New British leader reluctantly endorses Afghanistan war

Maybe David Cameron's endorsement of the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan would have been more convincing had the British prime minister not been forced to re-route his helicopter because of threats from insurgent forces. Or maybe, just maybe, it would have been more convincing had it been an actual endorsement and not a bad facsimile of one. Cameron's remarks, delivered at a Kabul news conference with Afghani President Hamid Karzai, were apparently intended to reassure the war-ravaged country's leaders that the British were not planning to withdraw its 10,000 troops from the U.S.-NATO force fighting the Taliban. “This is the year when we have to make progress — progress for the sake of the Afghan people, but progress also on behalf of people back at home who want this to work,” Cameron said, according to the New York Times. "What we want — and in our national security interest — is to hand power over to an Afghanistan that is able to take control of its own security." Well, sure, but that's hardly the same thing as saying that Britain, like the United States, is committed to supporting NATO forces battling the Taliban until the government in Kabul is strong enough, and trustworthy enough, to stand on its own. The fact that Cameron left that part out is what's noteworthy. He didn't say it because Britain apparently doesn't think about Afghanistan in those terms. The British are fulfilling the commitment former British Prime Minister Tony Blair must have made to former U.S. President George Bush, but that's it. England is pulling out of the international force next year, success or failure notwithstanding. That probably doesn't come as news to current U.S. President Barack Obama, who recently increased the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and who probably talks honestly with whomever lives at 10 Downing St., but may be a source of consternation for the soldiers who are doing the actual fighting and risking their actual lives. Then again, Cameron's trip to a military base in Afghanistan's Helmand Province had to be called off because of intelligence reports of threats against his helicopter. Maybe Western leaders, U.S. officials included, will eventually have the good sense to be embarrassed about having to sneak in and out of countries being occupied at a cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives -- for the benefit, of course, of the people who already lived there long before Western soldiers arrived.

Dutch government collapses over Afghanistan commitment

Does Saturday's collapse of the ruling coalition in the Netherlands signal the beginning of the end of NATO's military role in Afghanistan? From Amsterdam comes reports that the minority Labor Party has left Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's coalition after days of talks about extending the mission of the 2,000 Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province. Labor balked at Balkenende's demand that partners in the Christian Democratic Alliance-led coalition approve a two-year extension of the troops' mission, which is scheduled to end in August, according to the Cable News Network (CNN). "There is no longer a fruitful path" for the three-year-old coalition," Balkenende said. Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos, the Labor leader, said the three-party alliance was no longer sustainable, CNN said. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen requested the extension earlier this month, CNN said. The Dutch forces' mission was last extended in 2007. Balkenende, who has been prime minister since 2002, said Saturday that he would submit the resignations of the 25 cabinet members to Queen Beatrix later today, meaning new election could be held as early as June. But if the war in Afghanistan is as unpopular in countries across the NATO alliance as it is in the Netherlands, and it appears to be, NATO's commitment to the U.S.-led mission there could soon be curtailed or terminated.

How does diplomacy make sense when dealing with Taliban?

News that Turkey plans to bring Afghanistan's often warring neighbors together at an international conference raises some interesting questions, but not all of them are good ones. While it seems like things can only get better in the region if the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan talk, their reported plans to invite Taliban leaders to join them is a sad miscalculation. Who can forget the Taliban's misogynistic misrule of Afghanistan from 1996-2001, their destruction of ancient statues of Buddha and their decision to protect Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader blamed by the United States for planning the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.? Who in their right mind would expect them to bring anything positive to negotiations? Well, Turkey, for starters. NATO's only Islamic nation has been actively engaged in behind-the-scenes talks to get Afghanistan, Pakistan and Taliban insurgents together in the week before a planned international conference on the future of Afghanistan in London, according to the Reuters international news service. "The Turks are playing a behind-the-scenes role patching up relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan," an unnamed official told Reuters. "The Turks are among those working on negotiations with the Taliban. There's a lot happening behind the scenes that people don't know about." Turkey has unique ties to both countries since the days of the Ottoman Empire, Reuters said. Afghanistan's discredited president, U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai, is said to be a major source behind trying to open negotiations with the Taliban. But the military defeat of the Taliban's ruthless government in 2001 is the very reason Karzai was elected in Afghanistan, and the reason why Western nations still support him despite a questionable re-election in November. And fighting a resurgent Taliban is why U.S. President Barack Obama announced in December that 30,000 additional troops would be sent there. Moves toward negotiations with the Taliban under these conditions do not make any sense.

Kosovo conducts first election as independent nation

Low turnout by European standards failed to dim the excitement among government leaders in Pristina on Sunday as voters in Kosovo went to the polls for its first local election since declaring itself independent from Serbia last year. "Today we are showing that our country and its citizens have deserved independence, democracy and the European Union perspective," Prime Minister Hashim Thaci exulted after the vote, according to the Reuters international news service. Forty-five percent of Kosovo's 1.5 million voters turned out for the balloting, in which the population chose mayors and councilmembers in the new country's 36 municipalities. Winners will not be determined until runoff elections next month. Some analysts blamed the low turnout on frustration over the country's sluggish economy and 40 percent unemployment rate, Reuters said. "The faith is lost in Kosovo because of high corruption among the political parties," said Halil Matoshi, a local analyst. "People that vote today are mainly party militants." That's certainly possible, but it's a little hard to believe that the population of a brand new country that fought so hard to be independent would be jaded by politics. The turnout also was impacted by Serbian calls for a boycott by voters of Serbian descent, who make up seven percent of Kosovo's population. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, nine years after NATO bombers drove Serbian forces from the then-province to stop the killing of ethnic Albanians, who make up 88 percent of the population. Kosovo's independence has only been recognized by 63 countries, primarily Western nations, including the United States. Serbia and Russia have refused to recognize the new country. Kosovo is the poorest country in Europe, with a per capita income of $2,300 annually, according to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

From Russia with love?

Was Russian President Dmitiri Medvedev sending a peace message to Washington as one of his top diplomats threatened economic sanctions against companies that sell weapons to Georgia? In a television interview broadcast Sunday, after U.S. President Joe Biden's visit to former Soviet republics Georgia and Ukraine, Medvedev referred to both states as independent "countries," according to the New York Times, even though Russia has vociferously opposed their efforts to join the Western alliance. Medvedev acknowledged his country's desire for "normal, working, friendly relations with the United States -- mutually beneficial relations" in the interview with Russian television station NTV, the Times said. On Friday, just as Biden returned from a visit to Georgia and Ukraine, Dmitri Rogozin, Russia's envoy to NATO, said Medvedev had decreed that sanctions would be imposed on any company that helped the two former Soviet republics rebuild their military arsenals. Georgia's armed forces were routed last year in a brief war with Russia over two provinces that broke away from Tblisi. Many observers speculated at the time that Russia's anger over the two country's bids for NATO membership was actually the reason for the war. Of course, Biden did not specifically promise military aid, even though such an arrangement would seem logical, but assured Georgia and Ukraine that the United States would not abandon them if it got friendlier with Russia, the Times said. Adding to the drama, a U.S. State Department spokesman said Thursday that the United States was committed to upgrading the Georgian military to NATO standards, the Times said. So it seems that Medvedev was trying to defuse the obvious friction when he told NTV that better relations between Russia and the United States would not cause "deterioration of our ties with other countries or of U.S. relations with some other countries, including Ukraine and Georgia.” Then again, Medvedev did not explain why Moscow has not withdrawn its troops from Georgian territory as required by the accord that ended last year's war.

NATO agreement with Russia is a glass half-full

It's not exactly bad news that NATO and Russia have agreed to resume military cooperation in the aftermath of the suspension that followed Moscow's unfortunate war with Georgia last year. But it certainly can't be called good news, either. "The NATO-Russia Council is up and running again also at the political level," NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a meeting of ministers Saturday in Corfu, Greece, according to Cable News Network (CNN). Russa is not a member of NATO but consults with the alliance and takes part in its international activities through the council, which was formed in 1982, CNN said. Of course it's important to keep a military power like Russia engaged in world diplomacy, but the Georgia crisis is far from resolved, at least as far as Western nations are concerned. Russia intervened military and humiliated the Georgian armed forces in a 5-day war last August after Georgia sent its military to try to prevent the secession of its South Ossetia and Ahzbakia provinces. Russia declined to attend last year's meeting and was suspended from the council, presumably to punish Moscow for extending immediate diplomatic recognition to the two provinces as independent countries and for not withdrawing its troops from Georgia as provided in last year's ceasefire accord. Well, it's nearly a year later and the situation remains the same. Russian troops still occupy South Ossetia and Ahzbakia, only now ostensibly to protect their soveriegnty, and Nicaragua is the only other country in the world to recognize them as independent states. It is counterproductive to pretend, as NATO has, that everything is back to normal. Scheffer said at the Corfu meeting that NATO-Russia cooperation on "common security interests" -- such as Afghanistan, arms control and fighing drug trafficking, terrorism and piracy -- was more important than the disagreement over Georgia. NATO ministers "are in the process of examining the current institutional structure of the NATO-Russia Council and have agreed to make it a more efficient and valuable instrument for our political dialogue and practical cooperation," Scheffer said. Tell that to our friends in Tblisi, the Georgian capital. And tell that to any other countries considering joining the Western alliance. Georgia's application to join NATO is said to have provoked Russia into launching last year's attack.

Sacre bleu! France threatens to storm out of G20 summit

That France. Just when we thought Paris had returned wholeheartedly to the family of Western nations by resuming full membership in NATO, French President Nicolas Sarkozy threatened to walk out of the G20 economic summit in London if he didn't get the toughened financial regulation his country was seeking. "I want results. We have to get results, there's no choice -- the crisis is too serious to allow us to have a summit for nothing," Sarkozy said, according to the Reuters international news service. French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde later echoed Sarkozy's remarks, saying Paris would not sign any accord it didn't like, despite Britain's call for unity. "(Sarkozy) was very clear on that front," Lagarde said. "He said if the deliverables are not there, I won't sign the communique -- that means walking away." But British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the summit's host, said he had spoken personally with Sarkozy on Monday and they were looking forward to working together, Reuters said. Actually, it wasn't just France. The United States and Britain have been divided from other countries in continental Europe on the size of stimulus and regulation packages. European nations have been pushing for overhauls of world financial regulations over the objections of the U.S. and the British, which favor stimulus packages.