Slate's Bizbox
diary: A weeklong electronic journal.

James Rubin

diary
entries
12345

Updated Saturday, Oct. 20, 2001, at 1:38 PM ET

Today I attended a lunch with NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson and a number of ambassadors to Britain from key European countries like France and Germany. The discussion focused on European responses to the events of Sept. 11 and the question of Russia's future relations with Europe and the United States.

It was encouraging to see how key Europeans have stepped forward in solidarity with the United States in the war on terrorism. They spent a substantial amount of time discussing how important it is for European countries other than the United Kingdom to play a role in the military operations in Afghanistan. That is good news. It is crucial that the war on terrorism not become an Anglo-Saxon military operation.

On the subject of Russia, there was much more optimism about President Putin than I have heard previously. There seemed to be a consensus that Putin really wants to transform Russia's relations with the West by focusing less on matters of dispute like NATO's enlargement and more on cooperative steps to deal with a whole new set of problems ranging from terrorism to economics.

All of this reminded me how much geopolitical change there has been in a few short weeks. For the first time ever, Russia and China are largely supportive of an American military operation. Even during the Gulf War, the Soviet Union under Gorbachev was a meddlesome influence as it tried to negotiate some half-baked solution with Saddam Hussein. And the Chinese abstained at the U.N. Security Council and simply expressed concern over civilian casualties.

This time all the major powers are united. But I fear all this unity will collapse if the next target of military operations becomes Iraq. We might even lose the British in that scenario. Unless there is clear proof that Saddam Hussein is behind either the attacks of Sept. 11 or the anthrax attacks, I fear America will be alone if it confronts Baghdad with military power.

The bigger concern I have right now is the fact that a blueprint for the political future of Afghanistan is taking so long to emerge. The most distressing reports I have heard come from those inside Afghanistan who supported American action in the early days but are now frustrated and turning against us since no plan for a post-Taliban government has been put forward. I know that maintaining the global coalition is challenging enough for American diplomats. But the political track in Afghanistan has to be accelerated.

It strikes me that the highest priority for our diplomats right now should be working with Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—as well as the United Nations—to develop at least a political framework. I believe that most Afghans would be thrilled to see the Taliban removed from power. After all, under the Taliban, the economy collapsed, basic human rights were virtually eliminated, and women were severely oppressed. There may have been no civil war, but life was downright miserable, and prospects for the future were grim indeed. Now there is a real chance to have the international community stay focused on the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. But the people of that country need more than just humanitarian assistance. They need to know that the Taliban are not simply going to be replaced with the kind of corrupt rulers who helped cause the chaos and civil war in the mid-1990s that led to the Taliban taking over in the first place. This is a job for high-level and intense diplomacy.

In the long term, it seems to me that our success in this military operation will be judged not only by whether we destroy the al-Qaida terrorist network—which we must do. But we need to show the Arab and Muslim world by next spring that Afghanistan will be a better place than it was prior to Sept. 11. If there is some rudimentary government, if there are no more massive human rights abuses the way there were under the Taliban, if the food shortages have been minimized, and if there is a prospect for reconstruction of basic infrastructure, we will have a powerful story to tell. If not, we risk winning the war against terrorists in Afghanistan but losing the larger challenge of minimizing resentment toward America throughout the Muslim world and South Asia.

It has been an interesting week, sharing the policy issues of the day online. I want to thank all of those who offered constructive criticisms and comments in their messages. They helped me a lot.

diary
entries
12345

Updated Saturday, Oct. 20, 2001, at 1:38 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
James Rubin is a partner at Brunswick Group, a communications consultancy, and a lecturer at the London School of Economics. He served as assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
What's Fair Game?
Anne E. Kornblut | What questions would Hillary Clinton have to answer if she were in Sarah Palin's shoes?
Editorial: Disappointment '08
PLUS » Stumped: More Nonsense From McCain