Read Gordon Brown's statement on Afghanistan in full

Gordon Brown relaunched British strategy in Afghanistan yesterday, backing plans to split the Taleban leadership while sticking with a carefully crafted Anglo-American compromise on opium production.

Announcing what officials called “a shift in emphasis”, the Prime Minister told the Commons that he supported efforts by President Karzai of Afghanistan for reconciliation with mid-ranking members of the Taleban.

“If they are prepared to renounce violence and abide by the Constitution and respect basic human rights, then there is a place for them in the legitimate society and economy of Afghanistan,” he said.

Mr Brown, who held talks with Mr Karzai in Kabul this week, said that direct negotiations with the Taleban were not an option, but realism was needed when tackling the insurgency that has rumbled on for nearly six years. “Our objective is to root out those preaching and practising violence and murder, in support of men and women of peace,” he said.

Officials claim that 5,000 Taleban members have already agreed to give up their arms. These are mainly “tier two” and “tier three” Taleban; the latter being local farmers who fought intermittently for about £5 a day. However, they also said that 70 Taleban “leaders” had been killed this year alone.

The Prime Minister announced plans to provide development aid of about £450 million between 2009 and 2012, as well as proposals to bolster training of Afghanistan’s armed forces. He said that Britain would keep about 7,800 troops in Afghanistan for the long term, without specifying a time limit.

His statement yesterday was designed to draw a line under the divisions that have characterised much of the campaign in Afghanistan. Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, vented his frustrations this week with the chaotic multinational leadership in Afghanistan, complaining in testimony to Congress that many Nato allies were “unable to step up to the plate”.

Britain, in turn, has complained about US military tactics in which special operations raids sometimes leave UK Forces to “pick up the pieces”, while others order in air strikes despite a risk of civilian casualties. But the biggest split has been over whether or not to eradicate the opium poppy fields that provide funding for the Taleban and which have flooded Western drug markets with heroin. Figures released in July showed Afghanistan’s illicit poppy harvest was set for another record this year.

The US, led by its ambassador in Kabul, William Wood, has pushed hard for aerial crop spraying; Britain has led international opposition to such a policy, saying it would undermine efforts to win hearts and minds.

Last week senior US officials travelled to London and other European capitals to settle the dispute. Thomas Schweich, the US co-ordinator for Afghan Counter-narcotics, said yesterday that after failing to win the backing of Mr Karzai and European allies, the decision was made to shelve plans for aerial spraying of poppy fields. “The lack of unity has often been used as an excuse by corrupt individuals to do nothing,” he added.

Mr Schweich, however, insisted that the decision not to spray the poppy fields would have to be “re-evaluated” if significant progress were not made. “We will see how things go for this one year,” he said.

The Prime Minister’s statement yesterday made no mention of reported plans for Britain to pay farmers if they stopped opium poppy cultivation. In a secret operation four years ago, nearly £20 million was handed over to farmers, but officials yesterday confirmed that the UK would not do so again. Mr Schweich yesterday cited a recent United Nations report that found that most poppy farmers were wealthy individuals who did not need to plant the crop to escape poverty. Yesterday a senior military figure at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 said that, while the new British approach was probably the right one, it carried major risks. He said the most significant challenge was the urgent need to persuade other Nato members to share the burden, so that Britain did not suffer a disproportionate number of casualties.

“We must recognise the need to talk to Afghans, including warlords who can behave badly but could fight on our side,” he said.

Explore Asia News

• China News

Times Recommends

• 'Great Schlep' may seal deal for Obama
• Hindu 'storm troopers' flex their muscles
• Ahtisaari: deserved reward for (failed) plan