Moscow - The Hague, then Kabul

Russia is ready to help America with military transit to Afghanistan

The Moscow conference on Afghanistan, organized on March 27 under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), was a success in all respects. It was a success both with the speeches of all its participants, fine-tuned to the precision of a clockwork mechanism, none of whom went beyond the allotted regulations and, moreover, did not undermine the atmosphere of cooperation that reigned in the hall of the President Hotel with their statements, and with the summed up results of the conference in the form of three documents. The same ones that the Vremya Novostey newspaper wrote about - the conference declaration, the statement of the SCO member states and Afghanistan, as well as the action plan of the SCO members and Afghanistan were adopted.

The only thing that somehow confused the favorable attitude towards such a successful outcome of the meeting was the absence of one of the full members of the SCO - Uzbekistan - among its participants. As diplomats say, Tashkent did not even “signify the flag,” that is, did not send any of its representatives to participate in the conference, the level of which was determined by the heads of the Foreign Ministry or other high-ranking diplomats. This circumstance, according to the testimony of some Western participants in the event, with whom the VN correspondent had to communicate on the sidelines, made a shocking impression on them. “How can we talk about real cooperation in the region around Afghanistan if one of its key neighboring countries so blatantly ignores the efforts of so many states and organizations gathered in Moscow?” - lamented a diplomat from one of the G8 member countries.

Russian diplomats, for a well-known reason - Tashkent is still considered a close ally - tried to be less categorical. Their assessments ranged from the quite moderate “nothing, we cooperate with the Uzbeks on a bilateral basis, including on Afghanistan” to the ironic “the detachment did not notice the loss of a fighter.” There were also those who dared to make harsher remarks: they say, they should have thought earlier when they admitted Uzbekistan to the SCO, because then it was already predicted that, having entered the SCO, Tashkent would bring with it its problems in relations with its neighbors.

Let us recall that it was the accession of Tashkent in 2001 to the “Shanghai Five”, a structure that emerged from the negotiation process on the demarcation of the border between China and the post-Soviet countries - Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which became the reason for the transformation of the “Five” into the Shanghai organization. Uzbekistan does not have a common border with China. However, the interests of ensuring security in the region, as was then believed in the capitals of the Shanghai Five, require joint action with Uzbekistan. It seems that Tashkent, as always, has its own “special opinion” on this matter.

However, it would be a mistake to think that the “Uzbek problem” worried all observers and participants of the “Afghan” conference so much. Much more interest was aroused by the statement of a “high-ranking representative of the American administration” about the proposal allegedly made by Bishkek to Washington to continue negotiations on the Manas airbase. You should have seen with what excitement the journalists, who were bored in the lobby of the President Hotel before this news appeared on news agencies, rushed “in the hunt” for the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan, Kadyrbek Sarbayev, who was here. For the first time representing his country at such a high level, one could only sympathize with Mr. Sarbaev. “I don’t know anything, since I’ve been in Moscow for two days,” answered the minister, taken by surprise, to the press pressing on him.

The answer from Bishkek looked somewhat more definite. “As far as I know, there was no such initiative on the part of the leadership of Kyrgyzstan,” RIA Novosti quoted Kyrgyz Security Council Secretary Adakhan Madumarov as saying. And the press service of the President of Kyrgyzstan immediately confirmed that Bishkek is not going to reconsider the decision to withdraw American troops from the Manas air base.

In fact, this surge in information activity, which occupied the top positions of world news agencies, resembled a storm in a teacup. As we found out, an anonymous representative of the American administration, answering a question about the fate of the Manas base, did not say anything new. He only recalled the statement made by the Kyrgyz leadership in early March that “the doors are open for negotiations,” and made it clear that Washington is also ready for such negotiations. “The story is not over there yet,” he noted, and in response to the question of whether a new agreement on the base was possible, the American representative answered briefly and affirmatively.

However, on the tapes of some Russian agencies, the translation of these words sounded as if Bishkek had already made some specific proposal to Washington. Which, apparently, is not true. And the Russian leadership should have known about this, with whose representatives the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan met literally the day before, discussing the progress of implementation of the Russian-Kyrgyz agreements signed during President Bakiyev’s February visit to Moscow...

Much more interesting was the answer of an American anonymous person to a journalist’s question about the possibility of Russian military participation in operations in Afghanistan. Firstly, we know nothing about such proposals from Moscow, he said. And secondly, we do not encourage the Russians to do this.

These stories partly diverted the attention of the press from attempts to discover traces of the main intrigue that accompanied the Moscow conference - the possibility of contacts between representatives of Iran and the United States. No evidence was found that such contacts took place within the President Hotel. When communicating with the press, Iranian diplomats gracefully avoided this topic. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Akhundzadeh, instead interested journalists in the new paradigm that the 21st century brings - it will be the “century of Asian peoples” and the world will have to listen to their opinion. Mr. Akhundzade assessed the conference positively, since its successful holding testifies to the rapprochement of the countries of the region. “At the same time, it is a mistake to believe that the solution to Afghan problems can be found outside of Afghanistan,” the diplomat noted, saying that the military presence of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan is causing concern to neighboring countries, since during this time drug production there has sharply increased. “The presence of the West has brought nothing to the Afghan people, so Afghans have the right to demand the withdrawal of foreign troops from their country.”

It is curious that Iran was the only country whose representative insisted on making changes to the text of the final Declaration, which was adopted by consensus. The Iranians did not like the reference to the so-called Paris Drug Initiative, adopted in 2003 and confirmed in Moscow in 2006.

“The conference is very important for us,” Ghulam Ghairat, director of the Institute of Diplomacy in Kabul, shared his sentiments with VN. “It’s wonderful that the world is ready to help us.” But, unfortunately, little is changing inside Afghanistan itself.” It is clear that many conference participants were clearly concerned about the holding of presidential and local elections in Afghanistan in August. The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran recalled this, warning against foreign interference in the elections. Tehran is apparently ready to support the candidacy of the current President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, since “he is committed to the national traditions of his country,” one of the Iranian diplomats noted to VN.

We are concerned about a possible power vacuum during the Afghan elections and in Moscow. “This cannot be allowed,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Borodavkin, summing up the conference. He also warned against violating the UN-imposed sanctions regime against Taliban leaders, noting that “the sanctions regime cannot be replaced by deals with terrorist leaders.”

Washington declares a similar position today. "I want the American people to understand our clear goal - to destroy al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and prevent its spread to other countries," US President Barack Obama said in announcing his new strategy in the region. “My message to the terrorists is this: we will defeat you.” He announced a decision to send an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan to add to the 17,000 that will be sent there this year to train security forces and police. Particular attention in the new strategy will be paid to Pakistan, for which the United States plans to allocate one and a half billion dollars annually.

In such a situation, Moscow, of course, has something to talk about with the West, whose representatives will gather tomorrow at another conference on Afghanistan in The Hague. There will be twice as many delegations as at the Moscow conference - 73 countries and organizations will send their representatives there. Russia will be represented by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Speaking at the Moscow President Hotel, he made it clear that Moscow does not rule out its readiness to provide transit through Russian territory for military cargo for the Western contingent in Afghanistan. The agendas of Moscow and The Hague appear to be converging.

Arkady DUBNOV