By Stephen de Tarczynski
MELBOURNE, Mar 31 2008 (IPS)

As the largest non-NATO contributor to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, Australia is expected to make its own demands at this week’s crucial summit of the arms pact in Bucharest.

Troops interacting with Afghan villagers in March Credit: Department of Defence, Australia

Fitzgibbon – who will attend the Apr. 2-4 summit with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – said that Australia “will continue to push for a new roadmap and a greater commitment from under-committed NATO partners.”

The unveiled swipe at fellow ISAF members came not without precedents. With the 40 ISAF nations spread unevenly across Afghanistan, the United States and Canada have also spoken out against what they regard as disparate workloads and dangers for the different countries’ forces.

During a visit to Australia in February, U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates called on “other NATO allies to dig deep and to meet the needs that have been articulated by the ISAF commander (Gen. Dan McNeill) in Afghanistan.” The U.S. is by far the greatest contributor to ISAF with some 15,000 troops deployed out of a total of around 43,000.

Canada, meanwhile, has stipulated that NATO provide an extra 1,000 troops as a prerequisite for extending its military mission in Afghanistan to July 2011, a two-year addition on Canada’s current time-frame.

Germany, for instance, is the third-largest contributor to ISAF with more than three thousand troops deployed, yet like France, Italy and Spain, has placed prohibitive restrictions on where its forces can operate.

These policies have left troops deployed in the volatile south of Afghanistan – particularly those from the U.S., Britain, Canada and the Netherlands – to do the bulk of the fighting against the resurgent Taliban.

Australia is also among nations with forces in the south – considered the most dangerous area of operations – and is tipped by a leading Australian expert on Afghanistan to make waves at this week’s summit.

“It’s certainly an opportunity for Australia’s concerns and perspectives to be aired to an audience that should be quite receptive,” says Prof. William Maley, director of the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the Australian National University.

Besides calling for a bigger contribution from those NATO nations perceived as shirking their responsibilities, Australia is expected to demand a say in the running of the war.

Fitzgibbon has insisted that Australia – which has lost four soldiers so far – be given access to top-level intelligence and strategy documents. He has been highly critical of what he regards as a lack of co-ordinated and coherent plans in Afghanistan.

NATO has provided Fitzgibbon with draft documents for the Bucharest summit, where Australia will be keen to be regarded as an important player in Afghanistan. That perception will be enhanced by Australia’s hitherto role in the country.

Maley argues that despite Australia’s relatively small deployment of about 1,000 troops – albeit more than any other non-NATO contributor – it remains important due to where Australian troops are stationed.

The core of the Australian contingent is based in Oruzgan province, “a much more significant province in terms of the overall stability of the country than, for instance, some of the provinces in the north where a number of NATO countries have their troops deployed,” according to Maley.

He says that this accords “the Australian deployment a significance that is weightier than its mere size would suggest”.

Other potential factors in Australia’s ability to influence decisions in Bucharest and thereafter include the training of Afghan personnel. In February, Fitzgibbon announced the creation of a 70-member training team to instruct soldiers of the Afghan National Army, while the mooted increase of police mentors – there are currently only four Australian Federal Police officers in Afghanistan – could be used to sweeten any increased commitment from under-performing NATO countries.

According to Maley, police mentoring cannot be underestimated. “If they’re appropriately deployed, (police) can bring a sense of security into the lives of ordinary people, which is what a lot of ordinary Afghans feel is missing at the moment,” he told IPS.

With Australia also set to pull its combat troops out of Iraq mid-year, there is also the possibility that troop numbers in Afghanistan could be bolstered, although this was recently ruled out by Fitzgibbon, who described Australian forces as “overstretched”.

However, the defence minister has also stated that any requests for extra troops would be dependent upon the outcomes reached at this week’s summit.

While it remains to be seen whether Australia and other parties reach agreements at the NATO meeting, it nonetheless shapes as a vital three days. Recent reports indicate that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating.

A paper released in January by the U.S.’ Afghanistan Study Group found that renewed violence, increasing opium production and a lack of confidence in the government of President Harmid Karzai and its foreign backers was further destabilising the country.

NATO’s Romania summit “is an important meeting,” says Maley. “Time is running out in Afghanistan and Afghans themselves are looking to the meeting in Bucharest for signals about the direction that NATO and non-NATO partners are likely to take.”

The analyst told IPS that with 70 to 80 percent of the population having access to radio broadcasts, the news emerging at the summit will be quickly disseminated to ordinary Afghans. Maley says many remain undecided about who to support.

“A lot of people are sitting tight, waiting to see what happens. The stronger the signal you send about long-term commitment, the more likely it is that people like that will opt to throw their weight behind the government and the transition process,” he says.

Excerpt: