Quantcast
  

Wednesday, April 16, 2014         

NEW YORK TIMES


 Print   Email   Comment | View 11 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Departing French envoy has frank words on Afghanistan

By ALISSA J. RUBIN

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 03:39 a.m. HST, Apr 28, 2013



KABUL, Afghanistan » It is always hard to gauge what diplomats really think unless one of their cables ends up on WikiLeaks, but every once in a while the barriers fall and a bit of truth slips into public view.

That is especially true in Afghanistan, where diplomats painstakingly weigh every word against political goals back home.

The positive spin from the Americans has been running especially hard the past few weeks, as congressional committees in Washington focus on spending bills and the Obama administration, trying to secure money for a few more years here, talks up the country's progress. The same is going on at the European Union, where the tone has been sterner than in the past but still glosses predictions of Afghanistan's future with upbeat words like "promise" and "potential."

Despite that, one of those rare truth-telling moments came at a farewell cocktail party last week hosted by the departing French ambassador to Kabul: Bernard Bajolet, who is leaving to head France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure, its foreign intelligence service.

After the white-coated staff passed the third round of hors d'oeuvres, Bajolet took the lectern and laid out a picture of how France — a country plagued by a slow economy, waning public support for the Afghan endeavor and demands from other foreign conflicts, including Syria and North Africa — looked at Afghanistan.

While it is certainly easier for France to be a critic from the sidelines than countries whose troops are still fighting in Afghanistan, the country can claim to have done its part. It lost more troops than all but three other countries before withdrawing its last combat forces in the fall.

The room, filled with diplomats, some senior soldiers and a number of Afghan dignitaries, went deadly quiet. When Bajolet finished, there was restrained applause — and sober expressions. One diplomat raised his eyebrows and nodded slightly; another said, "No holding back there."

So what did he say?

That the Afghan project is on thin ice and that, collectively, the West was responsible for a chunk of what went wrong, though much of the rest the Afghans were responsible for. That the West had done a good job of fighting terrorism but that most of that was done on Pakistani soil, not on the Afghan side of the border. And that without fundamental changes in how Afghanistan did business, the Afghan government, and by extension the West's investment in it, would come to little.

His tone was neither shrill nor reproachful. It was matter-of-fact.

"I still cannot understand how we, the international community, and the Afghan government have managed to arrive at a situation in which everything is coming together in 2014 — elections, new president, economic transition, military transition and all this — whereas the negotiations for the peace process have not really started," Bajolet said in his opening comments.

He was echoing a point shared privately by other diplomats, that 2014 was likely to be "a perfect storm" of political and military upheaval coinciding with the formal close of the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan.

As for the success of the fight on the ground, which U.S. leaders routinely describe now as being "Afghan-led," Bajolet sounded dubious. "We do not have enough distance to make an objective assessment," he said, "but in any case, I think it crucial that the Afghan highest leadership take more visible and obvious ownership for their army."

His tone — the sober, troubled observations of a diplomat closing a chapter — could hardly have been more different from that taken by the new shift of U.S. officials charged with making it work in Afghanistan: in particular, with that of Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the new U.S. commanding general here. This week Dunford sent out a news release cheering on Afghanistan's progress, noting some positive-leaning statistics and praising the Afghan army's abilities.

"Very soon, the ANSF will be responsible for security nationwide" Dunford said, referring to the Afghan National Security Forces. "They are steadily gaining in confidence, competence and commitment."

At his farewell party, Bajolet wound up his realpolitik with a brisk analysis of what Afghanistan's government needed to do: cut corruption, which discourages investment, deal with drugs and become fiscally self-reliant. It must increase its revenues instead of letting politicians divert them, he said.

Several diplomats in the room could be seen nodding as he said that drugs caused "more casualties than terrorism" in Russia, Europe and the Balkans and that Western governments would be hard-put to make the case for continued spending on Afghanistan if it remains the world's largest heroin supplier.

The biggest contrast with the U.S. and British line was Bajolet's riff on sovereignty, which has become the political watchword of the moment. The Americans and the international community are giving sovereignty back to Afghanistan. Afghanistan argues frequently that it is a sovereign nation. President Hamid Karzai, in the debate over taking charge of the Bagram prison, repeatedly said that Afghanistan had a sovereign responsibility to its prisoners.

What does that really mean? Bajolet asked. After all, time is running short.

"We should be lucid. A country that depends almost entirely on the international community for the salaries of its soldiers and policemen, for most of its investments and partly on it for its current civil expenditure, cannot really be independent."






 Print   Email   Comment | View 11 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(11)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Waterman2 wrote:
Go in to win or get out of the game.
on April 28,2013 | 08:18AM
iwanaknow wrote:
Afghanistan will continue to be a tar baby long after we are supposedly gone.
on April 28,2013 | 08:45AM
cojef wrote:
Write them off, we don't need to spend another dime there. Admit defeat and let them fallow in their own swill. Muslims do not welcome democracy, they want the imams controlling their daily lives by prayers throughout the day 5/6 times a day.
on April 28,2013 | 09:37AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
They only want to govern themselves, what ever it is without US interference. The US should not have started invading them in the first place then later worry about their dimes Democracy may not be the best for every Country.
on April 28,2013 | 12:18PM
daniwitz13 wrote:
Eleven years is a long time being gone.
on April 28,2013 | 12:19PM
Kauai2011 wrote:
The reason the US got involved in Afghanistan was to get Osama Bin Laden. Now he is dead it is time to get out of there. Let the Afghan people decide for themselves what type of government they want for themselves.
on April 28,2013 | 09:28AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
They already had their own Govt. when the US invaded it
on April 28,2013 | 12:11PM
CloudForest wrote:
Muslims on steroids lead to the absolute subjugation of women and the destruction of any and all types of civil liberties - as a planet we see this in every country that embraces the moon god and the moonbats that circle it.
on April 28,2013 | 10:34AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
Does this mean that the US should invade all those countries too?
on April 28,2013 | 12:08PM
Hugo wrote:
Everything I need to know about dealing with Muslim countries I learned from the movie "Lawrence of Arabia". Neocons don't go to movies. The US went to the "judge" (the UN), got a "no-know warrant" for a terrorist, executed the warrant, couldn't find the subject, and instead of leaving, stayed ten years. Swell.
on April 28,2013 | 03:00PM
Skyler wrote:
Time to pack up, go home, and leave them to their own devices.
on April 28,2013 | 09:05PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs
Court Sense
Musings on Shamburger

Political Radar
HB 1700 — Day 1

Hoops Talk
Aloha Shamburger

Political Radar
Stacked

Political Radar
HFFA

Warrior Beat
All’s fair

Political Radar
Apology