Commentary
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
{
"authors": [
"William Maley"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"South Asia",
"Afghanistan"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Economy",
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Stabilizing Afghanistan: Threats and Challenges
Stability in Afghanistan and the future of its government depend on the United States and its Afghan and other allies providing security for the Afghan people. Calls for an Iraq-style “troop surge” ignore the immediate need for a comprehensive political strategy to fix Afghanistan’s fragile security structure, dysfunctional system of government, and unstable borders.
By William Maley
Published on Oct 30, 2008
Stability in Afghanistan and the future of its government depend on the United States and its Afghan and other allies providing security for the Afghan people. Calls for an Iraq-style “troop surge” ignore the immediate need for a comprehensive political strategy to fix Afghanistan’s fragile security structure, dysfunctional system of government, and unstable borders, warns a new policy brief by Afghanistan expert William Maley.
Since the ousting of the Taliban in 2001, serious flaws in the international community’s approach point to the need for a long-term vision. Poor governance, failure to secure adequate counterterrorism cooperation from Pakistan, and the limited presence of international troops beyond Kabul greatly undermined the Afghan public’s confidence in their country’s transition and Western promises.
Recommendations for the next U.S. president:
- Develop with NATO and allies a sustained, long-term commitment for stability.
- Ensure greater focus on bringing security to Afghans’ daily lives, particularly those in small villages which are home to more than half the population, to build legitimacy for Afghanistan’s government.
- Support systematic reform of Afghanistan’s 2004 constitution, which created a dysfunctional government too reliant on its president, without an effective executive office to support him.
- Base counter-narcotics policies for Afghanistan on long-term projects that increase the returns from cultivating legal crops.
- Encourage more Muslim states to contribute personnel to support the promotion of human security and development in Afghanistan.
- Pressure Pakistan discreetly but strongly to arrest the Afghan Taliban leadership within its borders.
Maley concludes:
“Complex problems need carefully conceived responses, and when disrupted states are allowed to fester, their problems can easily become toxic for the international system. Afghanistan can find solutions to its problems, but those seeking to help it need great wisdom, courage, and farsightedness. This is the ultimate challenge that Afghanistan poses for the next U.S. president.”
About the Author
William Maley is professor and director of the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the Australian National University. He has taught at the University of New South Wales, the Australian Defence Force Academy, and the Russian Diplomatic Academy.
About the Author
William Maley
Political ReformEconomySecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaAfghanistan
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s Expense
- Why Has Kazakhstan Started Deporting Political Activists?Commentary
The current U.S. indifference to human rights means Astana no longer has any incentive to refuse extradition requests from its authoritarian neighbors—including Russia.
Temur Umarov
- Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?Commentary
Most of Moscow’s military resources are tied up in Ukraine, while Beijing’s foreign policy prioritizes economic ties and avoids direct conflict.
Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov
- Georgia’s Fall From U.S. Favor Heralds South Caucasus RealignmentCommentary
With the White House only interested in economic dealmaking, Georgia finds itself eclipsed by what Armenia and Azerbaijan can offer.
Bashir Kitachaev
- What Does War in the Middle East Mean for Russia–Iran Ties?Commentary
If the regime in Tehran survives, it could be obliged to hand Moscow significant political influence in exchange for supplies of weapons and humanitarian aid.
Nikita Smagin
