Controversial US / UK plan to split up Afghanistan
Shahzad Shameem
From: Maqsood Kayani <maqsood...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Subject: HPC Controversial US / UK plan to split up Afghanistan
To:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/controversial-plan-to-split-up-afghanistan-8120167.html
Controversial plan to split up Afghanistan
A Tory MP proposes dividing the country into zones, some of which could involve the Taliban
09 September 2012
Hamid Karzai, above, would be a figurehead under plans by MP Tobias Ellwood
Afghanistan could be carved into eight separate "kingdoms" – with some of them potentially ruled by the Taliban – according to a controversial plan under discussion in London and Washington. Code-named "Plan C", the radical blueprint for the future of Afghanistan sets out reforms that would relegate President Hamid Karzai to a figurehead role.
Devised by the Conservative MP and Foreign Office aide Tobias Ellwood, it warns that the country faces a "bleak" future when it is left to fend for itself. Mr Ellwood claims that a "regionalised" state under a powerful new prime minister would tackle the weak government, tribal disputes and corruption which many fear could plunge Afghanistan into chaos when the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) withdraws at the end of 2014.
Senior government sources confirmed that Plan C – Finding a political solution to Afghanistan had been presented to the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and discussed with officials at the White House. Mr Ellwood, a former captain in the Royal Green Jackets, has also discussed the plan with Pakistani government officials in London. But experts criticised the attempt to "impose" a democratic system on Afghanistan, and insisted that coalition leaders should be concentrating on a military exit strategy that would enable them to withdraw their forces by the 2014 deadline.
Wazhma Frogh, executive director of Afghanistan's Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security, said: "Who is the British MP sitting in London and deciding for Afghanistan? It should be us, the people of this country, deciding if we want to divide into states or collapse as a nation. I am surprised to see an MP of a democratic country creating the future and showing solutions for a country in which he doesn't have to live and where his children will not have to live." Mr Ellwood, who now works as a parliamentary aide to the Foreign Office minister David Lidington, claimed a political settlement – even one that includes the Taliban – was necessary to guarantee Afghanistan's long-term stability.
"Isaf may be confident that its revised security strategy is finally working, but the insurgent threat will not be removed by force alone," he said in the report, seen by The Independent on Sunday. "The Taliban will not enter into a meaningful dialogue if there is no feasible political strategy within which they can participate... An alternative solution [offers] a less centralised political structure that better reflects the ethnic make-up of the country, the already established economic hubs and the regional interest of the Taliban, who might then be encouraged towards a political settlement."
The plan divides Afghanistan into eight zones, based around the "economic hubs" of Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz, Jalalabad, Khost and Bamyan. The areas would be administered by a council representing different ethnic groups and overseen by one or more foreign countries. Mr Ellwood also claims that creating a post of prime minister, with many of the "disproportionate" powers currently held by the President, would help allay concerns over the man who has been in charge of the country for almost eight years.
But Thomas Ruttig, co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, said: "Splitting the country into such regions will result in the empowerment of what we have started calling 'local (or regional) power brokers' and what was known as 'warlords' before, whose misrule between 1992 and 1996 caused the rise of the Taliban in the first place."
Cameron admits Taliban just waiting for troops to leave
Fears grow that early exit in 2013 would leave Afghans at mercy of rebel attacks
Kim Sengupta
20 July 2012
David Cameron has warned the Taliban during a visit to Afghanistan that they will not be able to simply "wait it out" until troops withdraw in 2014.
The Prime Minister said British support for the country would remain long after the planned exit date. But his words are unlikely to deter the Quetta Shura, the insurgent leadership, and their handlers in the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service. Mr Cameron stated: "What I would say to the Taliban is be in no doubt there is a very clear and strong plan to transfer lead security responsibility… to very capable Afghan forces."
What is at issue is when this transfer takes place. During his trip, Mr Cameron appeared to confirm a report that Oliver Letwin, the chairman of a new armed forces Cabinet sub-committee, had proposed that pulling out all combat troops by 2013, a year ahead of schedule, would save £3bn and that this has the support of George Osborne. The Prime Minister would only say that he would not disclose discussions within the National Security Council.
So worried have senior military officers become that the Government may not last the course that lobby correspondents travelling with the No 10 party were briefed about the risks of premature withdrawal. Areas in Helmand which were battlegrounds just a couple of years ago are now comparatively stable, it was pointed out, because of "boots on the ground"; leaving too early would mean jettisoning gains made with the sacrifice of UK lives.
The scaling down of forces has been calibrated in detail with the Americans and, crucially, with the realistic rate at which Afghan security forces can reach their target numbers with adequate preparation and support. Cutting corners in vetting and training of recruits would not only leave them vulnerable to the insurgents, but could lead to more "green on blue" attacks with Afghans turning their guns on their erstwhile allies.
In Kabul, Mr Cameron apparently questioned the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, about the slow progress of peace negotiations. According to Downing Street briefings, Britain is "privately irritated" that one set of talks in Qatar between representatives of the insurgency and Western officials broke down because the Afghan government complained about being excluded. In fact a whole series of talks – in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Dubai and even the Maldives – have broken down for a variety of reasons. Afghan and American and British officials claim that, on occasions, this has been due to deliberate sabotage by the ISI.
Critics could point out that it is an astonishingly colonial attitude that the Qatar talks about the future of Afghanistan were even contemplated without the Afghan government taking part. The Afghans could also remind Mr Cameron that the UK's role in the peace process has not always been covered in glory. Two years ago British officials were duped by a conman claiming to be Mullah Akhtar Mohmmad Mansour, the supposed second in command of the Quetta Shura, who was given UK funding.
Related articles
· Cameron admits Taliban just waiting for troops to leave
· Leading article: Growing evidence of a final catastrophic betrayal
· Afghanistan's battle to re-integrate reformed Taliban fighters
· David Cameron warns Taliban on UK Afghanistan exit
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Houstonian Pakistani Circle" group.
To post to this group, send email to houstonia...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to houstonianpakis...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/houstonianpakistani?hl=en.
Shahzad Shameem