View from America

By M.R. Josse GAITHERSBURG, MD: The anatomy of the Afghanistan debacle which climaxed on Sunday, 15 August 2021, with the seizure of power by the Taliban will be dissected, discussed and hotly debated for years in Afghanistan, the region and beyond. [caption id="attachment_39290" align="alignright" width="787"] An aerial view of Kabul city, Afghanistan. Photo: Internet [/caption] Here, I merely attempt to provide some telling, incisive or even arresting random perspectives on American President Joe Biden’s darkest hour, culled from international and regional media outlets, garnishing it with personal observations, commentary and analysis. WHAT A CONTRAST Let me begin by recounting what may be called a tale of two withdrawals, as Ekaterina Blinova of Russia’s sputniknews.com reminds, thus: “Washington’s disorganized and haphazard pullout from Kabul comes in sharp contrast on how the USSR left the country in February 1989, says American independent journalist Max Perry, recalling how the U.S. political establishment tried to create a Vietnam-style quagmire for the Soviets, but eventually fell into its own trap. “Parry says: The key difference between the Soviet withdrawal of 1989 and the U.S. pullout of today is the completely disorganized nature of the latter. “Despite being bogged down in a protracted and exhausting standoff with the U.S.-armed Mujahideen, the Soviets managed to carry out their drawdown ‘in an orderly, responsible fashion.’ ”   A different banquet of thought is provided from London by CNN’s Luke McGhee in a story headlined, ‘Europe left exposed as Biden walks America away from the world stage.’ McGhee has these somber observations to proffer: “Europeans’ disappointment was not at the contents of Biden’s address (20 August), but the America First optics of the leader of the free world washing his hands of a global problem. The unilateral decision to withdraw seemed to somewhat contradict Biden’s claim entering the White House that ‘America is back.’ “The Afghan crisis, for some, hammered home the bleak reality that, without America, Europe’s immediate ability to control its own destiny is limited. Revealing is U.K. defence secretary Ben Wallace’s comment that he thought that the withdrawal was a mistake and signaled victory to the Taliban. U.K. officials told CNN they had tried to encourage both the Taliban and Biden to slow down but failed to convince them. “Middle European officials and diplomats told CNN of their shock at Biden’s assertion that the only U.S. interest in Afghanistan was to neutralize the terrorists who attacked the U.S. in 2001 and prevent further attacks on American soil. “As one European official put it: ‘When America reversed course on Syria, it sparked a crisis in Europe, not in the U.S.’ The Free World without its leader is in no position to fix the mess and stand up to the values it holds so dear. And it’s certainly running low on choices how to help.” Another clear-headed assessment of America’s mangled drawdown in Afghanistan – so poignantly and agonizingly being enacted at Kabul airport – comes from Simon Tisdall in the British newspaper The Guardian in a story entitled: ‘After Afghanistan, the Pax America is over – as is NATO. About time, too’ “Biden’s Afghanistan chaos means Europe can no longer rely on him. Let’s hope a more balanced security relationship emerges. The North Atlantic measurably weakened last week. The more Joe Biden tried to shift blame for the Afghan chaos, the bigger the gulf with America’s U.K. and European allies grows. This U.S. president, who preaches the virtues of multilateralism yet acted on his own has done more in a few weeks to undermine the western alliance than Donald Trump ever did with all his bluster. “All things considered, this may not be a bad outcome. A reckoning was long overdue. The Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq was a historic mistake. Barack Obama’s Syria cop-out was shaming, for the opposite reason. Now the hugely costly 20-year Afghan intervention is ending in calamity, more refugee chaos, and the threat of renewed terrorism which, once again, will principally affect Europe…Fears grow that U.S. allies are being dragged into another ‘forever war’, this time with China. “The Afghan project failed…NATO - discredited, ill-led, and taken for granted – has had its day, too. A more balanced, more respectful U.S.-Europe security relationship is required. Without it, there may be no western alliance to lead.” PROGNOSES, PREDICTIONS   Another engaging viewpoint – this time, American – comes from Tom Copeland in a piece published in the Indian, ThePrint, on 20 August. Its gist: The U.S. has to say goodbye to its adventures abroad. Among some of its prognoses and predictions are: China may want to maintain positive relations with the Taliban because they could become another node for the Belt and Road Initiative. America’s stature in the world has been taken down a peg, with allies in Europe and Asia wondering, justifiably, whether she remains a reliable partner. Copeland thinks that Russia may be emboldened in its near abroad, especially in Ukraine; China may decide that its planned invasion of Taiwan can move forward apace. Of course, there has been no dearth of pundits who, gazing into their crystal balls, visualize a splurge of terrorism activities and exodus of refugees, worldwide. BBC’s Catherine Byanuhanga, for one, predicts that the Taliban takeover raises fears about Africa’s jihadists, since at the fall of Kabul to the Taliban Islamist groups in Africa were quick to celebrate, including the al-Shabab in Somalia. She informs, too, that from Somalia in the east to Nigeria in the west, newspapers have published articles and citizens have taken to social media to share their concerns. Another notable related development is the report of Greece erecting a 40-km border fence with Turkey, and installing a surveillance system, amid warnings of an Afghan migrant surge. Pakistan, according to a BBC report by Sarah Atiq, worried over fighting in Afghanistan spilling over, shut its side of the border even prior to the Taliban takeover. The Taliban was reported to not letting anyone through the Torkham border crossing to Pakistan, the exception being made of traders or those with valid travel documents.          INDIA TO BE ‘TESTED’

The 13th SAARC Summit in Dhaka

The impact of the sudden collapse of the Kabul regime, a long-time ally of New Delhi, has important politico-diplomatic and geopolitical lessons for those interested in such arcane knowhow. Some of them have been shortlisted by BBC’s Delhi-based Vikas Pandey, including the omnibus one that ‘Taliban’s victory will test India.’ That, in my view, is putting things very mildly, indeed. Anyway, Pandey, drawing on the wisdom of a former Indian envoy to Afghanistan, says that the world is ‘likely to see Pakistan, Russia, Iran and China coming together to play the next chapter of the Great Game’. He goes on to recall that, according to experts, Pakistan was ‘not happy with the growing ties between the U.S. and India, or former President Ashraf Ghani who had ‘lukewarm’ relations with Pakistan – ho-hum stuff that anyone in Karol Bagh could tell you, off-the-cuff. Also, the BBC man in Lyuten’s Delhi not only gently reminds us that ‘China has economic interests in Afghanistan’ but ‘more importantly’ that it can now pressure the Taliban to ban the East Turkestan Islamic Movement to operate on Afghan soil. [Don’t all of us know of a high-level Taliban delegation being received and warmly hosted by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Tianjin last month, as discussed in a previous column in this journal?]     Pandey quotes Gautam Mukhopadhya, a former Indian ambassador in Kabul, predicting that China and Pakistan would henceforth “ride piggyback on each other in Afghanistan” while “Russia and Iran also seem to be on the same trajectory” as neither has evacuated their respective embassies and are functioning (while India had to earlier, with the assistance of the United States, as reported separately by the Indian Express. It had similarly done so in 1996, when the Taliban first seized power in Kabul.) The BBC reporter has quoted Vitendra Nath Misra, another former Indian diplomat, arguing that there are no good options for India vis-à-vis Afghanistan. “There are bad and there are worse options.” Misra pertinently argues that “the biggest challenge for India is whether to recognize the Taliban government or not.” Jyoti Malhotra, writing in ThePrint, 19 August, raises the timely query whether India had relied too much on the United States, in pursuit of her Afghanistan policy. Well, I, for one, think so – and even more generally than just on Afghanistan: for example, by India gleefully joining the America-led Quad arrangement, which, fundamentally, seeks to contain China. She frankly acknowledges that “India lost this round to Pakistan”. And elaborates: “With the Russians and Chinese being much closer to Pakistan in order to gain leverage over the Taliban, it has been difficult over the years for India to play a greater role beyond the development one. Remember, too, that the Russians have never totally forgiven the U.S. for breaking the Soviet Union. “And so the U.S. began to get more and more bogged down in Afghanistan and Russia, China and Pakistan simply watched.” Though India’s role and strategic interest in Afghanistan in the past two decades were far from being limited to merely helping Afghanistan meet her developmental goals – as Malhotra blandly, and misleadingly, suggests – I shall let that pass, without further ado.       NEPAL AND RECOGNITION Instead, I will take up one of the key politico-diplomatic challenges that the government of Sher Bahadur Deuba – which, even as I pen this, is still sans a foreign minister – faces: it is the issue of recognition of the new regime in Kabul which is just now emerging from its shell, so to speak. Let me be very clear: while there is no tearing hurry for Nepal to recognize the new or emergent government in Kabul, there should not, on the other hand, be any willful dragging of her feet, either. In this regard, I wish to recall that although Kathmandu did not rush to accord recognition to Bangladesh, following its creation out of East Pakistan with significant Indian help, in the early 1970s, eventually, “faced with a fait accompli, Nepal had no option but to accept the reality of Bangladesh.” (Vide, M.R. Josse, Nepal’s Quest for Survival, NEFAS, 2020), p. 81. What needs to be underscored, at this juncture, is that Nepal – despite intense diplomatic pressure from New Delhi – did not jump the queue: as a matter of fact, her recognition was exquisitely timed, immediately after Myanmar, which shares a land border with the territory, did. Nepal while being quite close to Bangladesh physically does not have a common land border with her. To recall, Bhutan rushed to be the second country, after India, to accord recognition to Bangladesh. From all present indications, a new duly-constituted Afghan government should be in place pretty soon, as Taliban leaders not only congregate in Kabul from various locales, including Qatar and elsewhere in the Gulf, but talks are presently underway between their representatives and some prominent personalities of the ancient regime.  Secondly, what is also plain at this stage is that Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia, whose embassies in Kabul are reportedly still functioning, will be extending their recognition in the near future, perhaps even in concert. While I do not have any relevant information on the subject from Dhaka, Colombo or Nyapitaw, it is quite possible that those South Asian capitals, too, will not hold back recognition for long. I do predict, however, that New Delhi and Washington will not be in a hurry to do so.    Finally, having noted Maila Baje’s recollection in his latest blog that “King Gyanendra, who many believe lost his throne for tying China’s entry into SAARC as an observer, as a price for Afghanistan’s India-backed membership of the regional organization”, I wish to disclose that, according to my own sources, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s plea to the Nepalese King to accept his proposal for membership for Afghanistan, was premised on pressure on him from U.S. President George W. Bush. I was an accredited reporter at the said SAARC summit in Dhaka and have written quite extensively on it. (Vide, Josse, Nepal’s Quest for Survival, pp 375-380.)