Introduction
The United States and Afghanistan have shared diplomatic ties for over seven decades now since establishing diplomatic ties with Afghanistan, the US-Afghan relations have been centered on helping Afghanistan to improve the living standards of its people. During the early years of 1950, the government of the United States was greatly involved in assisting the Afghan people to develop physical infrastructures like roads, water storage dams, and power generation projects. At the beginning of the year 1960, the focus of the United States government became technical assistance that was aimed at building the human resources capacity that would enable Afghanistan to develop a robust economy.
Diplomatic relations
The United States later severed its diplomatic relations with Afghanistan in the year 1978 when the US diplomat was killed and following this occurrence there was a marked decrease in the level of assistance offered by the United States government to the Afghanistan administration at the time. The United States became actively involved in providing military and humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan which occurred between the years 1979 and 1988 but did not reestablish any formal diplomatic relations.
In the year 2001, the United States suffered from terrorist attacks linked to Al Qaeda whose leader is believed to have lived in Afghanistan at the time, these attacks set the stage that ushered in a new era in US-Afghan relations. The two countries resumed their diplomatic relations towards the end of this year and since then the United States has been providing support towards the rebuilding of the military, infrastructure, social institutions, and strengthening good governance within Afghanistan( Linden, 2007,p.192).
The issues
The important issues that continue to shape US-Afghan relations in the present day include dealing with the Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, international terrorism, democratic governance, the fight against corruption, and economic stability in Afghanistan. Different US administrations have responded to the above issues in a varied manner. This paper explores the war against international terror which is an important policy priority that continues to shape the US-Afghan relations today (Embassy of the United States, Belgium, n.d, Para 1-3) The September 11 terror attacks and the recently failed attempts to blow up an American airline are perhaps some of the most vivid terror incidents that have gained wide recognition within America and captured the world’s attention.
The government of the United States has often considered terrorism to be the greatest threat to its global interests and global security.It has developed policies on how to deal with the concern. One of the provisions contained in the US policy on international terrorism is the use of military action.It’s in this regard that US troops have been deployed to Afghanistan and by extension to Iraq. Initially, before the September 11th attacks occurred, the US policy on international terror was focused on deterrence of terrorist activities both within and outside the United States.
The country is now using a preemptive strategy in handling international terrorism. The use of this strategy was introduced by the Bush administration immediately following the attacks on September 11th, the main argument that led to the inclusion of preemptive approach in administrational policy is that it would be more costly if the US administration chose to be responding to terror attacks and doing nothing more(Perl,2007,p.2-4)
Afghanistan and Pakistan are widely regarded as Al Qaeda’s strongholds. The preemptive use of military action in Afghanistan by the United States was mainly aimed at removing the Taliban from the country’s leadership because the Taliban were thought to have provided security to al-Qaida operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The bush administration began assisting in reconstruction efforts after an interim government led by Hamid Karzai had assumed power. At first great effort was directed at ensuring that the Taliban or the Al Qaeda could not grow their numbers in a way that could significantly interfere with the operations of the new government( Lansford, 2003,p.178-182).
The significance of international terrorism about the US strategy on Afghanistan should be discussed from both the US and the Afghan perspectives. In respect to the United States; the country has assumed a prominent role in providing leadership at the global level especially now that few international institutions can effectively deal with emerging problems of global concern. It has been argued that problems like humanitarian assistance, international financial stability, and the environment are likely to be effectively addressed if the United States remains actively involved than when it pulls off for it is thought that this will have a detrimental effect on the future of international political and economic development. Besides, this would also not serve to advance the national interests of the United States as a country (Rabel, 2002, p.67).
Afghanistan on the other side is a country that is trying to stabilize itself from the effects of war and international terrorism poses a great threat to the realization of this goal. If groups such groups as the Taliban and the al-Qaida were to assume power again, the gains made in the economic and political landscape in Afghanistan could be lost as bilateral and multilateral aid for the country can be easily withdrawn. Anti-government resistance is still going on and Afghanistan needs the help of its neighbors if she is to successfully deal with this problem (Rabel, 2002, p.67).
These sentiments are being raised at a time when there are serious policy issues regarding emerging trends in international terrorism. Perl (2007.p. 6) for example explains that there is an increase in the number of radical Islamist groups that seek to exploit the volatile political and economic situations in countries like Indonesia, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia overthrow regimes based on secular leadership. He furthers adds that these groups are establishing bases in countries that do not have functional governments in place or those which lack strict controls in their boundaries. Terrorist organizations have also been able to enhance their operational capacities through developing their sources of funding like illegal businesses. It has also been reported that terrorist organizations are trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
A case study on international terrorism in respect to the new strategy by the Obama administration on Afghanistan would mainly have the two countries as the main participants while a few neighboring countries like Pakistan and others from the Central Asia region would make an important consideration for the case study. The United States and Afghanistan have bilateral ties that date back to many years. Both countries have also suffered from the effects of international terrorists and have a common desire to develop stable economies. The associations of Pakistan with terrorist groups like al-Qaida and the Taliban and its proximity to Afghanistan would be important in monitoring terrorists’ trends in remote border regions. All three governments have the shared responsibility of designing and implementing anti-terror strategies. The United States due to its relative economic stability may play assume the responsibility of providing funding and the technical expertise required in managing various processes that are essential in ensuring that the planning, implementation monitoring, and evaluation of anti-terror programs. The countries also have the shared responsibility of sharing intelligence on terrorist activities in areas of their jurisdiction (Page, 2003, p.xiv).
The Obama administration policy
The Obama administration continuously retaliates the position of other American presidents who came before him that international terrorism is a threat to the national interests of the United States and global security as well. His administration has also affirmed that it is committed to helping the Afghan people reconstruct their country and assist the Afghan government in ensuring that Afghanistan will not be converted into a terrorist stronghold by terror groups like the Taliban. Leaders from the United States like the secretary of state (Hilary Clinton) have also expressed their commitment to ensuring that tribal warlords do not reassert their control in the county’s leadership. The United States has also proclaimed that it is ready to work with willing partners to ensure that the war against terror is won (Serafino, 2004, p.4-8.
The Afghan government has lauded and received the new strategy on Afghanistan launched in 2009 by the Obama administration. Some critics have equally endorsed the strategy saying that the real test lies in the implementation of the strategy (Mojumdar, 2009, Para 1).similar sentiments have also been echoed by leaders and nationals of Pakistan. Hamid Karzai vowed in September 2002 to deal with the problem of terrorism more firmly by continuing hunting down both al-Qaida and Taliban leaders, maintaining more control military in areas where the Taliban had a strong influence, and by ending the illegal drug trade that is linked with terrorism.
President Obama’s administration has adopted a different policy strategy in addressing the issues of international terrorism. previously, the policy targeted punishing sponsors of terrorist organizations at the national level but the government of the United States is now directly confronting individual terrorist organizations. The anti-terrorism act of 1996 has a legal provision that banns funding, issuance of visas, and other forms of support for organizations suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. This can be best illustrated by the ongoing hunt for Osama bin Laden. The Obama administration has also put more effort into military action as a way of dealing with the problem (Obama, 2008, p.65).
The new strategy on Afghanistan will see more money being spent on military operations in Afghanistan. President Obama had pledged to pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq once the countries have strong functional armies’.The strategy compels the leadership in Kabul to be more proactive in the fight against terrorism and corruption in the government. The United States has a long-term interest in seeing Afghanistan become a successful and peaceful country. The level of success or failure in achieving this goal is the most important determining factor on how the united states implement the new strategy in Afghanistan(Obama, 2008, p.65).
The provisions within Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan have received support from leaders within and outside the United States as a plausible plan that could significantly address the long-term issues connected with international terrorism. It is believed that by winning the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, the United States will have proved to the world that indeed the problem of international terrorism can be dealt with. For Afghanistan, this would consolidate the gains the country has made in terms of economic development and political stability.winning the war against terrorism from Afghanistan is also regarded as an important stage to ensuring the economy and political stability of the entire region of central Asia.
Though the strategy is anticipated to bring a lot of positive change in the fight against terrorism, concerns are being expressed that the new US strategy has overlooked important issues like unemployment among the youth which is considered an important factor in the continuity of the insurgency. Similarly, the continued presence of the military has been linked with an increased number of civilian casualties.civil society organizations argue that what is required in Afghanistan is an intervention that can bring rehabilitation to the Afghan society and not more harm. Some human rights groups within Afghanistan say that the new strategy does not provide adequately on how human rights violations by the coalition forces operating in Afghanistan should be handled. Similarly, they say that there are no clear rules of engagement to guide the operation of the coalition forces. These arguments serve to prove that not all the strategic interests of all the participants have been adequately catered for (Mojumdar, 2009, Para 2-13)
Conclusion
With the implementation of Obama’s strategy, international cooperation in tackling international terrorism will be strengthened and it is most likely that future bilateral ties between the United States and Afghanistan will be stronger. The wider implication of stronger bilateral ties between the United States and Afghanistan is that the united may use the strategic positioning of Afghanistan to exert its influence in Central Asia as a whole.
Reference List
Lansfrod, T. (2003). A bitter harvest: US foreign policy and Afghanistan.Aldershot: Ash gate Publishing, Ltd.
Linden, E.V. (2007). Focus on Terrorism, Volume 9. New York: Nova Publishers.
Mojumdar, A. (2009) Afghanistan: Obama af-pak strategy and Afghanistan’s response.Eurasia Insight. Web.
Obama, B. (2008). Words on a Journey: The Great Speeches of Barack Obama. Maryland: Arc Manor LLC.
Page, K. (2003). Asia & Pacific Review 2003/04: The Economic and Business Report. 21st Ed. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Perl, R.F. (2007). International Terrorism: Threat, Policy, and Response. Congressional Research service. Web.
Rabel, R.G. (2002). The American century?: in retrospect and prospect. West port: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Serafino, N.M. (2004). Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement. Congressional Research Service. Web.
US Embassy Belgium. (n.d). United States policy toward Afghanistan: a Dossier. Web.