And the boat, it seems, is sailing and Washington has the helm. By some troubling accounts, the Obama administration may be poised to succeed where the Bush regime could not, in co-opting NATO as its permanent Foreign Legion.
Asia Times' M K Bhadrakumar, a former diplomat in India's foreign service, warns that the idea that Washington is looking for an exit strategy to leave Afghanistan is an illusion. He argues that the recently reborn NATO Mark 2 is poised to maintain a permanent and powerful presence in what once we considered the most distant corners of the world:
Quite obviously, the alliance is well on the way to transforming into a global political-military role, and it is forward-looking. There are skeptical voices still that in an era of European austerity, a question mark ought to be put on the alliance's ambitions. European cutbacks in military deployment and rigorous savings programs in defense budgets should not be overplayed, either. NATO is by far today the most powerful military and political alliance in the world.
The US has always been the main provider of the alliance's budget - almost 75% currently - as well as its " hard power." The perceived widening of the US-Europe " divide", however, presents a complex scenario as regards the alliance's evolution as a security organization in the 21st century.
As NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen underlined at the Lisbon summit, " The United States would look elsewhere for its security partner." A kind of " division of labor" in international interventions becomes necessary for the US. The Iraq war showed that it is already happening.
The various partnership programs of NATO in Central Asia and the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Mediterranean regions can be viewed as part of the overall approach to take recourse to other states or groups of states to promote the Euro-Atlantic interests globally.
...The core task will be to defend Europe and ensure the collective security of its 28 members, while the Strategic Concept envisages NATO's prerogative to mount expeditionary operations globally.
The document explicitly says, " Where conflict prevention proves unsuccessful, NATO will be prepared and capable to manage ongoing hostilities. NATO has unique conflict-management capacities, including the unparalleled capability to deploy and sustain robust military forces in the field."
The article points out that NATO's muscular global reach comes at an awkward moment when America's and Europe's historical dominance is confronted by the ascendant giants - particularly China, India and Russia. For some reason, we seem intent on playing in their backyard. And we'll be doing it on NATO's terms, not the UNs.
From a seemingly reluctant arrival in Afghanistan seven years ago in an "out-of-area" operation as part of the UN-mandated ISAF [International Security Assistance Force], with a limited mandate, NATO is suo moto stepping out of the ISAF, deepening its presence and recasting its role and activities on a long-term basis. South Asian security will never be the same again.
To quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, " Whether they are " rising peacefully" (a self-confident China), truculently (an imperially nostalgic Russia) or boastfully (an assertive India, despite its internal multiethnic and religious vulnerabilities), they all desire a change in the global pecking order. The future conduct of an relationship among these three still relatively cautious revisionist powers will further intensify the strategic uncertainty."
From a seemingly reluctant arrival in Afghanistan seven years ago in an "out-of-area" operation as part of the UN-mandated ISAF [International Security Assistance Force], with a limited mandate, NATO is suo moto stepping out of the ISAF, deepening its presence and recasting its role and activities on a long-term basis. South Asian security will never be the same again.
At the Lisbon summit, NATO and Afghanistan signed a declaration as partners. The UN didn't figure in this, and it is purely bilateral in content. The main thrust of the declaration is to affirm their " long-term partnership" and to build " a robust, enduring partnership which complements the ISAF security mission and continues beyond it."
Does this explain why certain Canadian politicians have pushed for Canada to retain a toehold in Afghanistan, pointless as that seems? Have we signaled, from both the Conservative and Liberal ranks, that Canada is onside with this "enduring" (i.e. indefinite) military adventure in South Asia? Is this Michael Ignatieff's definition of "muscular foreign policy"? Is this radical policy shift something that was appropriately done with a wink and a nod by the prime minister and opposition leader?
If this is the direction NATO is headed and if Canada has signed on for the voyage, that would be news to a lot of Canadians and it would seem to ignore their, by now, clearly and repeatedly stated opposition to the ongoing Afghan mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment