A Modest Proposal
Despite all the recent hullabaloo, the world didn’t need Wikileaks to learn that the warisn’t going well in Afghanistan . The 90,000-plus pages of leaked documents—which track the progress of US military operations in Central Asia between 2004-2009—offer mountains of evidence confirming what has been all too clear for some time: namely, that Pakistan is a duplicitous ally, the Afghan battlefield is chaotic, our objectives there aren’t worth the cost in blood and treasure, and the idea of “victory” is a chimera. Nothing much new here!
But what the Wikileaks scandal does do is serve as a reminder that any successful outcome in Afghanistan will demand some serious creativity on the part of the United States and its allies moving forward. Thus far, we haven’t witnessed any encouraging signs that the Obama team is up to the task. The “smart power” approach promised by Hillary Clinton during her confirmation hearings last fall has been noticeably absent in Afghanistan, crowded out by an overreliance on an already thinly-stretched American military and the ham-fisted diplomacy of Richard Holbrooke. Clearly the Obama administration could use some fresh ideas if it’s going to get out of this mess responsibly.
So how’s this for thinking big: As part of the eventual American withdrawal from Afghanistan, President Obama ought to make a concerted push for the relocation of the United Nations to Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul.
I’m dead serious. After nearly a decade of fits and starts, progress and setbacks, reality has set in that Afghanistan demands far more than the United States can provide on its own. The key to stabilizing the country lies in international cooperation of the highest order. And yet for a variety of reasons getting potential partners to contribute to Afghanistan’s stabilization has been a tough sell. Proposing to resituate the UN in Kabul would put all the cards on the table, contribute to Afghanistan’s development, and even offer the United States an avenue to reestablish leadership on an issue that is rapidly slipping from its control.
In the first place, moving the world body to Kabul would provide immediate dividends to Afghanistan. The decision to relocate UN headquarters to Kabul would demand the sort of security commitment on the part of all the world’s countries that to this point has been missing in Central Asia. Were every country in the world to relocate their missions and affiliated UN operations to Afghanistan, member states would be forced to get serious about training and maintaining a robust Afghan police force and military—perhaps with direct bolstering by the United States military—that would allow for the peaceful everyday operations of international diplomacy. And this is to say nothing of the flows of investment capital that would surely flood the country if it became the hub of UN activity, capital which could dramatically change the face of Kabul—if not the country—through job creation, infrastructure projects, and the promotion of a formal economy that would surely follow.
The move would also send a strong signal that weak state development is the priority issue on the international agenda. With the exception of the days immediately following 9/11, high-level decision making in the UN takes place at a far remove from the exigencies of politics in the world’s most vulnerable spots. The language of state weakness and a commitment to protecting civilians from the destructive forces of state failure colors everything the UN does. And yet a startling disconnect exists between the urgency of life in spots like Afghanistan or Somalia and the leisurely pace of bureaucratic politics practiced on First Avenue. Resituating the UN in a country like Afghanistan would rattle the international civil service from its comfy perch, inject its work with new meaning, and radically raise the political stakes by directly tying its own existence to the success or failure of the Afghan state.
If nothing else, a relocation of the world body to an undesirable location may have the effect of ameliorating at least one of the persistent problems plaguing the UN. For years, the world body has been held hostage by nepotism, creating a bureaucracy burdened by the weight of dead wood in its ranks. Moving the UN to Afghanistan would eliminate the instinctual patronage of political elites within the organization to get cushy jobs for relatives eager to experience the pleasures of life in the big city. As the continued presence of NGOs in Afghanistan and countless other spots around the world attest, there are thousands of talented experts willing to endure the harsh existence of life under siege in the name of international peace and security. Bringing even a fraction of them into the UN fold would invigorate the organization’s work and invest it with the experience and professionalism that would command respect from all corners of the globe.
In addition, resituating the UN in Central Asia would offer a better reflection of the emerging dynamics structuring world politics. It’s long been clear that the five permanent seats on the UN Security Council offer poor representation for the rest of the world’s 192 member states. But until recently the organization’s Turtle Bay headquarters offered a stark reminder of America’s place atop the liberal world order that took shape following World War Two. No longer. For some time now the forces of globalization have been shifting the balance of power east. The rise of China and emergence of India and a unified Europe as heavyweights on the international stage have dramatically recalibrated the world’s center of gravity. Therefore, it stands to reason that the location of the UN executive offices should mirror these changed circumstances. In many respects, Afghanistan is the perfect spot. It lies smack dab in the middle of these surfacing powers, and could serve as a useful point of contact in coordinating the new world order.
Finally, proposing the move might even pay off for the president politically. Obama desperately needs to find an exit solution in Afghanistan that is both politically viable and ethically responsible. So far, none seems forthcoming. If the situation in Iraq is any indication, the eventual drawdown in Afghanistan will involve swapping US soldiers for mercenaries bankrolled by the American taxpayer. But what if Obama were to change the calculus and propose swapping soldiers for diplomats, turning swords into plowshares? The president would signal to the world that his administration can think outside the parameters of force in its problem-solving approach to world affairs, demonstrating that the Nobel committee wasn’t unjustified in awarding him the peace prize just months after taking office. It might even have the effect of infusing his lackluster foreign policy with the audacity that supercharged his race to the White House in 2008, a quality that will be sorely lacking in his bid come 2012.
Of course, the realization of this plan might create more problems than it would solve. The biggest worry, of course, would be a dramatic assault on a nascent headquarters building in the style of that on the UN compound in Iraq that killed Sergio de Mello. The UN would make an irresistible target for insurgent forces in Afghanistan, and that alone likely makes the idea a nonstarter. There would also be myriad logistical dilemmas that would complicate such a massive undertaking, problems that might scare off even the idea’s most eager proponents.
But the larger issue rendering such a plan total fantasy is the brute fact that the powers that matter in the UN—the Security Council five, foremost among them—aren’t willing to abandon their business-as-usual approaches to the world’s problems—even when business is no longer usual—and make the kinds of necessary commitments needed to help struggling countries escape the anarchical disorder road-blocking their positive development.
Which is why shaking up the status quo might be worth a shot. President Obama missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to radically reorient the trajectory of domestic politics in the United States in the immediate period after his election. The window for affecting meaningful change at home is now firmly shut. But a new door will open internationally as Washington prepares to withdraw its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan over the next half decade or so. Will the White House demonstrate the same willingness to take a gamble on ambitious thinking as it did sixty years ago at the founding of the United Nations? Or will it fall back on the same narrow, unimaginative realism that has defined the US approach to world politics since the attacks of September 11th?
Arguing that the world should consider relocating the UN to Kabul may be politically unfeasible. But if the proposal were to emanate from the mouth of Barack Obama as part of a military exit strategy from Afghanistan that would benefit not just the region but the larger international arena as well, it could have profound effects. It would show the world that the United States may have lost ground as the world’s unrivaled superpower, but that it still holds a significant comparative advantage in the production of big ideas—ideas that will not only shape the future of things to come but are necessary for international leadership in the twenty-first century.
2 Responses to “A Modest Proposal”
Leave a Reply
Great article. I’m glad you conceded in the end that this is more fantasy than reality. Your point is right though. Big changes are required to get the job done. The hard work in Afghanistan needs to be done by diplomats and civilians; not the military. Unfortunately, the agencies who need to do the heavy lifting can’t do it (or rather, won’t do it).
Civilian agencies need to get comfortable with their workers being killed. Harsh, yes. But if they want to get the job done, then they need to stick their necks out to the uncomfortable spot. They need to get in the hurt locker. Otherwise, the military will continue to do the work that they were not designed to.
It’s sad that it has to end as fantasy and not reality, there are no drastic changes in politics, even war in its pointless misguided violence is but a quiver on our political barometers which move two inches left then two inches right with each election year in an effort to keep citizens complacent enough to think the system works. We need to drastically shake-up the system- no destroy and rebuild the system and that’s what your article asks. I’d like to see real political action on this level other wise it’s more of the same