US, Russia And Blackwater Mercenaries Plot Different
Futures For Afghanistan
Saeed Naqvi
Two parallel
peace processes on Afghanistan are underway. In Doha, Zalmay Khalilzad, US Special
Representative for Afghanistan has held extensive round of talks with Taleban
leaders, spread over several days last month. The authorship of this process
is, quite jealously, America’s. But on February 5 and 6, Taleban and other
Afghan political groups also met in Moscow. A roadmap for the future, titled the
Moscow Declaration was announced. Among its nine points is one which also suggests
coordination with the Doha process – there is no jealous guarding of ownership
of the peace process here. Anyone interested in Peace is the joint author. The Declaration
was immediately rubbished by the Presidential Palace in Kabul. “Moscow
declaration will not have impact on the peace process in Afghanistan” said
palace spokesman, Haroon Chakhansuri.
There are, meanwhile,
doubts in many capitals on whether the US is truly contemplating total
withdrawal. To some extent these doubts are a function of Trump’s confusing statements
and tweets. Take his recent statement in Iraq. His troops in Iraq will enable
him “to keep a check on Iran”, something way outside the US-Iraq agreement. In Afghanistan
too, while Khalilzad is ploughing the furrow promising one kind of crop, his President
makes a totally confusing statement. Trump says he will leave behind in
Afghanistan “intelligence elements”. How many?
I have Russian
estimates of five years ago. They may have changed, but in those days the
Russians were convinced of 30 US bases in Afghanistan.
Of these, the ones at Bagram,
Jalalabad, Kandahar, Helmand, Shindand (Herat) and Mazar-e-Sharif were, by the sheer
volume of masonry and architecture, not temporary. These bases will remain. Are
we then talking about a qualified departure?
If the US is actually planning
departure, why would it build a consulate in the heart of Mazar-e-Sharif on a scale
which would dwarf large embassies? Renaissance is the only reasonable hotel in
Mazar-e-Sharif.
It does not take long for great powers to develop more than
one point of interest once they have entered an area of strategic significance.
It would therefore be fanciful to imagine an America-free Afghanistan in the
foreseeable future. “All this blood and treasure was spent for what?” some
Americans will ask. Also the chant in Kabul once was “We must remain in the vicinity
to keep a watch on the world’s only Muslim nuclear state.”
After Obama announced in a speech
delivered on December 1, 2009 US intention to leave Afghanistan in July 2011, I
had argued in a paper for the Observer Research Foundation that Americans can
simply not leave Afghanistan. I have been proved right so far. And now once
again the “We are leaving” story has been let loose. True, this time the
circumstances are different, but let us take a look.
Last July, Zalmay Khalilzad, and
Morgulov Igor Vladimirovich, Russia’s Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, (who
was behind the scene in the Intra-Afghan dialogue in Moscow on February 5 and 6)
attend a high power meet in New Delhi on Regional Issues.
In a more cooperative world order, one
would have expected the representatives of the US and Russia to exchange notes
on Afghanistan. What transpired was to the contrary. Vladimirovich made an
allegation that startled the gathering. “ISIS fighters were being flown to
Northern Afghanistan” from Syria. The Afghan air space is under the control of
the US and the government in Kabul. “So, who is responsible?” Khalilzad offered
a tepid denial. The denial lacked credibility because the Russian allegation
had been preceded by another made by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatullah Khamenei.
In the course of his Friday address in January 30, 2018. Khamenei said, “The US
transfer of IS terrorists to Afghanistan is aimed at creating a justification
for its (US’s) continued presence in the region.”
In countries surrounding Afghanistan
doubts about American intentions may be more muted but are quite as strong. It is
deeply ironical that Jehadism, terrorism and Islamism manufactured in
Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 80s, may be returning to complete the
circle. Indeed, there is a certain inevitability about Islamic Militancy
becoming a tool of American foreign policy. The triangular romance between
Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh will ensure this state of affairs for as long
as this romance lasts.
Let me explain the inevitability. When
Animal Rights groups forced the famous annual fox hunt to stop in South India’s
most Anglaise hill station, Ooty, I expressed my curiosity to the master of the
Hunt: “What have you done to the hundreds of hounds of high pedigree trained diligently
for the Hunt.” The lovely canines had been transferred to an expensive kennel
from where dog lovers could acquire them.
So now we know what to do with
redundant foxhounds of high pedigree. But what does a state like Saudi Arabia
do with spare Islamic militants who have been heavily equipped and trained to
kill at the cost of billions? They can only be relocated to newer theatres of
conflict like Afghanistan. From here they can plague all the countries the US
wishes to destabilize – Xinxiang in China, the Caucasus in Russia, Iran and
Pakistan too if it does not behave according to the US diktat.
To make confusion worse confounded,
Erik Prince, founder of the world’s biggest mercenary military company, which
has mutated from Blackwater to Academi and Triple Canopy, is back in
Afghanistan floating the idea of US troops to be replaced by Prince’s mercenary
army. His plan that Afghanistan be administered by a “Viceroy” was shot down by
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Defence Secretary James Mattis. After
the two were shown the door, Prince has been all over Afghanistan again in and Khalilzad’s
notice. The only person who has refused to meet him in Kabul is President
Ghani.
# # # #
Thanks for sharing the post
ReplyDeleteGuest House Booking in Madurai | Guest Houses in Madurai