By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 20th May 12
On Sunday and Monday, at a keenly-watched
meeting in Chicago, NATO leaders will argue over who should pay the US $4.1
billion bill for the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) after the pull-out
of foreign troops by end-2014 leaves Afghan security largely in the hands of
Afghans.
Currently, a NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) oversees Afghan security, along with US
military forces that operate independently of ISAF. Starting from 2015, an Afghan National Army
(ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP), numbering some 352,000 troopers, would
assume full responsibility for security. Their numbers would be reduced
incrementally to 228,000 by 2017.
NATO has assessed that Kabul would require
about US $4.1 billion annually for maintaining this force. High-level
Washington sources say the US is trying to peg its contribution to $2 billion;
NATO countries could contribute another $1 billion; the Afghan budget would pay
for about $500 million; leaving a $600 million gap that must be filled in
Chicago.
So far, NATO countries have been less than
forthcoming. Germany has pledged $193 million annually; the UK has offered $110
million per year; and non-NATO member, Australia, will pay $100 million per
year for the next three years. Over several years now, NATO members have
regularly failed to meet their financial commitments towards ANSF training.
Afghan authorities are pressing Washington
to fill the budget gaps. Afghanistan’s deputy foreign minister, Jawed Ludin, pointed out at a
press briefing in Kabul this week that, “The $4.1bn is the cost not of 352,000
[soldiers and police] but of the reduced size, which is 228,000. The United
States will be paying for the extra soldiers that will be needed between 2014
to 2017.”
Washington faces difficulties in allocating
more money, given the depth of anti-war sentiment that is playing out in
Chicago, where busloads of demonstrators are arriving to protest the war. The
US has lost almost 2000 soldiers during a decade of war in Afghanistan. Another
4,500 US citizens lost their lives in Iraq.
The US draw down from Afghanistan plays out
in the strategic backdrop of the US “pivot to Asia,” presented by President
Obama in January. “We’re turning the page on a decade of war,” Obama had said,
announcing that the US would turn away from Europe and West Asia towards “the
arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean
region and South Asia.”
However, Washington is negotiating an
arrangement with Kabul that could allow for a residual footprint of some 25,000
to 30,000 US troops in garrisons in Afghanistan that would focus on
“counter-terrorist operations,” a euphemism for drone strikes against radical jehadi forces.
On Sunday, Afghan president Hamid Karzai
will hold one-on-one talks with Obama in Chicago. There is no meeting scheduled
between Obama and Pakistan’s president Asif Zardari, but his attendance
suggests a cooling of tensions between Washington and Islamabad. Pakistan has
blocked the move of US logistic supplies through the country after at least 24
Pakistani soldiers were killed in a NATO air strike on their border check post
last November. Seen as a key player in any solution in Afghanistan, Pakistan is
believed to have been lured to Chicago with the promise of $1 billion in
released grants and an estimated $1 million per day in transit fees for the
move of supplies into Afghanistan.
NATO last met in the US in 1999, two years
before Al Qaeda terrorists brought down the World Trade Centre twin towers,
triggering the war in Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks led NATO member countries
to invoke, for the first time ever, the common defence provisions of the North
Atlantic Treaty of 1949. This mandates that an attack on one member country
will be regarded as an attack on all of them.
It all will depend upon what USA does to Iran. If anything positive turns out, then supply route to Afghanistan will pass through Iran and Pakistan will be left in a lurch. The US money and help being given now to Pak will be diverted to Afghanistan to make the things easier.
ReplyDeleteDear Ajay Sir, Why can't India be a contributor to peace keeping force in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThis deployment may help create a positive environment for Indian business, trade and cultural relationship with Afghan. It will a be good tamer as well to Pak and China. The cost of deployment shall be borne by US and allies. We shall not go there to occupy that land, but to disarm milita and restore peace. Strategically it will be also good for India.
We afghans would love to have indians soldiers in afghanistan. Our soil needs to be enriched with Hindu blood.
ReplyDeleteAs we find ourselves in times of extreme challenge remember someone out there has had bigger challenges and have overcome them. This story from WWII is awe inspiring and a challenge to overcome anything in the face of overwelming odds. A B17 aircrew that collided with a German fighter in Africa was so severly damaged as to be incredible that it was still in the air after the collision. This B17 survival story is incredible. Read it pass it on use it next time you are challenged by life and circumstance...
ReplyDelete