.-supplied equipment such as Humvees.
USA’s reassurance
Speaking after the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Bagram, USA tried to reassure the government in Kabul that Washington was not abandoning the country. Top U.S. officials have openly stated that Washington retains the option of bombing Afghanistan even after the military occupation ends.
However, Pentagon officials are pressuring Biden to authorise air strikes in the event of the Taliban trying to take over Kabul and other cities by force. Critics of the Afghan war point out that a Taliban takeover of most of Afghanistan is inevitable. If the U.S. decides to start bombing the Taliban again, there will be no end to the war in the country. Biden recently admitted that the “likelihood that there will be one unified government in Afghanistan controlling the whole country is highly unlikely”.
The ceasefire between the Taliban and the U.S.-led occupation forces is still in force. Any U.S. targeting of the Taliban at this juncture would jeopardise the safe withdrawal of the few remaining troops from the country. A contingent of 600 U.S. troops will remain in Kabul to guard the U.S. embassy there.
The Taliban, on its part, has scrupulously avoided targeting U.S. and NATO troops. Only the Turkish contingent of NATO support forces remain in Afghanistan. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had told the U.S. that Turkish troops would help secure the Kabul airport from the Taliban after U.S. troops left the country. The Taliban described the Turkish move “as ill advised, a violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity and against our national interests”.
Searching military bases elsewhere
The U.S. has been desperately looking for military bases in neighbouring countries from which to conduct future operations in Afghanistan. This time Pakistan has refused U.S. requests for access to its military bases. The Afghan Taliban had threatened Islamabad with repercussions if the Americans were allowed to use Pakistani bases to stage attacks inside Afghanistan. The U.S. has asked for access to military bases in Central Asian countries such as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. So far, these countries have been reluctant to oblige.
The U.S. had military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in the early days of the occupation. These bases were closed following public opinion in these countries and Moscow’s suspicions about Washington’s long-term strategy in the region.
For the time being, the U.S. will have to depend on its military bases in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to help its Afghan allies with surveillance. U.S. aircraft carriers are stationed in the Arabian Sea on a permanent basis. Russia has warned the U.S. against deploying troops in the Central Asian region after the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
General Austin Miller, the U.S.’ top commander in Afghanistan, who announced his retirement after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Bagram, told reporters that he envisioned the return to a civil war-like situation in the country. With the Afghan army and special forces unable to halt the Taliban advance, both the Afghan government and the U.S. are encouraging the formation of militias.
The Hazara minority, which suffered greatly under Taliban rule, has formed its own militias. Many notorious warlords such as Abdul Rashid Dostum are once again gearing up for action against the Taliban. A few minor warlords, on the other hand, have switched sides and pledged their allegiance to the Taliban.
After ensuring the exit of the U.S. forces, the Taliban is trying to cultivate a more moderate image in the international community. While making military gains, the organisation is also publicly offering an olive branch to its adversaries. Afghanistan’s warring sides have resumed peace talks in Doha, Qatar’s capital.
The Taliban was initially reluctant to resume the talks with the government for various reasons. One reason was the U.S.’ refusal to withdraw its troops by May this year as agreed in the peace deal the two sides signed in Doha last February. Another sticking point was the Kabul government’s reluctance to release the remaining Taliban prisoners.
The prisoners’ release has been held up because of the Taliban’s refusal to form a unity government in Kabul until elections are held. The Taliban has also been reiterating that it does not believe in elections and Western-style democracy. Despite international opposition, the Taliban has said that it is determined to re-establish an “Islamic Emirate” to rule the country.
In the third week of July, during the ongoing talks in Doha, the Taliban offered a three-month ceasefire in exchange for the release of more than 7,000 of its fighters and activists imprisoned by the government.
Many of the Taliban fighters are incarcerated in the Bagram base. On July 18, even as the Taliban was busy capturing more territory, Haibatullah Hakimzada, its supreme leader, said that he “strenuously favours” a political settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan.
In a statement he said: “In spite of the military gains and advances, the Islamic Emirate strenuously favours a political settlement in the country. Every opportunity for the establishment of an Islamic system, peace and security that presents itself will be made use of by the Islamic Emirate.” The Taliban leader blamed the opposition for “wasting time” and relying on foreigners to resolve the Afghan conflict.
Pressure from neighbours
All of Afghanistan’s neighbours, including Pakistan, have urged the Taliban to desist from attacking cities. Russia and China are particularly concerned about what the future holds for Afghanistan as their national security could be severely impinged if the country once again spirals into all-out civil war.
Moscow has been active on the diplomatic front to get the warring sides in Afghanistan to agree to a peaceful power sharing. The Russian government hosted talks four months ago, which was attended by the “extended Troika” consisting of Russia, China, the U.S. and Pakistan.
According to ground reports, the Taliban is no longer a purely Pashtun-dominated grouping. Its growth in the last decade has apparently been broad-based, with Tajiks, Uzbeks and even Hazaras joining its ranks. That is one reason why the Taliban has been able to make rapid advances in the north in the last two months in areas once dominated by the Northern Alliance led by the Tajik warlord Ahmad Shah Masood and supported by the West, Russia, Iran and India.
Mohammed Suhail Shaheen, the Taliban spokesman, reiterated in Moscow that the Taliban had no intention of forcibly capturing cities and shedding more blood. He said that the Taliban’s policy “is to find a political solution to the Afghan issue, which is continuing in Doha”.
Shaheen claimed that the Taliban had gained territory in recent months through peaceful handovers. He said in most areas, the Afghan security forces surrendered voluntarily without a fight. Afghan security forces manning a key border crossing on the border with Tajikistan chose to flee across the border without a fight. However, recent reports suggest that Afghan security forces are putting up a brave fight in areas such as Kandahar, Kunduz and Spin Boldak.
Russia reportedly is planning to remove the Taliban from its “terror” list. The Taliban seems to have assured China that it will join the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) and ban the Uyghur terrorists currently fighting in Idlib from returning to Afghanistan. Both Russia and China want to ensure that Afghanistan will not be a haven for terrorists once again.
Afghanistan was on top of the agenda at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Foreign Ministers meeting held in Dushanbe, the Tajik capital, in the third week of July. The SCO, of which India is a member, wants the peace process to be “Afghan owned and Afghan led”.
India has also established channels of communications with the Taliban. An Indian delegation recently met with Taliban representatives in Doha. Moscow and Beijing have told both the Afghan government and the Taliban that they prefer the formation of a provisional coalition government for the next two to three years.
Meanwhile, the Afghan government’s relations with Pakistan have deteriorated once again following the Taliban’s capture of Spin Boldak. President Ghani has accused the Pakistan government of allowing 10,000 fighters to sneak into Afghanistan to create unrest there. Kabul has blamed the Pakistan Air Force for helping the Taliban in its takeover of the important trading post.
Pakistan announced in the second week of July that it was planning to host an Afghan peace conference in Islamabad, which would be attended by the Afghan government, the Taliban and members of the extended Troika. In the third week of July, Afghanistan withdrew its ambassador from Islamabad following an unsavoury incident in which a diplomat’s daughter was abducted and assaulted by unknown kidnappers. Pakistan has since announced the postponement of the Afghan peace conference.
Pakistan has strongly denied the Afghan President’s allegations of its alleged “negative role” in the Afghan conflict.
It is, however, no secret that many Taliban fighters are still lying low in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The Taliban was a creation of the Pakistani intelligence services but a lot has changed in the last 20 years.
The Taliban, more broad-based now, recognises the importance of paying attention to other powerful neighbours such as Iran, besides China and Russia, for the return of lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan. Given the ethnic make-up of the country and its history, the Taliban leadership knows that no party can rule on its own in Afghanistan.
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.