Afghanistan policy

Henning Riecke heads the Transatlantic Relations Program at the Berlin-based German Council for Foreign Relations (DGAP).

Deutsche Welle: Some believe that the death of Osama bin Laden signals the end of the US campaign in Afghanistan. Does Washington see it that way as well?

Hennig Riecke: No, definitely not. That's because the Americans weren't only concerned with getting Osama bin Laden. Rather, the aim was to prevent the emergence of safe harbors for terrorist groups in the region. But I can imagine that it will now be easier to drive a wedge between the Taliban and al Qaeda. That at least is a good basic condition for a political solution in Afghanistan.

Preventing terrorists from finding refuge - is that a reason why the US has spoken of a permanent deployment of its troops in certain areas of Afghanistan?

How long the Americans will keep their military bases in Afghanistan depends on how the situation in that country develops. In my opinion, it's clear to everyone in the US that you can't operate in Afghanistan against the will of Kabul's neighbors. The Americans know that they have to make it clear - the US campaign in Afghanistan is a deployment with a limited time frame. The US is reliant on the cooperation of regional powers for a political solution to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is one of those regional powers. Islamabad and Washington don't have the best relations at the moment. How should the US be dealing with Pakistan?

For a very long time, America cultivated ties to Pakistan in different ways and had to certainly swallow a few bitter pills during that time. Reports that elements of the Pakistani intelligence allegedly supported al Qaeda and the Taliban have naturally led to strains between the US and Pakistan.

I think the Americans are trying to raise the pressure on the Pakistanis. At the same time, the Americans are also aware that if the pressure is too great and the weak government in Islamabad has the rug pulled out from under its feet, then the damage would be much greater. Then Islamist forces could possibly try to fill the vacuum and try to marginalize the elite, which is partly pro-Western. And that's something America doesn't want either.

Beyond the stabilization of Afghanistan and Pakistan, do you think America has an interest in having a permanent presence via its military bases in this region which is rich in natural resources?

The Americans have an interest in combating terrorism and violent Islamists who find refuge in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that's why they need military bases there. That will certainly last as long as Pakistan remains unstable and a difficult partner to some extent. I think, the geostrategic considerations are secondary. Everyone knows that military power alone can't secure natural resources any more.

Market-based tactics and economic opportunities need to converge for that to happen. And if we're talking about military deployments and strategic relocation in Afghanistan - then it's not this country that's the central hub. The US could push its interests from the Asia-Pacific region too where they have aircraft carriers or allies who would provide them with the space needed.

Ratbil Shamel interviewed Hennig Riecke (sp)
Editor: Rob Mudge