Oluşturulma Tarihi: Mayıs 21, 2009 00:00
We were encouraged by the news we reported yesterday from Brussels that a new U.S. and NATO approach to Afghanistan is being formulated that aims to be more comprehensive and multilateral.
We are also encouraged with the news reported yesterday that the 22-member Afghanistan and Pakistan Support group, hosted by Ankara, is focused on improving civilian security before Afghanistan’s Aug. 20 elections.
But against a backdrop of mounting chaos in those two countries, we remain wary of Turkey’s being drawn in. Yes, military Chief of Staff İlker Başbuğ reassured reporters last month that a current figure of 800 Turkish troops in Afghanistan is expected to remain at that level and Turks assuming the Kabul regional command in November would not be sent into combat.
But the descriptions we have read so far on the "new" NATO approach are heavy on words like comprehensiveness, improved coordination and "one for all and all for one." We would like to see evidence of more understanding.
In our "Horizons" section yesterday, we ran an abridged column from a newspaper with which we frequently collaborate, the Dubai-based Khaalej Times. The analysis by journalist Eric S. Margolis explored some of the faulty assumptions that drive discussion about these two ravaged countries.
It noted that the Swat valley, the scene of much carnage and 1.5 million fleeing refugees, is really a political contrivance. "Pashtunistan," as he called it, was divided by the British in 1947 after Indian and Pakistani independence. One-half of today’s war-torn region was placed in what became Pakistan, the other was left in Afghanistan. The people of Pakistan’s northwest have much less in common with the rest of Pakistan than they do with their kinsmen across the border. The region was autonomous and ruled by Shariah law until 1969 when a series of accords nominally incorporated it into Pakistan.
One plausible scenario outlined by Margolis would be for Pakistan’s ethnic Pastuns to break away and seek confederation of a sort with Afghanistan. That could lead to demands by Pakistan’s restive Balochis in the south to seek similar secession. Suddenly, Pakistan would look a lot like Iraq, effectively divided in three and politically helpless.
We are glad Turkey’s new Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu plans a trip soon to Pakistan. We believe his regional insight will be helpful. We believe Turkey’s web of historic links to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, with scores of humanitarian groups already there, is certainly the most strategic resource NATO has to understand the complex dynamics driving the radicalization of both countries.
Turkey has a great intellectual contribution to make to NATO’s mission. NATO should use this resource. And Turkey must be careful not to become ensnared on the ground in a series of conflicts that appear more hopeless by the day.