Novosti, Russia
In Central Asia, the U.S. 'Reaps Fruits' of its Prior Policies
"This is a good time to ask,
was there such a difference between today's U.S./E.U. program for settling Afghanistan
and the program implemented by the Soviet Union? As it turns out, there is no
significant difference. … the United States was so passionate in its desire to
prevent the Soviet Union from controlling Central Asia that it was ready to
sacrifice the peace and tranquility in Afghanistan - which is pretty much what
happened."
By Petr Goncharov and Dmitriy Kosirev
Translated By Yekaterina Blinova
May 8, 2009
Russian
- Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
The meeting at the White
House was impressive. The participants were: Barack Obama, president of the nation
that calls the situation (a war, actually) in Afghanistan and Pakistan his number
one foreign policy priority; Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai; and Pakistan President
Asif Ali Zardari. Each guest got twenty minutes to speak with Obama, and then there
was a half-hour trilateral meeting with promises of aid and calls for unity.
In principle, the meeting was
nothing more than a ceremony, but behind it is a nest of problems. For the United
States this - to be brief - is part of developing and implementing a new
strategy in the region, which will of course be impossible without properly
engaging with the leaders of countries on whose territory the war (and the
strategy) will unfold. For Obama’s two guests, this is also a question of political
survival, with the toughest problems for both to occur in the event of full
agreement - or disagreement - with Obama’s new direction. After all, it is the Americans
who are conducting the actual war on their territories, which includes
destruction of the civilian population [see info box, above right].
Finally, the
three aren't laying a new path from scratch - they have to deal with the
consequences of the mistakes that America has made in the region for decades.
The cost of wrong decisions today - up to and including the seizure of power in
this huge region by Islamic fundamentalists, who for all practical purposes can
be referred to as the Taliban.
As far as Pakistan, the Obama
Administration very rightly acknowledged that it's pointless
to increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan by 21,000 troops (which is now taking
place) without accounting for the reality that the war is being undermined along
Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. To be precise, because of poor government
control of the tribal areas along the Afghan border.
Days ago in Washington, the
National Security Council met and concluded that so far, there is no danger of
the Taliban taking power in Pakistan, no risk of a military coup, and for
now, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is safe. Although the bad news is that the Taliban
control areas just 70 miles from Islamabad.
But the real problem for the
United States is that in Pakistan, it is trying to fight extremists through a
local army over which the U.S. has no control; and through a government
about which Washington is unsure. To add to this, Pakistan is in such a financial
state that already, before any new policies are decided upon, in coming years it
will cost America billions. What to do? This remains unclear, and one meeting at
the White House cannot resolve every problem.
As for Afghanistan, there
is, among others, the problem called Hamid Karzai. The previous administration committed
a major error - communications with Karzai (in fact, direct control of his
country) were conducted by George W. Bush himself. In particular, he held a
video conference with Karzai every other week. The result of this policy is
unclear and it's not for nothing that Obama says today, Afghanistan is problem
number one. But certain irregularities have occurred even during the current
administration.
For instance, its most prominent person in the field of foreign policy, Vice President
Joseph Biden, recently arranged a lunch for Karzai, during which he
interrogated him about the situation in his country - including its expanding
narcotics industry. When Karzai’s answers failed to satisfy Biden, he got up, threw
down his napkin and said lunch was over.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai warns that the United States
is undermining its own efforts by harming civilians.
CLICK
PHOTO OR CLICK
HERE TO LISTEN FROM BBC 
This time, the president of
Afghanistan wasn't left without lunch - perhaps because the United States is
beginning to grapple seriously with all of the difficulties that have
accumulated around that country. Meanwhile, new problems appear - another
mistake involving “smart weapons,” after a rocket struck a village killing 100
people.
An additional problem -
Karzari and Zardari don't like one another and so poorly coordinate measures against the extremists.
A few days earlier in
Washington, the source of the abysmal situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan was
spelled out: the United States is reaping the fruits of its own policy, which,
during the years of the Cold War was aimed at supporting the mujahedeen. This statement was made by the current
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “The people we are fighting today, we
funded twenty years ago,” Clinton said, speaking at a hearing in the House of
Representatives. Clinton explained U.S. assistance to Afghanistan’s mujahedeen by the fact that the Soviets invaded
Afghanistan, and that the United States “didn't want to see them in control of Central
Asia.” So it was decided to resort to Pakistan's army and intelligence services to
attract mujahedeen from Saudi Arabia and other
countries.
SEE ALSO ON THIS:
Die Zeit, Germany:
Karzai-Zardari Visit Fallout: U.S. is 'Stumped' By War
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
Pakistanis 'Don't Give a Damn' What Americans Think
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
'Pakistan in a Trance, Doing America's Dance'
The Nation, Pakistan:
'No Nuclear Surrender'
The Nation, Pakistan:
To Reduce Militancy, the U.S. Must Pressure India
Le Quotidien d'Oran, Algeria:
U.S. Inflicts 'Simply Massive' Collateral Damage on Afghans
As Safir, Lebanon:
Obama and bin Laden Confront 'Day of Reckoning'
Asia Times, Hong Kong:
Al-Qaeda Seizes on Taliban's Problem
Asia Times, Hong Kong:
Thanks to U.S.,
Taliban Have a New Target
Asia Times, Hong Kong:
Karzai Gets the 'Last
Laugh' on White House
The Telegraph, India:
Obama 'Deliberately Dramatizes' al-Qaeda Threat for Domestic Political Reasons
Imported from Saudi Arabia
and other Arab states, the mujahedeen brought
with them Islamic extremism, which is now successfully confronting their
investors - the United States.
Clinton is right of course,
and one cannot begrudge her courage. It's not often that U.S. secretaries of state
acknowledge mistakes. And by the way, now that we're reevaluating our “Cold”
past, this is a good time to ask, was there such a difference between today's U.S./European
program for settling Afghanistan and the program implemented in its time by the
Soviet Union? As it turns out, there is no significant difference. The same
goals, the same challenges: establishing Afghanistan as a modern democratic
secular state, whose culture and social ideology would be based on Afghan
tradition, including Islam. But the United States was so passionate in its
desire to prevent the Soviet Union from controlling Central Asia that it was
ready to sacrifice the peace and tranquility in Afghanistan - which
is pretty much what happened.
Posted by
WORLDMEETS.US
The case of “al-Qaeda” is
another story. The emergence of “al-Qaeda” in Afghanistan is exclusively due to
the United States. It created the ideal conditions for the budding terrorist group:
a flow of money, an abundance of weapons - an entire country along with all of
its human resources and excellent training camps for militants.
Finally, the mistakes are
beginning to be recognized. But the new U.S. strategy in the region is still a
long way from emerging into the world. One trilateral meeting at the White
House won’t make it happen. There are many interesting things up ahead - in
particular, talks in the very same White House on how to procure the help of
other countries in this situation, among them Iran, India, Russia, China
and other members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization.
CLICK
HERE FOR RUSSIAN VERSION
[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US May 12, 7:25pm]
