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