Nato allies urge rethink on alliance after Biden’s ‘unilateral’ Afghanistan exit

EU defence and security officials critical of US decision to send home its 2,500 troops

Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg gives a briefing on the situation in Afghanistan in Brussels on Tuesday. Photograph: EPA/Nato

Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg gives a briefing on the situation in Afghanistan in Brussels on Tuesday. Photograph: EPA/Nato

 

European allies had hoped Joe Biden’s election to the US presidency would bolster Nato’s relevance after Donald Trump’s acrimonious years. Washington’s messy withdrawal from Afghanistan is prompting a rethink.

After the fall of Kabul, EU defence and security officials have been critical of the US decision to send home its 2,500 troops, saying it has weakened Nato and raised questions about Europe’s security dependence on Washington. Their reaction marks a bitter end to the alliance’s longest-running mission, which involved 10,000 personnel from 36 countries.

“This kind of troop withdrawal caused chaos. Chaos causes additional suffering,” Artis Pabriks, Latvia’s defence minister, told local radio on Tuesday. Such long-term missions were unlikely in the future, he added: “This era is over. Unfortunately, the west, and Europe in particular, are showing they are weaker globally.”

He echoed British foreign secretary Ben Wallace, who appeared on the verge of tears on Monday as he reckoned “some would not get back” from the war-torn country. “It’s sad. Twenty years of sacrifice is what it is,” he said.

Armin Laschet, Germany’s conservative candidate to succeed chancellor Angela Merkel, on Tuesday called the troop withdrawal “the greatest debacle that Nato has experienced since its foundation”.

“It looks like Nato has been completely overtaken by American unilateral decisions,” Lord Peter Ricketts, the UK’s former national security adviser, said. “First of all, Trump’s decision to start talking to the Taliban about leaving and then the Biden decision to set a timetable. The Afghanistan operation was always going to end some time, it was never going to go on forever, but the manner in which it’s been done has been humiliating and damaging to Nato.”

Disunity

Nato’s intervention in Afghanistan, prompted by the al-Qaeda-led 9/11 attacks on the US, was the first and only time the alliance invoked its article five collective defence principle, in which an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all.

Two decades on, there have been cracks in the unity over how to end “America’s longest war”. As the Taliban encircled Kabul on Friday, Wallace revealed he had tried this year to form a coalition of “like-minded” Nato countries that would keep some troops in Afghanistan.

Lord George Robertson, who was Nato secretary-general on the day of the twin towers attack in New York, and who triggered the article five a few hours later, suggested the disunity was damaging. “It weakens Nato because the principle of ‘in together, out together’ seems to have been abandoned both by Donald Trump and by Joe Biden, ” he told the Financial Times.

Biden administration officials had consulted with allies as they sought to unstitch Trump’s isolationist approach. On Afghanistan, however, some alliance members complained that Washington presented them with a fait accompli.

“This was discussed at length, and the US listened, but Biden had made a political decision,” said one person familiar with the withdrawal planning.

Once the decision was formalised, the UK, Turkey and Italy were keen to find a way to keep forces in place to help stabilise the country. But this was considered impossible without the vast military infrastructure provided by the US, notably air support from the US-run Bagram air base just north of Kabul.

Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg insisted on Tuesday there had been “no willingness” from other European allies or from Canada to fill in for the US once it announced its withdrawal plan.

“We must realise that when it comes to the Nato mission to Afghanistan, it was not possible to have an independent role for Germany or the European forces,” Merkel said on Monday. “We always said that we are basically dependent on the decisions of the US government.”

Unease

One former military commander who served in Afghanistan said there were “big implications” for perceptions of Nato’s deterrence capabilities.

“It’s all very well Nato talking up its ability to fight off Russia, but it couldn’t even find 3,000 to 5,000 troops to ensure Afghanistan was stable enough to force a stalemate, and eventually a ceasefire on the Taliban, without American underpinning,” he said.

In its 2030 strategy, Nato outlined a promise for deeper political co-ordination and renewed commitment from its members to the 2 per cent defence spending target. But the crisis in Afghanistan has revived unease over a lack of strategic focus.

“Afghanistan today is the umpteenth expression of Nato’s failed, supine policy,” Ione Belarra, Podemos leader and Spain’s social policy minister, wrote on Twitter.

“It is time to make a shift towards greater sovereignty and the defence of our own interests,”, Lilith Verstrynge, another Podemos official, said, echoing French president Emmanuel Macron.

Asked on Monday if Nato should move away from “nation-building”, Merkel agreed: “The goals [of such deployments] should be made much narrower.”

The failure of the alliance’s training programme was also one “big question”, Stoltenberg noted on Tuesday. “Why were the forces we trained and equipped and supported over so many years .. not able to stand up against Taliban in a stronger and better way than they did?”

US guarantees

Lord Mark Sedwill, who served as a former ambassador and senior Nato representative to Afghanistan, suggested this week the alliance should focus its efforts on rebuilding the practical capabilities to intervene when necessary, “avoiding the over-reach and impatience which proved fatal to the Afghan campaign”.

The Afghan drawdown might act as a cautionary tale for Nato nations failing to recognise that US security guarantees were time limited, Robertson said. “If this is a wake-up call to the Europeans – that in the future they’ll have to safeguard their own security much more than before because ... the American global policeman is not necessarily going to be around all the time – then it will have served a purpose.” – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2021

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.