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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.Commentary
Just look at Iraq in 1991.
Marwan Muasher
- Iran and the New Geopolitical MomentCommentary
A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.
Michael Young
- Baku Proceeds With Caution as Ethnic Azeris Join Protests in Neighboring IranCommentary
Baku may allow radical nationalists to publicly discuss “reunification” with Azeri Iranians, but the president and key officials prefer not to comment publicly on the protests in Iran.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Iran’s Woes Aren’t Only DomesticCommentary
The country’s leadership is increasingly uneasy about multiple challenges from the Levant to the South Caucasus.
Armenak Tokmajyan
- The Tragedy of Middle Eastern PoliticsArticle
The countries of the region have engaged in sustained competition that has tested their capacities and limitations, while resisting domination by rivals. Can a more stable order emerge from this maelstrom, and what would it require?
Hamza Meddeb, Mohamed Ali Adraoui
