|
Afghanistan aftermath
SOME ‘LASTING good’ will come out of the war against
Afghanistan, promised Tony Blair last year. But promises given by capitalist
politicians are usually written in sand, especially the kind made in wartime.
The bombs and missiles fired at Afghanistan have not brought
very much ‘lasting good’ to the poverty-stricken masses. This war killed
almost 5,000 civilians and destroyed what was left of the country’s
infrastructure. Afghanistan, after years of wars and in its fourth year of
drought, is now labelled by the World Bank as "one of the poorest, most
miserable states in the world". Children are traded for bags of wheat.
The fall of Kabul last November marked the end of the
ruthless and reactionary Taliban regime. The collapse of the Taliban, however,
has given way to warlordism, banditry and extortion. "The overwhelming
impression is that warlords, not the central government, hold sway",
commented the International Herald Tribune (27 March). The warlords, whose
armies acted – and to some extent still act – as proxy US forces, try to set
their own agenda. These warlords "are now refusing to disarm and accept the
writ of the country’s fledging interim government. They are even defying the
Americans". (Wall Street Journal, 16 January)
Once again US imperialism, which armed and financed these
gangs, has created forces that are out of its control. As long as the US is
using unsavoury warlords to pursue its interests, other neighbouring states and
powers will do the same, which tends to speed up the process of disintegration.
Already, at the beginning of this year, the CIA warned in a classified report
that Afghanistan could once again fall into violent chaos if steps are not taken
to restrain competition for power among rival warlords and to control ethnic
tensions.
Since then, the situation has become worse, partly due to
the policy and military strategy adopted by US imperialism. The US is supplying
the warlords with arms and cash to hunt down and kill what is left of the
Taliban, but this only exacerbates warlordism. One Northern Alliance leader said
to the Financial Times: "The US is faced with a problem. On the one hand,
it wants to disarm the warlords. On the other hand, it doesn’t want to disarm
them, as it doesn’t know when it will need them again". (20 March) So
while the US is paying an Afghan who joins their ‘special forces’ $200 a
month, a civil servant in Kabul, paid by the United Nations Development
Programme, earns only $28 a month.
Afghanistan’s interim government, controlled by a faction
within the Northern Alliance and the Tajiks (an ethnic group accounting for
one-fifth of the population), has little power or authority beyond Kabul. Hamid
Karzai, the administration chairman, is more like Kabul’s mayor than a head of
state. He can travel more safely abroad than in his own country. Karzai, a
puppet of US imperialism, has become increasingly isolated even within his
government. He has no army behind him, unlike the capital’s rival warlords.
The killing in February of Afghanistan’s aviation
minister, Abdul Rahman, was part of the present struggle for power and
influence. The mass arrests following an alleged coup plot at the beginning of
April and the bomb attack against the defence minister a couple of days later
are other examples "highlighting the rapid deterioration of the security
situation in Afghanistan". (The Independent, 9 April)
Different warlords and commanders, many of them heavily
involved in the drugs trade, fight each other in order to ensure that their
voices will be heard at the loya jirga, a consultative council of nearly 1,500
delegates due to be opened in June by the deposed king, Zahir Shah, who has
postponed his return because of fears of an attack. The loya jirga intends to
elect a new transitional government. That government, in turn, aims to write a
new constitution and prepare for a general election. Nevertheless, it is the
power of the gun that will decide. The culture of the Kalashnikov is not easy to
break, as has been shown in Somalia and other countries turned into arms bazaars
by imperialism.
Whatever new government is formed will find it difficult to
exercise any kind of power beyond Kabul or the other major cities. Never in
Afghanistan’s bloodstained history has there been a government able to control
this huge country. The countryside and the mountains have always been out of
reach. The present government is not the first to find itself in a position
where its tax-raising powers are severely limited: "Outside the capital,
the national government’s writ is undermined by local power-brokers who exact
taxes and use the cash for their own ends". (Financial Times, 26 February)
In fact, the government, according to the finance minister, is only able to
finance 3-4% of its budget from domestic resources. The rest has to be financed
by aid or subsidies from abroad.
It is a welcome change, of course, that women can resume
their studies and girls are allowed to go to school. Tens of thousands of
displaced Afghans in Iran and Pakistan have also started to move back, hoping
that there is a beginning of an end to years of wars and suffering. Afghanistan
is in desperate need. Life expectancy is 46 years; one in four children dies of
disease by the age of five; 80% of the population is illiterate and most of the
rural population has no access to electricity, safe water or health care. The
World Bank estimates that over seven million Afghans remain at risk of
starvation. The task of rebuilding Afghanistan is gigantic and will not be
accomplished on the basis of capitalism and imperialism.
Only a small fraction of the money promised by Western
imperialism has trickled in. Of about $1.8bn in foreign aid pledged in January,
only $360 million has arrived. Most of that money has been spent on public
salaries, while dozens of urgent development projects have not yet begun.
Afghanistan has been promised $4.5bn in foreign aid over the next five years.
The US, which spent billions of dollars pulverising the country, is contributing
a meagre $296 million for reconstruction. At the same time, US imperialism
demands that other countries should do the work of ‘peace keeping’, while
saying that they will ‘assist’ in forming a national army and police force.
The World Bank, United Nations and the Asian Development
Bank estimate that Afghanistan’s humanitarian and reconstruction requirements
may total $20bn over the next decade. So, even if all the money promised
actually reached Afghanistan, there would still be a long way to go before the
conditions for a stable and modern country were built.
Moreover, it is very unlikely that all the money promised
will benefit the local economy. Of the billions spent in Somalia, most were
swallowed up by the military and the aid organisations. Barely 4% found its way
into the local economy.
The fact that no country seems interested in taking over
responsibility from Britain for the 4,500-strong International Security
Assistance Force, let alone expand the forces or their mandate beyond Kabul,
illustrates three things. Firstly, that Western imperialism is not very
optimistic about Afghanistan’s future. Secondly, that US imperialism, in
particular, is extremely reluctant to be dragged into a situation that could
degenerate into a civil war (this is why the US has asked Britain to take over
fighting its ground war in Afghanistan). Thirdly, that it is one thing to win a
war, another to win peace and stability.
Per Olsson
|