|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, November 21, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Magazine New |
Metro Plus New |
Open Page New |
Education New |
Book Review New |
Business New |
SciTech New |
Entertainment New |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Obituary |
Index |
Home |
|
International
| Previous
| Next
Rift between U.S., U.K. widens
By Hasan Suroor
LONDON, NOV. 20. The ``shoulder-to-shoulder'' diplomacy of the
United States and Britain, which has been through several ups and
downs in recent weeks, is reported to be under strain again -
this time over the deployment of troops in Afghanistan for peace-
keeping and humanitarian purposes as part of Britain's commitment
to ``nation-building'' in the war-ravaged region.
The British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, however, said he
was ``bemused'' by reports of a rift.
Despite official denials, the British media today stuck to the
story of a ``growing rift'' and ``tension'' between London and
Washington on the issue with unnamed defence sources being widely
quoted as saying that the U.S. priority was focussed entirely on
hunting down Osama bin Laden whereas Britain was also concerned
about peace-keeping and ``stabilisation''.
They blamed the stand-off on sending additional British troops to
Afghanistan more on lack of U.S. enthusiasm than on objections
from the Northern Alliance. The despatch of 6,000 British troops
has been delayed following strong protests from Alliance
commanders who said they did not need foreign forces on Afghan
soil.
The Times, however, said the impasse had ``more to do with
Washington than Kabul'' and, quoting sources, added: ``If the
Americans had thrown their full weight behind forming a
stabilisation force, the present problems could have been
resolved more quickly. One source said it's desperately
frustrating and it's also very awkward. The U.S. is focused on
going after bin Laden and is far less inclined to engage in
longer-term stabilisation.''
Commentators pointed out that Washington did not want to get
bogged in a ``messy'' peace-keeping operation, and would like to
get out of Afghanistan as soon as its military objectives were
achieved. The Daily Telegraph said Pentagon was also concerned
about Muslim sensitivities over the presence of foreign troops on
their soil, citing the anti-U.S. sentiment provoked by the
presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. ``The Pentagon....points
out that the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia has been
used as a rallying cry by Osama bin Laden, so stationing them in
Afghanistan would not be helpful in maintaining the support of
allies such as Pakistan,'' the newspaper said.
The Independent, calling it a ``dangerous rift'', said Pentagon
saw it as a ``U.S. show'' and didn't want outside interference.
``The State Department appears to be pushing its own agenda in
Afghanistan and there is certainly a feeling among both American
servicemen and officials on the ground that they do not want to
see large numbers of British troops there,'' a military source
told the paper, recalling the U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary, Mr.
Paul Wolfowitz's view that ``one of the lessons of Afghan history
we've tried to apply is, if you're a foreigner, try not to go in;
if you do go in, don't stay too long, because they don't tend to
like foreigners who stay too long.''
Downing Street, however, denied any differences with Washington
even as reports suggested that the deployment of British troops
might take longer than originally envisaged and their number
could be smaller. According to The Guardian, British officials in
Kabul made it clear that the Northern Alliance would not have a
``veto'' on the presence of foreign troops once the political
decision to send them was taken. ``They (the Alliance) are
clearly an important element, but as has been clear, they are not
the next government,'' it was told.
Meanwhile, Mrs Cherie Blair, wife of the Prime Minister, joined
the U.S. First Lady, Mrs Laura Bush, in condemning the Taliban's
treatment of women and, using identical language, expressed
horror at the idea of being forced to wear the ``oppressive''
veil and not being allowed even to use nail polish. ``Nothing
more symbolises the oppression of women than burka, which is a
very visible sign of the role of women in Afghanistan....(and) if
you wear nail polish you can have your nails torn out,'' Mrs
Blair said on Monday after meeting a group of Afghan women
refugees.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : International Previous : Pak. denies U.S. sought extradition Next : Russia seeks key role in Afghanistan | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Magazine New |
Metro Plus New |
Open Page New |
Education New |
Book Review New |
Business New |
SciTech New |
Entertainment New |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Obituary |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyright © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|