No consensus made on Afghan reforms

While political reforms in Afghanistan and Pakistan are the subject of much dissent across the globe, there is one thing that some political leaders agree on: they are not sure what needs to be done.

At the aptly named event, “Afghanistan and Pakistan - America’s Challenge: Solving the Impossible,” three political leaders gathered for an evening of debate. Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani, Ryan Family Professor of the Practice of Human Rights Rory Stewart, and Sen. John Kerry, (D-Mass.) discussed Afghanistan and Pakistan relations.

The talk, which took place in Washington, D.C.’s National Cathedral, was sponsored by the Nancy and Paul Ignatius Program 2009. Adi Ignatius, son of Nancy and Paul Ignatius, as well as editor-in-chief of the Harvard Business Review, moderated the talk. The event drew a crowd of about 1,250 people.

Ignatius asked the leaders what they thought America’s objectives should be in Afghanistan. 

“For Americans, it seems like a stark choice. Is it time to pull out, to leave Afghanistan to sort out their problems, or do we have a moral obligation to stick it out after having invaded the country?” asked Ignatius.

The first speaker, Ambassador Husain Haqqani, said America’s agenda should be creating a basic state structure.

“The United States and the international community should focus on stabilizing and strengthening Afghanistan, providing it with the basic elements of a state. A national army, a national police force and a central government able to govern the country minimally,” said Haqqani.

Haqqani said the most important improvement the United States could make in Afghanistan would be to set up some kind of government - any government at all.

“There will certainly be complaints about corruption, but you do need a government in Afghanistan. I’d rather have a government in Afghanistan no matter how weak and flawed it may be than have no government,” Haqqani said.

Conversely, the second speaker, Rory Stewart, said that the United States does not “have a moral obligation to do what [it] cannot do.”

“There are many things we would like to do but the fundamental question is, ‘What can we do?'" Stewart said. “Twenty or 30 years investment in Afghanistan would bring Afghanistan roughly to the level of Pakistan. The Pakistani state is significantly more developed… Yet, Pakistan is still not a stable place.”

Stewart said he thought the solution should be to cease increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

“The only way we can remain engaged in that country and sustain our commitment is if we do not continue to increase troops,” Stewart said. “Our involvement in Afghanistan should be moderate. It should be light. It should be long term… Put it into proportion, recognize that we have many obligations in the world - other countries to think about.”

According to the third speaker, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry, before the U.S. begins discussing what to do in Afghanistan, it must remember its initial history in the country.

“We helped put Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We actually negotiated his transfer from Sudan to Afghanistan and we walked away in the aftermath of the Soviet presence and left nothing there,” said Kerry. “Any examination of where we are today has to take place in light of what the realities were when the Taliban filled the chaotic void that had been created and provided their structure of discipline and order.”

Despite their dissent, the three leaders remained optimistic. All three encouraged Americans to donate to the cause of Afghani and Pakistani reform.

“It may well be that we can create a sufficient ability to be able to train, advance development, reform governance and create a structure that prevents al Qaeda from coming back,” Kerry said.