Brown Issues a Stern Warning

Speaking at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London earlier today, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown delivered a stern warning to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to end corruption in his government or face the consequences. What’s more, continued British support for Afghanistan, the prime minister emphasized, would depend upon the Karzai government’s delivery of extensive reforms:

“People are right to ask whether our soldiers should be placed in harm’s way, if the government of Afghanistan is unable or unwilling to meet its obligations to the Afghan people. [...]

Sadly, the government of Afghanistan has become a by-word for corruption. And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm’s way for a government that does not stand up against corruption.”

Despite Brown’s warning to Afghanistan’s newly reappointed president, the prime minister remained steadfast on the question of Britain’s commitment to Afghanistan. At a time when public support for the war in Afghanistan is waning, Brown’s speech was an unmistakable attempt to boost domestic support for a mission which, he explained, is intended to prevent the planning and execution of further terrorist attacks abroad:

“In the last decade, in hundreds of attacks across the world, Al Qaeda and those associated or inspired by them have killed thousands. These victims were Muslim, Christian, Jewish, of every faith and none. This is a reality all the world has witnessed — in New York, Bali, Baghdad, Madrid, Mumbai, Rawalpindi — and of course right here on the streets of London. So when people ask why we are in Afghanistan — why over 40 countries have troops on the ground — I ask them to look at this list of terrible atrocities.”

According to Brown, the British government will thus “do what is necessary, however difficult, to keep the British people safe;” therefore, as long as Al Qaeda and its affiliates are plotting to commit attacks against Britain and its allies, “we cannot, must not and will not walk away” from Afghanistan — that is, presumably, unless Karzai fails to curb corruption within his own ranks.

The prime minister’s remarks raise two important and related questions. First, what exactly would happen if Karzai proved unwilling or unable to implement the reforms the prime minister — and others of the international community, including President Obama — demands of him? And second, what would Karzai’s inaction or inability to implement these reforms mean for the president’s own future at the helm of the Kabul government? While these questions are beyond the scope of this blog post, one thing is for certain: if Karzai is serious about ending corruption and reforming central and provincial governance in Afghanistan to the extent demanded by the international community, he has work cut out for him. As Brown notes:

“[G]ood governance is more than the absence of corruption. It is about having properly qualified men and women in the key jobs. The world will be monitoring the new government’s appointments — cabinet ministers and provincial governors – to ensure they are based on merit. Cronies and warlords  should have no place in the future of Afghanistan.”

Brown went on to explain that “international support depends on the scale of [Karzai's] ambition and the degree of his achievement in five key areas: security, governance, reconciliation, economic development and engagement with [Afghanistan's] neighbors.” On the topic of security, Brown addressed the ongoing “Afghanization of the security effort,” explaining that “the first priority of any government is to provide security for its people.” The prime minister made clear that the policy of depending upon America’s and NATO’s military forces to provide for Afghanistan’s long-term security is unsustainable. Consequently, growing and training the Afghan security forces must be a new priority for the government. To aid in this mission, Brown said, Britain is ready to commit to the recommendation spelled out in General McChrystal’s assessment to accelerate the expansion of the Afghan army to 134,000 troops one year from now. To achieve this, the Afghan government has to raise about 5,000 army recruits each month. Once Washington has decided its Afghanistan strategy, Brown tells us, Britain is poised to on board to help Afghanistan achieve this number.

So where does this leave us? First and foremost, President Karzai has to make good on his promise to fight corruption, and do so effectively. If he fails to do so, Karzai’s days as America’s and NATO’s preferred partner may well be numbered (if they haven’t expired already). As noted above, Gordon Brown clearly appears willing to pull the plug on Britain’s commitment to Afghanistan and Karzai’s government if his demands are not met. Second, the British government — still under Brown’s leadership at least until the British general elections next year — has to live up to its prime minister’s bold rhetoric. The true nature of Brown’s commitment to Britain’s armed forces in harm’s way is not beyond doubt, as a firestorm of recent criticism makes clear. At the very least, Brown has to back up his commendable rhetoric with equally decisive action. If Her Majesty’s Government under his leadership fails to do so, Gordon Brown’s words will be precisely what his critics say they are: nothing but empty rhetoric. For the sake of Britain’s armed forces in harm’s way, let’s hope the prime minister’s words will be followed by concrete actions.

Philipp Tomio is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.