I fully agree with the comments by Stephanie Fenkart and Heinz Gärtner about the recent tragic developments in Afghanistan. The catastrophe we see today did not start with the US withdrawal but much earlier, at least with the US/NATO intervention which was carried out without sensitivity to the realties in the country or any forward-looking exit strategy. Maybe some of the progress achieved during that intervention will remain. However, the more some of the people will resist the Taliban, the more will the latter use force to strengthen their power. Such confrontation could lead to another bloody war.
Nevertheless, the previous military intervention was a disaster that resulted into enormous human and material costs. The coalition forces sustained 3.500 casualties and 71.000 casualties of the Afghan people have been recorded. 2,7 million Afghans have been displaced to foreign countries. 3,7 million children have been out of school, 60% of them are girls. This disastrous war cost the US $2 trillion. While the coalition forces are not responsible for all of these disasters, the consequences of the military intervention have nevertheless been terrible.
For the coalition soldiers who survived the war – and of course, for the Afghan people – the trauma will persist. As one of them lamented an article for the New York Times titled ‘My 10-year Afghanistan nightmare is now real’: “I long to appear before the young man I was, to slap his face, and tell him to take a different course. ‘You’re going to die over there’, I want to say. ‘Not in body, but in spirit.” And he curses all those “who voted repeatedly over 20 years for those presidents and members of Congress to mislead and mismanage us to defeat. The national shame is a millstone around all our necks.” The soldier makes it clear that simply the number of casualties – even though terrifying – cannot fully convey all the human suffering that resulted from this two-decade war and the suffering which is yet to come.
Probably the withdrawal of the US and other NATO troops could have been realized with more foresight and planning. But the process of reflecting on mistakes must start at an earlier stage than the withdrawal itself. In general, the US’ interventionist logic must be reconsidered, as well as the all too ready support of it by the US' European ‘disciples’. Military intervention must be seen as a measure of last resort, only if there is no other available option to prevent military or terrorist attacks. All military interventions, starting from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, are demonstrations of the deficiencies of this unreflective kind of “strategy”. Even the limited military interventions/occupations, like those undertaken by Russia show the limits of such activities. Yes, Russia occupied small territories in the neighboring countries, but this could not trigger a regime change. In Ukraine and Georgia, it even achieved the opposite.
The preferred strategy of anyone, including the “superpower” USA must be a political one. That means that in a multipolar world, it should in first place attempt to find a political agreement with other powers affected by the issue. Many experts, including on this website, have argued in favor of cooperation among the US, Russia and China - irrespective of their political and ideological differences. Other countries should be involved too. In the case of Afghanistan, it should be Pakistan, India, and Iran. Despite political differences and divergent perceptions about democracy and human rights protection, the “West” must be ready to form alliances to prevent disasters like terrorist attacks.
The United Nations is a platform where such alliances can be formed, or at least where the parties involved in the issue can look for common understanding and action. Two former UN special representatives for Afghanistan – Kai Eide from Norway and Tadamichi Yamamoto from Japan –have recently criticized the UN for being too hesitant in its activities in Afghanistan, with insufficient powers given there to the organization’s representatives. The UN must fill the existing vacuum as “no single country involved in Afghanistan is well-placed to help.“ The United States, Russia, China as well as India, Pakistan and Iran, all have their allies inside the country, but also skeptics or even outright enemies.
Unfortunately, Europe was too closely connected with the US intervention forces. But it must be involved in the search of a path towards peace. For Europe as a whole, peace and stability in Afghanistan is also important because of the refugee question which is creating conflicts inside Europe and even inside different EU member countries. A former German defense minister once said, that European security must be defended in Afghanistan. That is true, but to think that security needs to be tackled and preserved principally by military means is a mistake.
Europe must engage in finding peace and in supporting those groups who want to prevent a rollback to the old Taliban times. It will not be an easy task. But it will be less costly and in the long run more effective than military intervention. The best strategy would be to use the UN as a platform. Of course, already before the US’ military withdrawal the role of the UN should have been enhanced and strengthened. It was the great mistake of US President Biden not to involve a “neutral” international agency such as the UN to accompany the military withdrawal. The UN could have guaranteed the fulfillment of at least some of the basic rights achieved in the last years.
It is not too late to invite the UN to play a bigger role, for example by organizing a regional conference and in positioning peace contingents in accordance with a coalition government in Kabul. Such an UN contingent will not be cheap to put together and maintain. But for peace in that volatile region, it would be much less expensive than the costs of the past war. Perhaps, it could help Pakistan and India to work together on creating and maintaining stability in the region.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.