Last week saw Dan Korski’s excellent new paper on Afghanistan – and, following the announcement of Paddy Ashdown’s nomination to be the UN’s Envoy to the country, signs that Afghan leaders were concerned about the appointment. Today’s news suggests such speculation was if anything too cautious: the Afghan Government are digging in their heels and have made it clear they do not want Paddy Ashdown. Period.
The West, for its part, is hoping that Lord Ashdown will help bolster the entire international effort in Afghanistan – nothing like the weight of the (western) world on one’s shoulders. Will there be a compromise? Let’s hope not: the Afghan Government’s new preferred candidate is General Sir John McColl, a British General who has already served in Afghanistan.
So why not Ashdown? According to the Afghan ambassador to the UN, their reason for wanting General McColl is based on an assessment of “…who is going to be more helpful and who is going to be more able to work with the Afghan government and with different elements of the international community in Afghanistan.”
Ouch.
Update: Ashdown has pulled out of the role, having told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that the job needed Afghan government backing which did not exist. As the BBC’s coverage notes, Hamid Karzai has recently criticised the performance of British troops fighting the Taleban in Helmand province; note that while Karzai is criticising UK policy he is also praising US involvement.
Update 2: The FT reports that the UN is unlikely to welcome a serving soldier (General McColl) as head of its mission in the country. Many officials already worry that the neutrality of the UN, whose agencies oversee a huge amount of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, has been un-dermined by its political activities and close involvement with Isaf.
