worldpolicy.org

In a January 8 article for the World Policy Blog, Charles Cogan argued recently that the United States should not attempt to mediate the long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, as doing so could jeopardize America’s good relations with India and further muddle U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. On the contrary, only by accepting that India-Pakistan relations are a key part of the larger security problem can the United States end the war in Afghanistan. Thus, an active U.S. role in mediating the dispute over Kashmir and other issues dividing India and Pakistan is very much in America’s national interests.

First, tensions between India and Pakistan are hindering the latter’s efforts to aid the U.S. military in fighting militant Islamists along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Indeed, senior American military officials like Admiral Michael Mullen have pointed out that Pakistan’s need to maintain a heavy troop presence on its border with India limits the resources it can divert to fighting the Islamist insurgency elsewhere in Pakistan. These officials agree that such a presence is justified, given the history and current level of tension between the two states. While some commentators argue that the Pakistani Army is unwilling to fight extremists on its own soil, Admiral Mullen himself has suggested that casualty statistics show Pakistan to be very much engaged in the struggle against Islamist terror.

Indeed, Pakistan’s military has already suffered more casualties in its own fight against militant Islamists than has the American military in Afghanistan. Suicide bombings within Pakistan have already claimed more than 11,000 victims. Thus, the Pakistani army’s slow progress in its war against militant Islamists is due not to a lack of zeal, but rather is tied largely to its inability (because of lack of capacity) to focus exclusively on fighting terror as long as Indo-Pakistani tension persists. An easing of the tensions would likely enable Pakistan to redeploy more troops to the fight against insurgents, which would be to the benefit of American forces in Afghanistan.

Second, poor India-Pakistan relations are central to longer-term but no less serious issues that plague the daily lives of Pakistanis and contribute to the conditions that drive some of the nation’s poorest citizens into the hands of extremists.

Pakistan’s current water crisis is one case in point. While religious identity is at the core of the Kashmir dispute, water also is a root cause of the conflict. The region is the source of the main rivers flowing through much of the Indian and Pakistani Punjab (literally, “land of the five waters”) that is South Asia’s breadbasket. Antagonistic relations only encouraged India to construct the dams that, in turn, now limit the flow of water to Pakistan, threatening its agricultural heartland and creating water shortages nationwide. Of course, myopic policymakers and political horse-trading in Pakistan have only made matters worse.

But poor India-Pakistan relations remain the major contributing factor to the crisis. Far from fostering cooperation on the issue, they actually create an incentive for India to withhold water from Pakistan. The water crisis in Pakistan hurts the poorest of the poor in Pakistan—prime targets for Al-Qaeda’s recruiters. Read the rest of this entry »

Over the past few months, a public opinion firestorm has ravaged the German government as the weight of a tragic event in Afghanistan continues to press down hard on the collective conscience of the nation. The impetus for the current uproar was the bombing of two trucks in Kunduz, Afghanistan on September 4, which was ordered by German forces and resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians (estimates range from 17 to 142). Yet, what seemed to be an ugly but collateral blip on the nation’s broad foreign policy radar has turned into a veritable crisis of the first order for the lawmakers in Berlin, with the future of Germany military engagement in Afghanistan at stake. The debate could not come at a more embarrassing moment for the government.

When Germany initially committed itself to sending troops to Afghanistan, it did so wanting to be the “good guy” in the war effort—the country that would “stabilize” Afghanistan with its contingent of soldier-humanitarians while the Americans did the majority of the fighting. But now, with its soldiers both in harm’s way and inadvertently doing harm, the presence of German troops on Afghan soil has become infinitely more difficult to justify to a skeptical public at home, a majority of who now want a complete withdrawal. Moreover, there’s a growing perception within Germany that the government no longer even pulls its own strings, having recently re-committed its 4,400 troops in Afghanistan to another year of duty, while lacking a significant voice either in Washington or at NATO headquarters.

Still, the new strategy proposed by President Obama is promising for those in Germany who have a political stake in the intervention. The more hawkish voices within the German government have held that domestic security and freedom are being defended in the Hindu Kush. But this argument has gained little traction lately, especially among a populace that is now so ill-at-ease about Germany’s role in Afghanistan—a role that appears to be moving toward full-fledged participation in a war not of its own making.

Thus, it is welcome that the new American strategy is placing greater focus on the Afghan people and society. Likewise, the military components embodied in the upcoming Afghan “surge” seem to be more rational and targeted than under Bush, while the civil programs are stronger and likely to be less scatter-shot than in the past. But even with some good news coming out of Washington these days, Berlin still needs a clear humanitarian and civil society mission to bolster the legitimacy of its involvement in the conflict. Unfortunately, new signals from both the American and German governments are blurring the lines.

First, there’s the insistence on the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden, as again reiterated by General Stanley McChrystal in the halls of the U.S. Congress on December 8, 2009. But of what use is such a goal, whether as part of the broader Operation Enduring Freedom or as related to policies against Al Qaeda? This goal is profoundly unpopular in Germany, both due to the lack of a clear rationale and the echoes of President Bush’s bellicose ideology. Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. military on Friday began its first major offensive against the Taliban since President Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan on Tuesday. Operation Cobra’s Anger comprises 900 American Marines and British soldiers from Task Force Helmand, and 150 Afghan soldiers. In concert with the combat assault, a small contingent was dropped behind Taliban lines in northern Now Zad Valley—once a bustling market city of 30,000 that after years of fighting is a ghost town, home only to poppy fields—to disrupt Taliban communications and supply lines. Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier reported from Camp Leatherneck in Helmand: “Right now, the enemy is confused and disorganized. They’re fighting, but not too effectively.” Pelletier also reported that the coalition uncovered several arms caches and at least 400 pounds of explosives. Earlier on Friday, after a summit in Brussels, 25 NATO countries pledged 7,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan, which will bring the combined U.S.-NATO forces to about 150,000 by this summer. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told delegates at NATO headquarters that the coming year would “see a new momentum in this mission.” Most of the additional U.S. soldiers will be deployed to the south and east, against the insurgency’s strongholds, whereas most of the additional NATO soldiers will be deployed to the north and west to defend against Taliban incursions and to begin political and economic development. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will host a special summit on Afghanistan for all troop-contributing nations in London on January 28.

Russia and the United States failed to reach a new agreement on nuclear arms as the midnight expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) looms, but both sides say they want a new weapons reduction treaty to come into force as soon as possible. START, which is set to expire at midnight on December 4, is an arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush in 1991. It has led to the removal and destruction of about 80 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons and has also provided an important framework for verification, which will cease to formally exist when the treaty expires. But the Kremlin issued a statement on behalf of the U.S. and Russian presidents on Friday, emphasizing their “commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the START treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enter into force at the earliest possible date.” The Russian Foreign Ministry said “intensive work” on a new treaty is ongoing and that “preparations for the signing are coming to a close,” but details of a new agreement have not been finalized. Washington has expressed its determination to establish a new agreement by the end of the year, and hopes to agree on an arms reduction treaty by the time President Obama travels to Oslo next week to accept his Nobel Peace Prize.

Settlers in the West Bank rejected a personal plea from Israel’s prime minister to respect his 10-month construction freeze, vowing to defy the law and resist any attempts to enforce it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a moratorium on building new settlements in the West Bank last week, which settler leaders responded to with a civil disobedience campaign that has blocked inspectors from entering the settlements. “You have the right to demonstrate. You have the right to protest,” Netanyahu told settler leaders in a meeting on Thursday, according to a statement released by his office. “You have the right to express an opinion, but it’s unacceptable not to respect a decision that was taken by law.” He did, however, promise that building work could resume after the 10 month-freeze was lifted. The temporary and limited halt to settlement construction is designed to draw Palestinian negotiators to resume peace talks. In his meeting with the settlers, Netanyahu “stressed that this is the optimum decision for Israel at this time, if you look at the overall strategic reality,” said Mark Regev, a spokesman for the prime minister. “This is our confidence-building measure. Now it is in the Palestinians’ court. We have moved in an unprecedented manner, and it is time for them to respond.” The Palestinians contend that the new building restrictions do not go far enough, particularly because they only apply to construction in the West Bank and not to East Jerusalem, as well. But the settlers contend that the moratorium represents “the beginning of the end,” and they have scheduled a mass demonstration for next week in Jerusalem.

The dollar strengthened on Friday against both the yen and the euro after U.S. labor statistics reported that U.S. job losses in November were less than 10 percent of the expected figure. Gold, in turn, which strengthened to a record high on Thursday after rallying for weeks against expectations for a falling dollar, weakened slightly on Friday along with other metals. The dollar appears to be recovering from hitting a 14-year low against the Japanese yen last week, and is likely to continue strengthening as the United States further emerges from the recession, with job growth—and the recent less-than-expected job losses a small but encouraging sign—viewed as a principal indicator of future economic gains. Similarly, the Canadian dollar rose after Canada reported a jobs increase of 79,000, far more than expected. The stock markets responded positively to the labor markets. Upon the opening bell on Wall Street on Friday, the S&P 500, the NASDAQ composite, and the Dow Jones all hit intra-day highs for the year. Overseas, London’s FTSE 100 rose 1 percent and the FTSE Eurofirst 300 added 1.7 percent. UBS’ director of floor operations at the NYSE, Art Cashin, said of the U.S. employment statistics, “Santa Clause may have come early with this number.”

President Barack Obama’s long-awaited shift in strategy on the war in Afghanistan has received praise from European leaders, but getting more troops from them to help support the additional 30,000 U.S. forces now planned for deployment may prove more difficult. While British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged 500 more troops in Afghanistan, and NATO promised at least 5,000 more, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview that he would send “not a single solider more.” However, the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior French official saying President Sarkozy may reconsider. Germany, which has 4,400 troops in Afghanistan, said it would be ready to do more police training but was reluctant to commit more troops. The deployment will bring the total number of American troops to 98,000, while Britain will now have about 10,000 soldiers in the region. U.S. officials have said they’re looking for an additional 5,000 to 7,000 troops from allies. The Taliban released a statement following President Obama’s announcement, saying the extra troops “will provoke stronger resistance and fighting. [The U.S. forces] will withdraw shamefully.”

In an apparent attempt to crack down on inflation and its small but growing free market economy, North Korea revalued its currency and froze all cash transactions. The move, the first in 17 years by North Korea, caused confusion within the country, according to reports. The official exchange rate between the old won and the new is now 100 to one. Some analysts see the burgeoning free market economy threatening Kim Jong-Il’s hold on power and that the aim of the revaluation is to redistribute wealth throughout the country—a single family will reportedly be allowed to hold no more than 150,000 new won (roughly $1100) in hard currency. According to reports, all cash enterprises and services have been suspended by the government. North Korea took tentative steps to liberalize its economy after a famine in the late 1990s. Since then, the black market economy has grown and illicit currency exchanges have profited. The move seems intended to wipe clean the fortunes of these underground entrepreneurs and reestablish a more “perfect” socialist state.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) began public hearings on the legality of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, which Pristina declared in February, 2008. Kosovo, which had been under a provisional UN administration since 1999, has been recognized as independent by 63 countries (including the United States) since its unilateral secession, and is expected to argue that it was never part of Serbia. “Kosovo’s independence is irreversible and that will remain the case, not only for the sake of Kosovo, but also for the sake of sustainable regional peace and security,” Kosovo’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Skender Hyensi said on Tuesday. “We are certain the court will confirm the will of Kosovo’s people to be independent and free.” Serbia, however, has argued that Kosovo’s secession was a “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and has claimed the move was ethnically motivated and thus illegal under international law. The UN General Assembly had asked the ICJ, which is the United Nations’ highest judicial body, for an advisory ruling on the matter at the request of Serbia. The ICJ will hear testimony from 29 countries over the next nine days before issuing its ruling. Though it will not be binding, the decision is expected to set a precedent for other secessionist movements around the world, such as in Chechnya and Basque Country in Spain.

In another jab at the United States and its Western allies, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran would enrich its uranium itself rather than send it to Russia and France under a UN-brokered deal. The agreement was supposed to calm fears over Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear weapon by offering Tehran the option of letting foreign countries (which already possess enrichment technology) process Iranian uranium. This would theoretically prevent Iran from developing its own indigenous capacity for enrichment, and would ensure that the uranium provided to Iran’s civil nuclear program would fall short of levels required for weapons production. But Iran has repeatedly been backing down from the UN deal. “The Iranian nation will produce 20 percent enriched uranium and anything it needs (itself),” President Ahmadinejad said. He also called the recent International Atomic Energy Agency censure of Iran’s secret construction of a second enrichment plant “illegal.” “The Zionist regime [Israel] and its backer [the United States] cannot do a damn thing to stop Iran’s nuclear work,” he said.

As President Obama formally announces his strategy for Afghanistan at West Point this evening, far too much attention focuses on the number of additional soldiers. One overlooked aspect to the war in Afghanistan is the role and number of civilians, who work in synergy with soldiers in building the civil society envisioned by the Obama administration as a key component of a successful counterinsurgency.

With enough soldiers, the military can clear and hold areas. But the “build” phase of this three-step counterinsurgency mission is more problematic. Unless the United States can help promote a developing, sustainable, and licit economy; train and develop support for an effective government; and literally help build the attendant civilian infrastructure such as roads and schools, then the United States will not be able to leave behind anything much better than what they found in October 2001.

Consider a typical Afghan: say, Ashraf the farmer. Ashraf cares primarily about harvesting a crop that he can sell for enough money to feed and shelter his family. He has no particular loyalty to his own government, the Taliban, or the United States. The “hardcore” Taliban number only about 10,000 in a country of 28 million; the remaining 20,000-30,000 are so-called “afternoon volunteers,” who are motivated by practical grievances rather than ideology, and whose allegiances can be temporarily won by whoever provides better opportunities.

Say, as often happens, two Talibs leave a note one night at Ashraf’s farm threatening to destroy his crops if he does not begin planting poppy—or, perhaps, begin planting roadside bombs against American convoys. The Talibs promise that if Ashraf complies, they will provide him with credit, poppy seeds, protect his fields, and then transport the crop to market once harvested. Ashraf, like most Afghans, hates the Taliban (whose popularity generally hovers south of 10 percent), but he knows his fields are suffering, that he has no credit to buy seeds for next season, and that he can’t transport his excess harvest to distant markets because there are no roads. The Taliban, for all their offenses, offer Ashraf what he needs. So, in many of the most important ways, the success or failure of the U.S. mission depends on Ashraf’s decision or not to submit to the Taliban’s demands.

This is precisely where additional civilians can be most successful—in helping persuade Ashraf that he need not collude with the Taliban. Today, most civilians in Afghanistan outside embassies in Kabul are assigned to Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), which are joint civil-military units that, in 26 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces, coordinate and implement development strategies for the “build” phase of counterinsurgency. A U.S. PRT includes roughly 80 soldiers, of which most are Civil Affairs specialists and support staff, not combat troops. Yet of the 80, only three civilians are assigned to a typical U.S. PRT—one representative each from the Departments of State and Agriculture, and one from USAID—and many posts actually remain unfilled. As of January, the total American civilian presence at PRTs amounted to only 35 specialists. Contrast this with some 65,000 American combat soldiers and another 30,000 on the way. Read the rest of this entry »

Tonight, America’s commander-in-chief will address the nation to outline his new Afghanistan strategy. Among other things, this means many of the West Point cadets in the audience will learn what their immediate futures have in store.

According to White House officials, President Obama will comply with General McChrystal’s request for more soldiers, deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan over the next six months. Obama has reportedly said that these young men and women will be asked to “finish the job.”

Of course, the question remains: What exactly is the “job”?

For eight years, forces on the ground have been struggling to find the mission. Hopefully, all of us will soon hear what their “job” is and why it will entail deploying thousands of extra soldiers. Thanks to McChrystal’s assessment, we now understand some of what more soldiers will do. The influx of troops will certainly build and train the Afghan army and police forces and arm militia-style provincial patrols. They will also use counterinsurgency tactics to target Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban while protecting average Afghans, as well as add a dash of nation building.

Unfortunately, this multi-billion dollar strategy ignores the reality of Afghanistan. No one can easily summarize the challenges and complexities there. The country comprises a conglomeration of cultures, ethnicities, languages, and beliefs, and is surrounded by problematic neighbors. History has shown that large-scale interventions there never work and that treading more lightly makes a difference.

Hopefully, President Obama kept this in mind during the strategic deliberations leading up to tonight’s announcement. The provincial successes we have seen thus far have come from small, non-governmental institutions that work with little, but give everything they have to empower the local people—not the warlords or corrupt government officials. Further, Afghanistan cannot be governed by military force alone, unless the goal is to establish an extended period of martial law. Without a functioning government, all those troops training and arming the Afghan forces will make little difference.

U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry recently urged the U.S. to delay sending more troops. His argument was colored by the mismanagement and corruption he’s seen within the Afghan government, afflictions that have also affected many international aid organizations. To date, billions of dollars have been poured into fighting a war without clearly defined objectives, and to building a central government without first drafting a sensible blueprint. Both military and civilian leaders need to revisit their management and cooperation efforts, and better define their “jobs” if any progress is to be made.

Unfortunately, the military solution seems to be moving forward without first determining its overall aim. Without that, there is no way to “fix” the problem, win public support (domestic and foreign), and smoothly exit the country once the insurgency is quelled.

It would behoove President Obama to remember the old adage, “Afghanistan is a graveyard of empires.” Despite the lessons of our predecessors, Washington seems bent on re-enacting past failures by shooting first and asking critical questions later. President Obama’s speech must be concise about the job he is asking our soldiers to endure while explaining how his team asked the right questions to come to this conclusion—before the final tally in money and blood climbs higher on all sides.

Patricia DeGennaro is a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, focusing on Afghanistan, the Middle East, and civil-military affairs. She is also an adjunct assistant professor at New York University where she teaches courses on international security and U.S. foreign policy.

This article was originally published by The Huffington Post.

Have you noticed? More and more people are falling off the war in Afghanistan: George Will, Andrew Bacevich, Gary Wills, John Mearsheimer, and now Karl Eikenberry, former American commander Afghanistan and present ambassador there. Eikenberry, though not advocating a pullout, is reportedly not in favor of a troop increase unless President Hamid Karzai will reform his government with new and competent people, and eliminate the rampant corruption. The Ambassador’s position goes distinctly against the recommendation of the Spartan-limned Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the present American commander in Afghanistan, who wants to put in upwards of 40,000 more U.S. troops into the country.

Have you read the McChrystal report? It is quite an eye-opener. It says relatively little about al-Qaeda, which President Obama has rightly singled out as the enemy. Al-Qaeda is not even in Afghanistan anymore but in Pakistan’s tribal regions. Al-Qaeda’s strength may not number more than a couple of hundred. The retrospective truth is that Afghanistan ceased to be a “necessary war” in late 2001, when al-Qaeda escaped into Pakistan.

The McChrystal report lists three principal opponents: the Quetta Shura (the Afghan Taliban, based in Quetta, in Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province); the network of Jalaladin Haqqani, operating in Afghanistan; and the followers of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, also operating in Afghanistan. What do these three groups have in common? They all have had connections with the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI). The Afghan Taliban were created by the ISI in 1994 in order to bring Afghanistan out of anarchy and assure that country as Pakistan’s “near abroad,” away from Indian influence. Haqqani and Gulbuddin are former Mujahidin comanders in the war in the 1980’s against the Soviets, supported by the ISI and behind it, the U.S. and several other interested countries. One may ask, what are we doing in this galere? We seem to have gotten ourselves involved, almost by inadvertence, in a civil war in Afghanistan.

These three groups are an expression of discontent on the part of the leading ethnic group in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns, comprising some 40 percent of the population. Their discontent is focused on the government in Kabul where, though President Karzai is a Pashtun, the main security and military positions are held by the Northern Alliance, the expression of the second largest ethnic group, the Tadjiks. It was the Northern Alliance, together with American conventional and unconventional forces, that overthrew the Taliban as the protector of al-Qaeda in the Fall of 2001, after the 9/11 atttacks.

What we should be thinking about, and what more and more observers are talking about, is how do we get out of this mess? If the Taliban were to take back control in Afghanistan, would they allow al-Qaeda back in, considering what happened to them in the fall of 2001? Perhaps not. In any event, and what seems to escape the public, is that in today’s world, you don’t need training camps in Afghanistan in order to carry out terrorist attacks.

If the Taliban were to take over in Afghanistan, would the ISI stand idly by or would it try to assert some kind of control over, or at least strengthen its relationship with, the Taliban? Probably.

Gordon Brown has said it, and Karl Eikenberry has aparently said it too: Why throw more troops into the fire in Afghanistan to support a corrupt government?

Especially when the main enemy isn’t even there.

Dr. Charles G. Cogan was the chief of the Near East South Asia Division in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA from August 1979 to August 1984. It was from this Division that was run the covert action operation against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He is currently an Associate at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

Afghanistan’s minister of mines reportedly accepted a $30 million bribe from a Chinese mining firm, highlighting the corruption woes plaguing President Hamid Karzai’s administration as he prepares for his inauguration. An undisclosed U.S. official told The Washington Post that there is a “high degree of certainty” that Mohammad Ibrahim Adel accepted the payment from China’s state-run mining firm, Metallurgical Group Corp., in Dubai around December 2007. In exchange, the firm received a $2.9 billion contract for Afghanistan’s largest development project—to extract copper from the Aynak deposit in Logar province, thought to be one of the largest unexploited copper deposits in the world. Adel vigorously denied receiving any bribes or illicit payments during his tenure, saying, “I am responsible for the revenue and benefit of our people. All the time I’m following the law and the legislation for the benefit of the people.” But this is not the first time allegations of Adel’s misconduct have been raised. “There is a pattern of improprieties that have gone on. We do know that the World Bank procedures, and the government of Afghanistan procedures, were badly breached repeatedly,” a former American adviser to the ministry told the Post. “There is every reason to believe there were probably gratuities exchanged.” The announcement comes just in advance of President Hamid Karzai’s inauguration on Thursday, three months after an election marred by widespread fraud. Whether Karzai can effectively address the corruption that appears to pervade his government is the subject of much international scrutiny and is at the heart of Obama’s deliberations over the United States’ Afghan war strategy. In an effort to salvage his reputation, Karzai unveiled a new anti-corruption unit earlier this week, but a recent poll by The Washington Post and ABC News found that just 26 percent of Americans see Karzai as a “reliable partner” for the U.S. mission.

Iraqi vice president Tariq al-Hashemi has temporarily halted plans for a general election in January after he vetoed part of the recently passed election law. Iraq’s electoral commission stopped preparations for the election after al-Hashemi, a Sunni, sent the law back to parliament, saying he wants to see more representation for Iraqis living abroad, many of whom are Sunni Arabs. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the veto a threat to democracy and the Iraqi political process. Iraqi electoral officials are all but conceding that sending the law back to parliament will delay the vote. The general election also has ramifications for the U.S.-led coalition, which is pushing for an election as soon as possible so the United States can being drawing down troops. Gen. Ray Odierno, the commanding general of U.S. forces, said the military was “flexible” and could adapt to a possible delay. Significant reductions of troops are not scheduled until the spring of next year.

The European Union plans to send 100 troops to Uganda to train up to 2,000 Somali government troops currently fighting Islamist insurgents. The EU plans to aid the fledgling transitional government, which only controls a small part of the capital, Mogadishu, after Somali pirates have stepped up attacks against Western vessels off the coast of Somalia. The mission is likely to be led by Spain, which will take over the EU presidency for six months next year. The EU training would bring the number of trained Somali soldiers to 6,000. EU leaders have said that a stronger Somali security force on the ground is the only way to successfully combat Somali piracy. “We clearly see that if we don’t help Somalia, then we could have the Atalanta operation for 20 or 30 years,” said French Defense Minister Herve Morin, referring to the EU naval operation currently underway.

Iran’s foreign minister said his country would not send enriched uranium abroad for further reprocessing, dismissing a deal pushed by the United States and its allies regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki did say Iran would consider swapping the uranium for nuclear fuel and keeping it under supervision within the Islamic nation. The original deal, brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls for Iran to send 75 percent of its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, which will turn it into fuel for a medical research reactor in Tehran. With the deal between the West and Iran looking uncertain, the IAEA denied a report in the Times of London that it was holding clandestine talks with Iran on its nuclear program. According to the report, nuclear watchdog officials have been attempting to persuade the West to lift sanctions against Iran and would allow Tehran to keep most of its nuclear program in exchange for cooperation with UN inspectors. A draft document of the deal was leaked to the Times as the IAEA warned that Iran could be hiding multiple secret nuclear sites. In a statement, the IAEA called the report “entirely baseless.”

U.S. officials unveiled a new detention facility at Bagram air field in Afghanistan, promising greater openness and better living conditions for inmates. The existing facility at Bagram has been shrouded in secrecy, garnering criticism for human rights abuses after two of its inmates died last year following interrogations. The prison, which holds its roughly 700 detainees without charges, will close by the end of the year, and the U.S. military plans to move its inmates to the new $60 million housing complex. “The new facility…provides improved detainee living conditions…as well as vocational, technical, and other programs to assist with peaceful reintegration of released detainees,” Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, head of the detention facilities at Bagram, told international journalists on a tour of the new facility, tentatively named Detention Facility in Parwan, on Sunday. “You are here because transparency certainly benefits the effort.” Human rights groups have praised some aspects of the new facility, including the separation of hard-core insurgents from those who may be reconciled with society and the move to open administrative hearings, in which detainees are assessed for their readiness to be released, to outsiders as well as to the detainees themselves. But many critics still call for President Barack Obama to further reform the U.S.’ Afghan detention policies. “All detainees in Afghanistan are entitled to minimum protections, including the right to legal counsel, and to be able to challenge the legal and factual basis for the detention before an independent and impartial tribunal,” rights groups Amnesty International, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch said in a joint statement. “The U.S. reforms still fall short of providing detainees with those rights.” Transfers of prisoners to the new facility are expected to begin within the next two weeks.

Israeli officials on Monday continued to denounce the Palestinian Authority’s intention to unilaterally declare statehood and seek formal recognition from the United Nations. Senior Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, announced the gambit on Saturday and, on Sunday—the twenty-first anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s declaration of statehood—President Mahmoud Abbas added, “God willing, we will soon have an independent state with its capital in [East] Jerusalem” under 1967 borders. Many observers consider the proposal a political tactic to force Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to reengage peace negotiations, stalled since the Gaza war last December, and restrict further settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. An Al Jazeera reporter in Ramallah relayed, “What [Palestinians] want [now] is something a lot more concrete. They know it won’t immediately result in the withdrawal of Israeli occupation troops from their territory, but they want the Israelis to stand in front of an international collective will that says this is what needs to be done in order for peace to be realized.” The statements incited a furor of criticisms from the Israeli government. Netanyahu declared, “Any unilateral action will undo the framework of past accords and lead to unilateral actions from Israel.” Transport Minister Yisrael Katz later added, “Let them not threaten us with unilateral measures; we can also take unilateral measures such as annexing the settlement blocs.” Without U.S. support, the Palestinian proposal is not likely to be approved by the requisite two-thirds of the UN General Assembly.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull offered a landmark apology to hundreds of thousands of “forgotten Australians” and former child migrants who were abused or neglected in state facilities. In an emotional ceremony in the capital of Canberra, Rudd apologized for what he called “an ugly chapter” in Australia’s history. “The truth is this is an ugly story, and its ugliness must be told without fear or favor if we are to confront fully the demons of our past,” he said to a crowd at Parliament House. “We are sorry. Sorry for the tragedy—the absolute tragedy—of childhoods lost,” he continued. Between 1930 and 1970, approximately 500,000 children were abused or neglected in orphanages or homes in the Australian institutional care system. Of these, many were part of the Child Migrants Program, a scheme designed to bring “good white stock” to Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada. Under the program, the United Kingdom sent poor children to these countries promising a “better life.” But, in many cases, families were never notified that their children had been sent away, the children were falsely informed that they were orphans, and, once they arrived, they faced extreme cruelty and neglect while in state care. “You were failed by the system of care,” Turnbull added, choking back tears. “Today we acknowledge that, already feeling alone, abandoned and left without love, many of you were beaten and abused, physically, sexually, mentally—treated like objects not people—leaving you to feel of even less worth…For far too long, your stories were not believed when they should have been, and for that too we apologize, and we are sorry.” Roughly 7,000 survivors of the program currently live in Australia, including Laurie Humphreys, who attended Rudd’s apology. “The word ’sorry’ doesn’t mean much. You can’t say sorry for a lost childhood,” the former child migrant worker told Time magazine. “But you can acknowledge it, and that’s what I needed.” U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to offer a similar apology sometime in the new year.

Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission on Monday declared incumbent Hamid Karzai “the elected President of Afghanistan” for a second five-year term. The announcement comes one day after rival Abdullah Abdullah announced his withdrawal from a runoff planned for November 7. The second round balloting was canceled Monday morning after Abdullah withdrew. The number two finisher in the initial balloting on August 20 said he did not consider the Independent Election Commission to have been sufficiently reformed that a fair runoff could be guranteed, free from the widespread fraud that marked the first election round. The United States, Britain, and the United Nations each promptly issued congratulatory statements to President Karzai as the elected head of state, and others are expected to follow. Analysts believe, however, that American officials will continue to lead an intense diplomatic effort to reconcile the two candidates’ supporters and unify the country, perhaps through Karzai offering Abdullah a senior office in his administration. In a surprise visit to Kabul Monday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon exhorted Karzai to “move swiftly to form a government that is able to command the support of both the Afghan people and the international community.” Speaking at his home after the press conference, Dr. Abdullah rejected any suggestion of joining Karzai’s administration—he had formerly served as Karzai’s Foreign Minister but left after a bitter falling out—and said of his withdrawal, “I did it with a lot of pain, but at the same time with a lot of hope for the future.  Because this will not be the end of anything, this will be a new beginning.” President Obama is scheduled to lead two National Security Council meetings at the White House on Afghanistan this week as he further considers his administration’s policy and further troop commitments. These deliberations had been clouded by uncertainty over the Afghan administration that would emerge from the election process.

The Pakistani military announced Monday it has captured the towns of Kaniguram, Cheena, and Makeen, strategic Taliban strongholds in the South Waziristan region of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The military, which began its current offensive on October 17, has reportedly cleared the captured areas of all insurgents, mines, and improvised explosive devices. The Pakistani government is now offering rewards totaling $5 million for information leading to the capture of Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and 17 other Taliban leaders. Meanwhile, bombings continued to shake Pakistan on Monday, largely in response to the ongoing military offensive, as one bomb near military headquarters in Rawalpindi killed 30 people, including military officers and some civilians, in a crowded pedestrian area; and. Additionally, two suicide bombings at a security checkpoint in Lahore, Pakistan’s cultural center, killed a policeman and injured 25 civilians. A series of ten bombings have killed more than 300 Pakistani civilians since mid-October.

North Korea again pressed the United States to open direct bilateral talks, warning that it was prepared to “go its own way” with its nuclear program should Washington remain unresponsive. “It’s time for the United States to make a decision,” an unidentified spokesman for North Korea’s Foreign Ministry told the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday. “We have made it clear that we are ready to take part in multilateral talks, including the six-party talks, depending on the results of talks with the United States . . . If the United States is not ready to sit down face-to-face with us for talks, we cannot but go on our own way,” he added. The statement follows a rare meeting between Ri Gun, North Korea’s deputy nuclear envoy, and Sung Kim, the American special envoy on the North’s nuclear disarmament, in New York and San Diego last week. After months of defiance, North Korea has recently signaled a willingness to return to disarmament negotiations. Last month, it reaffirmed its invitation for Stephen Bosworth, the U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, to visit Pyongyang. Leader Kim Jong-Il also told Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao last month that his country would consider a return to multilateral negotiations, which stalled in April after Pyongyang quit the forum and later conducted nuclear and long-range missile tests. But the North maintained that any return to the six-party framework; which brings together envoys from North Korea, the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea; depended on the progress of bilateral talks with Washington. to amend “hostile relations.” North Korea’s spokesman reiterated this on Monday, saying “the direct parties, which are the North and the United States, must first sit down and find a rational solution . . . [If the two countries] end the hostile relationship and build trust, there will be a meaningful step toward the denuclearizing of the Korean peninsula.” But whether this will be enough to convince the Obama administration to meet one-on-one is unclear; Washington has said it will only agree to direct talks as part of a resumption of the broader, six-party dialogue.

The UN suspended its support for army units operating in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, accusing the Congolese army of deliberately killing more than 60 civilians this year. After a tour of the region, UN peackeeping chief Alain Le Roy said the army had “clearly targeted” civilians, and that the United Nations mission in DR Congo (MONUC) would “immediately suspend its logistical and operational support to the army units implicated” in civilian killings between May and December. Congolese government spokesman Lambert Mende objected to the decision, saying the investigation was still ongoing. “We are surprised that the United Nations has announced sanctions against these units even before the conclusion of their investigation,” he said on Monday, warning that a withdrawal of support could destabilize the army. MONUC has backed the Congolese army in its military operations against Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels since January, and has provided logistical assistance in the east since a joint Rwandan and Congolese military operation was launched against against the rebel group in March. But the operation has come under widespread criticism for human rights abuses. According to human rights groups, more than 1,000 civilians have been killed, more than 7,000 women and girls raped, and more than 900,000 people forced to flee their homes since operations began in January.

Delegates from 180 countries are gathered in Barcelona today for five days of negotiations toward drafting a successor treaty to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol in advance of the symbolic Copenhagen Conference to be held December 7-18. The Barcelona preparatory round is aimed at reconciling an apparent impasse over the contentious issue of technology financing to developing nations. Strains were evident last week when the European Commission agreed that the cost of helping developing nations to reduce carbon emissions by 2020 would total about $150 billion, but talks became stalemated over the question of which nations would pay which proportion of those costs. Central and Eastern European nations, for example, which depend heavily on coal-fired power generation, warned they could not afford to pay in proportion to their emissions. Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said that a full legally-binding treaty is unlikely at Copenhagen, but he noted that he was still convinced a political deal was possible. Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard noted wryly, “Failure is the only thing we can’t afford.”