DOCSLIB.ORG

The Northern Distribution Network and Afghanistan Geopolitical Challenges and Opportunities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Northern Distribution Network and Afghanistan Geopolitical Challenges and Opportunities The Northern Distribution Network and Afghanistan Geopolitical Challenges and Opportunities A Report of the CSIS Transnational Threats Project and the Russia and Eurasia Program project codirectors Andrew C. Kuchins Thomas M. Sanderson principal authors Andrew C. Kuchins Thomas M. Sanderson contributing authors Daniel Kimmage Joseph Ferguson Alexandros Petersen Heidi Hoogerbeets David Gordon January 2010 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J. Hamre has led CSIS as its president and chief executive officer since 2000. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2010 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved. Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 775-3119 Fax: (202) 775-3199 Web: www.csis.org y contents About the Northern Distribution Network Project iv Acknowledgments v Introduction 1 Russia’s Conflicting Security, Political, and Economic Interests in Afghanistan and the NDN 2 Central Asian Interests in the NDN and Afghanistan 7 The Interests of Georgia and Azerbaijan in the NDN 12 The Interests of China, Japan, and the European Union in the NDN 20 The Interests of Iran in the Stabilization of Afghanistan 25 Conclusion 31 About the Authors 32 | iii About the Northern Distribution Network Project As the U.S. presence in Afghanistan increases, so too will its demand for nonmilitary supplies. To accommodate this growth and address ongoing concerns with Pakistani supply lines, U.S. planners have opened the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a commercially based logistical corridor connecting Baltic and Black Sea ports with Afghanistan via Russia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The NDN has impacted the geopolitical landscape of Eurasia. While key transit states enjoy new leverage over Washington, the NDN also serves as a potential vehicle for constructive U.S. engagement. Understanding how to manage these geopolitical risks and opportunities will be critical for the United States and is the first goal of this project. Though the impetus behind the NDN is grounded in the military’s immediate needs, its establishment nonetheless also offers a unique opportunity for the United States to help facilitate intercontinental trade. Such commerce can provide sustainable income for Afghanistan, deepen its integration with neighboring states, and ultimately contribute to the country’s stabilization. Thus, the second goal of this project is to ensure that the expansion of supply routes is fully leveraged to further this long-term objective. iv | the northern distribution network and afghanistan Acknowledgments This publication was made possible by a grant from the Waring and Carmen Partridge Foundation. The CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program wishes to thank the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its core project support. Overall support for the CSIS Transnational Threats Project is provided by the Sarah Scaife Foundation. While the authors of the report are fully responsible for its contents, interpretations, and any inaccuracies, we benefitted a great deal from initial drafts of sections from contributing authors Daniel Kimmage on Central Asia, Alexandros Peterson on the Caucasus/Caspian, Jody Ferguson on China, Japan, and the European Union, and Heidi Hoogerbeets on Latvia and Iran. Andrew Kuchins drafted the section on Russia. We as authors of this report must acknowledge that this product was the result of a wide network of contributors. First, we thank the members of our NDN Working Group who met several times over the spring and summer of 2009 and helped shape and guide our thinking. This group included Stephen Benson, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Anthony Cordesman, Evan Feigenbaum, Colonel James Jamison, Joseph Ferguson, Karin von Hippel, Daniel Kimmage, Elie Krakowski, Alexandros Peterson, Eugene Rumer, S. Frederick Starr, and Mary Louise Vitelli. We also thank the more than 50 U.S. and foreign government officials who shared their understanding of and perspectives on the NDN and the broader challenges the United States and its allies face in Afghanistan. We are grateful for the indispensable research and administrative assistance for this project from Zack Beauchamp, Amy Beavin, Vasily Dubnin, Ben Friedman, Emily Goldberg, Heidi Hoogerbeets, Jane Kaminski, Travis Mills, Vladislav Prokopov, Josh Rittenberg, Debbie Stroman, and Gary Tripmacher. andrew c. kuchins and thomas m. sanderson | v Blank embedd the northern distribution network and afghanistan geopolitical challenges and opportunities Introduction The development of new northern supply routes into Afghanistan, termed the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) by the U.S. government, and the expanded U.S. presence in Afghanistan has had considerable impact on regional geopolitics in Eurasia.1 For those states now involved in the NDN (Latvia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), this cooperation has added a new dimension to their relations that increases their stakes in bilateral ties with the United States and vice versa. Washington is engaging these partners on an issue of utmost priority to U.S. security interests. Together and individually these states can play a constructive role in Afghan stabilization efforts. But persistent tensions, mistrust, paranoia, authoritarianism, and a near-exclusive focus on “regime preservation” make some of them unwieldy and volatile partners. Suspicion of U.S. intentions and commitment further complicate this calculation. Understanding the dimensions of and knowing how to manage the geopolitical challenges and opportunities associated with NDN transit states and other key players is critical for the United States. While some argue that the NDN increases U.S. vulnerabilities by providing potentially unreliable partners new leverage, it is important to remember that the NDN was established to address a critical vulnerability: overreliance on fragile supply lines from the port of Karachi passing through enemy strongholds into Afghanistan. Each new supply line involves a new set of actors and a palette of challenges and risks, but overall the creation of alternatives and redundancies increases U.S. leverage. Prior to the introduction of the NDN and apart from critical airlift of sensitive supplies, the United States relied only on supply routes through Pakistan in support of combat operations in Afghanistan. This frequently left the U.S. forces at the mercy of a nation that is at once dependent on the United States for financial and military aid, but also deeply suspicious and often working at cross-purposes to Washington’s strategy. That single supply network courses through territory overrun by insurgent forces and criminals—an arrangement surely less than ideal. 1 For more information on the transit routes that constitute the NDN, see Andrew C. Kuchins, Thomas M. Sanderson, and David A. Gordon, The Northern Distribution Network and the Modern Silk Road: Planning for Afghanistan’s Future (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, December 2009). | 1 The NDN was designed to provide redundancy to this critical Pakistan supply line and to help handle the surge of supplies associated with an increase of 21,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2009 and, with the recent announcement by the Obama administration, an additional 30,000 troops in 2010. This obvious need and vulnerability has placed the United States’ Afghanistan war resupply squarely in the hands of other nations. All states benefit greatly by hosting the supply line—the impact on bilateral relationships with the United States is in part constructive and positive. Russia’s agreement to both aerial and overland resupply through its territory, and Uzbekistan’s reengagement with America for similar transit, is proof of these encouraging developments. Relationships between the United States and NDN partner nations; with Japan, China, and the European Union; and between NDN partner nations themselves are very complicated. To shed light on these dynamics, the following surveys the national interests, perspectives, and potential gains and losses for Russia, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Japan, China, Iran, and the European Union as they pursue their own goals in Eurasia. Understanding the interests of each nation is critical for effective policy formulation and execution by the United States. Russia’s Conflicting Security, Political, and Economic Interests in Afghanistan and the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russia's Strategies in Afghanistan and Their Consequences for NATO
    RESEA R CH PA P E R Research Division - NATO Defense College, Rome - No. 69 – November 2011 Russia’s strategies in Afghanistan and their consequences for NATO 1 by Marlène Laruelle INTRODUCT I ON Contents In July 2011, the first U.S. troops started to leave Afghanistan – a powerful symbol of Western determination to let the Afghan National Security Forces 1 (ANSF) gradually take over responsibility for national security. This is also Introduction an important element in the strategy of Hamid Karzai’s government, which Speaking on equal terms with Washington 2 seeks to appear not as a pawn of Washington but as an autonomous actor in negotiations with the so-called moderate Taliban. With withdrawal to Afghanistan in Russia’s swinging geostrategic global positioning 3 be completed by 2014, the regionalization of the “Afghan issue” will grow. The regional powers will gain autonomy in their relationship with Kabul, Facing the lack of long-term 5 strategy towards Central Asia and will implement strategies of both competition and collaboration. In The drug issue as a symbol of the context of this regionalization, Russia occupies an important position. Russia’s domestic fragilities 7 Strengths and weaknesses of the Until 2008, Moscow’s position was ambivalent. Some members of the ruling 8 Russian presence in Afghanistan elite took pleasure in pointing out the stalemate in which the international Conclusions 11 coalition was mired, since a victorious outcome would have signaled a strengthening of American influence in the region. Others, by contrast, were concerned by the coalition’s likely failure and the consequences that this would have for Moscow2.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging the Taliban's Quest for International Recognition
    Leveraging the Taliban’s Quest for International Recognition Afghan Peace Process Issues Paper March 2021 By Barnett R. Rubin Summary: As the United States tries to orchestrate a political settlement in conjunction with its eventual military withdrawal from Afghanistan, it has overestimated the role of military pressure or presence and underestimated the leverage that the Taliban’s quest for sanctions relief, recognition and international assistance provides. As the U.S. government decides on how and when to withdraw its troops, it and other international powers retain control over some of the Taliban’s main objectives — the removal of both bilateral and United Nations Security Council sanctions and, eventually, recognition of and assistance to an Afghan government that includes the Taliban. Making the most of this leverage will require coordination with the Security Council and with Afghanistan’s key neighbors, including Security Council members China, Russia and India, as well as Pakistan and Iran. In April 2017, in a meeting with an interagency team on board a military aircraft en route to Afghanistan, U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s new national security advisor, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, dismissed the ongoing effort to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban: “The first step, the national security adviser said, was to turn around the trajectory of the conflict. The United States had to stop the Taliban’s advance on the battlefield and force them to agree to concessions in the process .... US talks with the Taliban would only succeed when the United States returned to a position of strength on the battlefield and was ‘winning’ against the insurgency.”1 1 Donati, Jessica.
    [Show full text]
  • Produced by the Human Security Centre Lead Author
    1 Human Security Centre – Written evidence (AFG0019) Produced by the Human Security Centre Lead Author: Simon Schofield, Senior Fellow, In consultation with Rohullah Yakobi, Associate Fellow 2 1 Table of Contents 2. Executive Summary .............................................................................5 3. What is the Human Security Centre?.....................................................10 4. Geopolitics and National Interests and Agendas......................................11 Islamic Republic of Pakistan ...................................................................11 Historical Context...............................................................................11 Pakistan’s Strategy.............................................................................12 Support for the Taliban .......................................................................13 Afghanistan as a terrorist training camp ................................................16 Role of military aid .............................................................................17 Economic interests .............................................................................19 Conclusion – Pakistan .........................................................................19 Islamic Republic of Iran .........................................................................20 Historical context ...............................................................................20 Iranian Strategy ................................................................................23
    [Show full text]
  • India Signs Mous Worth $2.6 Million for Construction Projects In
    Quote of the Day Negotiation www.outlookafghanistan.net I think, with” a negotiation, you have” to go in facebook.com/The.Daily.Outlook.Afghanistan knowing what you want, knowing what your Email: [email protected] bottom line is, and knowing what you might Phone: 0093 (799) 005019/777-005019 accept if you’re absolutely pushed. Add: In front of Habibia High School, Jacob Rees-Mogg District 3, Kabul, Afghanistan Volume No. 4429 Monday July 06, 2020 Saratan 16, 1399 www.outlookafghanistan.net Price: 20/-Afs Britain Urges Taliban to Reduce Violence KABUL - The British Embassy It called on parties to the con- in Kabul on Sunday called for flict to heed the UN Security reduction in violence to cre- Council’s calls for an immedi- ate the conditions for intra- ate cessation of hostilities, in Afghan negotiations. order to reduce violence and The embassy said that it was to ensure access of humanitar- deeply concerned about “high ian aid throughout the country levels” of violence in Afghani- is not unduly hindered. stan. The embassy expressed con- “As we move towards cru- cern about the deliberate tar- India Signs MoUs Worth $2.6 Million for cial negotiations, we urge the geting of civil society mem- Taliban to listen to the clear bers, religious figures and Construction Projects in Afghanistan demand of the Afghan people, healthcare workers. “This is demonstrate they are serious completely unacceptable. We KABUL - India signed five mem- Nuristan provinces, a teaching Indian Ambassador Vinay Ku- dollars to Afghanistan over the about peace, and reduce the call for a robust investigation orandums of understanding building in Farah University, mar said that the MoUs under- last two decades, he said.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrorism in Afghanistan: a Joint Threat Assessment
    Terrorism in Afghanistan: A Joint Threat Assessment Terrorism in Afghanistan: A Joint Threat Assessment Introduction 7 Chapter I: Afghanistan’s Security Situation and Peace Process: Comparing U.S. and Russian Perspectives (Barnett R. Rubin) 9 Chapter II: Militant Terrorist Groups in, and Connected to, Afghanistan (Ekaterina Stepanova and Javid Ahmad) 24 Chapter III: Afghanistan in the Regional Security Interplay Context (Andrey Kazantsev and Thomas F. Lynch III) 41 Major Findings and Conclusions 67 Appendix A: Protecting Afghanistan’s Borders: U.S. and Russia to Lead in a Regional Counterterrorism Effort (George Gavrilis) 72 Appendix B: Arms Supplies for Afghan Militants and Terrorists (Vadim Kozyulin) 75 Appendix C: Terrorism Financing: Understanding Afghanistan’s Specifics (Konstantin Sorokin and Vladimir Ivanov) 79 Acronyms 83 Terrorism in Afghanistan Joint U.S.-Russia Working Group on Counterterrorism in Afghanistan Working Group Experts: Javid Ahmad1 Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council Sher Jan Ahmadzai Director, Center for Afghanistan Studies, University of Nebraska at Omaha Robert Finn Former Ambassador of the United States to Afghanistan George Gavrilis Fellow, Center for Democracy, Toleration, and Religion, University of California, Berkeley Andrey Kazantsev Director, Center for Central Asian and Afghan Studies, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) Kirill Koktysh Associate Professor, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) Member, Expert Council, State Duma Committee of Nationalities Mikhail Konarovsky Former Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Afghanistan Col. (Ret.) Oleg V. Kulakov* Professor of Area Studies, Military University, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation Vadim Kozyulin Member, PIR Center Executive Board Researcher, Diplomatic Academy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Thomas F.
    [Show full text]
  • SP's Home Ad 2016 Avn.Indd 1 10/03/16 3:32 PM Spotlight
    VIEWPOINT: VISIT OF ISRAELI PRESIDent – CementinG TIES PAGE 7 SP’s AN SP GUIDE PUBLICATION Vol: 6 Issue 24 ❚ December 16-31 • 2016 55.00 (INDIA-BASED BUYER ONLY) ` www.spsmai.com maiONLY FORTNIGHTLY ON MILITARY AEROSPACE INTERNAL SECURITY Indian Government appoint new Army and Air Force chiefs PAGE 13 Page 5 Carter reaffirms road map for the next Exclusive interaction with Chief of the Naval Staff US Defense Secretary Admiral Sunil Lanba PAGE 8 FROM THE MILITARY AEROSPACE CORPORATE EDITOr’s DESK 4 Viewpoints 10, 12 Report 16 News 20 SECURITY BREACHES 22 Report 11 Developments 17 Technology 21 DELENG/2010/34651 Updates 13 Unmanned 19 “In a country like India with limited support from the industry and market, initiating 50 years ago (in 1964) publishing magazines relating to Army, Navy and Aviation sectors without any interruption is a commendable job on the part of SP GuideÒ Publications. By this, SP Guide Publications has established the fact that continuing quality work in any field would result in success.” Narendra Modi, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India (*message received in 2014) SP's Home Ad 2016 Avn.indd 1 10/03/16 3:32 PM SPOTLIGHT VIEWPOINT: VISIT OF ISRAELI PRESIDENT – CEMENTING TIES PAGE 7 SP’s AN SP GUIDE PUBLICATION Launch of eighth LCu–GRSE Vol: 6 Issue 24 ❚ December 16-31 • 2016 55.00 (INDIA-BASED BUYER ONLY) ` www.spsmai.com maiONLY FORTNIGHTLY ON Yard 2099 MILITARY AEROSPACE INTERNAL SECURITY Cover: he recent launch of last ship of LCU Mk IV proj- Ashton Carter’s farewell visit to India on Indian Government ect, an amphibious ship at the Garden Reach appoint new Army and Air Force chiefs PAGE 13 December 8, 2016, truly reflected the new Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd (GRSE), Kolkata, found warmth and strategic nature of Indo-US defence relationship which has evolved to such Tmarks yet another significant milestone in the annals of Page 5 Carter reaffirms great heights.
    [Show full text]
  • Sso-Oo SS-00 TRSE-00 T-00 USIE-00 FMP-00 SNIS-00 NISC-01 PMB-00 PRME-01 DRL-09 G-00 /031W N a E
    Date Printed: CHANNEL: n/a 13-Jan-2004 DOC NBR : 1995ISLAMA11049 HANDLING: n/a C PTQ3853 UiULril COHFIDEMTIJ PTQ3853 PAGE 01 ISLAMA 11049 301327Z ACTION SA-01 INFO LOG-00 CIAE-00 SMEC-00 INL-01 OASY-00 DOEE-00 SRPP-00 EUR- 01 OIGO-01 FBIE-00 INLB-01 H-01 TEDE-00 INR-00 IO-00 L-01 ADS- 00 MOFM-04 MOF-03 M-00 NEA-01 NSAE-00 NSCE-00 OIC-02 OMB- 01 PA- 01 PM-00 PRS-01 P-00 SCT-00 SP-00 sso-oo SS-00 TRSE-00 T-00 USIE-00 FMP-00 SNIS-00 NISC-01 PMB-00 PRME-01 DRL-09 G-00 /031W n A e. tr n C "3 n 1 "5 O Q 7 / 1 Q O 301322Z NOV 95 FM AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6502 INFO AMCONSUL PESHAWAR PRIORITY DIA WASHDC AMEMBASSY MOSCOW USMISSION USUN NEW YORK AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI Depfc of SWe, RPS/IPa Margaret P Grafeld Dir. AMEMBASSY RIYADH 00 Release ( ) Excise ( ) Deny (tf) Declassify AMEMBASSY PARIS ' AMEMBASSY ROME AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE AMEMBASSY ASHGABAT AMEMBASSY LONDON AMEMBASSY TASHKENT C-.-O--N-P—I—D -E~N~T-r-ft-fc IS LAMABAD 011049 DEPARTMENT FOR SA/PAB PAGE 02 ISLAMA 11049 301327Z LONDON FOR POL:TUELLER; PARIS FOR POL:ALLEGRONE; ROME FOR POL:STORELLA E.O. 12958: DECL:11/27/05 TAGS: MOPS, PINS, UN, AF SUBJECT: AFGHANISTAN: RUSSIAN EMBASSY OFFICIAL CLAIMS IRAN INTERFERING MORE THAN PAKISTAN 1. (U) CLASSIFIED BY JOHN C. HOLZMAN, CHARGE D'AFFAIRES, Page - 1 Date Printed: y CHANNEL: n/a 13-Jan-2004 DOC NBR: 1995ISLAMA11049 HANDLING: n/a A.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran, Russia, and the Taliban: Reassessing the Future of the Afghan State
    Iran, Russia, and the Taliban: Reassessing the Future of the Afghan State fpri.org /article/2017/06/iran-russia-taliban-reassessing-future-afghan-state/ June 14, 2017 E-Notes Amin Tarzi Amin Tarzi is a Senior Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East, and the Director of Middle East Studies at the Marine Corps University (MCU) in Quantico, Virginia.Read More The first combat zone utilization of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) device by the U.S. forces in Afghanistan (USFOR-A) on 13 April 2017 brought the Islamic State– Khorasan Province (ISKP) to the headlines. ISKP emerged in Afghanistan and Pakistan in early 2015 after individuals and groups of militants pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr al- Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. This ISIS affiliate became operational after only a few months. While the ISKP represents a Taliban insurgents turn themselves in to Afghan National Security Forces (Source: isafmedia/Flickr) danger to the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan and to the wider region including India and Central Asia, the outfit has become a vehicle to legitimization of the growing internationalization of the wider Afghan conflict, particularly in changing the calculus of Iran and Russia vis-à-vis the Taliban, and it has the potential of becoming a tool for proxy warfare in Afghanistan evocative of the mid-1990s. ISKP and the Taliban: Taking Different Paths Since its emergence in the mid-1990s, the Taliban sought international legitimacy, unlike the self-identified Islamic State. The initial proclamations of the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate were mostly Afghan-centric.
    [Show full text]
  • Extremism and Terrorism
    Russia: Extremism and Terrorism On July 27, 2020, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) claimed that its officers foiled an alleged terrorist plot in Moscow. According to the FSB, an unidentified man—who was carrying a bag filled with grenades—was immediately shot dead when he opened fire on officers trying to arrest him in the outskirts of the capital. Additionally, it was reported the man was from a Central Asian country and reportedly had links to a terrorist group in Syria. Security officials have claimed that thousands of people from former Soviet republics in Central Asia or from Russia’s Muslim-majority North Caucasus region have been plotting domestic terror attacks or have been fighting alongside militants in Iraq or Syria. (Source: Deutsche Welle) In April 2020, the U.S. government announced its intention to designate the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM) as a terrorist organization, making it the first white supremacist group to receive the designation. The government reportedly intended to designate three of RIM’s leaders. RIM seeks to create a “mono-ethnic state” led by a “Russian autocratic monarchy,” preferably descended from the Romanov dynasty that led Russia before the 1917 revolution. RIM has provided training and resources to other white national groups around the world. (Sources: New York Times, BuzzFeed News) On December 31, 2019, two armed men struck a police officer with their car in Magas, the capital of the republic of Ingushetia. The assailants then attacked three other officers with knives, altogether wounding four before one of the attackers was shot dead and the other was wounded.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Afghan Policy in the Regional and Russia-West Contexts
    Études de l’Ifri Études de l’Ifri Russie.Nei.Reports 23 RUSSIA’S AFGHAN POLICY IN THE REGIONAL AND RUSSIA-WEST CONTEXTS Ekaterina STEPANOVA May 2018 Russia/NIS Center The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. ISBN: 978-2-36567-855-1 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2018 How to quote this document: Ekaterina Stepanova, “Russia’s Afghan Policy in the Regional and Russia-West Contexts”, Russie.NEI.Reports, No. 23, May 2018. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15—FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00—Fax: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Author Dr. Ekaterina Stepanova heads the Peace and Conflict Studies Unit at the Primakov National Research Institute of the World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Moscow. Her research focuses on armed conflicts, terrorism and insurgencies, human security, political economy of conflicts, and peace-building. She is the author of six books, including Terrorism in Asymmetrical Conflict: Ideological and Structural Aspects (Oxford University Press, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan Study Group Final Report
    Afghanistan Study Group Final Report FEBRUARY 2021 AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP Members of the Afghanistan Study Group Co-chairs Senator Kelly A. Ayotte General Joseph F. Dunford Jr. (Ret.) Ms. Nancy Lindborg Study Group Members Ms. Nisha Biswal Ms. Susan Gordon Mr. David Miliband Ambassador James Dobbins Ambassador Mark Green Ms. Lisa Monaco Senator Joe Donnelly Ambassador Marc Grossman Dr. Meghan O’Sullivan Ms. Michèle Flournoy Mr. Stephen J. Hadley General Curtis Scaparrotti (Ret.) This report, which was drafted in December 2020 and January 2021, represents the consensus of a bipartisan and independent Study Group with diverse expertise and affiliations. No member may be satisfied with every formulation and argument in isolation. The findings of this report are solely those of the Afghanistan Study Group. They do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Institute of Peace or the senior advisers who contributed their time and expertise to the deliberations of the Group and the content of this report. All members and senior advisers participated in their personal capacity and on a volunteer basis. Cover includes artwork by Pyty/Shutterstock. Maps on pages 5 and 7 created by Lucidity Information Design. United States Institute of Peace 2301 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202.457.1700 Fax: 202.429.6063 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www . usip.org Making Peace Possible Afghanistan Study Group Final Report A Pathway for Peace in Afghanistan FEBRUARY 2021 Contents Letter from the Co-chairs ........................................ 2 Recommendations ................................................ 47 1. Clarify the End State .................................................... 47 Executive Summary ................................................. 4 2. Reinforce the Conditionality of a Final U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Shabnam Nasimi – British Afghan Social and Political Activist – Written Evidence (AFG0029)
    Shabnam Nasimi – British Afghan Social and Political Activist – Written evidence (AFG0029) House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee UK AND AFGHANISTAN INQUIRY 1st November 2020 The following insights and observations are based on approximately 10 years of experience and work in Afghanistan and with British Afghans. What are the prospects for the implementation of the peace agreement between the US and the Taliban signed in February? To what extent have its provisions been implemented, and what are the principal challenges? Afghanistan is at a critical juncture. A fragile framework has been arrived at that seeks to end almost 50 years of violent conflict. Most Afghans are tired of war and yearn for peace—but caution needs to be exercised. Any hastily ushered-in agreement could once again leave the country in chaos and repeat the mistakes of the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. 50 per cent of peace deals breakdown, often when small elite groups make agreements that exclude the hopes and dreams of the majority of the population. The 2001 Bonn Agreement was intended to re-create the state of Afghanistan following the US’s invasion in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The political culture in Afghanistan is one of shifting alliances and back-room deals where warlords and extremists are the main beneficiaries of the spoils of war—and peace. While the nature of peacebuilding may involve in the early stages an “ugly peace,” where elite bargains are made with the men of violence, this is ultimately unsustainable: the other 95 per cent of the people must feel that their voices are heard.
    [Show full text]