You need to leave Afghanistan, but how?




The program adopted by the Socialist Party is very clear: the French soldiers have nothing more to do in Afghanistan. However, France, which supported the intervention that allowed the government to expel the Taliban from Kabul and neutralize Bin Laden, cannot be limited to one-sided withdrawal. The holding of a conference in Paris for all the participants in the Afghan drama, which many would like to put an end to today, would have made it possible to break the deadlock. Such could be the first international initiative of the president from the left forces, if he succeeds in obtaining his election in the 2012 year.

Although it is quite easy to identify the main players (the “democratic camp”, the Taliban and Pakistan), all of them apparently have different goals. President Karzai wants to remain in power, but the existing anti-Taliban coalition seeks to retain the exclusive right to determine the future of the country. The Taliban, united by the concept of the Islamic state and the rejection of any presence of foreign forces, are the main unknowns in the Afghan equation. Pakistan, in turn, is obsessed with only one idea: the defense of borders.

Among the secondary players, unity is also not visible. India fears terrorist attacks by radical Muslim groups and regularly tries to put pressure on Pakistan through Kabul. Iran, a predominantly Shiite state, seeks to achieve recognition and a role consistent with its great past: by intensifying its activities in Iraq and among the Afghan Hazaras (they are also Shiites), he wants to expand his zone of influence. Saudi Arabia, for which the main thing is to control oil, the establishment of the Taliban regime in Kabul would bring a considerable advantage: this would advance the process of Iran’s Sunni entourage with its Wahhabi radicals.

As for the great powers, the United States just wants to put an end to a war that has become too unpopular, too expensive and hopeless. China, on the other hand, is more likely to pursue its own imperial interests: Afghanistan is worried about frankly little, which is not to be said about neighboring Pakistan. Finally, from the point of view of Russia, the Islamic issue is of critical importance, both because of the situation in the Caucasus and in view of the events in the Muslim republics of the CIS.

In other words, everyone has their own interests, but this does not mean that we are not able to determine the boundaries of mutual concessions that would give a chance for the success of the conference in Paris. The main thing here is the stabilization of Pakistan, in the absence of a treaty with which any combination in Kabul is doomed to failure. Its pledge is recognition and guarantee of inviolability of borders, participation in the negotiation process of a non-aggression agreement with India, as well as the cessation of all support for the Taliban. With regard to Afghanistan, the key points of the treaty may be as follows: the Taliban’s agreement to comply with the current Constitution of Afghanistan, the administrative decentralization of the country (up to the transition to a federal system) and, of course, universal recognition of the modern borders of the state. In addition, a prerequisite for success will be a long-term presence on its territory of the UN observation forces, on whose shoulders control over compliance with the agreements will fall.
Originator:
http://inosmi.ru
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

12 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Siberian
    Siberian 4 September 2011 14: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Let them already knock over from there somehow. At least as the Soviet Army in 1989. Let the Afghans figure out their shit themselves. For how many years everyone has been trying to “help” them figure out their own country, but nothing good has come of it.
  2. zczczc
    zczczc 4 September 2011 14: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    How, how to leave - on the shield!
  3. Siberian
    Siberian 4 September 2011 14: 55 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    That's just with a "shield" they still got a miss. Paraphrasing the words of Captain Zheglov, we can say: "Afghans are not such guys ..."
  4. dimarm74
    dimarm74 4 September 2011 15: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    wink the ruble enters Afghanistan, the exit is two ... What kind of country is this ??? Yes, let them sit there .... they guard themselves .... We will earn money on the transit of goods .... Pakistan would have closed it completely for transit ....
  5. mitrich
    mitrich 4 September 2011 17: 40 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    But who would be against the Afghans sitting quietly at home, not protruding. So there will not be such a thing. The export of radical Islam to Central Asia after the departure of the amers is not difficult to predict. Yes, and 7000 tons of heroin per year must be shoved somewhere around the world, primarily to us, to Russia. So after 2014, the situation in the region will become more complicated.
  6. AleksUkr 4 September 2011 17: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Recall that Afghanistan was the first country1 to recognize Soviet Russia after the 1917 revolution. They always fought foreign interference in their affairs. And they all need to leave, and the sooner the better. And then you have to crawl under fire.
    1. LESHA pancake
      LESHA pancake 4 September 2011 20: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      NOW FOR US, BETTER THAN LONGER THERE IS NATO AND THE USA WILL BE THEN BETTER THEN THEY SPEND VERY MUCH MONEY FOR THE WAR WITH THE TALIBANS AND THIS MEANS THAT WE SAVE YOUR MONEY FOR THE PROTECTION OF YOURS.
      1. Russian 1970
        Russian 1970 4 September 2011 22: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Oh Lyokha, Lyokha! They will print money for themselves as needed, they don’t feel sorry for the paper!
        But the drug traffic increased at times with them !!! And all to Mother Russia! So let them get out of there, maybe even less drugs will come to us after them.
      2. AleksUkr 5 September 2011 08: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Lech !!! You're wrong. Think about the consequences of being on our borders. At one time, the British Prime Minister said that they came for a long time. And this is already fraught.
  7. Siberian
    Siberian 4 September 2011 21: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    LEHA damn it.
    My opinion is that the longer NATO stays in Afghanistan, the more heroin gets to us. Let them go as quickly as possible. A new power squabble will begin in Afghanistan. The northern provinces, populated mainly by ethnic Uzbeks and Tajiks, will confront the Taliban. We will quietly sponsor and equip them with old (in our understanding) weapons. All this was already in the 90s. I think there will be a new Ahmad Shah Masouda and General Dostum.
  8. kagorta 4 September 2011 21: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Sibiryak is right, under the Taliban, heroin production decreased to a ridiculous amount, and under the Pindos it flourished. And the CIA are still those drug dealers (Escobars are resting).
  9. Old Cat Basilio
    Old Cat Basilio 4 September 2011 23: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A conference in Paris is a good thing. Just let the respected author tell me how to force India and Pakistan to make mutual concessions on the Afghan question, which cannot solve the Jammu-Kashmir problem since 1947? As for the amers, there is a way out: on the roof of the embassy and in helicopters (tea, Saigon 1975, have not been forgotten?). Regarding the French, the wise man was General de Gaulle, when in 1966 he broke with the military component of the NATO bloc. Now they wouldn’t slurp, frogs, Afghan shit ... O, pardon!
    With regard to Russia, the issue is extremely complex, drug trafficking from Afghanistan is the main problem. I think, first of all, it is time to end with the passage of American military "airborne" into Afghanistan through our territory. Next, let's see.