SECURITY & DEFENCE

Blueprint for an EU role in Obama’s "AfPak" strategy

Summer 2009
Europe has a lot of ground to make up if it is to make a real contribution to the new U.S. drive in Afghanistan and Pakistan, warns Shada Islam. But she says that doing so is vital to transatlantic relations and to Europe’s global ambitions
Barack Obama's ambitious new game plan for fighting the Al Qaeda-led insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his demands for a stronger European role in the effort, present EU governments with a make-or-break opportunity to upgrade their less-than-impressive engagement so far. The stakes are higher than many in Europe would like to believe, for the destruction of Al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan is crucial to the survival of both quasi-failing states. It is also needed to stop further terror attacks on both the West and the Muslim world.

Afghanistan and Pakistan – AfPak – present a critical test for transatlantic relations and Europe's hopes of crafting a strong new strategic partnership with Washington. EU countries’ actions in both countries will also do much to determine Europe's credibility as a global security actor and its ability to leverage non-military "soft power" tools of aid, trade and diplomacy to stabilise troubled nations.

The EU has so far had a distinctly different approach to Afghanistan and to Pakistan. A large majority of EU states have sent troops to Afghanistan and are pumping in millions of euros to bolster that country's fragile economy, even though this has not translated into political influence. By contrast, Europe's relations with Pakistan, a country which is seen as even more pivotal than Afghanistan in the combat against terrorism, remain exceptionally low-key and uninspiring.

The time is now over for reflection, consultation and for sitting on the fence. European governments had been vocal in their criticism of U.S. policy towards Afghanistan during the Bush Administration, and their advice was ignored. With President Obama, Europeans have an opportunity to partner with the U.S. in seeking solutions to the challenges of AfPak.

To do so, they must pay more attention to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama is right in describing the AfPak border, with its numerous Al Qaeda training camps, as “the most dangerous place in the world." Sadly, European leaders have been unwilling or unable to make a forceful case for curbing Al Qaeda-led insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a way to ensure Europe’s security.

The EU has mainly left discussion on Afghanistan mainly to NATO, and European policy towards Pakistan has been focused on aid with little emphasis on meeting the country's insurgency and governance challenges. Europe must now act urgently to forge a pro-active new strategy which responds to both the development and security challenges facing Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most important of all, it must put its relations with Pakistan much higher on its foreign and security policy agenda.

The Americans are using increased military power to back up their AfPak strategy. They now recognise that Europeans will not send substantially more combat troops to Afghanistan, but believing that the insurgency cannot be defeated by military action alone, the U.S. wants Europeans to participate in a so-called "civilian surge" that would go hand-in-hand with an increase in U.S. and NATO boots on the ground. The EU has the tools and the expertise to implement such a "comprehensive approach" by stepping up efforts to improve Afghanistan's governance and address its rule of law deficit. As well as improved law and order, it can also spearhead moves to strengthen the counter-narcotics drive by switching from a focus on eradication to implementing integrated rural development schemes which include the construction of local roads for the marketing of alternative crops.

Its experience in regional cooperation and integration gives the EU exceptional credibility as an "honest broker" to ease strained relations between Afghanistan and its neighbours, and also contribute to better relations between Pakistan and India. Although it will be more difficult, Europeans could lead the way in opening negotiations with "reconcilable" Taliban insurgents and militants who either have no links to Al Qaeda or are willing to sever them.

European countries are regarded by many in Afghanistan and Pakistan with less hostility than the U.S. This is especially so in Pakistan, where U.S. drone attacks on insurgents in the tribal areas continue to cause public outrage. Washington's standing in Pakistan has also been tarnished by the Bush Administration's support for President Musharraf, whereas the EU has built up credit among Pakistan's political elite – including lawyers, human rights activists and pro-democracy groups – by focusing on the need to hold free and fair elections, insisting on the independence of the judiciary and concentrating on the building of stronger civilian institutions.

Europe's performance in Afghanistan has not been uniformly grim. The EU is a leading aid donor there, providing a total of €3.7bn over 2002-2006. A stronger European military effort was promised at both the NATO and EU-U.S. summits in April this year, but we should make no mistake that the European effort in Afghanistan will be judged by the success or failure of its EUPOL police mission. This EU flagship operation is unfortunately overshadowed by the much larger U.S. police programme, and is also dwarfed by similar schemes run by EU member states. It is also trammeled by serious staff shortages, although EU governments have pledged to double the mission staff to 400 members, recruiting the additional police officers is proving difficult. To make the Afghan posting more attractive, governments should be ready to raise salaries, hire so-called "contract agents" or to turn to the private sector to supply police officers.

To be effective in Afghanistan, EU states must reinforce their coordination and cooperation on the ground and at headquarters. "AfPak" envoys appointed by EU member states, including Britain, France, Germany and Sweden, should make a point of working closely with Ettore Sequi, the EU's pointman for Afghanistan and Pakistan. On top of that, there must be a consolidation of the three separate EU representations in Kabul, namely the European Commission delegation, EUPOL and Sequi's office.

Bringing Pakistan back from the brink is going to be even more difficult, especially since the EU has so far failed to recognise Pakistan’s strategic importance. Now, Pakistan is slowly climbing up the European agenda, with the organisation of a first-ever EU-Pakistan summit and plans to provide new trade concessions along with increased aid to the country. To be effective, EU assistance will have to focus on the two sides of the AfPak border to include both countries’ Pashtun areas.

The EU's priority must be to help Pakistan tackle its twin challenges of building a functioning democracy and defeating religious extremism. This requires that despite Pakistan's chaotic politics, the European Commission and individual governments keep channels of communication open with its democratically-elected leaders, however weak they may be. Democracy in Pakistan is above all conditional on the army's retreat from political life. No encouragement should be given to suggestions that the army meddle in politics as another military coup would not only undermine civilian institutions but also undercut efforts to curb the insurgency and fight terrorism.

There is much room for improvement in the EU’s trade and aid ties with Pakistan. EU aid to Pakistan, stuck at €500m since 1976, is a fraction of the $10bn dollars in U.S. aid that Pakistan has received since 2001, and which has been easily overshadowed by the new commitments being made by the Obama Administration. Europe’s trade relations are also uneasy.

The EU is Pakistan's largest trading partner, with EU imports mainly of textiles and clothing currently valued at about €3.5bn a year. But a spate of EU anti-dumping investigations, and the removal of Pakistan from the EU's special duty-free scheme for developing countries, coupled with Brussels' reluctance to start negotiations on a free trade agreement with Islamabad, have strained the trading relationship.

An overhaul of EU aid priorities in Pakistan would be welcome, away from the present near-exclusive focus on health, education and rural development to a broader reform agenda, including police and judicial training, the modernisation of political parties and a strengthening of parliamentary procedures. This would mean setting aside more funds for Pakistan, not an easy move given the many other demands on the EU's external budget.

The EU has a role to play in helping Pakistan's increasingly dynamic civil society groups. The focus should be on ensuring media independence and providing support for groups that advocate human rights, including the protection of women, children and support for marginalised communities. EU encouragement for promoting Pakistan's long-standing Sufi traditions would also help counter the spread of the cruel Taliban interpretation of Islam. The Pakistani government needs advice on crafting a new counter-terrorism strategy which strives to combat extremism through development, not just military deployment.

A more targeted approach that is centered on winning hearts and minds should focus on bringing development to the arid and mountainous northern regions. Building schools and hospitals is a priority, but Pakistan must also invest in developing better job training programmes for the region's young men who often migrate to the Gulf states in search of employment. More generally, Pakistan's friends must shift from backing the country's political personalities to helping build strong institutions.

European governments must lose no time in doing their AfPak homework. This doesn’t just mean putting both Afghanistan and Pakistan higher on the agenda; EU countries should coordinate and where possible, consolidate their programmes, policies and representations. It’s not what national policymakers like to hear, but Europe’s failure to do so will sour transatlantic relations and also put the brake on crucial steps towards expanding the EU’s global outreach. 

You need to be logged in to rate and comment on articles.
Click the log in or register button in the top right corner of this page.
Average rating:
Add rating
5 COMMENT(S)
  • Should Europe see Pakistan as great a security risk as Afghanistan?

The EU has so far had a distinctly different approach to Afghanistan and to Pakistan and has failed to recognise Pakistan’s strategic importance. The destruction of Al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan is crucial to their survival. It is also needed to stop further terror attacks. President Obama describes the AfPak border as “the most dangerous place in the world." Should Europe see Pakistan as great a security risk as Afghanistan?

Please leave your thoughts and suggestions below.

By Europe's World - Vox Pop on 7/23/2009 12:24
Report inappropriate content
  • Re:Blueprint for an EU role in Obama’s "AfPak" strategy

Shada Islam & R Pantucci don't seem to recognize and/or understand that *Whiteman* and their soldiers from US/EU (Nato) can rule or defeat the tribal order in Hindu Kush. The Soviet Union learnt its historical lesson under similar circumstances in Kabul.

Without addressing the generally populistic arguments of both interventions, let me suggest a few policy parameters of concern to current Nato deployment:

*US Pentagon and its mandarins will be forced by BHO to set a timeline to withdraw American forces by 2010 Congressional by-elections. And don't forget POTUS's middlename is *Hussein*.
He's more than familiar with muslim heritage across the Silk Road (from his own mother's academic work!).

*Nato will not survive in Hindu Kush...and it could spell its ultimate failure as an organization.
Already in Netherlands and Germany politics is gaining upperhand to force the withdrawal of their military engagements.

*AfPak is current US Administrations wonkish coordinated policy framework under Holbrooke and Clinton. BTW Holbrooke has never in his professional life worked and/or managed SouthAsian policy. He's principally an European foreign policy expert.

*Pakistan is not happy with AfPak policy because of its strategic disconnect to India. India is closer to current regime in Kabul, since bulk of them were political refugees in Delhi during the Taliban takeover under Pakistan/CIA(US).

* Pak is also a feudal oligarghy of Punjabi landlords who not only own today's Pak but also provide bulk of its foot-soldiers. Pak Army is not going to remove its forward defense against India in southeast.

Conclusion: Nato's future failure is more or less fixed with its engagement in Hindu Kush.

By Hari Naidu on 8/3/2009 17:41
Report inappropriate content
  • Re:Blueprint for an EU role in Obama’s "AfPak" strategy

Congratullations for very comprehensive article, recognything the space limitations: to fully present the issue, several books are needed.
As you rightly say, there is need to coordinate the EU cooperation, and to bring support to the people. Actions like Vicente Ferrer's microcredits to woman in India, are good examples. And to the media public, there is need to change focus from repression and military action, to understanding, support, cooperation and innovative ideas to help the people to find a better living, fully respecting their ways, priorities, cultural identity etc. The "fighting policy", the "military operations" and violence in general, is the best fuel to talibans and other similar groups: they are experts on the hate culture, the resistance, the back fight... they have been doing that since milleniums, and they will never be defeated at that; the more casualties they have, the larger the number of martyrs and heroes, and the strongest their position. Innovative agriculture, alternative and succesful crops, small transformation industries, employment schemes, adapted sanitary assistance with local products, instalations and practicioners, efficient support to migration with return investing programmes... if europ could define and coordinate concrete policies on that, we would be in the starting line to develop a future understanding... in a future one hundred years ahed at the very best. It is a real challange for the associated risk, the inherent uncertanity etc; never changing such situations has been easy. But the alternative is worst.

By emilio martin bauza on 8/7/2009 12:58
Report inappropriate content
  • Re:Blueprint for an EU role in Obama’s "AfPak" strategy

Europe strategy should be realistic and this means different to the US military solution followed by limited public support. At first Talibans are just soil of AfPak, young peasants withouta hope for respectable life. There is lack of farm land, water readily available. This problem should be addressed and not equal staus for women for example irritating local population at the best. During my travels in the region I noted in a span of twenty years grownig disruption to the local life caused by growing population and lack of traditional endowments, mainly water and agroland. Military operations are worsening situation. Europe should address these real needs, in cooperation with Talibans, only real power able to change traditional social structure of feudal landlords, their client assistants: military, police, sheikhs etc, guardians of bygone past.

By Daniel Zbytek on 8/18/2009 14:59
Report inappropriate content
  • Re:Blueprint for an EU role in Obama’s "AfPak" strategy

[Follow-up on my 8/3/2009 intervention - in light of recent developments.]

The blueprint for EU participation in (Holbrooke's) AfPak strategy has finally been decided by POTUS. No more foot soldiers to be send to Hindu Kush until strategy is reviewed and clarified in terms of principal policy objectives and timelines.

In other words, BHO is saying he won't allow AfPak to become his Waterloo! And he's absolutely right. The German federal elections has inserted a definitive timeline for removal of German combat forces from Hindu Kush. So too will Netherland because of domestic political pressure.

What has gone wrong with AfPak strategy?

Pak and its intelligence service (ISI) is not happy, as I said, with the disconnect with AfPak strategy and India. Holbrooke tried to tie-in Delhi by his regular briefing (trips) to Indian Gov which Delhi has now stopped because it doesn't want any political/strategic links with AfPak framework of policy. There is also some rumble in Washington D.C. (beltway) that Kabul is too pro-Indian!

Pak/ISI is also trying to disturb NATO supplies from being transported from Turkmenistan. Because it wants NATO to use Pak for supply route.

In my view, Pak is not prepared to allow Karzai regime to succeed under NATO/ISAF support. Principally because it is not in its national strategic interest; ie. if Kabul becomes stable under Karzai regime the principal winner will be India. India has invested in infrastructure development projects in Hindu Kush including training Afghan police. I also note, India is using its non-military forces to sabotage Pak/ISI policy in Baluchistan. Pak tried to get India to officially admit its unwarranted intervention in Baluchistan, and PM/SIngh got into hot water in Indian parliament for their joint-statement....

Obviously we don't know details of what, in fact, is transpiring across the AfPak boarder areas because not only infrastructure and communications systems are moving at the speed of mule trains; but because the real ememy of Pak/ISI is not Taliban and Al Queda but Indian strategic intervention in Hindu Kush thru Karzai regime.
[Proxy wars are won and lost...and often revisited... more than we can realistically anticipate or calculate.]

Given the culture and ancient tribal traditions of the region, Pak is a recent state entity arising out of partition of India (1947). It doesn't carry the same cultural and linguistic weight, as modern India, in dealing with ancient mogul Afghans and their tribal ancestry. Pak muslems are majority Sunnis, and, therefore also not politically palatable to (Shiite) Persians and current regime in Teheran. However India-Iran relation is fundamentally historical and unlikely to be eroded by US/EU inlfuence.

By Hari Naidu on 9/22/2009 17:26
Report inappropriate content

 
Sunday, 12 February 2012
le plus populaire du journal

le plus populaire de communité

le plus populaire des partenaires

Logon