Kabul will test Rudd's alliance skills

WATCH for Afghanistan to become the test of Kevin Rudd's security policy and Australia-US relations with a newly elected president Barack Obama pledged to boost US troop levels and seek greater contributions from allies.

Former defence minister and ALP leader Kim Beazley told a United States Studies Centre forum last week that any judgments about Australia by president Obama would be heavily influenced by the Prime Minister's stance on Afghanistan.

Beazley told The Australian yesterday: "Obama would be a new president not steeped in Cold War history and not steeped in Australia's long role in that history. His attitude towards Australia is likely to be `What are you going to do for me?"'

Yet Rudd told the National Press Club last week that "we have no plans whatsoever to provide any additional troops to Afghanistan". It was a comprehensive rejection. This is a message not just to the Australian public but to the US: it is code for "don't ask".

Rudd is sending the message: don't embarrass your Australian ally that is already committed to Afghanistan and is there for the long haul. Yet this cannot be more than a holding position.

There are persistent military to military soundings for Australia to do more in Afghanistan. On September 20, Patrick Walters reported in this paper that NATO commander David McKiernan wanted a bigger Australian effort "whether it's combat arms, combat support, logistics or aviation." The message is unequivocal. This is also the view of the new US Central Command chief, David Petraeus, now responsible for Afghanistan.

Presumably, the US would only make a formal political request if Australia changed its mind. But this is destined to become an exacting test of Australia-US ties under two new leaders, Rudd and Obama.

Remember that Rudd's most important immediate foreign policy goal is to forge a trusting and collaborative relationship with Obama. Afghanistan must be seen in this broader negotiating context.

To this point Rudd sees no political sign on his radar of Australia being asked to send more troops. This is not Beazley's assessment. It is clearly at odds with the view of the allied militaries.

"I don't expect any pressure from the US immediately," Beazley said. "But I think Afghanistan will be seen in the context of the Rudd Government's attitude towards the US and the alliance.

Afghanistan is a test of the ANZUS alliance.

"I don't know why Australian correspondents don't write this up but we invoked the ANZUS treaty - for the first time in our history - to go to Afghanistan in 2001.

"If the alliance has any meaning then we are basically committed while that struggle continues."
Obama's intent is manifest. His entire security strategy pivots on the rejection of Iraq as the major theatre of operations against Islamist terrorism and shifting the focus to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions. He will arrive in office absolutely determined to make a difference in Afghanistan and halt the deterioration now apparent and alarming.

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with few restrictions - from NATO allies," Obama said recently. "The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their security is enduring because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared."

Obama says "the greatest threat" to security lies in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas. He says he will not tolerate terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. He wants a stronger partnership between the US and NATO.

Beazley said: "Obama will require a Western presence in Afghanistan greater than what is there now. He may not get this from his NATO partners. Our presence in Oruzgan province is dependent upon the Dutch task force. If the Dutch leave, the US may seek an Australian replacement force."
The Dutch will finish their overall security responsibility in Oruzgan in two years' time. This will put serious pressure on Australia, its deployment and its overall Afghanistan strategy.

Afghanistan is now Australia's major combat commitment with almost 1100 troops deployed. In his speech last week to the C.E.W. Bean Foundation Dinner, Rudd said Australia's interest in Afghanistan was "critical". Australia's commitment was driven by two motives: to halt the spread of terrorism, and "doing our fair share" with the US and our allies.

Rudd said that Australia was in Afghanistan "for the long haul". This means, presumably, that unlike some NATO allies Australia will not withdraw due to domestic political pressure. But, Rudd said, "success is not guaranteed" and Australia offered "no blank cheque". He said the architects of the Bali bombing that killed 88 Australians were trained in Afghanistan. He stressed that 40 nations were involved in resisting the Taliban and the goal was endorsed by the UN Security Council.

The paradox in Rudd's stance is that Australia has been openly agitating for more allied forces but resolutely refuses to increase its own, a stance that must strike other nations as provocative precisely because it is provocative.

Drawing a fascinating distinction between Obama and Republican candidate John McCain, Beazley said: "McCain carries the Cold War history in his head. He understands all the commitments Australia has made over the years and this is in his brain cells. Obama has none of this in his head. He will be learning on the job. He is likely to judge Australia not by the historical record but by what we do now."

The Australian people perceive Afghanistan, as distinct from Iraq, as the right war. But it is not a popular war and the more fatalities Australia takes the less popular it will become.
In his Bean speech Rudd stressed that military means alone cannot defeat an insurgency.
Afghanistan must be rebuilt and his emphasis on this civil reconstruction theme may point to the future nature of Australian contributions.

In political terms Rudd has inherited Afghanistan. But he is desperate to ensure that it does not become Rudd's war or Labor's war. This is the risk if Rudd makes a concerted increase in Australia's deployment. No Australian PM wants to be tied to a war that is unlikely to end in apparent victory.

At present Rudd is waiting on Washington. But negotiating over Afghanistan is about to become a test of his judgment and skill.