Introduction: Security, Governance and Statebuilding in Afghanistan

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Humayun Hamidzada for his editorial contributions to this volume, which include substantive comments and editing of many of the articles. In addition, the editors are grateful to all involved – contributors and editors – for their patience with the production of this volume. Special thanks are also due to Ian Philp for technical assistance. Finally, we would like to thank the many people in Kabul who offered their time to share their experience and discuss the many complexities which make straightforward analysis of this remarkable country so difficult.

Notes

1. Simon Chesterman, ‘Walking Softly in Afghanistan: The Future of UN Statebuilding’, Survival, Vol.44, No.3, Autumn 2002, pp.37–8.

2. Statement by Lakhdar Brahimi, Conference organized by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs on ‘Strategies for Economic Reconstruction and Post-Conflict Management’, Berlin, 27 Oct. 2004, p.3.

3. On securitization and de-securitization see Øle Wæver, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in Ronnie Libschutz (ed.), On Security, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.

4. The British Defence White Paper of 2003 identified failed and rogue states as primary security threats together with a blueprint for structural reform of British armed forces to meet them through global power projection: ‘the expeditionary strategy’, www.mod.uk/publications/whitepaper2003/index.html. Likewise, the US National Security Strategy of 2002 explicitly sets out policy to, inter alia, (V) ‘Prevent Our Enemies From Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends With Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (including pre-emptive strike), (VI) ‘Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade’, and (VII) ‘Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy’, www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) sought to deterritorialize the concept of sovereignty to allow for an international ‘responsibility to protect’ persecuted populations through normalization of humanitarian intervention and peace operations, www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report2-en.asp.

5. Adam Roberts, ‘Intervention Without End?’, The World Today, Vol.59, No.4, April 2003, p.10.

6. ‘The Future of Afghanistan’, Richard N. Haas, Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington DC, 6 Dec. 2001.

7. Barnett Rubin, ‘Constructing Sovereignty for Security’, Survival, Vol.47, No.4, Winter 2005, p.94.

8. Ali A. Jalali, ‘The Future of Afghanistan’, Parameters, Spring 2006, p.9.

9. Rubin (see n.7 above).

10. UN, ‘Capstone Doctrine for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations’, New York: UN DPKO, 8 Aug. 2006 (working draft), pp.12–17.

11. Espen Barth Eide, Anja Therese Kaspersen, Randolph Kent and Karin von Hippel, ‘Report on Integrated Missions: Practical Perspectives and Recommendations’, New York: UN Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs, May 2005, p.3.

12. UN Security Council res. 1704, 25 Aug. 2006, S/RES/1704 (2006), para.4 (f), p.3.