Paris, 3 June 2009 – The Assembly recommended on Wednesday the definition of a “European political, economic and security strategy for Afghanistan”, while 2009 is predicted to be “a tough year”.

Tabling a report on behalf of the Defence Committee entitled “The war in Afghanistan: what strategy for Europe?”, Françoise Hostalier (France, Federated Group) and Jean-Pierre Kucheida (France, Socialist Group) recalled that despite the deployment of 300 000 troops (allied and Afghan forces combined), 2009 had seen an increase in Taliban attacks and the conflict had spread to the border zones with Pakistan where rebel forces sought “sanctuary”. Mr Kucheida stressed that it was against this background that the Afghan presidential elections would take place on 20 August next, “another test of the stability and sovereignty of the state within the Afghan borders”.

According to the Rapporteurs, since 2001 “real progress” had been made towards re-establishing a “viable” Afghan state, including efforts to rebuild the army and police and progress in the area of health and education. But there was a long way to go before objectives were reached, they added, not only because of the almost endemic corruption in the Afghan administration, but also because of the lack of effective coordination of the military and civil efforts conducted jointly by the NATO/ISAF, the United States and some 30 European countries.

Mr Kucheida underscored that the “military response must continue to evolve” and had to be accompanied at all costs by “financial aid, essentially for civilian purposes”. While he welcomed the fact that “all the international partners are now convinced that the solution to the Afghan crisis is based above all on the country’s economic and social development”, he pointed out the many obstacles to achieving a favourable outcome in the short term.

On the military level, he felt that “establishing a unified command under the United States” was “a necessity”, but that it could also lead to the “dissolution of the coalition” if the “grip” were too tight and largely served American “geostrategic interests”. The Rapporteur also stressed the need to harmonise the rules of military engagement of the different armies participating in the coalition. Military action was currently being held back by as many as 90 restrictions (“caveats”) imposed by the various national governments on their coalition forces. Civilian aid was just as uncoordinated, said Mrs Hostalier adding “each nation does what it wants. There is no pilot in the plane”.

Underlining the importance of coordinating action, the Assembly calls on the European states engaged in Afghanistan to harmonise their rules of engagement and above all to define a strategy “within the framework of a Euro-Afghan partnership” and review “the effectiveness of economic and social aid”.

During the debate, Odd Einar Dørum (Norway), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Group, remarked that “very little of the money reaches the people that it is supposed to reach” and recommended that the money should be given directly to the local population. A number of speakers expressed concern at the continued practice of poppy growing and the increasing instability of Pakistan. “Economic aid must come quickly in order to replace this crop with others”, Mr Kucheida said. As regards Pakistan, he felt that it was a “twofold problem” of “a country of 160 million inhabitants in possession of the atomic bomb” and “a fragile government with little room for manoeuvre to solve the problem of the border zones”.