ID :
102919
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 16:41
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/102919
The shortlink copeid
Ulterior motives behind London conference
TEHRAN, Jan. 27 (MNA) -- London is preparing to host an international conference on Afghanistan on Thursday, with representatives of about 60 countries expected to attend.
Though it is hoped that the conference will help to reduce the misery of the Afghan people after three decades of bloodshed, in light of Britain’s bad record in Afghanistan, there is speculation about ulterior motives behind London’s decision to organize the conference.
It seems that the main reason the conference is being held is to placate the irate British public over the deaths of so many British soldiers in Afghanistan and to give them the impression that Britain is seeking a regional and international solution to the Afghan war.
Moreover, analysts say polls show the Labour Party is on course to lose the June general election, and it arranged the conference to rehabilitate its image in a last-ditch effort to gain votes.
British forces were tasked with dealing with illicit drugs in Afghanistan, but since the time they took on the responsibility, opium production, which is the main source of funding for extremism and terrorism, has risen from 200 tons per year to 9000 tons, a 45-fold increase.
This shows that Britain is either unable or unwilling to prevent the unbelievable increase in poppy cultivation.
According to an article recently published in the New York Times, military intelligence analysts estimate that there are 25,000 to 30,000 committed Taliban fighters and perhaps as many as 500,000 others who would either fight for pay or in response to attacks by Western forces.
Those who are prepared to fight for money are mainly paid through the revenues gained from the sale of opium, which is estimated to be about half a billion dollars annually.
This is just one side of the coin.
The strategies of the various foreign countries that have sent troops to Afghanistan are also contradictory. The differences between NATO members that have deployed forces in Afghanistan and the differences between NATO and the U.S. have also undermined the efforts to manage the Afghanistan war.
More importantly, NATO and the U.S. have done little to promote the economic development of Afghanistan, which is obviously necessary to win the hearts and minds of the people.
An impartial Afghan citizen, who, after eight years of occupation, still has no job or security, will naturally turn against those who claim they came to bring prosperity to Afghanistan.
Now it seems a policy shift is under way. After eight years of occupation, the reputation of NATO and U.S. military forces is being sullied and policymakers have been forced to seek a face-saving exit strategy.
The shift toward such a policy is evident in the recent remarks of the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, who, in an interview with the Financial Times published on Monday, said that a political solution to the Afghan conflict is 'inevitable' and hinted that peace negotiations with the Taliban may be the way forward.
U.S. General Stanley McChrystal also said there had been 'enough fighting'.
A draft communique obtained by Reuters also says Kabul and the participants at the London conference are set to agree on a framework under which Afghan troops could take ‘security primacy’ in some provinces by early 2011, with foreign forces in a supporting role.
To realize this goal, NATO is pressuring President Hamid Karzai to rapidly strengthen and expand Afghanistan's security forces.
The communique also commits Afghanistan to establish -- and the West to fund -- a program to "reach out to insurgents" and pay fighters to lay down their arms.
However, the conference seems to be a cover for the failures of the West -- particularly Britain and the U.S. -- in Afghanistan.
As long as a workable policy, which takes the realities of Afghan society and the role of regional players into consideration, is not adopted, there is no reason to believe the London conference will bear fruit.
Though it is hoped that the conference will help to reduce the misery of the Afghan people after three decades of bloodshed, in light of Britain’s bad record in Afghanistan, there is speculation about ulterior motives behind London’s decision to organize the conference.
It seems that the main reason the conference is being held is to placate the irate British public over the deaths of so many British soldiers in Afghanistan and to give them the impression that Britain is seeking a regional and international solution to the Afghan war.
Moreover, analysts say polls show the Labour Party is on course to lose the June general election, and it arranged the conference to rehabilitate its image in a last-ditch effort to gain votes.
British forces were tasked with dealing with illicit drugs in Afghanistan, but since the time they took on the responsibility, opium production, which is the main source of funding for extremism and terrorism, has risen from 200 tons per year to 9000 tons, a 45-fold increase.
This shows that Britain is either unable or unwilling to prevent the unbelievable increase in poppy cultivation.
According to an article recently published in the New York Times, military intelligence analysts estimate that there are 25,000 to 30,000 committed Taliban fighters and perhaps as many as 500,000 others who would either fight for pay or in response to attacks by Western forces.
Those who are prepared to fight for money are mainly paid through the revenues gained from the sale of opium, which is estimated to be about half a billion dollars annually.
This is just one side of the coin.
The strategies of the various foreign countries that have sent troops to Afghanistan are also contradictory. The differences between NATO members that have deployed forces in Afghanistan and the differences between NATO and the U.S. have also undermined the efforts to manage the Afghanistan war.
More importantly, NATO and the U.S. have done little to promote the economic development of Afghanistan, which is obviously necessary to win the hearts and minds of the people.
An impartial Afghan citizen, who, after eight years of occupation, still has no job or security, will naturally turn against those who claim they came to bring prosperity to Afghanistan.
Now it seems a policy shift is under way. After eight years of occupation, the reputation of NATO and U.S. military forces is being sullied and policymakers have been forced to seek a face-saving exit strategy.
The shift toward such a policy is evident in the recent remarks of the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, who, in an interview with the Financial Times published on Monday, said that a political solution to the Afghan conflict is 'inevitable' and hinted that peace negotiations with the Taliban may be the way forward.
U.S. General Stanley McChrystal also said there had been 'enough fighting'.
A draft communique obtained by Reuters also says Kabul and the participants at the London conference are set to agree on a framework under which Afghan troops could take ‘security primacy’ in some provinces by early 2011, with foreign forces in a supporting role.
To realize this goal, NATO is pressuring President Hamid Karzai to rapidly strengthen and expand Afghanistan's security forces.
The communique also commits Afghanistan to establish -- and the West to fund -- a program to "reach out to insurgents" and pay fighters to lay down their arms.
However, the conference seems to be a cover for the failures of the West -- particularly Britain and the U.S. -- in Afghanistan.
As long as a workable policy, which takes the realities of Afghan society and the role of regional players into consideration, is not adopted, there is no reason to believe the London conference will bear fruit.
