Dminty Kosyrev, RIA Novosti political observer – specially for InfoSCO

Seriously and from scratch – in this way the current U.S. administration will approach its future war in Afghanistan. The Vice President Joe Biden’s just-completed lightning visit to NATO and EU Headquarters in Brussels was devoted to this war. Officially the aim was designated as “involvement of US allies in a wide strategic review” of the whole Afghanistan policy. Results of this review are planned to be submitted to NATO Summit on April 3-4, on the France-Germany border. It is already clear that the summit will be “Afghan”.

One of the signs that something in NATO’s Afghan operation is wrong is history with the two conferences on Afghanistan. They are NATO’s Ministerial Conference on Afghanistan on March 31 in the Hague (everybody who participates in military operations both on the part of the USA and parallel to it American-European side will speak there) and a Conference on Afghanistan on March 27 in Moscow, under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Thus, the two meetings, two brainstormings almost at the same time. Subject is the same: the threat coming from Afghanistan that remains a hotbed of terrorism and narcotic drugs, regardless of the USA and NATO operations being conducted there since 2001.

In principle, it is nonsense. If two conferences – and two groups of countries that hold them – have common goals, why do they meet separately? Maybe it is because they pursue two contrary policies interfering with each other? But then do they really have common goals?

Here is the main paradox, a key to everything that had happened around Afghanistan under the Bush administration. And also the main problem of Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

To start with, let us state a fact: there have been heretofore no contacts between NATO and SCO concerning Afghanistan (and for any other reasons), except for communications of special services experts. The latters admit that the situation is abnormal and will not last long, but the White House does not order to change it as yet.

However some order will be given after all. So long as what the USA did in Afghanistan was not clear to anybody, but caused a lot of suspicions. Particularly inside NATO, which is now a problem for Biden (and the American administration in whole). Several European governments have already declared that they do not want send their soldiers to Afghanistan. Many withdrew their contingents. The USA now sends to this country 17 thousand armed forces personnel in addition to the existing contingent of 39 thousand. Allies will be required to increase their military presence by 25 thousand people.

Why do not Europeans want to do it? The answer, at least, at the expert level, has been available for a long time. Firstly Bush quarreled with everybody who could and wanted and offered to help America in Afghanistan (Iran, Russia, and Central Asian countries). Then he decided to shirk a part of consequences of this error on to European allies. It is clear that they do not want to pay with their lives for somebody else's failures.

What did ever prevent Bush to draw other allies, besides Europe in the Afghan war? The question is in the Bush administration’s sincere convictions that “democratization” of local governments will win this war, which are ends and means of this war. Thus, potential allies have turned into enemies, because, for example, everybody in Central Asia thinks that the war in Afghanistan for Washington is not an end in itself, but a means to change the existing regimes all over the region.

Iran, China, Russia see here a wish to nullify their influence in Central Asia. They also understand that they all can well afford to block any efforts of the USA in the region, all the more in the presence of SCO consolidating them.

Two illustrations to the errors: the first one is Uzbekistan. It is a reminder that in 2005 this country closed US military base in Khanabad. Why? Because quelling a mutiny of extremists in Andizhan in May of the same year was declared in the USA and their allies as “shooting down of fighters for liberty”, because of an ultimatum presented to Tashkent by notable diplomat Strobe Talbott… Note that there was no isolation for Uzbekistan after that. It was economic growth that followed (average annual rate of 7% since the very same 2005), increase of foreign investment (only during last year – by 46%). It seems somebody did not think what the USA required more: to struggle against terrorism or put pressure without success on those who were ready to help in this struggle? As you know President Islam Karimov had offered the base in Khanabad to Americans for free, because Afghanistan is a threat to stability, particularly in Uzbekistan.

The second error is Kirghizia where the USA wanted to help “Colorful Revolution”, having densely occupied the country by its non-governmental organizations, but it turned out that they helped a senseless riot in Bishkek in the very same 2005. The U.S. Manas Air Base just closed by this country’s authorities, was offered for free no more. In these 4 years Bishkek leveled up the price for its use 11 times. And then decided for its internal political reasons that it would be more profitable to barely close it.

It must be clearly said here: the Manas base closing is not Moscow’s initiative, though it is clear that Americans will never believe it. This closing is the result of the U.S. disastrous policy in Central Asia, which lead to the conclusion that it would be cheaper not to be with America, than vice versa.

Washington's new policy will certainly be announced. And nobody thinks that the region may be ”closed” forever for one of the most important states in the world. And when a new Central Asiatic policy of the USA appears, then Afghan problems solving will not seem hopeless.