FIFO diplomacy in Kabul a farce

Concern about the security situation in Afghanistan after the last US, NATO and Australian troops leave by the ill-chosen September 11 deadline is well justified. But Scott Morrison’s attempt to use that as an excuse to defend the decision to hastily shut down our embassy in Kabul and withdraw our diplomats by Monday does little to meet criticism of the move.

The outlook is undoubtedly grim. But that is nothing new in Afghanistan. It is ever thus. Following Donald Trump’s election-motivated decision to draw down US forces from what he regarded as a “forever war” – a decision that has been co-opted by Joe Biden – the widespread expectation is that the obscurantist Taliban jihadists, already in control of much of the country, will move swiftly to fill the vacuum. So will Islamic State.

The elected government of President Ashraf Ghani, installed and sustained by the West, including Australia, is given little chance of long-term survival. But as dire as the prospects appear to be, the reality is that at no time since Australia opened its first Kabul embassy in 2006 has the security situation been much different. It has always been profoundly challenging. Yet successive deployments of Australian diplomats and officials have defied the threats and worked successfully to safeguard not just our strategic and security interests, but also to oversee major, ongoing Australian aid programs that have done much to help Afghanistan’s oppressed women and children.

Mr Morrison told parliament on Tuesday “security arrangements could not be provided to support our ongoing presence”. If that is so, why have we been there for so long in similarly dire circumstances? As Greg Sheridan wrote about a decision which makes us, uncomfortably, the first Western coalition nation to pull out and have our diplomats operate instead on a fly-in, fly-out basis: “(It) amounts to the most pathetic abdication of elementary solidarity with our Afghan allies”. It will, he added, “mimic the instability of American policy in its worst caricature … it reduces Australian policy to incoherence: five minutes ago, our national interests and our values justified risking Australian lives and spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Five minutes later, we have discovered all those interests were worthless.” Such perceptions will do little for our standing in the region at a crucial time when, as with the Quad grouping, we are seeking to work with new allies to counter the Chinese expansionist threat. India has a major interest in Afghanistan’s stability. It is likely to be unimpressed by the speed of our retreat from Kabul.

The deteriorating security situation in recent years, Amanda Hodge and Ben Packham reported, has made Kabul one of our most expensive overseas missions. But, in terms of the ongoing battle against Islamist terrorism so vital to Australia, it has also been one of our most important. Osama bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks from terrorist-supporting Afghanistan when the Taliban was in power. Nothing is more important than ensuring the country does not regress into again becoming a base for global Islamist terrorism. It is imperative that Australian eyes are on the ground to monitor developments affecting our national security. There is also a crucial need, as Sheridan wrote, to be there to express political support for the Afghan nation and its institutions.

As Hodge and Packham reported on Wednesday, even investigations into alleged war crimes by ADF troops who served there could be impeded without an embassy in Kabul. It will be a pity if that happens. Shutting up shop is not the answer. Doing so only delivers a propaganda victory for the Taliban and shows a lack of confidence in the country’s post-NATO coalition security prospects.

Honourable nations, as Sheridan wrote, do not leave close allies for persecution by their enemies.