G E O P O L I T I K O N

Spectacolul ideilor pe hartă

14/ian/2010 EURAST recomandă: Z. Brzezinski face analiza geopolitică a politicii externe a a primului an de mandat Obama (4/6). SUA şi capcana Afganistan & Pakistan

(În ultimul număr (ianuarie-februarie 2010 al revistei Foreign Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski (consilier de securitate al preşedinţilor SUA între 1977 şi 1981) face un bilanţ al primului an al administraţiei Barack Obama din punctul de vedere al liniilor de politică externă urmărite. Vom relua aici acest text în integralitate, în serial. Astăzi, despre capcana din Afganistan & PakistanEURAST)

***

From Hope to Audacity

Appraising Obama’s Foreign Policy (IV)

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Foreign Affairs /// January/February 2010

THE AFPAK QUAGMIRE

The third urgent and politically sensitive foreign policy issue is posed by the Afghan-Pakistani predicament. Obama has moved toward abandoning some of the more ambitious, even ideological, objectives that defined the United States’ initial engagement in Afghanistan – the creation of a modern democracy, for example. But the United States must be very careful lest its engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which still has primarily and most visibly a military dimension, comes to be viewed by the Afghans and the Pakistanis as yet another case of Western colonialism and elicits from them an increasingly militant response.

Some top U.S. generals have recently stated that the United States is not winning militarily, an appraisal that ominously suggests the conflict with the Taliban could become similar to the Soviet Union’s earlier confrontation with Afghan resistance. A comprehensive strategic reassessment has thus become urgently needed. The proposal made in September by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom for an international conference on the subject was helpful and timely; the United States was wise to welcome it. But to be effective, any new strategy has to emphasize two key elements. First, the Afghan government and NATO should seek to engage locally in a limited process of accommodation with receptive elements of the Taliban. The Taliban are not a global revolutionary or terrorist movement, and although they are a broad alliance with a rather medieval vision of what Afghanistan ought to be, they do not directly threaten the West. Moreover, they are still very much a minority phenomenon that ultimately can be defeated only by other Afghans (helped economically and militarily by the United States and its NATO allies), a fact that demands a strategy that is more political than military.

Additionally, the United States needs to develop a policy for gaining the support of Pakistan, not just in denying the Taliban a sanctuary in Pakistan but also in pressuring the Taliban in Afghanistan to accommodate. Given that many Pakistanis may prefer a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to a secular Afghanistan that leans toward Pakistan’s archrival, India, the United States needs to assuage Pakistan’s security concerns in order to gain its full cooperation in the campaign against the irreconcilable elements of the Taliban. In this regard, the support of China could be helpful, particularly considering its geopolitical stake in regional stability and its traditionally close ties with Islamabad.

It is likely that before this appraisal hits the newsstands, Obama will have announced a more comprehensive strategy for attaining a politically acceptable outcome to the ongoing conflict – and one that U.S. allies are also prepared to support. His approach so far has been deliberate. He has been careful to assess both the military and the political dimensions of the challenge and also to take into account the views of U.S. allies. Nothing would be worse for NATO than if one part of the alliance (western Europe) left the other part of the alliance (the United States) alone in Afghanistan. Such a fissure over NATO’s first campaign initially based on Article 5, the collective defense provision, would probably spell the end of the alliance.

How Obama handles these three urgent and interrelated issues – the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Iranian dilemma, and the Afghan-Pakistani conflict – will determine the United States’ global role for the foreseeable future. The consequences of a failed peace process in the Middle East, a military collision with Iran, and an intensifying military engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan all happening simultaneously could commit the United States for many years to a lonely and self-destructive conflict in a huge and volatile area. Eventually, that could spell the end of the United States’ current global preeminence.

14 ianuarie 2010 Posted by | Bibliografii, Geopolitica, Intelo, Istorie | , , , , , | Lasă un comentariu

29/dec/2009 Barack Obama, între Afganistan şi Pakistan!

(just for fun!)

by Kal, The Economist 08 oct 09

29 decembrie 2009 Posted by | caricaturi / comics, Intelo | , , , , | Lasă un comentariu

02/dec/2009 Obama: declaraţie de fond privind viitorul campaniei în Afganistan

Soluţia administraţiei Obama privind campania din Afganistan

Ieri, 1 decembrie a.c., într-un discurs programat a devoala soluţia administraţiei Obama la problemele din Afganistan, preşedintele SUA a anunţat dimensiunile de perspectivă ale „efortului american” în zonă: sporirea cu 30.000 de oameni a corpurilor armate americane şi, în speranţa unei evoluţii pozitive a campaniei, posibilitatea retragerii din zonă, după o perioadă de timp de minimum 18 luni (în iulie 2011). După ce a făcut o introducere „istorică” a dosarului afgan (începînd de la ziua fatidică de 11 septembrie 2001), precizînd că aceste eforturi din Afganistan şi Pakistan sînt „în interesul vital al Americii”, preşedintele Barack Obama a spus că trupele americane din Afganistan vor spori numeric spre 100.000 de oameni în primăvara anului 2010, iar forţele aliaţilor din NATO vor creşte de la nivelul actual (40 000 de oameni) spre 45-50 000. În context fie spus, este de aşteptat ca şi România – odată încheiate aceste alegeri prezidenţiale – să pună în discuţie o eventuală sporire a prezenţei sale în Afganistan. (Adrian Cioroianu)

*   *   *

The text of President Barack Obama’s speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point on December 1, as issued by the White House

“Good evening.  To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans:  I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.  It’s an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
 
To address these important issues, it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.  We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.  They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.  They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.  Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
 
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
 
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. (text integral)

(click pe imagine pentru o rezoluţie mai bună)

by Kal, The Economist 26 nov 09

2 decembrie 2009 Posted by | Geopolitica, Intelo, Istorie | , , , , , , | Lasă un comentariu