Wolfgang Danspeckgruber, Director of the Woodrow Wilson School's Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, and William Maley, Director of the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the Australian National University, have co-authored an editorial, "Taliban Toxin," for the June edition of The World Today, a Chatham House publication.

Danspeckgruber and Malley discuss the importance of the upcoming presidential elections in Afghanistan, stating, “Afghanistan is about to move into one of the most difficult and potentially explosive phases of its post-2001 political development.” The writers note, “managing [the elections] will be no small task. Yet doing so is vital for the Afghan people, since voting offers one of their few opportunities to change their own political environment.”

One of the main concerns noted by the writers is that, “the electoral process, which draws large numbers of vulnerable citizens into public places at predictable times, risks creating targets for the Taliban.” As an added security, “the Obama administration and its European allies are committing thousands of fresh troops.”

They explain, “Southern and Eastern Afghanistan are wracked by a vicious insurgency emanating from sanctuaries in Pakistan to which Taliban leadership fled in 2001 after Operation Enduring Freedom overthrew their regime. ” The writers continue, “it is these very parts of the country that one finds many of the Pashtuns who formed the core of President Hamid Karzai’s support in 2004. The disenfranchising of these voters on ‘security’ grounds' would sit ill with the democratic thrust of Afghanistan’s 2004 constitution."

Danspeckgruber and Maley observe that “the impact of the electoral process in Afghanistan is already being powerfully felt. The [Afghanistan] constitution provides a strong executive presidency. The president is chosen in a process based on the French model. If no candidate wins an absolute majority, a run-off is held two weeks later between the two contenders who performed best.” Thus, the writers assert, “Karzai’s 2004 vote of 55.4 percent was not that far above the fifty percent threshold at which a run-off would have been triggered, and there is every reason to expect one now.” They continue, “international support in the form of material resources and special security measures will be required for both rounds.”

The writers express concern that “if there is an acute sharpening of leadership tension, the Taliban and other radical forces based in Pakistan may seize the opportunity to strike heavy blows even before new US and international troops are fully deployed. They may also try to attack the international presence, to test or sway public opinion.”

Danspeckgruber and Maley conclude, “the problems of Pakistan and Afghanistan are entangled in a complex set of interlocking security dilemmas. These dilemmas cannot easily be addressed, given underdeveloped regional cooperation. The path for the Obama administration is not the simplistic one of pressing India to make concessions to Pakistan over Kashmir, but the more subtle approach of incentives for regional states to cooperate in particular spheres, in the hope of slowly breaking down barriers that separate them. It is here that long-term considerations are important, and it is for a long-term commitment that the American and international public have to be prepared- even in times of economic hardship.”