Global Policy Forum

By William Orme

The Security Council, rejecting pleas to move peacekeepers into Afghanistan's volatile and often lawless outlying provinces, is ordering the international security force to remain confined to the capital, diplomats here said Wednesday.

The 15-member council is expected to formally authorize today a six-month extension of the existing peacekeeping force, which numbers fewer than 5,000 and is restricted by the world body to the area in and around Kabul, the Afghan capital.

With Afghanistan two weeks away from convening a national council that will be responsible for creating a transitional government, some U.N. experts and political analysts argue that this democratic experiment could be jeopardized unless peacekeepers expand their presence beyond the capital.

In a House vote Tuesday authorizing a $1.3-billion aid package for Afghanistan, U.S. legislators echoed these concerns and asked President Bush to report back in 45 days with a plan addressing that country's "immediate and long-term security needs." Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have voiced support for deploying the international force outside Kabul.

The Bush administration has strongly opposed such a move, arguing that peacekeepers might inadvertently hamper the military campaign against the remnants of the Taliban regime and of the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Other Security Council powers are disinclined to challenge the U.S. position or volunteer their own troops for an expanded peacekeeping force.

Turkey, which is taking over command from Britain of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, has agreed only to the limited mission approved by the council last year.

A vote to keep the peacekeeping force in place until December does not preclude adjustments in its size or scope during the next six months, diplomats note. "We do not think there is a need for expansion right now, but there might be in the future," said a U.S. official here, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But diplomats acknowledge that the issue is unlikely to be raised anew in coming months by council members with troops in Afghanistan, and countries that have not contributed forces are reluctant to insist that others expand their commitment.

Moreover, the United States, Britain and Germany are training Afghan troops who, they hope, can be forged into a viable army and police force.

In the draft resolution extending the ISAF mandate, which diplomats said was supported by all 15 members in closed-door discussions Wednesday, the Security Council stressed that "responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghans themselves."

Afghan interim Prime Minister Hamid Karzai asked the council earlier this year to authorize a much larger peacekeeping mission. His foreign minister proposed a force of 20,000 troops, with units stationed in the cities of Herat, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Mazar-i-Sharif, as well as Kabul.

Recently, though, Afghan officials have muted their insistence, in what diplomats here say is a gesture of deference to the United States and a reflection of their preoccupation with the loya jirga, the weeklong national assembly scheduled to open June 10 in Kabul.

"In principle, the Afghan side is desirous to have the ISAF expanded further to some other provinces," said Ravan Farhadi, Afghanistan's ambassador here. "But I don't think it is an urgent matter. There is nothing that seems to endanger the convening of the loya jirga on the 10th of June."

"They know that it's not going to happen," said a British diplomat, who asked not to be identified. Moreover, the diplomat said, the U.S.-led coalition forces fighting in the country "are having more of a deterrent effect" on crime and internal political strife than the interim government had anticipated.

But U.N. officials and independent analysts say the security situation in southern and eastern Afghanistan appears increasingly precarious, with well-armed tribal leaders able to challenge whatever government emerges from the loya jirga. Critics of the Bush administration's resistance to a force expansion include three former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations--Richard Holbrooke, Donald McHenry and Jeane Kirkpatrick--who rarely see eye to eye on other foreign policy issues.

"The signal that the refusal to expand ISAF sent is that the international community is not ready to devote the resources needed to ensure security throughout the country," said Alexander Thier, an Afghanistan expert at the International Crisis Group, who just spent six weeks touring the country. "So the warlords will become emboldened."

The International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based humanitarian aid organization, called last week for peacekeepers to safeguard smaller cities where delegates are being elected for the June 10 assembly.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.