Chirac and Afghanistan

Yesterday there was much talk across the blogosphere about Chirac and Bush's public exchange of words regarding Turkey and the EU. But Chirac did something far more damaging than that. He has blocked the deployment of NATO troops to safeguard the elections in Afghanistan. (Rueters cite):

France has blocked a U.S. bid to deploy NATO's new strike force to safeguard Afghanistan's elections, stoking tension between the two allies that fell out over the Iraq war, diplomats said Tuesday.

"France, and to a lesser extent others such as Spain, are suspicious about using the NATO Response Force (NRF)," said one envoy at the alliance summit in Istanbul.

"It says the force is not ready for this kind of environment and should not be used simply as a sticking plaster for troop shortages on routine operations."

France's opposition to a proposal that could help resolve NATO's problems finding troops to make the September polls safe exasperated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pushed the idea hard at a meeting of allied defense ministers.

...

Chirac told a news conference that the NRF -- set up last year with a heavy French contingent but not due to become fully operational until October 2006 -- should only be used when there is a serious security crisis, not for Afghan-style missions.

"The NRF is not designed for this. It shouldn't be used just for any old matter," he said. He has added that an overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections.

...

Diplomats said allies had not yet committed all those forces. This means they will not be in place to help with voter registration, which has been dogged by Taliban militia attacks.

...

France's excuse is

One European official said the U.S.-French tussle was more about procedure. Paris is concerned that sending the NRF to Afghanistan could set a precedent for using it as a "toolbox" whenever NATO has problems pooling forces for an operation.

"France worries ... (this) would lead to an automatism jeopardizing the principle that a political decision must be taken before NATO commits to operations such as election protection in Afghanistan," the official said.

This article highlights the fact that there really aren't very many non-US NATO troops available. A fact which ought to be remembered when engaging in debates about how important a European contribution to the War on Terrorism could be. But more importantly it highlights how little of a contribution Europe (and especially France) is willing to make when contributing involves more than diplomatic rhetoric.

The mission was to deploy troops in Afghanistan to safeguard elections. According to European rhetoric, Afghanistan is one of the most important foreign fronts in the War on Terrorism. To dismiss the safeguarding of Afghanistan's elections as "any old matter" is ridiculous. If the War on Terrorism is going to be won at all it will include changing the way that governments in the region interact with their citizens. This is not a mere procedural objection to the way the US raised the issue. This when coupled with "overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections" is a challenge to the idea of many possible roles for NATO in Afghanistan.

Note that this will prevent troops from dealing with Taliban militia who are interfering with voter registration. And I repeat, this is how France wants to treat AFGHANISTAN. This is how France wants to deal with the clear case.

UPDATE:

Wretchard at the Belmont Club has much more on this topic and other European commitment problems in his June 30, 2004 entry. Along the same lines as my comment, he writes: "The Afghan elections are arguably the most important milestone since the campaign to topple the Taliban, in which NATO was also absent. What then would constitute sufficient matter to engage Chirac?"

Comments

[sidereal]

"What then would constitute sufficient matter to engage Chirac?"

On a lark I looked up the official French principles of foreign policy, here.

Oddly enough, they refer only to France, which is kind of weird for a 'foreign' policy.

So to answer your question, if the failure of Afghan elections threatened French power and/or European solidarity, that would motivate Chirac.

[Dave Schuler]

As Lord Palmerston is quoted as saying "there are no permanent alliances only permanent interests". With NATO members who are unable or unwilling to project military power outside of Europe and so many problems that are outside of Europe, it's a little difficult to assess why a military alliance should continue. In particular, what does the U. S. get out of it? Bases, presumeably. I suspect we could get bases equally suited to our 21st century needs elsewhere and at lower cost.

[dmbeaster]

I would guess there is a lot more to this issue than simply age-old French ethnocentricism. There has been friction for a long time in Afghanistan regarding coordinating US troops and NATO troops. To date, the US has not been willing to operate in any kind of joint command and prefers to operate independently in Afhanistan. That may be fine, but it has discouraged NATO involvement in peacekeeping operations. That is also one of the reasons why to date, the NATO troops have not operated much outside of Kabul.

Safeguarding elections would presumably require extensive deployments to areas essentially under warlord control. If these elections are so important (I doubt they are, given the warlord status of the country. These particular elections will not mean much because the central government has no power anyway), it is also a failure of US policy in undermanning the Afghan post-war situation. Other than in a few cities, I do not see how anything other than a massive deployment of new troops will bring free elections to Afghsanistan, and then would permit the central government to act with that mandate.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Which is more important? Safeguarding Afghanistan elections or engaging in a fit of pique with the U.S.?

To Chirac, the latter.

But that isn't really fair, because it implies that Chirac would do something in Afghanistan if he weren't feuding with the U.S.

[victor falk]

I agree with dmbeaster. The ISAF has 6000 men. There are 20000 americans in Afghanistan, which are not part of it but hunting Osama in Waziristan. I think it's matter of principle: I read that Chirac has been quite adamant that forces in Iraq should not operate under a NATO flag in order to provide the Coalition with an international fig-leaf. Deploying the NRF in Afghanistan could be seen as a precedent for that.

Also, there's a point that the job of a reaction force is to be ready for emergency crises, not to monitor elections. This, with things like pulling out troops out of Korea and the IRR, says a lot about the Bush admin. deperation in scraping the barrel for troops anywhere they can find them.

In the end, it all boils down that resources that could have available in Afghanistan have been diverted to Iraq. I can understand the reluctance when someone demands to pull his chestnuts out of the fire, when you told him in the first place that throwing them there was not a good idea.