You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
UN Envoy Wanks Natters Urges Security Force Beyond Kabul
2003-08-14
The top U.N. envoy to Afghanistan urged an expansion of the international force beyond Kabul to help provide desperately needed security so the country can move ahead to credible national elections. Lakhdar Brahimi said it was time for the international community to realize that the support given to Afghanistan is ``a fraction’’ of that given to much smaller countries, and increasing troops would be a very good investment in the country’s stability.
French and German troops aren’t too busy elsewhere. Let’s get a division of each into Afghanistan.
The support given is "a fraction" because there's no way to spend the money effectively.
In a briefing to the U.N. Security Council, Brahimi warned that the lack of security is a challenge to implementing the agreement reached in Bonn after a U.S.-led force ousted the country’s former Taliban rulers that calls for elections in 2004. ``The central challenge of Bonn is to help Afghans reconstitute the institutions that make up the state. At present, the factional control over local forces and politics makes this very difficult to achieve. This ... is a particularly important argument for the provision of international security assistance beyond Kabul,’’ Brahimi said.
It's also the reason the aid money isn't higher or more effectively used...
NATO took command of the 5,000-strong peacekeeping force in Kabul on Monday, stepping outside the bounds of Europe for the first time in its 54-year history. Brahimi said he and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would like the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, known as ISAF, ``to consider what the options are to extend security, and thus the reach of the state, beyond the capital.’’
So go ahead. No skin off our fore — as long as they're not getting in the way of combat operations...
``We are not asking for the 40,000 troops that were in Kosovo,’’ he told reporters, noting that the population of the Serb province is tiny in comparison to Afghanistan.
Why not? Sounds like a good idea.
``If, as I feel, the council now agrees with me that this political analysis is correct, then we can decide whether we need 8,000 or 9,000 or 13,000 but it’s certainly not in the scores of thousands that we’re talking about,’’ Brahimi said. After the council meeting, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said, ``There is the expectation that one of the issues that NATO might discuss in the weeks and months ahead is the issue of considering the possibility of the expansion of the ISAF role beyond Kabul and the environs.’’ Syria’s U.N. Ambassador Mikhail Wehbe, the current council president, said members ``took into consideration the points raised by Mr. Brahimi, particularly the importance of security to be extended beyond Kabul which could help ... the election process, the political institutions ... and the economy.’’
What kind of name is Mikhail for a Syrian? Guess a Russian ’advisor’ to the 1968 war got a little frisky.
But Spain’s U.N. Ambassador Inocencio Arias said he doubted there was enough support in the council for a new resolution to expand ISAF.
So don’t ask the UN. This is a NATO job.
Brahimi said the U.N. mission can go ahead with voter registration unless insecurity bars the process, ``but to organize credible, free and fair elections there are a lot of other things that need to be done by the Afghan government and by the international community.’’ He called for continued efforts to build a national army and police force and major reforms in the ministries of defense and interior as well as the country’s intelligence services because all these institutions can provide a basis for stability and restore confidence in the central government’s authority. Otherwise, Brahimi warned, extremists, warlords, and factions will continue to destabilize Afghanistan.
"Unlike its past history!"
Posted by:Steve White

#9  "Chinese troops deployed for 'peacekeeping' duties" - I believe the proper term would be "invasion".
So, the world invites massive numbers of Chinese troops into another country. They take over the country. Stability ensues. What's to stop the ChiComs from saying, "Gee, World, thanks for giving all of this free land. Got any more countries we can take over,oops,I mean, help?"

The U.S.(whose citizens desperately do NOT want to take over some God-forsaken backwater) is always accused of wanting to annex new lands. The (brutal, unfree, Communist, racist, xenophobic)Chinese may want to do just that.
Posted by: Uncle Joe   2003-8-14 9:09:52 PM  

#8  back to topic

actually brahimi has a good point. The ratio of peacekeepers to population, or to square miles, or whatever is absurdly low compared to bosnia, kosovo,E timor, etc. There are of course some good reasons for that - the existence in most of the country of warlords who are quite convinced they can keep the peace well enough, thank you very much, and the general hostility to outsiders found in afghan. Both of which make the place a more difficult place to effectively use peacekeeper than even Bosnia, and much more so than Kosovo and E. Timor. However its still probably possible to expand ISAF outside Kabul, and a desirable thing. Its not completely clear whether its not happening is due to the US not pushing for it ("we dont want stinking ISAF getting in the way of anti-Taliban ops, or messing around with friendly warlords") or of the euros not having enough troops available (the Frenchies are all busy maintaining l'empire peackeeping in Africa, and the rest of us are all too busy reducing our defence budgets) There seem to be just enough troops in from smaller NATO countries and some non-NATO countries to release about 700 Germans, who may be available for use outside Kabul. Not likely to make a huge difference, but better than nothing.

And of course the security situation takes precedence over reconstruction money. Thats the constraint - cant spend money when the civie types are afraid to walk around.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-8-14 12:32:38 PM  

#7  Unlike the U.S. et al on the Security Council, the Chinese NEVER do anything that doesn't further their national (i.e. Communist Party) interest. Letting soldiers leave the fold for peacekeeping duties? When those boys came home they'd likely be heavily watched and possibly jailed as having picked up "counter-revolutionary ideals" like...oh, saying capitalism? Which is OK only when it benefits the State...the mingling of Chinese and other military would undoubtedly be seen as a corrupting influence
Posted by: Frank G   2003-8-14 9:54:51 AM  

#6  Well, so far Anonymous has a reasonable point.
To the other posters, thanks for the comments, such as they are, but I am not unaware of the many downsides. This would have to be managed properly, and NOT through the UN. One of the main upsides is that we turn the Chinese into mercs that WE control. And by the way, the Chinese get low intensity battle experience aplenty against just this kind of threat in their western provinces right now.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2003-8-14 8:49:58 AM  

#5  Wow, for once I agree with Aris on something! If, as the liberal cant goes, American influence and power follows American military forces, then it must necessarily hold that Chineze influence and power will follow Chinese military forces.

The Chinese had best start pulling their own weight by starting closer to home.

Actually, all that's needed is a bigger commitment to building a bigger Afghan national Army. Political power must geographically follow physical (military) power.

Demanding that NATO or the UN supply security is a military version of refugee camps and humanitarian aid: it breeds dependency and prolongs weakness. It gives the appearance of helping Afghanistan in the short run, but winds up hurting it in the long run.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-8-14 8:49:21 AM  

#4  The problem with using Chinese troops is that they get battle experience. Also notice that I never heard their battle performance being stellar against the Tibetan guerillas.

Another point is that flowing the zone with low quality troops allows the guerillas to score kills and this will do do wonders for their morale and getting support from the populace: in guerilla warfare the real battle is for the hearts and minds of the population: you don't want the Taliban becoming living legends by scoring cheap kills on.
easily ambushed Chinese troops
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-8-14 7:50:55 AM  

#3  I was thinking more along the lines of the Vietnamese - cheap, efficient and with a deep understanding guerilla warfare.
Posted by: Shipman   2003-8-14 7:42:19 AM  

#2  Yeah, and those American troops in South Korea, let's replace them also with Chinese troops.

And I am sure that some Soviet troops could have done the job in Western Europe during the years of Cold War, but unfortunately no American president ever thought of it... *rolls eyes*
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-8-14 6:33:30 AM  

#1  Here's a double edged thought. When I think about available military manpower (not necessarily combat competence) I always come back to China. If the Chinese troops are in fact short on upkeep cash, why not farm them out into these low intensity situations? Hire them (and alleviate their upkeep burden issues). Put vast mobs of them where their mere presence of mass will deter the Taliban. If the Taliban get frisky with them, I would expect the Chinese troops to be more than up to the task, if not immediately, then very shortly after their first encounters.
So what's wrong with this idea? I have my own reservations, but the upside seems to outweigh the downside.
Why doesn't anyone ever ask this permanent security council member to carry their own weight? Are we afraid of them getting out of their box, or getting useful OJT? The Chinese should be just as uneasy about their troops getting out into the real world. But why give them a pass? If they want to be seen as a world power, let them shoulder some of the world's burdens.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2003-8-14 5:41:56 AM  

00:00