U.K. puts plan to send more troops on hold

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, NOV. 26. After days of confusion, plans to send more British troops to Afghanistan are reported to have been put on hold following the Northern Alliance's continued opposition to the deployment of foreign soldiers without its consent, and little support from Washington for Britain's view that a ``stabilisation'' force to pursue humanitarian aims is needed to supplement the military agenda.

The official spin, however, was that the situation on the ground had improved and additional troops were not needed. ``The situation is better than anybody would have hoped for,'' Mr Robin Cook, Leader of the Commons and former Foreign Secretary, said adding that while the situation would be kept under review he did not think there would be a need to send more British troops.

The move came as the Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair's special adviser on Afghanistan, Mr. Paul Bergne, warned against sending forces to the region without an agreement with the Northern Alliance. ``The idea of us sending masses of troops in uninvited is not acceptable,'' he told The Times. He said a high-profile military presence on the ground would be a ``mistake'' and the Government must move ``very carefully'', though he indicated that ``some sort of force'' was likely to be acceptable. The issue has dominated the headlines ever since 100 British commandos landed at the Bagram airbase about a fortnight ago to ``secure'' it for humanitarian efforts and were greeted with open hostility by the local Alliance commanders who made clear that Afghans were perfectly capable of looking after their own affairs. Despite attempts to defuse the tension and the intervention of pro- Western figures such as the ``Foreign Minister'', Mr. Abdullah Abdullah, the stand-off has continued; and meanwhile, 6,000 troops who were to have followed the commandos remain on stand-by but in the light of Mr. Cook's statement it is highly unlikely that they would be sent.

The controversy hotted up last week as it became apparent that Washington shared the Northern Alliance's reluctance to ``host'' foreign troops, and a senior British Cabinet Minister accused the U.S. of neglecting the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. There has been a spate of reports suggesting Britain's impatience with the U.S. approach which, it is stated, is focussed solely on hunting down Osama bin Laden and ignores the political and humanitarian aspects. Downing Street has repeatedly denied differences with Washington but few are convinced.

Mr. Bergne, who has returned after exhaustive talks with the Alliance leaders, highlighted the huge effort that would be required to ``rebuild'' Afghanistan, echoing Britain's emphasis on ``nation-building'' as opposed to Washington's perceived obsession with military aims. In an interview with The Times he likened the devastation in Afghanistan to the situation in Germany in 1945, and said it would need billions to rebuild the country. Politically, he was hopeful that the Alliance would hold together despite factional rivalries. He also believed that the Alliance was willing to make concessions in the run-up to government formation.

Meanwhile, the Alliance Interior Minister, Mr. Younus Qanouni who is leading a delegation to the Bonn meeting told The Daily Telegraph that progress at the talks was unlikely in the absence of a clear Pathan leadership. ``We are hoping that the Bonn meeting will lead to a transitional government and a transfer of power, but everyone must be aware that the Pathans don't have clear leaders at the moment, so it will be difficult to come to definite conclusions,'' he said suggesting a second round of talks in Kabul. Observers said his statement would ``anger'' supporters of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah who regarded themselves as Pathan representatives.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : Political, religious leaders voice protest
Next     : A taste of hell for a few hours