Ambassador Ludin speaks about NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan

Afghanistan experience shapes NATO’s future

The discussion about NATO’s future is one that rightfully involves many people. I am glad that Afghanistan is involved too, and that NATO’s experience in Afghanistan can serve as a turning point for the alliance.

NATO’s role in Afghanistan has been unique to the alliance’s history. NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan has been the hallmark of multilateral engagement and of a truly global effort in a process that is important to international security. Therefore, it would be crucial to incorporate the lessons learned in Afghanistan into any debate about NATO’s new strategic concept.

NATO’s achievements in Afghanistan

When the war in Iraq started, we in Afghanistan were holding our breaths for what might the implication be for Afghanistan. A large scale intervention by the US in Iraq was highly likely to result in a reduced focus on Afghanistan.

But in 2004, NATO’s decision to get involved in the Afghanistan theatre was a timely and positive step. Had NATO decided against getting involved in Afghanistan, the situation would definitely have developed differently, towards a negative direction in which Afghanistan would have suffered from another international fatigue, and we would be in a much worse shape than we are today.

During this period, and at a time when the US’s attention was mainly focused on Iraq, NATO’s engagement made a huge difference. NATO provided not just a credible international leadership for a significant part of the military effort in Afghanistan; it also provided valuable boots on the ground, which made a practical difference in the fight against terrorism as well as Afghanistan’s stabilization. NATO soldiers won battles and stayed put against an increasingly resurgent enemy force.

The fact that, in 2005, NATO expanded to the South, and was not frightened away by the rather unexpected spike in violence, is among many important success stories for NATO in Afghanistan. For example, winning the Panjwayee battle in Kandahar in September 2006 was an important success.

Apart from military presence and contribution, NATO’s involvement also brought much needed political and development capital to Afghanistan. Many countries, Norway being a notable example, matched their military presence with civilian contributions.

In short, there is no doubt about the important achievements of NATO in Afghanistan. This historical mission has been important to NATO’s evolution into an active and relevant military alliance; it has also meant a great deal to Afghanistan and the ongoing challenge there.

Norway’s engagement

As part of NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, Norway should be proud of its role, as Afghans are grateful for what Norway has done.

Norway’s role is valuable, in particular, because of the leadership it has taken on the issue of balancing military and civilian efforts. This provides a useful direction that many other nations are yet to follow.

NATO’s limitations in Afghanistan

Despite these successes, the reality remains that NATO’s mission in Afghanistan today is far from successful. While terrorism remains resurgent, and Afghanistan’s stability illusive, there is no clear sign that the international military effort will succeed unless it is improved in a significant way.

Many of the challenges facing NATO’s Afghanistan mission are connected to NATO’s own capabilities, and the extent to which there is clarity of purpose within NATO. Firstly, the Afghanistan mission is not just the first deployment of its kind outside of Europe; it is in fact the first time NATO has had to fight against an existential threat to the collective security of its members.

It is not easy for NATO, or any other military alliance for that matter, to mobilize forces for such a deployment, so far away, unless there is a serious sense of purpose or urgency in the matter. Regrettably, that clarity of purpose and the sense of urgency have not existed within NATO’s mission in Afghanistan.

Second, another problem that has plagued NATO’s mission is the fragmented nature of the mission, at all levels. From the operational and geographical caveats within Afghanistan, to the huge differences of attitude and policy in Brussels or in individual capitals, NATO’s mission has not enjoyed structural or ideological coherence.

Some NATO member nations have found it difficult to accept that their engagement within NATO in Afghanistan is in fact part of the fight against terrorism. There is no clear definition of the mission; some call it stabilization mission and insist on its separation from fighting terrorism. While terrorism is clearly the most obvious threat to Afghanistan’s stability, it is not clear how can such distinctions be sustained.

Connected with the above two challenges is the third challenge which is about generating and sustaining public support within NATO member countries for the mission in Afghanistan. Particularly, in countries that have sustained high level of casualties in the fight, it has been a significant challenge.

I must say that continued commitment and dedication of some NATO members who have remained steadfast despite suffering very high losses of lives in the war is truly inspirational. We in Afghanistan are very grateful for the sacrifices they have offered and honour those sacrifices.

The fourth limitation that has kept NATO’s mission in Afghanistan less than optimal has been the so called ‘Atlantic-divide’. The United States is the largest and most active country in the alliance, but the Republican leadership in the US has faced difficulty in rallying European allies behind this mission.

The perception that the intervention in Afghanistan was an ‘American war’, which was quite prevalent in some parts of Europe, has been seen as a factor behind the reluctance of some countries to send forces, particularly to the southern areas of Afghanistan.

Obviously this perception is not valid. In any case, it would seem that the advent of the Obama Administration in Washington would change that situation. It remains to be seen in what ways do some major NATO members in Europe respond to the new American administration.

Above all, the most important limitation that has affected NATO’s role in Afghanistan is the use of public diplomacy and communication as a strategy. The question in people’s mind is: Is NATO able to wage this war? NATO should not, under any circumstances, say it is not. Unfortunately, mixed messages are abundant and this has had a negative impact on the conflict, and has portrayed NATO as a weak player in the war.

NATO’s communication needs to be strategic. I am glad that steps towards this are finally being taken.

The broader challenges that remain in Afghanistan

Beyond and above the limitations that NATO has had to deal with, the situation in Afghanistan has continued to be challenging. Terrorism, as an important factor of instability, has remained strong, growing rapidly across the wider region, including Pakistan and India.

The regional dimension is important. In addition to the military mission, NATO should be in a position to address the wider regional dimension through diplomacy and other means.

On this front, a new, stronger dialogue has now been established between Afghanistan and its neighbors, particularly Pakistan. With the changes in Pakistan over the past year or so, notably the arrival of the civilian government, the dynamics of the region have changed, and there is now an improved level of dialogue and diplomacy.

The most important challenge, which lies at the heart of the whole mission is the goal of Afghanistan’s democratization and the building of Afghanistan’s state institutions. To be sure, Afghanistan did not want the international intervention in the aftermath of 2001 to be purely a military, anti-terror intervention. Afghanistan wanted the world’s help with state-building and the transition to democracy.

As an alliance based on principles of freedom and democracy, NATO has a major role here. One should not forget that NATO is the only military alliance which is seen as an alliance of democracies. By the same measure, NATO’s mission in Afghanistan must leave Afghanistan not just secure and free of terrorism, but also with stable, effective democratic institutions.

The way forward for NATO in Afghanistan

Talking about the way forward in Afghanistan, firstly, NATO must harness and build on its strength, which is multilateralism. The main reason for unilateral interventions is the failure of multilateral ones. Now that the mission in Afghanistan has gained recognition as a multilateral effort, it must succeed as such.

Second, NATO must change the perception that it lacks clarity and unity of resolve, and that its operations are cumbersome. The perception in the Afghanistan case that the alliance was "dragged into this war by the US" may or may not be true, it is definitely unhelpful. NATO should be bold enough to say "we are here to defeat terrorism because it is a threat to over collective security and a threat to what we together believe in."

The rich resources of the alliance should be used to its full potential, and NATO should work to improve its procedures for effective deployment of forces in places that are new and far away.

NATO must definitely focus more on its communications strategy. Lets not forget that in the twenty-first-century, wars are as much about perception as about reality. We must not lose the war of perceptions.

NATO must also seize the opportunity offered by the incoming administration of President-Elect Obama to mend the so-called Atlantic divide.

And finally, with particular relevance to today’s security situation in Afghanistan, NATO must improve the military deployment and the coherence of its operations. Remember that number of troops is not usually the problem, but how they are used is crucial.

NATO’s new strategic concept

Having said all the above, I am now going to suggest something that is beyond my remit as Afghanistan’s ambassador. However, as an individual living in the twenty-first-century, I suppose I am entitled to have a view about such an important issue as NATO’s future.

I think, when establishing a new strategic concept, it is a good opportunity for NATO to think big. Let us not forget that NATO is, above all, an alliance of ideals. NATO’s continued attachment to geography as a factor of alliance is becoming an unsustainable limitation.

For NATO to achieve its true potential in today’s world, it must de-territorialize the alliance. It must break out of geography and rather try to really become a global alliance which is based on values and ideals.

Practically speaking, NATO should expand vigorously to include states far away from the Atlantic neighbourhood; states such as Japan, Australia, Malaysia and India. These states share much of the ideals that underpin NATO, and geography seems to be the only reason why these states are not members.

I am not suggesting that NATO should be a world police, but it could well become a world stability force. If any international body could do this, than NATO is the candidate.

This may be a bold and unrealistic suggestion, but it is the only way I can imagine NATO remaining relevant in this new century.