February 7, 2008
Rice and Miliband in Kabul
I am now in Kabul, and so are Condi Rice and David Miliband. The "security situation" here is so dicey that the arrival of the American secretary of state and Britain’s foreign secretary could not be advertised in advance. In fact my Foreign Office companions became highly agitated when I mentioned on an "open line" (ie a mobile phone call home) that I was sitting in a motorcade at Kabul airport, with Rice and Miliband in the car ahead, waiting to be swept along to the president’s palace.
The security is so tight that it must be virtually impossible for visiting western dignitaries to form any spontaneous impression of Afghanistan. Rice and Miliband arrived early this morning on an unadvertised flight from London. They were immediately put on a military plane to Kandahar - but did not leave the military base there. Then it was back to Kabul, and a short drive to see President Karzai on a road that had been cleared of all traffic. Then it was time to visit some more troops in a gym at Nato HQ. And that’s it. Condi is off tonight. Miliband is staying for a formal dinner. I’m sure they will have had "frank discussions" with President Karzai. But they must be completely reliant on their diplomats for any impression of how things are going.
Life in Kabul has certainly got tougher in recent weeks for the foreign contigent. In the middle of last month the Serena Hotel - the poshest place in town - was bombed. I was told that British official advice is strongly against staying in a hotel in Kabul, so the embassy are putting me up. The diplomats are holed up in their official compounds and told not to visit markets or to eat in town. Oh, and it got down to -20 degrees yesterday. So, I think that qualifies as a hardship posting.
Of course, Secretary Rice and Messrs Miliband and Karzai are putting a positive gloss on things. Rice’s line at the press conference I have just been to was that the Taliban’s increasing use of suicide bombings in cities shows that they are "cowards" who are losing the fight. Miliband stressed progress on the return of refugees and the opening of schools. And Karzai was on his best behaviour too - saying mendaciously how upset he is that Paddy Ashdown is not coming here as UN special representative and denying that he had ever slagged of the British military effort here. He was "misquoted" apparently.
It’s difficult to know what to make of it all. Anyway, I’m saving that up for my newspaper column next Tuesday. But I’m slightly disturbed by occasional echoes of the Russians’ unhappy period here. When there was some discussion about whether our plane would be able to land on a snowy Kabul airport, an Afghan remarked - "The Russians always landed in the snow." And when there was talk of sending girls to school in Afghanistan, I was told that the Russians had been keen on that too.
Yeah and the Russians, used to control Kabul and other major cities which, judging by your description of the “brave” (uncowardly?!) appearance put on by Rice and Miliband, is a lot more than the US/K + Dutch etc. have managed to achieve.
I suppose, they went there to tell off Karzai for throwing out the two diplomats (British and Irish) in December who decided to go busking on their own and hold unauthorised negotiations with the Taliban, and for his treatment of that nice Mr. Ashdown who was planning to be the colonial Consul in Kabul.
Mr. Karzai (who denies he was an empoyee of Unocal) is probably smart enough to remember what happaned to the last vassal president, after his masters turned heels:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/world_parading_the_dead/img/7.jpg
Of course, in those days, the Taliban were American allies. Brutal as the picture is, it doesn’t show the full horror as both the president and his brother were castrated first.
Enjoy your stay in Kabul
Posted by: Pacifist | February 7th, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Report this commentP
Afghanistan is outside my experience. This piece tells us much more than any government has acknowledged and confirms much that I had suspected about the competence of Rice–and now sadly, Miliband.
Most of my knowledge of Afghanistan is rooted in readings of the Mutiny and the fight the Afghans gave the Raj. Your account is so in keeping with the diplomatic posts of 1859 and afterwards.
Rice may be heading into the next US Administration as a vice president. It would be good to know more about the buzz on the ground on the role she played in meetings. I remain appaled by accounts in her biography (Twice as Good) that she felt Shawkat Aziz, a former colleague of mine, was coming on to her. Did Karzai keep his hands to himself and his eyes on the floor?
Posted by: WCM | February 8th, 2008 at 12:56 am | Report this commentIt seems unlikely that a ’spontaneous impression’ would have been sought by either Rice or Milliband, being as they both are masters of spin / information management.
Posted by: Johnstone | February 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this comment“TOO MANY UK INTERNATIONAL MILITARY & RE-CONSTRUCTION OBJECTIVES IS RESULTING IN NONE BEING FACILITATED COMPETENTLY/WELL ENOUGH FOR SUCCESS”
It may seem a bit trite, but the saying that emphasizes ‘he who tries to succeed at all things, rather than only one- succeeds at none…’ arguably could be applied to United Kingdom efforts in supporting the USA in its ‘war on terror’ from 2003-2008.
The same could be said for former UK prime minister- Mr Tony Blair- and his apparent ‘competing interests’ of (as the USA’s special emissary) facilitating an end to the Israeli/Palestine conflict and quitting this position in order to be appointed to the newly created office of a ‘permanent’ (2.5-year) EU Council of Ministers’ president.
Re the first issue:
UK resources being spread far too thinly is plainly one of the central causes of its lackluster- if not scandalously inadequate- performance as occupiers & good-governance/infrastructure re-builders in southern Iraq.
The laudable substantial UK military and other resources deployed in Afghanistan from 2003-2008 could have instead been applied to the very worthy- and indescribably urgent- causes inherent in the USA-led coalition’s Iraq occupation.
Not doing so, in effect, has robbed UK Iraq efforts of sufficient focus and the necessary ‘critical mass’ needed to stop the genesis in southern Iraq (over the last 4-years or so) of what has become an internecine, sectarian-war type disaster.
The future?
The UK Parliament ought to be enabled to debate and then vote on ‘where’ UK military & related resources can be of most use: Iraq or Afghanistan, and after this- whether the UK ought to continue prosecuting military/reconstruction endeavors in both of these needy countries, rather than in one or the other.
A substantially beefed-up UK presence in southern Iraq, perhaps as part of a UK led, coordinated British Commonwealth countries’ “Iraq-government-assistance and southern Iraq reconstruction force” would be significantly more likely to ’succeed’ in addressing that part of Iraq’s grievous, festering problems, than the embarrassingly miniscule, obviously inadequate-to-their-mission UK contingent in Iraq from 2003 until today.
Supporting the USA in its reasonable goals is something that the UK ought to not shy away from.
But surely, common sense would demand that ‘the UK attempts to pick supporting roles it can/is likely to be able to succeed at’, and declines to participate in roles supporting the USA that, if simultaneously carried out with current or expected UK commitments- will damagingly detract from the UK’s abilities to succeed at these current or expected commitments.
Mr Blair: ought to at the least give middle-east peace his best shot before he moves on with his considerable skills to another job…
Getting Egypt to ‘gift’ to Gaza (from the Sinai peninsula) a comparatively large piece of land perhaps 50 miles by 50 miles in size or so, while obtaining commitments from G8 nations/Saudi Arabia/similar wealthy Arab states to build/pay for building on this ‘expanded Gaza a “new” Gaza/city or at least the power/water/banking/port and similar infrastructure necessary for it to function independently of Israel->> and free of this country’s interference might be a way toward these objectives.
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | February 8th, 2008 at 9:31 pm | Report this commentVancouver, BC, Canada
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Mr Louis’ comments seem, indeed, quite reasonable. However, one must question whether the USA’s goals in the region are reasonable, as he suggests.
As a Harper’s article on US development plans for Iraqi oil in the December issue detailed, 1) the US has no respect for the Iraqi government’s capabilities to manage/develop the resources, finances or supporting infrastructure; so 2) under the cover “the war” or the nasty “occupation”, a US-led oil/engineering consortium is building a comprehensive extraction-to-distribution system that will be supranational. Much of the investment is far from Iraqi eyes and closely guarded. The 11 large US military airbases have been built to secure this emerging infrastructure. Israeli and Gulf Arab investments/complicity in this project are from transparent.
Thus, Mr Louis’ analysis harkens back to a post-colonial or UN-mandated world that no longer exists. Iraqi and pan-Arab resistance know there is a game, but it is bigger than they can comprehend.
Are we not merely observers in this new world order? Gideon Rachman certainly must have asked himself this question as he took his place in the back of a super-SUV in the motorcade in Kabul with the spin kids (Rice and Milliband) as they acted out a pathetic bit of shadow puppetry for the global media that is providing the cover for agendas that are far from accountable to any mere mortals anywhere on this planet.
Posted by: WCM | February 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am | Report this commentCould somebody explain to me how you can call suicide bomber’ “cowards”?
Crazy? sure, bad? yeah, dumb? ok, but “cowards”?
If the Taliban finally win it will be precisely because they are anything but “cowards”.
Posted by: David Seaton | February 9th, 2008 at 8:32 pm | Report this comment“GREATER UK ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE IN IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN NEEDED”
WCM (western canada man):
The answer to the dillema that you argue exists vis a vis US/United Kingdom’s interests and objectives in Iraq at least partially lies in the UK’s failure to - while remaining a staunch ally of the US- take ‘full’ administrative control (IE: planning, evaluation and facilitation) of its (and/or a British Commonwealth countries’ “Iraq-government-assistance and southern Iraq reconstruction force”) endeavors in southern Iraq…
The US’s performance as good-governance instillers & infrastructure re-builders in Iraq generally
may well be criticizable, and blameable- to a measurable extent- for the problems in Iraq 2005-2008…
To head this off, the UK ought to have demanded more autonomy for its efforts there from day one, and if possible- a far greater administrative role in the Iraq mission generally…
Regardless of today’s quite disturbing situations in Iraq and Afghanistan- to repeat a theme proposed above- the UK Parliament ought to be enabled to debate and then vote on ‘where’ UK military & related resources can be of most use: Iraq or Afghanistan, and after this- whether the UK ought to continue prosecuting military/reconstruction endeavors in both of these needy countries, rather than in one or the other.
To do otherwise risks major failures in both countries and the possibly irreparable damage to the UK’s profile and its reputation internationally in the future…
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | February 10th, 2008 at 12:48 am | Report this commentVancouver, BC, Canada
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
“IRAQ REPRESENTS THE MISSION WHERE- IF DONE RIGHT- THE UK COULD BE OF MOST USE”
A minor addendum to above note: Afghanistan is unarguably melting down politically; the UK has neither the budget nor the armed-forces’ logistical capabilities to quintuple or sextuple its military and related resources there.
This scale of an increase is likely going to be required by the UK and other nations with resources in Afghanistan in the very immediate future in order to get some democratic inertia going there…
Afghanistan’s neighbors such as Pakistan and India should be doing far more ‘in Afghanistan’…
Solutions??: Let those in the EU who favor an “EU-military capability” (through Nato) put action where their rhetoric is, and start doing some of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan….
Let these people lobby Pakistan, India and other countries directly affected by Afghanistan issues for greater participation in Afghanistan…
The UK would be far better suited and more likely to be productive assisting in a new, broader fashion in southern Iraq…
A little assertive, dispassionate diplomacy by UK politicians to British Commonwealth nations with agenda’s to do good in the world- such as Canada and Australia- could rustle up sufficient support for an effective coordinated approach to assisting the Iraq govt in its attempts to get their newly free country running properly…
Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | February 10th, 2008 at 6:09 am | Report this commentVancouver, BC, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban is a bit extreme but it may be the only way to alleviate the current problems - but it may be too late. Yea, western officials will say but ‘the jihadis will take over and haunt us.’ But, hey, isn’t that a problem the west created when it abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal anyway. The situation is completely out of control and there is no win-win situation anymore. So with the thaw of winter every year fighting will continue and expand. In the end, western concepts of evolution and the super-empowered indivdual may prove incorrect - modernity seems to have created more problems than solutions.
Posted by: Sekander | February 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm | Report this comment