Category Archives: NATO

Jul 14th 2021

by Charles Djou and Adam Kinzinger

THE RISE of a China that is mercantilist, militaristic and aggressive presents the most significant security challenge for Western democracies since the Cold War. Chinas growing influence is likely to overwhelm individual countries responding on their own and set the stage for an international system designed in Beijing. Resisting this pull toward authoritarianism, however, can be achieved with a unified group of democracies. The best means to secure this comes by transforming the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) into a global alliance of nations that are democratic, have market economies and respect civil liberties and the rule of law.

The Economist Today

A daily email with the best of our journalism

The first job of the new NATO should be to welcome democratic countries from the Asia-Pacific region into the alliance. A strong American commitment to expand NATO to include all experienced democracies is vital. Only America has the resources, strength and leadership capacity to bring this to fruition. The countrys national-security policy should prioritise transforming NATO into an alliance of democracies throughout the world.

When NATO was established in 1949, its purpose was to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union and the communist bloc. It was a time when protecting countries in the North Atlantic area was the same as defending Western democracy. Today NATO continues as historys most successful and enduring alliance. Although the Soviet Union no longer exists, the commitment of its members continues, while democracy and democratic values have spread far beyond the limited physical geography of Europe.

However in the 21st century, NATO must tackle not only security challenges in the West, but also issues that span the globe.

Following the attacks of September 11th 2001, NATO joined America for a nearly two-decade fight against Islamic extremism. Today the alliance not only combats cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns, but it has come to understand the grave threat that Chinese authoritarianism poses to our way of life. As such, NATO membership should extend beyond defending the physical landmass of Europe and cyberspace to the defence of all democracies.

Of course, Russia remains a clear and present security challenge. But we must also address the threats of an increasingly assertive China. Its authoritarianism presents the most pronounced challenge to Western liberalism since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Though Americas economy and military are larger, over the next 20 years China will surpass the country in both respects.

Wherever China believes it has national interests, it will increasingly challenge and undermine Western ideals of civil liberty, rule of law and democracy. As Chinas economy and military strength grow over the coming decades, America by itself (let alone any other democracy) will not be able to compete one-to-one against it. Collectively, however, likeminded democracies can defend our shared values. The multilateral approach of NATO remains the best vehicle for such collective security.

Right now, the Asia-Pacific security framework for democracies is largely bilateral. Security relationships exist between America and Australia, with Japan and with South Korea. But these security relationships do not necessarily exist among Australia, Japan and South Korea. This existing bilateral framework functions so long as America continues serving as the hub, but it could easily be challenged once China is both the worlds largest economy and military. Americas alliances would be made stronger if it were conceived of as a web of interrelationships.

There are other international institutions nominally dedicated to preserving democratic values. Yet none of these organisations can as effectively provide security to the worlds democracies as NATO. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, draws together America, Japan, India and Australia. It promotes defence co-operation between the Asia-Pacific regions largest democracies, partially in response to increased aggression by China. But the Quad is only an informal forum for security communication among countries and lacks any concrete mechanism for defence co-operation and co-ordination. Although a step in the right direction, more will be needed to strengthen the Quad.

The West must rethink outdated defence strategies of regional security in Europe and bilateral security in the Asia-Pacific region. If a new NATO extends its reach to include experienced democracies globally, then it may peacefully resist creeping global authoritarianism. A united West will give illiberal leaders pause before trying to undermine democratic ideals.

Australia, Japan and South Korea all have democratically elected governments, market economies and healthy government institutions. The new NATO should start expansion by inviting these three countries into the alliance. In the long term, the organisation could look to others, such as New Zealand, as well as Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and India, should their democracies meet NATO requirements. Eventually it should be open to adding experienced democracies from elsewhere too.

Transforming todays alliance into the new NATO will not be easy. The NATO charter will need to be amended, notably the provisions that limit membership to European nations. European countries will also require significant assurances and compromises. The process will be time consuming and bureaucratic.

American leadership will be crucial. It will be needed to connect the European and Asian democracies together. America already has existing mutual-defence obligations with NATO as well as Australia, Japan and South Korea. Linking these commitments together will result in a stronger and much more robust global security alliance for America and its allies. No other country can perform this critical job.

At its core, NATO is a mutual-assistance defence treaty. All members, new and old, will need to agree to Article 5, which states that an armed attack against one or more shall be considered an attack against them all to invoke the right of individual or collective self-defence. After all, when democracy is threatened anywhere, it harms democracies everywhere.

The formation of a new NATO that includes countries in the Asia-Pacific region might inadvertently antagonise China and thereby stir up the very militarism the alliance seeks to prevent. That is certainly a risk, but the alternative is a larger and weightier risk: an emboldened China that makes a mockery of international law and is a source of continual global instability.

Standing up against authoritarianism demands that the West joins forces in a way that it hasnt since the original alliance was created more than 70 years ago. It is a testament to the wisdom of those who conceived of the organisation that it has led to a peaceful period in Europe. Our generation needs to build on their work and courage, and take on this challenge. Democracy might be in recession today but it can recover with an alliance against authoritarianism, united under NATO and led by America.____________

Charles K. Djou is a former Republican congressman for Hawaii who served on the House Armed Services Committee and is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve. Adam Kinzinger is a Republican congressman representing Illinois, who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air National Guard.

The rest is here:
Charles Djou and Adam Kinzinger on the need to expand NATO to Asia - The Economist

Former President George W. Bush on Wednesday criticized the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan and said civilians were being left to be "slaughtered" by the Taliban.

"I think the consequences are going to be unbelievably bad," he told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.

"Afghan women and girls are going to suffer unspeakable harm. This is a mistake. ... They're just going to be left behind to be slaughtered by these very brutal people, and it breaks my heart," Mr. Bush said.

The former Republican president, who sent troops to Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001 after the September 11 attacks, said he believed German Chancellor Angela Merkel "feels the same way."

Mr. Bush said Merkel, who is set to retire from politics later this year after 16 years in power, had brought "class and dignity to a very important position and made very hard decisions."

The interview came as Merkel was about to make her last official visit to the U.S. and first since President Joe Biden took office.

U.S. and NATO forces began withdrawing from Afghanistan in early May and are due to completely pull out by September 11, some 20 years after they arrived in the war-torn country.

Most of the 2,500 U.S. and 7,500 NATO troops who were in Afghanistan when Mr. Biden detailed the final withdrawal in April have now gone, leaving Afghan troops to fight an emboldened Taliban seemingly bent on a military victory.

The country is facing a crisis as the insurgents snap up territory across the countryside, stretching government forces and leading to a fresh wave of internally displaced families, complicated by a renewed outbreak of COVID-19.

The United Nations said on Sunday the rising conflict is causing "more suffering" across the violence-wracked country, and called for continuous financial aid.

Mr. Biden has insisted, however, that it is time for U.S. involvement in the war to end and for Afghans to chart their own future.

See the rest here:
George W. Bush calls withdrawal of U.S. and other NATO troops from Afghanistan "a mistake" - CBS News

Donald Trump was considering pulling out of Nato and cutting the USs alliance with South Korea if he won the 2020 election, according to an account of his private meetings with top aides.

I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J Trumps Catastrophic Final Year is a behind-the-scenes account of Mr Trumps last year in the White House, authored by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters Phil Rucker and Carol Leonnig.

In an excerpt published in the Washington Post, Mr Trump is said to have lost the confidence of Defense Secretary Mark Esper. According to the book, Mr Esper confided in colleagues that he was rooting for Joe Biden to win the election because he believed he cared about national security.

Esper couldnt say the same about Trump. In fact, Trump had privately indicated that he would seek to withdraw from Nato and to blow up the US alliance with South Korea, should he win reelection. When those alliances had come up in meetings with Esper and other top aides, some advisers warned Trump that shredding them before the election would be politically dangerous.

Yeah, the second term, Trump had said. Well do it in the second term.

According to the excerpt, episodes recounted in the book are based on interviews with senior Trump administration officials, friends and advisers to the president.

White House scenes from election night are described in detail, including Mr Trumps reaction to seeing Arizona called for Mr Biden on Fox News.

Trump, who had been watching Fox, was livid. He could not fathom that the conservative news network he had long considered an extension of his campaign was the first news organization to call Arizona for Biden. This was a betrayal. His top advisers, who had been in the Map Room at the time, rushed upstairs to see the president.

What the f--- is Fox doing? Trump screamed. Then he barked orders to Kushner: Call Rupert! Call James and Lachlan! And to Jason Miller: Get Sammon. Get Hemmer. Theyve got to reverse this. The president was referring to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, as well as Bill Sammon, a top news executive at Fox.

Trumps tirade continued. What the f---? he bellowed.

I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J Trumps Catastrophic Final Year is published on 20 July by Penguin Press.

Read the rest here:
Trump was planning to withdraw US from Nato and ditch South Korea alliance, according to new book - The Independent

The year is 2030 and Russias military and intelligence services have spent months waging a disinformation campaign directed at the citizens of a NATO ally. The campaign has created strife among its target population and has increased civil unrest. Russian government actors proceed to conduct daily cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, causing prolonged electrical blackouts and cutting off access to water and hospitals in major cities, including the capital. Large-scale and coordinated terrorist attacks at ports of entry across the country including at the largest seaport and the hub of economic activity have increased fear. These attacks undermine the credibility of the government, which has struggled to provide relief to its citizens or stop the attacks.

A well-equipped and highly trained proxy force, backed by the Russian government, initiates attacks against the NATO allys security forces and intense fighting breaks out. The allys military is losing ground and violence spills into urban areas near the frontlines. Civilians citizens of the NATO ally confront the horrible decision of whether to flee or stay behind. Civilians who take flight, as well as those remaining in place, are targeted by cells of proxy fighters. The impact on the population is purposeful and immense: Harming civilians and civilian infrastructure is integral to the adversarys strategy.

Should NATO prepare for this scenario? Absolutely. The contingency above is a simplified version of what many who study the future of war are thinking through. In this imagined crisis, the conflict forces civilians to seek protection, even to cross borders to other NATO allies and partners. In turn, allies and partners see that a strong and skilled NATO force is needed to push back the incursion and assist the allied government in protecting its civilians. That could lead the North Atlantic Council, NATOs governing body, to enact Article 5, launching plans for a collective defense mission.

For NATO to succeed in the type of hybrid warfare scenario described above, alliance leaders would need to specify protection of civilians as an explicit mission objective. The good news is that the alliance already has a strong basis for doing that successfully, thanks to its existing policy and supporting documents. However, work on policy implementation building the skills, knowledge, and capabilities to protect civilians has been insufficient. Thats the clear finding of the research that our team has been conducting since 2019. Weve convened workshops focused on this issue with more than 100 practitioners, academics, and representatives of militaries and governments, and we presented a series of findings in a March 2021 report authored by our colleague Kathleen Dock.

NATO should take urgent actions now to ensure that it emphasizes protection of civilians as a core capability for future alliance missions not only out-of-area ones, but also any conducted on NATO territory and it should embrace protection of civilians as a cross-cutting requirement in NATOs new strategic concept.

Protection of Civilians: NATOs Existing Efforts

NATOs efforts on this issue are a work in progress. At the alliances 2016 summit in Warsaw, NATO leaders adopted a landmark protection of civilians policy. It captured decades of lessons and experience, from operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya, and was written broadly to apply to all current and future NATO missions. In particular, the policy broke new ground by calling for the physical protection of civilians against harm caused by belligerents. The policy was the first such document for NATO and laid out the alliances approach to protecting civilians, which is built on four key concepts: understanding the human environment; mitigating harm; facilitating access to basic needs; and contributing to a safe and secure environment. The North Atlantic Council committed political support to the policy and, subsequently, NATO proceeded with practical implementation by producing an associated action plan, military concept, and a handbook on the subject.

Yet, as NATO marks the fifth anniversary of the policys adoption, continued work to build protection of civilians as a core capability is lagging. The policy is not being used actively to prepare NATO for its future, including missions where civilian protection would be a key objective and for operations in which NATO members might find themselves protecting allied citizens.

For some alliance and member state officials, protection of civilians is seen as rooted in the past and in those previous out-of-area missions where the alliance focused on protecting non-NATO citizens. Others argue that protecting civilians is not a future operational requirement. But, in fact, civilian protection is a challenge that will impact all future missions especially those that may occur within the borders of NATO allies and partners.

NATO officials have not surveyed those allies and partners to see how they plan to train and implement protecting civilians as a future mission requirement, what they have drafted as national-level guidance, and what is needed to prepare for such missions. Information about these matters is spotty today, and nations do not have an easy mechanism to learn from one another before a coalition is assembled for a specific mission.

The June 2021 NATO summit was a missed opportunity to catalyze further progress on this set of issues. Although NATO leaders took many vital steps to bolster the alliance against future threats, they failed to take additional actions to enhance the alliances ability to protect NATO civilians at home.

Toward the Future: Three Critical Steps

NATO allies and partners should champion, and resource, better implementation of the policy on protecting civilians, both during the drafting of NATOs new strategic concept and in other future planning.

First, NATO leaders military and political should recognize that protecting civilians is relevant for their populations and smart policy for the alliance. The 2021 summit emphasized working toward common purposes and uniting all members in their political commitment to the alliance. Leaders know that commitment will be tested, especially in the context of an operation that may take place within the borders of a NATO ally. In a scenario like this, NATO citizens will effectively become civilians caught in conflict and the alliance will have a duty to protect them. Civilians living within the borders of an ally or partner will expect the alliance to keep them safe both by refraining from harming them through NATO operations and by protecting them against harm from adversaries. Protecting civilians is a whole of alliance endeavor. If it is to be done effectively, it should be a core political commitment and military task.

A robust commitment to protection of civilians also distinguishes NATO allies and partners from opponents who disregard international humanitarian law and human rights principles, or who disregard the rights of their own civilians. In contrast to their likely adversaries, NATO nations strive to uphold a rules-based international order. One key contributor to achieving that goal is signaling the importance of protecting civilians in future operations and supporting further development of military capabilities suited to that task. On the political side of NATO, officials and leaders should have expertise in protection of civilians to help ensure that future mandates set civilian protection as a central goal. Only if that happens will military planners be able to plan effectively.

Second, NATO should build its knowledge, skills, and abilities to protect civilians and treat such protection as an operational goal. Future war experts have researched and identified modes of conflict that will change the character of war, including proxy wars, cyber attacks on military and civilian infrastructure, conflict in densely populated urban areas, disinformation campaigns aimed at eroding social cohesion, and the use of artificial intelligence. Not all of these are new, of course. But trends point to the high likelihood that the United States and other NATO members will find themselves responding to future conflicts that, at the very least, are fought among civilian populations or in which civilians are deliberately targeted. NATO is still not fully prepared to deal with such situations.

To anticipate, plan for, and address civilian insecurity is more than a moral good. It is a requirement of operational success when a population is a strategic target. On the military side, understanding the operational aspects of civilian protection should be folded into doctrine and training and woven throughout various functions, from intelligence to planning, strategy, and leadership. NATO should also establish protection of civilians as an operational requirement and integrate it into work at the headquarters level, including at Allied Command Operations, Allied Command Transformation, and in discussions with allies and partners. In a future crisis, political and military actors will need to work together, so establishing those lines of communication now is essential. Much of the protection of civilians agenda is currently managed by NATOs Human Security office in Brussels, which lacks the staffing capacity and bureaucratic heft to implement the policy in the future.

Third, protection of civilians should be included in NATOs next strategic concept as a core political and military capability. The new strategic concept is due to be completed by 2022. Building additional knowledge, skills, and capabilities to safeguard civilians needs to be directed. By crafting a new action plan, building off the one completed in late 2020, the North Atlantic Council could initiate the next phase of this policy agenda by early 2022. High-level policy attention and guidance do not, of course, automatically mean effective implementation in future conflicts. Implementation will take sustained political support and savvy political leaders who understand how their political and strategic decisions impact those on the ground and the military components meant to implement their mandates. It will also take knowledgeable and well-trained militaries. Just as nations dont assume that a new group of military trainees will innately know how to use advanced artillery effectively, neither can NATO assume that new personnel will know how to protect civilians. That intention should be captured in doctrine, and trained and exercised, just like other core military missions.

Its Time for Additional Policy Action

By including the protection of civilians in its strategic concept, and by recognizing the broad importance of protecting civilians to the alliance, NATO will meet multiple goals. It will prepare for future missions that its allies and partners may face. It will establish NATO as committed to the security of civilians in conflict, a value that will help unite the alliance and distinguish it from many of its adversaries. And it will build on the good work that it has started and that needs a push in order to move aspirational goals into operational capability.

Together, these proactive measures will ensure that NATO sees protecting civilians as a core task for future alliance missions, not only out-of-area ones but also any that occur in the territory of allies and partners. As the old proverb says, An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. NATO can take more strides now to enable it to protect civilians in future conflicts.

Victoria K. Holt is a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center. Her areas of expertise focus on issues relating to international security and multilateral tools, including peace operations and conflict prevention, the United Nations and U.N. Security Council, protection of civilians, crisis regions, and U.S. policymaking. Prior to joining Stimson, Holt was the deputy assistant secretary of state for international security in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, serving from 2009 to early 2017.

Marla B. Keenan is an adjunct senior fellow at the Stimson Center. Her areas of expertise focus on issues relating to international security, including human rights in armed conflict, protection of civilians, civilian harm tracking and analysis, and civil-military relations in armed conflict. Marla is also an International Security Program senior fellow at New America, working to strengthen partnerships between non-governmental organizations and academic institutions on applied research in armed conflict, and a security fellow at the Truman National Security Project.

Image: U.S. Army (Photo by Sgt. Patrik Orcutt)

More:
An Urgent NATO Priority: Preparing to Protect Civilians - War on the Rocks

The mobile phone video is short and slightly grainy, but you can hear the fear, even the panic in the voices of the people waiting. Theyre making their way up the gangway into the small plane. Nobody wants to be left behind. A single man finally makes it past the security people and rushes to the plane. The person filming explains, "That was a senator" a member of the upper house of parliament in Kabul. "These are members of parliament, representatives from the provincial council and commanders."

In recent days, the dramatic scenes in Faizabad, the capital of the mountainous province of Badakhshan, have been a Saigon moment for Afghanistans government. They are reminiscent of the iconic photograph shot half a century ago, when one of the last American helicopters took off from South Vietnam, leaving desperate allies behind.

The events in Faizabad have great symbolic importance and reinforce a suspicion that has been lingering for some time now: One day soon, the current elites in Kabul might also have to flee from the advancing Taliban.

There have long been fears in Washington that the Afghan leadership and its troops would have a hard time holding their own against the Taliban once the NATO troops left. The Washington Post recently reported on a United States intelligence assessment forecasting that Afghan leadership could only hold out for six months, perhaps a year, after the final withdrawal.

The clock started ticking on July 2, at 3 a.m. local time, when the last plane took off from the Bagram Airfield north of Kabul. The Americans didnt even tell the Afghans in advance that they were leaving, they just disappeared. When the Afghan army finally arrived hours later, they already had to drive the first looters away from the base. It only took a few hours for the panic-stricken crowd to descend on the Faizabad airport.

Despite its very clear risk analyses, the United States decided, after almost 20 years, to end the war it launched after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, initially to hunt down Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida terrorists he led. But also to stabilize and democratize the country in the long term with partners including Germany. The first part of the mission succeeded, but the second one largely failed. The Taliban has now secured control of large parts of the country.

Children stand in front of a bombed-out business in Kandahar: At night, the streets belong to the Taliban.

They advanced rapidly in Faizabad, surrounding the city while simultaneously conquering almost the entire province. By July 14, they were in control of 26 of the 28 districts and had besieged two more. Other areas, especially in the north, are also falling into Taliban hands at ever-increasing speed. In the week up to July 5 alone, the Taliban captured another 38 of Afghanistans 407 districts, nearly one-tenth of the country. In all, they now control nearly 200 districts, with another 120 or so besieged. And almost nowhere have they triumphed as quickly and as radically as in Badakhshan.

On July 3, all commercial flights from Kabul to Faizabad were suspended until further notice. Then began the half-hearted evacuation attempts that were caught on video. Witnesses at the airport claim the government sent only one plane. GIZ, the German development aid organization, alone rented five aircraft from the United Nations fleet to bring its local staff to safety.

Fierce battles erupted around Faizabad, with dozens killed. But in most of the districts, there were no reports of fighting. The Taliban just marched through without resistance. The army, police, local militias some of them only recently established simply gave up, went home or fled. According to the Tajik army, over 1,037 Afghan security forces escaped across the border into the desperately poor neighboring country in a span of two days. And they werent the first to flee. "Staying would be suicide," said one soldier who had already fled to Tajikistan with an earlier wave. "Unfortunately, the majority of the districts were left to the Taliban without any fight," Mohib-ul Rahman, a provincial council member, told Radio Free Europe.

"Two helicopters picked up only the uniformed people, soldiers and police, a militia member who had deserted told DER SPIEGEL: "It was clear to everyone that it is over. Some fled, others just went home." All the reports from those holding out in Badakhshan and of those who have escaped Kabul confirm what the Talibans propaganda channels are communicating: The Taliban is advancing everywhere. In many cases, the government troops left their vehicles, weapons and ammunition. The only word from the Wakhan corridor, a remote mountainous area, is that the government has simply abandoned the district.

In Kabul, however, Defense Ministry spokesperson Fawad Aman tweeted: "Vast areas were cleared of Taliban terrorists in outskirts of Faiz-Abad, using an alternate spelling of Faizabad. In a second tweet, he posted four photos from the city as proof cars were still on the road. "People continue to live without fear of the Taliban terrorists." But there was no word about the abrupt loss of almost the entire province and the citys expected fall. There was only talk of victories even in the countrys other combat zone, where the Taliban are currently still advancing.

The spokesperson, indeed, the entire government, as well as President Ashraf Ghani and the political elite in Kabul all seem to be out of touch with reality. Ghanis national security adviser, Hamdullah Mohib, who just visited Moscow, earnestly declared that the Afghan forces had not expected a Taliban offensive. Nonetheless, he said they would "absolutely, definitely go on the counterattack.

In Kabul, politicians have been working for months to finalize the formation of a Supreme State Council that would have the authority to conduct peace negotiations with the Taliban at some point in the future. But the process has been repeatedly delayed, partly due to divisions among the Kabul elite: A "High Council for National Reconciliation" was announced in 2020, but a feud between President Ghani and his political nemesis, Abdullah Abdullah, over how many of his supporters could be included in the body has stalled that effort.

For 20 years, the changing governments in Kabul told themselves confidently that the Americans would stay forever. For former President Hamid Karzai, in particular, that self-deception became a mantra: The U.S. would never, ever pull out of Afghanistan. They believe the U.S. secret interests in Afghanistan its fabled mineral resources, geopolitical aspirations, or a host of other possible incentives were just too great. This made it easy for them to disparage their American occupiers while also sending them every bill. Afghanistan was occupied, they would say, and Kabul wasnt responsible for anything.

"We didnt realize the Americans were gone until it was light. No one told us anything."

This feigned incapacity, combined with grand patriotic gestures, was nurtured in Kabul. Even when then-President Donald Trump announced his withdrawal deal with the Taliban leadership in 2020, many still reacted with disbelief. And when, after his election, President Joe Biden gave specific withdrawal dates in April, some still didnt want to believe it. Even as Ashraf Ghani flew to Washington in late June, many in the Presidential Palace and the government ministries hoped that Biden, at the last second, would say: "OK, were going to stay."

But that didnt happen. Instead, unit by unit, the U.S. military, intelligence and service providers said goodbye and disappeared. The harsh awakening came early in the morning of July 2. Over two decades, the gigantic U.S. base at Bagram had grown into a kind of city with, at times, tens of thousands of residents, fast-food outlets, a hospital, a prison and a 3.6-kilometer (2.2-mile) runway big enough for a Boeing 747 aircraft to take off and land. Bagram was the heart of the American military machine in Afghanistan. But the place fell silent overnight. "We didnt realize the Americans were gone until it was light," said General Mir Asadullah Kohistani, the Afghan who is now in charge of the compound. "No one told us anything.

At an evening gathering in Kabul, officers were still upset about the callous departure days earlier. And it sounded less like determined anger than fearful indignation.

No one in Kabul seems to have a plan for stopping the Taliban. President Ghani doesnt make public appearances. Western diplomats in Kabul say he only consults with his closest confidants. A new defense minister with combat experience from the guerilla war has been appointed, but overall, the executive branch in Kabul seems shockingly paralyzed.

Afghan soldiers on the former U.S. base at Bagram: The Afghan elite had somehow convinced themselves the Americans would stay forever.

Even the elite units, which are robust in combat and yet manageable in size, are driven haphazardly and without cover into suicide missions, complains one of their commanders. On June 16, when a special forces group was sent into the Taliban stronghold of Faryab to retake a district, the men came under mortar fire from a much larger Taliban force. They had been expected.

If things had gone according to plan, there would, for example, have been air support for the elite force. But as one military man later summed it up "the army didnt come, the police didnt come and the secret service didnt come." He didnt even bother mentioning the air force. "Everyone left them hanging." At least 21 of the elite fighters were killed in less than an hour, including their well-known commander. There was a big funeral in Kabul, and the district was retaken. But only for three days. The Taliban has been in control ever since. A member of the provincial council, Abdul Ahad Elbek, criticized the deployment, saying that sending the troops there in the first place had been a death sentence.

Its a strange contrast: On the one hand, the government is acting mindlessly, while, on the other hand, as Bill Roggio, the matter-of-fact editor of The Long War Journal, argues, the Taliban is acting more strategically. By attacking the north, he says, the Taliban is about to threaten the power bases of the government and its allies. "If the Afghan government loses the north," he recently wrote, then Afghanistan is effectively lost. Then "the Taliban could take the population centers in the south, east, and west without a fight, and begin its siege of Kabul."

Badakhshan, the mountainous province that has now been conquered, played a central role as the last bastion against the Taliban in the 1990s. The legendary guerilla leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, the "Lion of the Panjshir Valley," successfully fought to ensure the Taliban never captured the region. He also became famous for controlling the hinterlands leading to the border with Tajikistan, through which he ran his supply route.

The Taliban grew out of the Pashtun ethnic group almost three decades ago. They never gained complete control over northern Afghanistan, which is primarily home to Tajiks, Uzbeks and Ismailis. Taloqan was the last provincial capital they managed to capture in 2000, a year before they were driven out altogether by the U.S. forces. The Taliban captured the rest of Takhar in June and now Taloqan is under siege.

Back in the autumn of 2019, a team of reporters with DER SPIEGEL witnessed how the governments power in the districts had shrunk to the central military posts. Even then, the Taliban controlled the villages and streets after sunset.

As in Takhar, many soldiers and police in Badakhshan are simply giving up. Before closing in, the Taliban dispatch village elders as emissaries to the military posts to make an offer: the freedom to retreat and around 50 euros in pocket money or a fight to their death. According to reports from the ground, the Islamists sometimes pay extra for equipment, vehicles and ammunition left behind. Afterward, the people who abandon the fight are left alone.

Politically, the Taliban are seeking to promote themselves as representatives of all Afghans and not as just the leaders of the Pashtuns. Their shadow governor for Takhar province is an Uzbek, and the military commander for the northern offensive is a Tajik. A high-ranking Taliban delegation recently traveled to Day Kundi province to assure the Shiite Hazara living there that nothing would happen to them. Just 20 years ago, they were persecuted and massacred by the Taliban as heretics.

But what is credible change and what is just deception? The fear runs deep in millions of Afghans, and the dearth of information from remote districts fuels that fear. Shaky mobile phone videos are circulating of women being flogged by the Taliban for "immoral behavior," of individual men being executed. Some of the people who have fled to Kabul describe acts of revenge. Decrees issued by local Taliban leaders forbid women from leaving the house without a male family member, girls schools have been closed.

Not everything can be corroborated, but the Talibans foot soldiers appear to have changed far less than its leadership in exile, who like to think of themselves as modernized and having arrived in the 21st century.

"But what choice do we have? asks the militiaman from Badakhshan who had watched as the solider and police officers were taken away by helicopter. "The government is abandoning us, the foreign troops are gone, almost all the borders are closed. What are we supposed to do?

View original post here:
Staying Would Be Suicide: With Departure of NATO Troops, the Taliban Gains Ground in Afghanistan - DER SPIEGEL International Edition

RIGA - On Monday, at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, the Latvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Edgars Rinkevics, had a meeting with the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, to discuss the outcomes of the NATO Brussels Summit, the upcoming meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Riga, and the international security situation in the region and across the globe, LETA was informed by the Foreign Ministry.

During the meeting, Rinkevics welcomed the successful NATO Brussels Summit this past June, which reaffirmed transatlantic unity and determination to continue strengthening the Alliance in the coming decade. The Minister thanked the Secretary General for his personal contribution in leading the NATO 2030 process. The Latvian Foreign Minister expressed support for increasing the overall NATO funding and the readiness of NATO forces, which is vital under current geopolitical conditions.

The Foreign Minister and the Secretary General discussed the meeting of the NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs planned for this coming December. The officials also shared opinions on the review of the NATO Strategic Concept. The Minister noted that the concept should be comprehensive in view of the various threats and challenges. At the same time, the existing security environment calls for a focus on collective defense as NATOs primary function. NATOs central role of defense and deterrence should be retained, while being complemented with crisis management and partnership.

In a discussion on security challenges, Rinkevics expressed the opinion that Russias aggressive military activities at the borders of the Baltic States and against Ukraine as well as its increasing military influence in Belarus are proof of security challenges impacting the region again and again. Russias upcoming strategic level military exercise this September, Zapad-2021, should also be closely followed and it raises further concerns in light of the complicated situation today in Belarus.

The rest is here:
NATO's central role of defense and deterrence should be retained, while being complemented with crisis management and partnership - Rinkevics - Baltic...

KARACHI: The FIA has started a probe to determine if Rs 80 billion tax has been evaded in fuel supply to NATO.

Adnan Afridi lodged a complaint with the FIA Karachi Zonal Office, which was put into the verification process on September 7, 2020. The investigation was entrusted to Inspector Fazal Muhammad of the Corporate Crime Circle. Later, the investigation was handed over to Inspector Attaullah Memon. After two months, he submitted a report, saying: The complainant seems to be anonymous and his email is fake. So the investigation should be stopped.

The advice to stop the investigation in just two months is strange as verifications and inquiries remain pending with the FIA for years. Later, on December 29, 2020, the zonal office was directed that the investigation should be transferred to the Federal Board of Revenue.

In the application submitted to the FIA, it was mentioned that the Pakistan State Oil first supplied fuel (jet fuel and diesel) to NATO forces in Afghanistan and deposited 17 per cent Customs Duty in the national exchequer. Then after using influence, this contract was given to Senator Taj Haiders two companies Alhaj Enterprises Pvt Ltd and Al-Noor Petroleum Pvt Ltd. Then ships carrying fuel from foreign countries started arriving in Pakistan and the cost of the fuel carried by a ship was shown as $3 million. According to an estimate, the above-mentioned companies brought 250 ships. If $3 million are multiplied into 250, it amounts to Rs 80 billion.

The complaint says that the Alhaj group owns offshore companies including Alhaj Energy, Alhaj Energy and Trade DMCC and Alhaj General Trading Company LLC. The complaint says the money received from the NATO under the fuel head was allegedly laundered to Dubai and the US. An Indian company has shares in the Alhaj groups fuel storage terminal and both partners own two petrol pumps on the Shahrah-e-Faisal.

When the daily Jang contacted Taj Afridi, he said there were no FIA investigations against his group. He said the FIA had received a complaint from an unknown person and the law does not permit investigation on a complaint lodged by any unknown person. He said he got no notice from the FIA.

Director Sindh Zone FIA Amir Farooqi confirmed that first there were investigations in the Corporate Crime Circle, but after he took charge, he entrusted these investigations to the Anti-corruption Circle. And now the investigations are under way in the ACC Circle under Inquiry No 42/2021.

Read the rest here:
FIA probing tax evasion of Rs80 bn in fuel supply to Nato - The News International

President Biden is reviving the North Atlantic Treaty Organizationor is he? With President Trump gone, the alliance is back to business as usual, and Mr. Biden has emphasized members sacred obligation under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which governs how members respond to an attack on a fellow member. But a military alliance needs a military. Without a clear pathway to European rearmament, NATO wont be able to respond to a crisis.

The money is there to rebuild the allied militaries, a European colleague observes. The problem is the politics of it. Translation: Genuine rearmament across the alliance would signal that Europe is ready to take military action alongside the U.S. and could put European access to Russian oil or Chinese markets at risk. If European NATO allies began to show real exercised military capabilities, it would signal to Moscow and Beijing that NATO is willing to ensure deterrence in Europe holds, freeing the bulk of American military power for the Indo-Pacific.

This clearly isnt going to happen soon. Vladimir Putins seizure of Crimea in 2014 and the war in eastern Ukraine demarcate a polarization of NATO members. On one side, Poland, Romania and the Baltic states see Russia as a clear and present danger, determined to expand its portion of the post-Cold War settlement. On the other side is a very cautious Western Europe, wary of endangering economic growth over the well-being of their formerly Soviet-dominated neighbors. Berlin seems intent on managing rather than opposing Russia through a mix of political and economic engagement.

Looking farther abroad, while Washington sees China as both a military and economic problem, Europe considers it a strategic challenge but also an economic opportunity. The Asian market is seen as too critical to Europes prosperity to risk angering Beijing. Germany is deeply invested in Asian markets, and staking a clear position on the brewing Sino-American conflict isnt in its interest. Frances security priorities are focused southward, toward the Mediterranean and Africa, not eastward. These disparate interests across Europe make a NATO-wide consensus on threats hard to achieve.

Some observers look back fondly on the Cold War, when NATO members goals were tightly aligned. That time has passed. U.S. power has been depleted by globalization and deindustrialization, decades of war in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and political polarization at home. As American global leadership falters, Europe has been increasingly adrift as it triessomewhat awkwardlyto weigh its options. Russia has exploited these fissures while China has transformed itself into a power in Europe by investing in European technology companies.

See the original post:
NATO Is an Alliance Divided - The Wall Street Journal

In early July, James Appathurai, the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, held a series of top-level meetings in Georgia.

The Georgian authorities greeted their guest from Brussels warmly and with much fanfare. President Salome Zurabishvili awarded Appathuraiwith the Order of the Golden Fleece for his special contribution to strengthening NATO-Georgian relations and his support for Georgias sovereignty and territorial integrity(Civil.ge, July 3). Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili tweeted that he and the NATO envoy discussed Tbilisis cooperation with the Alliance, Black Sea security, as well as Georgias significant achievements along its Euro-Atlantic path and the need to move forward on the political dimensions of the integration process (Twitter.com/GharibashviliGe, July 2). In turn, Foreign Minister Davit Zalkaliani described Appathurai as a big friend of Georgia, who has done his utmost to make Georgias NATO integration progress irreversible.The top Georgian diplomat added that the NATO summit in Brussels last month (June 14) again reaffirmed the Alliances open door policy toward Georgia, and he assured that his country already possesses all the practical instruments needed to eventually join NATO (Agenda.ge, July 2).

But this glowing diplomatic rhetoric could not hide the indisputable fact that, in recent years, relations between NATO and Georgia have mostly plateaued, moving no closer toward Tbilisis goal of full membership. Tellingly, neither Georgian representatives, nor the representatives of any other partner countries hoping to join, were invited to NATOs Brussels Summit. And the final summit communiqu simply repeated largely verbatim the wording on Georgias membership prospects that was written in previous years communiqus (see EDM, June 17): We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, that Georgia will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merit. The document further notes that the Alliance members highly appreciate Georgias substantial contributions to NATO operations, which demonstrate its commitment and capability to contribute to Euro-Atlantic security (Nato.int, June 14).

Dr. Vakhtang Maisaia, a scholar in political and strategic studies, noted that Georgia remains on what he termed the third level of the NATO integration processIntensive Dialogue. The fourth level is a Membership Action Plan, or MAP, which officially bestows membership candidacy; and the fifthfull membership, Maisaia explained in a July 5 interview with this author. He recalled that Georgia is successfully implementing most of the NATO Annual National Programs (ANP), but these programs are just a transitional stage from Intensive Dialogue to MAP. The strategic studies expert stipulated that the final communiqu of the Brussels Summit is weaker than the decisions that the Alliance took during the 2014 Welsh Summit, when Georgia was granted the Substantial NATO-Georgia Package (SNGP) as part of NATOs Defense and Related Security Capacity Building Initiative (DCB).

The SNGP is meant to improve Georgias defense capabilities, increase its resilience, enhance interoperability with the North Atlantic Alliance, and support the NATO membership preparation process. The program presently consists of 14 initiatives or areas of support: the NATO-Georgia Joint Training and Evaluation Center (JTEC), Defense Institutional Building School (DIBS), logistic capability development, intelligence sharing and secure communications, aviation, air defense, special operations forces, military police, acquisition, maritime security, cybersecurity, strategic communications, crisis management, and counter-mobility. A 15th initiative, on strategic and operational planning, was successfully concluded in October 2017 (Mod.gov.ge, accessed July 7).

The majority of Georgian experts are convinced that Georgia fulfills the annual NATO programs much more successfully than some of the states that have already received MAP; but the Alliance cannot make a similar decision with regard to Tbilisi, fearing an escalation in relations with Russia. Professor Tornike Sharashenidze, who heads the International Relations masters program at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA), is sure that in the conditions that have developed in the region, including around Ukraine, NATO has a hard time coming up with something new for Georgia. Sharashenidze doubts that United States President Joseph Biden and his administration are planning to change something fundamentally in [former US president] Donald Trumps policy toward Georgia and Ukraine. This sad reality, according to the expert, is fully confirmed by the results of the Biden[Vladimir] Putin summit in Geneva [on June 16] (Authors interview, July 6).

On the other hand, political consultant Gela Vasadze has argued that the level of relations between Georgia and NATO is already quite high and creates certain security guarantees for a small Caucasus country even without MAP or full membership: I understand that, emotionally, Georgians expect quick decisions from NATO; but in big politics, the result is achieved with careful, small steps. The current level of relations with the Alliance gives our country a chance to conclude a strategic military-political alliance with regional countries under the NATO umbrella: Turkey, Poland, the Baltic States and Ukraine. This is very important for the creation of a collective security system, and the North Atlantic Alliance will even welcome such decisions. As an illustrative example, Vasadze pointed to the recent consolidation of the strategic alliance between Azerbaijan and Turkey (see EDM, June 23), with the latter country considered the NATO leader in our region, he noted (Authors interview, July 6).

Vasadzes optimistic opinion seemed to be validated by recent developments in in the maritime domain. Namely, the United Kingdoms air-defense destroyerHMS Defenderfollowing its highly publicized military incident near the Crimean peninsula (see EDM, June 24)made a port call in the Georgian Black Sea city of Batumi, were the British officers were greeted as heroes (Agenda.ge, June 27). Subsequently, HMS Defender, together with other NATO member states warships and Georgian Coast Guard vessels, participated in a joint naval exercise designed to boost interoperability between the respective crews and develop Georgian capabilities (Agenda.ge, June 27).

During the August 2008 war, Russian forces destroyed the ships of the small Georgian naval fleet. But Georgias active participation in the annual NATO-led Sea Breeze maneuvers in the Black Sea has helped to reinforce for the Alliance that the country should be seen as an important partner for ensuring regional security.

Original post:
NATO-Georgia: A Pause in the Integration Process? - Jamestown - The Jamestown Foundation

Afghanistan is falling apart. With US and Nato troops leaving the country earlier than planned, experts are warning that the Taliban could take control of the country within six months. Currently the insurgents control the strategically important province of Helmand, and control or contest territory nearly every province in the war-torn country.

As many as 188 of Afghanistans 407 districts are directly under Taliban rule. With up to 85,000 full-time fighters), the insurgents have already forced thousands of troops belonging to the US-trained Afghan army to surrender or flee.

In response to the Talibans onslaught, local militias are fighting back. Most notable among them is a coalition of militias in northern Afghanistan called the Second Resistance, led by Ahmad Massoud (the son of Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assassinated in September 2001).

The Second Resistance has several thousand fighters and militia commanders who have fought against the Taliban, mostly of Tajik origin. Massoud insists that the Taliban will not have the same success in fighting his coalition due to far greater resolve of his soldiers compared to the Afghan military. But henceforth he will have to operate without the help of Nato troops.

But its not just seasoned veterans that are forming militias. Ethnic Shia Hazaras, thousands of whom were massacred between 1996 and 2001 by the Sunni Taliban, have tended to lack militias of their own. But after a wave of attacks in May that killed 85 people (mostly female students), Hazaras are also now rushing to mobilise.

But while these tribal militias might be able to defend themselves, this was far from the objective of the US-led coalition. The goal was to help build a national Afghan army that could become the sole legitimate fighting force. In spite of these intentions, this clearly never happened.

Much of the problem was that the US never fully grasped how to best support the Afghan military. The Americans relied on a model of trying to arm the Afghan army, training them and providing them with aerial support. But this model was not sustainable or practical for the Afghan military.

Afghanistan does not have the revenues to rely on sophisticated weaponry and technology. This remains a problem even though the US provides Afghanistan with almost US$5 billion (3.6 billion) in aid per year with US president, Joe Biden, asking for an additional US$300 million to support Afghan forces.

US efforts to engage in state building after it invaded in December 2001 was a more challenging objective than the Bush administration understood. For centuries, history has shown that Afghanistan has been difficult to conquer and impossible to govern. The country always struggled to create a unified national military to ward off invaders and maintain internal stability. Instead it has relied on local tribal militias led by warlords that could be immediately called to action to defend their territory. Efforts in the past (such as under Amanullah Khan in 1923) to enforce conscription into the Afghan army resulted in revolt.

As I discovered while researching a book on failed states, in addition to having little experience with a national military, other state institutions in Afghanistan were also almost nonexistent. This was not just because the country had faced decades of invasion and civil war, but also because it is is a nation in name only.

The various Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Turkmen, Baluch and Uzbek groups in Afghanistan never accepted a central regime. This complicated any effort after Afghanistan gained independence in August 1919 to create unified security institutions to fend off various violent non-state actors that threatened stability in the country.

The Taliban, which overthrew the Afghan government in 1996, was the only group able to exercise control over the country after the 1992-1996 civil war. But, in October 2001, after the 9/11 attacks and the Talibans refusal to turn in Osama bin Laden, US and British forces launched airstrikes against targets in Afghanistan. By early December, the Taliban had abandoned their stronghold in Kandahar and ceded their last territory in Zabul and a new president, Hamid Karzai, was sworn in within two weeks as interim leader.

But the Taliban never accepted a western presence and launched an insurgency in 2002. Over two decades, the Taliban has become the most effective fighting group in the country, building a professional and resilient organisation that has learned to rely on a sophisticated communication apparatus. Its structure has been flexible enough to withstand the death of its leadership, after Mullah Omar died in 2013.

During that time and despite the presence of Nato troops in the country thousands of civilians have continued to die in terror attacks and raids. In 2019 and 2020 alone, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has documented more than 17,000 civilians killed or injured the majority of which are blamed on the Taliban. Although the Taliban is currently in peace talks with the Afghan government in Tehran, it has little or no credibility when it comes to compromise or adhering to agreements.

So, after spending US$2 trillion and involving over 130,000 Nato troops for over 20 years, the US and its western allies are almost back to square one. Meanwhile almost 50,000 Afghan civilians have died and most Afghan citizens still live in poverty. The one concrete achievement of the 20 years of occupation reversing the Talibans ban on female education could be in jeopardy as well.

Originally posted here:
Afghanistan: two decades of Nato help leaves a failed and fractured state on the brink of civil war - The Conversation UK