Afghanistan to Pakistan: Regional Tensions and UN Advocacy

These comments and questions I write to show one way we of Michigan UNA could advocate for the UN by keeping alive the hope that peace may really achieved through intelligent diplomacy, despite new displays of hatred and violence and at the very time when new leadership is taking hold in the US.

Afghanistan is more prominent in the news, as Iraq supposedly has less strife. Afghanistan has been uniquely resistant to outside forces over years of struggle. Neither Britain nor Russia could end its insurgencies. Military chiefs today warn that military action can’t beat insurgency; present US troop levels are insufficient to deal with it.

‘Something’ may be shaping up to deal with that tough country, as we hear about increasing troops for Afghanistan, but no real purpose or mission is described. Would insurgency decrease if US troops were not there? What would Afghanistan’s fear from US actions in their country? Reliance on air power – the fall back position when ground troops can’t win – would be the height of folly, as it would increase civilian casualties, inflame the enmity of the people, and escalate the cost of war.

If ‘nation building’ is what’s to take place, shouldn’t it be an international program with UN backing, not just US or NATO efforts which are unsettling to the people? Massive technical western-style ‘development’ may not fit the people or their ways. The tribal-based ruling culture in Afghanistan’s rugged mountain regions may not take to a centralized government, even if introduced with best intentions.

There may be no heart for nation building. Could a simpler start be made by dealing honestly with the people, understanding their country, culture, and heritage, their type of reconstruction and development needs? Could Afghanistan then come together in an open federation, establish law and order, reducing threats to the outside world? We need not assume Afghanistan to be our natural enemy, forever a rogue state, or hangout for terrorists.

There should be no need for great expansion of US armed forces of any kind, ground or air. Perhaps the US is not even needed as the “Intervener” to bring about change. Intervention might better be the role for the UN, an important role. Supporting the UN as intervener, the US role would be more reasonable and costs reduced.

Diplomacy of international scope and relevance would come first, backed by military strength held in reserve in the region to prevent disturbances beyond Afghanistan. The US and other nations should then be able to reduce all kinds of armaments. Less torn by strife, Afghanistan could emerge as a quieter place in that part of the world, enjoying its remoteness.

This “de-emphasis” of Afghanistan meets up with emerging perceptions that its importance is superseded by Pakistan as a stronger subject of concern for prevention of major conflict. Pakistan, already a nuclear power, is subject to political and cultural unsteadiness. International efforts are needed, either to forestall the nation’s collapse, or calm disruptive uprisings and insurgencies.

Clear thinking on these matters and taking the path of diplomacy rather than quick force will call for great patience and determination in the long term. Patience probably must carry through several generations of US administrations.

Early as it is in this crucial year, the special opportunity for us as American citizens and UN supporters is to let our open minds engage in thoughtful search and discussions, using the openness of the new administration to bring forward new ideas in free expressions, participating in debate of national policies, domestic or foreign.

Steve Osborn, February 13, 2009