It's America vs Afghanistan - talk about 'war against
terrorism' is hogwash
The Americans are plotting to install a friendly regime in Kabul, and efforts are
being made to restore a monarchy that was overthrown more than 20 years ago,
says Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr
New Delhi, September 22
It is slowly turning out that the United States is not planning a war against terrorism as much as a war against Afghanistan. The logical pretext for the attack on Afghanistan is, of course, the presence of Osama Bin Laden in that country, and the terrorist training camps of bin Laden's Al Qadain group.
It is clear that the Taliban regime in Kabul has fallen out of grace with Washington. And it would become clear only much later whether it has anything to do with playing host to bin Laden alone, or whether there are other American reasons of state.
The defiant posturing of the Taliban has also to do with the realisation that the US would not any more support them. It will again become evident only much later as to why the US had acquiesced in the Taliban capturing Kabul and the greater part of Afghanistan - about 90 per cent of it - and why the Americans did not support the Northern Alliance.
Even as news reaches of transport planes landing in Tajikistan, of Americans aircraft carriers moving into the Gulf theatre, and commando troops landing in Pakistan, the more crucial movements are being carried out at the diplomatic level. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of the three countries, which recognised the Taliban regime along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, has cut off diplomatic relations with the Taliban on Saturday (September 22).
And on Friday (September 21), British Prime Minister Tony Blair has pulled off a diplomatic coup by roping in Iran into the coalition. Blair spoke to moderate Iranian president Mohammed Khatami over phone. Khatami was willing to join the ostensible coalition against terrorism - read Afghanistan. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will be going to Tehran soon. The wily Western politicians feel that it would be useful to pit a Shi'ite Iran against a Sunni Taliban regime.
And the Americans are already plotting to bring Zahir Shah, the king of Afghanistan who was overthrown in a coup in 1978, from Rome, where he has been living in exile. It is interesting that the main target of the Americans is not so much pursuing the terrorist responsible for the September carnage in New York and Washington, but that of imposing a regime in Kabul which would be moderate and, hopefully, pro-American.
The Western conservatives, who have been ranting in the columns of The Daily Telegraph and The New Republic against any talk of reorienting American foreign policy and who have been asking for nothing less than the blood of the terrorists, will be shocked to know that the American government is really back to its old games of displacing regimes in Third World countries, and that all that talk about "war against terrorism" is nothing but hogwash.
It is ironical, then, that the richest and the most powerful country in the world will now take on the poorest and militarily the most vulnerable country. And the American-Afghan war in the making has nothing to with terrorism. It is back to realpolitk, back to business as usual.
If the Americans are serious about terrorism, then they will have to attack targets other than those in Afghanistan. And each of the coalition partners also have to tackle partners in their own territories. For example, it is now a known fact, that Britain, the key partner in the global coalition, will have to some of the radical groups operating out of London and other places.
But the American game plan is something different. They are thinking, as usual, of toppling regimes which they do not like. It is interesting that the Americans have tried to topple regimes in two other contiguous countries in the last decades. First, they wanted to get rid of the Khomeini regime which camen into existence after the popular upsurge in 1979. They froze the Iranian accounts in US banks, and hoped that the economic blockade would weaken the regime. But it did not. The Khomeini regime has survived for more than two decades now.
Then came the turn of Iraq's Saddam Hussein. When Saddam Hussein in a foolhardy fashion invaded Kuwait, it provided a perfect pretext to overthrow the dictator in Baghdad, whom the Americans had supported through the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. But Operation Desert Storm had achieved only one of the two goals - the liberation of Kuwait. The other, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein remains unfulfilled despite brutal and illegal bombing of Baghdad in the last three years.
If the Americans did not succeed in changing regimes in Tehran and in Baghdad, will they succeed in Kabul? The optimistic American view is that the Taliban do not really enjoy popular support in the country, and that it is far easier to replace them. This could turn out to be a miscalculation. Saddam Hussein is not exactly a popular leader in Iraq, but indiscriminate American bombing of Baghdad has only ended up in creating an ironical bonding between a dictator and a people who hated the dictator.
Similarly, the Afghans must be hating the puritanical and fanatical Taliban, but that hatred would vanish the moment American bombs rain on Kabul, and American soldiers march through Afghan territories.
The games that the Americans are playing to revive the old political structures of Afghanistan including the great tribal council of Loya Jigra and the monarchy seem to be feeble and ignorant attempts on the part of Americans to lend credibility to their political machinations.
Ordinary Americans are again being deceived by their government, their political leaders.
