NATO\'s Controversial Relationship in Afghanistan

NATO's Controversial Relationship in Afghanistan with the EU and Russia

The 2001 U.S. intervention in Afghanistan generated much controversy, with some of the major powers expressing reservation regarding the political and ethical reason for military intrusion in the Middle East. The European Union and Russia were particularly expected to get actively involved in the matter and in spite of the fact that the two communities were initially skeptical and appeared to be reluctant to support the U.S., they both joined the Northern American power. Debates emerged as a result of the limited support the war received from the general public and because the U.S. continued fighting even with its frequent claims to stop the conflict.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent military intervention in Afghanistan marked the beginning of the new era in international relations. To a certain extent, the World Trade Center events can be considered to be a result of the unipolar character dominating world affairs ever since the Soviet Union's collapse. While the terrorist attacks severely damaged society as a whole, they also brought advantages through the fact that world superpowers were enabled to cooperate. The European Union and Russia are believed to have gotten actively involved in supporting the U.S. principally because of the interest they had in fighting terrorism.

The European Union assisted the U.S. In the Afghanistan Intervention by signing a series of agreements. Through these treaties, the two communities could "facilitate access to information and the exchange of personal data and strengthen operational links between investigative and law enforcement agencies" (Duffy, 133). With the U.K. being one of the main supporters of the U.S. In the Afghanistan invasion, it became obvious that the European Union was sympathetic as regards the matter. The U.K. is an influential member in the E.U. And by motivating that all countries should be equally concerned about putting an end to terrorism, the country virtually persuaded other European nations in supporting the war. "The unprecedented unity following the September 11 attacks translated into either open or tacit support for military action in Afghanistan" (Duffy, 186). While some states expressed no interest in joining the conflict, they nonetheless did so by allowing NATO military forces to use their airspace or by presenting armed forces with logistical guidance. Russia was among the first countries to support the U.S. In its endeavor to end terrorism by commencing Operation Enduring Freedom.

Tensions in Moscow and London were critical even prior to the 9/11 attacks, considering that the terrorist factor was also present in these territories (even with the fact that none of them had suffered losses that could be compared to aftermath of the World Trade Center events). The U.S.'s decision to go to war can be considered to have been somewhat beneficial for the European Union and Russia, given that they could exploit the situation in an attempt to deal with terrorist threats "at home." Vladimir Putin, Russia's president at the time, employed a realist tactic in joining the war against who stood as a threat to society, admitting that he was also interested in starting a serious anti-terrorist campaign on its own territories and abroad.

Operation Enduring Freedom was basically a product of the cooperation between the U.S., the E.U., and Russia. America's allies volunteered to assist the country in removing the Al Qaeda-supported government in Afghanistan. These three forces collaborated in invading Afghanistan and installing a democratic form of government in the country, with the purpose of eradicating terrorist convictions from the territory. The coalition was perceived as a relationship between some of the most influential countries in an attempt to guarantee the well-being of the civilized world. It was virtually impossible for the E.U. not to consider the role that it had in the overall state of affairs, with European authorities being aware that terrorist cells were located all across the continent, especially given that the World Trade Center events were presumably planned in Germany.

There was however a series of divergences between the EU and the U.S. As regards the strategy employed by NATO in fighting terrorism. The UK for example was uncertain if overthrowing the Afghan government would actually have a beneficial effect in the overall mission of destroying Al Qaeda. In spite of the support the country gave to the U.S. In this situation, it was never supportive toward certain objectives that the Americans considered to be of great importance.

European states generally backed NATO and the U.S. In the fight against terrorism. However, the EU appeared to be skeptical a propos the principal aims of the war and highlighted the fact that they were only willing to assume responsibility for their own actions in Afghanistan, claiming that they were primarily interested in defending the concept of peace through eliminating the terrorist threat. In an attempt to support the Afghanistan intervention, the EU has focused on investing as little finances as possible concomitantly with committing an effective strategy meant to guarantee that its mission would not be impeded.

NATO authorities acknowledged the fact that Russia assistance should not be ignored and that the country played an essential role in the Afghanistan Intervention. Considering Russia's complex military system and that the country was close to the Middle Eastern strategic point, it seems natural that NATO was dedicated to have Putin join the Afghanistan war.

While the relationship between Russia and the U.S. was tensioned as a result of George W. Bush's decision to abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty signed in 1972, matters were resolved in November 2001, at the time when George Robertson (then NATO's Secretary-General) suggested that Russia should be provided with a status of equality with the nineteen members of NATO, thus having the right of decision in regard to the various topics emerging along with plans adopted for the Afghanistan war. Putin was interested in changing the way Russia was perceived by most of the world at the time and realized that one of the most excellent methods of doing so was to support NATO and the U.S. In the struggle in opposition to terrorism and as a consequence in the Afghanistan war.

While Russia is generally perceived as an equal partner in the fight against terrorism and in the Afghanistan intervention, critics have expressed uncertainty regarding this topic. Liberal authorities in Russia are apparently inclined to believe that their country did not actually benefit from its involvement in the Afghanistan war and that the U.S. And NATO basically used it as a tool. Putin was aware that he could use the situation as a means to benefit the overall condition concerning Russia's international relationships. Even with that, he did not want to behave similar to Yeltsin or Gorbachev, who were believed by the majority of Russians to be peons in the hands of the U.S. And one of the main reasons for which their country had lost prestige in the recent years. There were several critiques coming from Russian individuals on the topic of the Afghanistan war, relating to how the U.S.'s approach was exaggerated and that the North American country was merely trying to impose its supremacy as a world superpower through behaving as a principal actor in the fight against terrorism and by denying other countries the right to get equally involved in the state of affairs.