NewsBreakingOnline

The former foreign secretary proposes handing over responsibility for building a political solution to the UN The former foreign secretary David Miliband is to make a strong critique of the US-led strategy in Afghanistan, proposing instead handing over substantial responsibility for building a political solution to the UN, headed by a Muslim mediator capable of negotiating with the Taliban as well as partners throughout the region. In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Miliband urges a “whole new level of urgency, coherence and effort” in bringing about a political endgame away from a focus on ending military engagement, and including the possibility of appointing a safe third country for all Afghan parties to negotiate from. He writes: “It’s high time we stopped behaving as if there was a military solution and developed a political one. For that, politicians need to give a lead. That is the way forward in Afghanistan – working to mend it, not just rushing to end it.” The intervention comes as senior military figures predict a rough summer of fighting ahead. Miliband’s assessment of the situation chimes with the opinion of senior Pakistani officials who feel the imminent end of the international military campaign in Afghanistan looks likely to be replaced by little political process, with few indications as to who Pakistani officials should engage with. It also echoes the feeling inside Whitehall that US policy in Afghanistan is overly dominated by the military under General David Petraeus and that despite much talk about talks, American efforts to engage the Taliban diplomatically have made little progress so far. Miliband’s criticism of the US-led campaign marks a change from the supportive UK-US relationship he maintained as foreign secretary when relationships with US secretary of state Hilary Clinton were famously strong. Miliband acknowledges there are signs of significant shifts in American policy but nevertheless he goes on to write: “Deviations from the otherwise relentless focus on military operations, allied and Afghan, need to be taken to a whole new level of urgency, coherence and effort. Otherwise, our troops will be stuck in the front line of a strategy that has an end date but no clear end game. The 2014 end date set by Nato will prove illusory unless there is an endgame. “And that endgame must be negotiations, involving western powers led by the US, with all factions in the Afghan struggle, and their backers in the region.” Miliband warns that two international conferences on the horizon – in Kabul in the summer and Bonn in December – currently have “scant agenda”, but their outcome should be the agreement of the kind of political approach he outlines. “Our leverage will decline, not improve, as 2014 approaches. The insurgency can spread, outstripping the ability of international and Afghan forces to check its growth. The warlords can strengthen their grip. Inter-ethnic strife can come to look more and more like civil war.” Miliband proposes: • The UN security council appoints and empowers a UN mediator to faciliate talks “with a clear UN security council mandate setting out principles of the endgame and an open invitation to all to participate”. • The mediator should come from the Muslim world. “His job would be to canvass the views of all parties, and create confidence for and commitment to a process for serious talks about the future of Afghanistan”. • The mediator should “develop the idea of a safe place in a third country – an Arabian gulf state, Turkey or Japan – for all sides to talk. • Localised ceasefires must be proposed alongside security for development projects. • The new UN envoy should be responsible for regional engagement as well as internal talks, creating a council of regional stability that oversees compact between the neighbours and Afghanistan. This new structure should report to the US military and General Petraeus. He writes: “The job description would be to be President Karzai’s principal interlocutor, working closely with him on the end game strategy, liasing strongly with the commander of ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] to ensure that military strategy comes behind it, and creating a framework within which the political strength of the UN, and the development strengths of contributing nations, can bear full fruit.” Acknowledging movement from America, Miliband writes: “There are signs of a significant turn in policy. Secretary Clinton spoke in February of a “political surge”. Nato’s senior civilian representative, Mark Sedwill, said last month: “The time is now right to take the risk and pursue the political agenda with the same energy we have brought to the military and civilian surges.” The New Yorker reported that secret direct talks between the US and senior Taliban leaders had actually started. David Miliband Foreign policy Afghanistan US foreign policy United States New York Times Allegra Stratton Simon Tisdall guardian.co.uk