Can London deliver us from the Taliban?

This week the countries bogged down in Afghanistan meet in London to set new goals for their international mission and Hamad Karzai's government. But against a growing Taliban insurgency and runaway corruption, can talk deliver tangibles?

The end of this week will see yet another international conference that has about as much chance of achieving peace in Afghanistan as Copenhagen had with delivering consensus on climate change.

The International Conference on Afghanistan opens in London on Thursday amidst a number of consistently worrying scenarios, not the least the endemic corruption within the government that NATO, donors and neighbouring countries want desperately to step up to the plate and start actually governing.

A few days ago Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband was hyping the goals as spurring Hamad Karzai’s government on to take more responsibility for security. After eight years of war that’s not such a ridiculous idea, were it applicable to any other war torn nation, or any other government that is.

As the situation stands, Karzai still can’t even get his Cabinet approved and appointed, and yet he’s planning to go to London with his begging bowl out hoping to collect about $1 billion more for his next scheme – buying off mid and low level Taliban.

If that cunning plan sounds familiar it’s because the world has heard it all before.

Two years ago the Saudi King came up with the idea of making a deal with the Taliban. He was rebuffed, but given die-hard Taliban and al-Qaeda consider Saudi Arabia’s hosting of US forces on its soil as tantamount to being in cohorts with the evil American empire, a snub was really no surprise.

Then mid way through last year Miliband raised the idea again. Apparently the Taliban was after all thirsty for blood, not tea, and has since stepped up the ferocity of its attacks making 2009 the bloodiest of all for foreign forces.

Perhaps the problem is that the Taliban doesn’t actually want peace and, as the saying goes, America may have all the watches, but the Taliban has all the time. Mullah Omar may indeed believe he is winning this war and sees no need to cease. In other words, if the Taliban feels committed to destroying the village to ‘save’ it, participants in this week’s London conference are in for a frustrating time.

Karzai may well collect a pool of money to start paying the Taliban’s own cannon-fodder better wages than Omar forks out, but in so doing all donors are taking a huge leap of faith against just that – faith – which is notoriously inexplicable and not always up for sale.

In war all are on the side of their God – otherwise why would the makers of certain guns used by the New Zealand SAS and others inscribe them with passages from the bible which serve to reinforce the belief held by many Muslim groups that they are being subjected to a crusade against Islam?

In last week’s New York Times an op-ed piece from Karl Inderfurth and Chinmaya Gharekhan concluded that what Afghanistan needs is a “surge of diplomacy”, meaning a regional solution to the problem. No matter how unpalatable for some that would involve engaging Pakistan, Iran, China, India and Russia.

Already bearing the brunt of extremism and terrorism these neighbours have high stakes in the outcome of this war. The Times suggests they would be capable of assisting in returning Afghanistan to its “traditional policy of neutrality…taking if off the board for future Great Game rivalries”. If Afghanistan blows up, they will be the first to feel the consequences, but if the 2001 Bonn Agreement was taken seriously by the United Nations a quid pro quo of non-interference where Afghanistan is concerned could be a possible end to thirty years of war.

What must also be on the minds of those attending London is the impact Afghanistan is having on the NATO alliance. As Zbigniew Brzezinski noted in ‘Foreign Affairs’ the out-of-region military engagement in Afghanistan will test NATO nations’ ability to hang together in military and financial areas. The big danger to the 61 year-old institution is if some of its members see little use in continuing on at a dreadful cost in terms of lives and money and bow out. Canada for instance is determined to keep its promise and pull troops out next year, but seems to be preparing itself to announce some other form of presence after that deadline.

NATO therefore is staring at its own vulnerability and therefore its credibility. It is a scalp the Taliban would dearly love to match its other Cold War trophy, the Soviet forces.

And so to London. There is little doubt the most pressing issue before conference participants is the Taliban’s growing insurgency and the handing over of some areas of the country to Afghan control. Then there are a myriad of other concerns including an incompetent Afghan police force, widespread drug use, lack of education and the government’s suffocating dependence on foreign powers.

In favour of a renewed attitude toward Afghanistan is, at long last, a consensus that shooting your way to victory is not a viable solution, nor is turning Afghanistan into a western-style model democracy.

Unfortunately, while expectations have been ratcheted down, no politician yet seems capable of summarizing what the end goal actually is. Nor has Karzai managed to produce a realistic plan that does not involve the rest of the world being held hostage to his insatiable appetite for billions being poured into a bottomless pit – which is not so bad if you are on the take.

London needs to demand accountability and produce some very clear objectives.