In The Media
Petr Topychkanov
{
"authors": [
"Petr Topychkanov"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [
"Eurasia in Transition"
],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"Afghanistan"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Brussels Discussions on Afghanistan
The Alliance is waiting now for the U.S.-Afghan agreement, which will give a political and legal base for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. The problem is that Hamid Karzai is not ready to sign this agreement.
Published on Sep 23, 2013
On September 19-20, I took a part in a visit of Russian specialists on Afghanistan to the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Many political and military officers there emphasized the Russian input in the stability in Afghanistan.
According to Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, deputy secretary general of NATO, Russia’s role in Afghanistan is growing. He mentioned the main fields of the Russian participation in the international efforts in Afghanistan: counter-narcotics, transit, and helicopters. He argued that in Afghanistan there is a basis for cooperation between Russia and NATO.
At the same time, there were quite a few issues of disagreement between the Russian and NATO discussants. In 2014 there will be a transformation of the NATO mission in Afghanistan (not a total withdrawal as it is usually described in mass media), Russia would like to see an appropriate resolution adopted by the UN Security Council, which will give a green light to a new NATO mission in Afghanistan. According to a Russian diplomat, such a resolution will help create a framework for further cooperation between Russia and NATO.
Yet there was another view on this issue in Brussels. Director of a local think tank explained that the UN SC resolution is preferable but not necessary, because NATO will stay in Afghanistan by the invitation of its president. So the decision of Hamid Karzai becomes more important than the resolution of the Security Council.
Russian participants of the discussions in Brussels criticized the NATO for the absence of a transparent perspective on its future in Afghanistan. The response from the NATO side uncovered a difficult situation. The Alliance is waiting now for the U.S.-Afghan agreement, which will give a political and legal base for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Since the numbers and locations of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan depend on this agreement, other NATO members will finally make the decision concerning their involvement only after it.
The problem is that Hamid Karzai is not ready to sign this agreement. He regards his decision on this issue as an opportunity to demonstrate that he is not “an American puppet.” Thus the NATO planning depends on the U.S. decision, which depends on Hamid Karzai.
It is not a pleasant situation for Russia, which understands that the United States cannot achieve an agreement with Hamid Karzai as it happened in Iraq. This fall, the elections season will start in Afghanistan, which will make the U.S.-Afghan agreement very unlikely. After the election, there will not be much time left before January 1, 2015, when, according to Ambassador Vershbow, Afghanistan will become fully sovereign. Will it be more secured? This is the question.
About the Author
Petr Topychkanov
Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center
Topychkanov was a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program.
- Iranian and Russian Perspectives on the Global System
- Premonition of Nuclear ThreatIn The Media
Petr Topychkanov
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
- Europe on Iran: Gone with the WindCommentary
Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.
Pierre Vimont
