Who has actually invited Colombia, Slovenia and Georgia to send troops to Afghanistan?
KABUL, 10 August 2008 - The Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in Beijing to watch the openings of the Olympic Games on 7 August when Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, announced his interest to send troops to Afghanistan to fight against Taliban insurgents and eradicate poppy fields. Mr. Karzai and his usual travel jamboree had only spent two days in Kabul to recuperate after visits to India and Sri Lanka before heading to China.
In addition to 26 NATO-member nations that have stationed thousands of soldiers and military personnel in Afghanistan some 14 non-NATO-member countries have also been engaged in military activities in the war-ravaged Afghanistan ostensibly to back the USA’s War on Terror.
Georgia – which proved to be unable to defend its own territory – and Slovenia – a country of 2 million people – have also said they will join the open-to-all international military mission in Afghanistan in 2008.
India has reportedly rejected Washington’s perpetual requests to send troops to Afghanistan.
Don’t mix the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and the NATO-led ISAF (this one is also led by the USA) with too many Gurkhas, South Africans and the citizens of other countries who have been working as “private mercenaries” for dozens of private security firms all over Afghanistan.
The NATO-ISAF, the US-led OEF and the private mercenaries that have established strong military presence in Afghanistan over the past seven years have distrinct mandates and thus responsible for different operations. However it is unclear exactly how many armed non-Afghans are operating in Afghanistan.
Mr. Karzai inked a “strategic partnership” with US President George W. Bush in 2005 which gives the US unlimited latitude for military, strategic and political involvement in Afghanistan. The NATO-ISAF mission is sanctioned by the UN Security Council. The private mercenaries are apparently operating according to the “free market” rationale and are ostensibly complying with “Afghan rules”.
Unsurprisingly President Karzai was (and probably is still) unaware of Colombia, Slovenia and Georgia’s readiness to send troops to his country.
Ironically when I asked a member of parliament in Kabul about Colombia’s willingness to send troops to Afghanistan he mistook the South American country with Sri Lankan capital Colombo and said: “We don’t need Sri Lankan soldiers”!!
While the Afghan President, the Afghan National Assembly and the Afghan people are unaware of countries like Colombia, Slovenia and Georgia that want to send troops to Afghanistan, for whatever legitimate purpose they may present, I wonder who actually authorizes their presence, under what mandate and by whom??? Should a national of any of the aforementioned countries commit a crime in Afghan territory and against an Afghan citizens what rules will apply and who will ensure the rule of law??
I am not presenting a classic definition of state sovereignty in case of Afghanistan. I just want to know whether post-9/11 international interventionalism has any legal, ethical or political boundaries which can apply to Afghanistan.
Is Afghanistan an open-to-all international military mission where all countries are most welcome and free to fight against “terrorists” and Taliban insurgents?
[ENDS]
KABUL, 10 August 2008 - The Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in Beijing to watch the openings of the Olympic Games on 7 August when Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, announced his interest to send troops to Afghanistan to fight against Taliban insurgents and eradicate poppy fields. Mr. Karzai and his usual travel jamboree had only spent two days in Kabul to recuperate after visits to India and Sri Lanka before heading to China.
In addition to 26 NATO-member nations that have stationed thousands of soldiers and military personnel in Afghanistan some 14 non-NATO-member countries have also been engaged in military activities in the war-ravaged Afghanistan ostensibly to back the USA’s War on Terror.
Georgia – which proved to be unable to defend its own territory – and Slovenia – a country of 2 million people – have also said they will join the open-to-all international military mission in Afghanistan in 2008.
India has reportedly rejected Washington’s perpetual requests to send troops to Afghanistan.
Don’t mix the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and the NATO-led ISAF (this one is also led by the USA) with too many Gurkhas, South Africans and the citizens of other countries who have been working as “private mercenaries” for dozens of private security firms all over Afghanistan.
The NATO-ISAF, the US-led OEF and the private mercenaries that have established strong military presence in Afghanistan over the past seven years have distrinct mandates and thus responsible for different operations. However it is unclear exactly how many armed non-Afghans are operating in Afghanistan.
Mr. Karzai inked a “strategic partnership” with US President George W. Bush in 2005 which gives the US unlimited latitude for military, strategic and political involvement in Afghanistan. The NATO-ISAF mission is sanctioned by the UN Security Council. The private mercenaries are apparently operating according to the “free market” rationale and are ostensibly complying with “Afghan rules”.
Unsurprisingly President Karzai was (and probably is still) unaware of Colombia, Slovenia and Georgia’s readiness to send troops to his country.
Ironically when I asked a member of parliament in Kabul about Colombia’s willingness to send troops to Afghanistan he mistook the South American country with Sri Lankan capital Colombo and said: “We don’t need Sri Lankan soldiers”!!
While the Afghan President, the Afghan National Assembly and the Afghan people are unaware of countries like Colombia, Slovenia and Georgia that want to send troops to Afghanistan, for whatever legitimate purpose they may present, I wonder who actually authorizes their presence, under what mandate and by whom??? Should a national of any of the aforementioned countries commit a crime in Afghan territory and against an Afghan citizens what rules will apply and who will ensure the rule of law??
I am not presenting a classic definition of state sovereignty in case of Afghanistan. I just want to know whether post-9/11 international interventionalism has any legal, ethical or political boundaries which can apply to Afghanistan.
Is Afghanistan an open-to-all international military mission where all countries are most welcome and free to fight against “terrorists” and Taliban insurgents?
[ENDS]
1 comment:
Hi Akmal, it is great to see you writing a blog. Keep it up man. At least a person like me can educate himself about Afghan issues through your writing. take care..majid
Post a Comment