Simon Shercliff

First Secretary Foreign Security and Policy Washington

FCO Logo
Friday 23 October, 2009

Afghanistan/Pakistan – views from beyond the beltway

Last week I had an excellent few days in both New York and Boston talking to various scholars, think tankers and interested parties on Afghanistan and Pakistan policy. As expected, people were pretty opinionated over the current Obama review process. Whilst there were inevitably criticisms from some over western policy , I got the impression that  nearly everyone there felt that the main media debate over the last few weeks on whether to accept McChrystal’s suggested approach or not was not really the core issue at stake. 

Many of my contacts said we should get back to basics: start with the big questions such as “what are our objectives”, and then work back from there, walking through a clear, consistent process with full explanation along the way. We shouldn't invent, they said, artificial criteria  of success or failure or find ourselves trying to implement plans that required unsustainable levels of effort.  To be fair, I don't think that either the UK or US government would disagree with this approach, and this is what both governments have in fact tried to do.
 
A lot of the noise around the  discussion of "nation-building" in Afghanistan has become divorced from what we are trying to achieve. Put simply, we want to  get  the Afghan people to a stage where they are able to design and maintain their own way of life which is robust enough to repel the likes of Al Qaida from taking root there ever again (and from such a foothold in Afghanistan, then to attack us). Similar objectives exist for Pakistan. Ultimately, this means a long-term relationship  between our countries and the people of both Afghanistan and Pakistan built and sustained by mutual trust. That is why the Kerry-Lugar bill is so important – it sets the foundation for just such a relationship between Pakistan and the US. We want to reassure the Afghan people too that our commitment there will be long term, although of course not demonstrated by thousands of troops for the long term.  

So my big takeaway from these recent conversations outside the beltway was the need for us policy-makers to take a step back every now and then, raise our heads above the day-to-day grind, and keep our eyes fixed firmly on exactly what it is we want to achieve. Long term relationships are not single aiming points against which we can measure success or failure. But ultimately, I was persuaded, it is them which will keep us all safe from attack.

  • Share this with:
Wednesday 29 April, 2009

Afghanistan and Pakistan - a combined approach

Today, our Prime Minister announced the British strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. In truth it was an update to the strategy that he first announced on December 12 2007. The situation has certainly moved on since then; one of the biggest changes has been the new US policy developed by President Obama. So we did need to review where we were going, and make the necessary changes. Those interested in the detail behind the PM's speech can read more in our White Paper which sets out the way forward.

The main themes in our approach should be familiar to people who have watched the policy debate unfold in the US over the last six months or so:

• while Afghanistan and Pakistan are very different countries, demanding very different approaches, we do need to ensure coherance and coordination between those approaches;

• the cancerous insurgency rife on both sides of the Durand Line can and will only be defeated by a comprehensive approach - with political, military and development strands; 

• ultimately it is the people and leadership of those two countries who must come out on top - we must therefore help and support both the people and their governing and security institutions to do just that;

• concentrating on the central government machinery is not enough - local (district and provincial) structures must also be built up and given the confidence to take ownership of their own futures;

• reconciliation, or at the least acknowledging that there will have to be some form of political settlement in the final analysis, is a key part of the approach;

• and finally - most importantly - we should all understand that this problem is a shared problem. It is not just a concern of the US, or the UK, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or indeed anyone else. It is in the interests of all of us to carve out a pathway to peace in that part of the world, for our own collective interests. So we should act as a team, with all the various players contributing whatever makes most sense to them, whether that is infantry, money, civilian mentors or even favourable commercial terms for Afghanistan's licit agricultural exports

  • Share this with: