|
Assem Akram |
|
عاصم اکرم |
The US campaign in Afghanistan:Is the US Respecting Afghanistan’s Sovereignty?Dr. Assem Akram, historian As an Afghan who took part in the resistance against the Soviet invader, who condemned the situation of anarchy and lawlessness created by the Mujahedeen victors of 1992, who resented the Taliban regime as being a retrograde theocracy backed at its "début" on the Afghan scene by the "good intentions" and the coalesced efforts of the Pakistani ISI, the CIA and Saudi Arabia, I am bothered by the current situation in my country. I use "bothered" for lack of a better word and also because it expresses the mixed feelings that I have at this time. On the one hand, I am elated that the Taliban regime has collapsed, that humanitarian assistance is being provided to my distressed fellow countrymen and that economic assistance is being pledged by the international community to help rebuild our shattered country; but, on the other hand, I am uncomfortable with the way things have been handled politically since October 7, 2001, beginning of the American-lead operation "Enduring Freedom." Historically, Afghanistan has been victim of its geography, attracting all kinds of invaders, from Alexander of Macedonia and Genghis Khan to the British and the Czarist then Soviet empires. To focus on the recent past, it has been almost twenty-three years since Afghans have had quasi no say on major decisions affecting their rights as a nation, as a people. Did the Afghans ask the Soviets to invade their country? Did the Afghans ask to be caught in the game between Eastern and Western blocks? During their resistance against the I personally do not see much change since October 7th, 2001: the Afghans were suffering as victims of a situation created by others before and they keep suffering due to a situation created by elements foreign to their land. The United States and Al-Qaeda are foes fighting a war caused by disagreement on issues foreign to Afghanistan: chiefly the question of Palestine and the one of the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. The sudden change - acceleration? - in US policy towards Afghanistan due to the Al-Qaeda terrorist actions has been extraordinary in many ways. Operation "Enduring Freedom" has been set up in an unprecedented manner, combining in one operation several intertwined actions: neutralize Al-Qaeda; vanquish the Taliban regime; install in Kabul a government "friendly" to Washington; inject massive humanitarian assistance; help bring Afghanistan back to a certain level of normalcy to avert future chaos. For this multifaceted action, of course, Washington had the ways and the means to persuade a number of partner States to back it, whether actively or verbally, and the United Nations to give their formal approval to the whole affair. Although US objectives seem quite clear on paper, the results can be questioned and one has to let time tell the outcome. At this point, one can only wonder if the current American Administration has handled the entire affair in the best possible way to get the desired results, not just immediately, but in the long run? Did the US opt for the right strategy to dismantle and eventually definitively "neutralize" Usama Ben Laden and its Al-Qaeda network? Did the US take the right approach to defeat the Taliban? Wasn't the launching of the US military operation on October 7, 2001 either too late or too hasty?... But let us not disperse and let us concentrate on issues that are the focus of my article here and which pertain to the rights and prerogatives - privileges - of the Afghan people and its institutional representation in the form of its Government. At the Bonn conference, last December, the chief of the Interim Authority was picked by the US and all other eventual contenders for the position were gently asked to step back. The appointment of Mr. Hamed Karzai to that position was not quite a surprise for the many observers who had seen the kind of protection he was given during his "escapade" in Uruzgan province and the special attention he received from the US Special Forces, which, up to his swift entrance in Kabul, served very visibly as a praetorian guard. Does this suit the Afghan mood for self-determination? Does this serve Hamed Karzai himself for his political goals and future in the country? Because of the circumstances of his ascension to power, very unfortunately, he is viewed as "the man of the Americans," whose power relies chiefly on the US and British forces. I am not here to contest the good intentions of Mr. Karzai or his personality, but it is worth mentioning that the American Administration did not do him a favor by protecting him physically and politically in a too obvious manner. Let us now give some examples of what could be interpreted as disregard for the Afghan sovereignty on part of the US as well as a submissive attitude on part of Mr. Hamed Karzai and his cabinet. Three symbolic examples to illustrate that impression:
Although the US is officially not at war with Afghanistan, Afghan nationals are being held by the American military in Kandahar and others are transferred on a US ship or to the X-Ray camp in Guantanamo. It is the prerogative of the Afghan Government to detain and bring to justice Afghan nationals found guilty of crimes, especially on its own soil. Then only, if there exists mutual extradition agreements, at the request of the US, or whichever other foreign Government it may be, the extradition is considered by the judicial authorities of Afghanistan. In this case, not only the Interim Authority doesn't oppose such a practice, but it delivers voluntarily Afghan nationals thought to be members of the Taliban movement to the US military's Kandahar base, unaware of the consequences of such an inconsiderate act for the future. Taliban prominent leaders accused of committing crimes ought to be tried for their misdeeds in Afghanistan, and respond to the people of Afghanistan! I would even be of the opinion that those foreign fighters, whether related to the Al-Qaeda network or not, who had taken part in the fighting between Afghan factions, should also be tried first in Afghanistan before being sent off to whoever claims them, be it the US or their own Governments.
A very large quantity of the important documents found in Taliban or Al-Qaeda offices, houses and grotto-like hide-outs (souf) were seized by the US troops and flown home to be handed over to specialized personnel, mostly FBI agents, for immediate analysis. I can understand that, due to the feeling of emergency created by the atmosphere of war as well as the fact that the US looks to prevent further terrorist attacks on its soil, efficiency and time are of essence. I also realize that, on the other hand, the Afghan Interim Authority may be unaware of its own prerogatives. But the truth of the matter is that those documents were found on Afghan soil and therefore belong to Afghanistan. If the Americans need them, they should ask permission from their Afghan counterparts and give accountability for what they are borrowing. After all, let us not forget that those documents are also of much value and interest to the people of Afghanistan to know what has happened in their country during that period of their history. The situation of instability and the weaknesses of the ad-interim Afghan gubernatorial body cannot excuse the breaking of some basic rules.
The intense US bombing campaign has caused the death of many innocent Afghans. Some say hundreds, others say thousands, may be more than four thousand victims overall. Every time those "mistakes" have been reported, the Pentagon's official response has been that it "does not have any independent confirmation" of what may have occurred! If we take into consideration the fact that the Al-Qaeda organization, at its best, may never have had more than two thousand members present on the Afghan soil and if we add to that number a potential contingent of two hundred top Taliban leadership members worth to be targeted, we might find out that the US campaign in Afghanistan has probably killed more innocent people than it has eliminated legitimate targets! The Pentagon does not seem to show much remorse and maintains a deaf ear to suggestions to pay "bereavement" compensation to the families. I saw on a cable news network that CIA operatives had handed over some few hundred dollars to some of the victims of one of their "misguided" deadly escapades. The crispy hundred dollar notes were given as a price for their silence but, because of the way it was done, it appeared to me as a shocking insult to human life and to the dignity of the Afghans! As far as the Afghan interim authority is concerned, not only has it backed the bombing beyond the reasonable, it has furthermore asked for its continuation. To my knowledge, Mr. Karzai has not publicly shown any real sympathy for those innocent victims, nor has he announced his government would provide some kind of assistance to them and their families. In an interview published by the Washington Post last week, if my memory is correct, the reporter was mentioning that he had to insist to get Mr. Karzai respond on this issue and say some few timid words cautioning the Americans on the loss of civilian lives! I will finish my "complaint" by saying that: Yes! I welcome the end of the Taliban regime. Yes! I welcome the humanitarian assistance to relieve a population weakened and demoralized by 23 years of uninterrupted war. Yes! I welcome the international synergy to help rebuild Afghanistan. But I would also welcome the US and the International community's effort to help restore and respect the sovereignty, the dignity and the right for self-determination of the people of Afghanistan. © Dr. Assem Akram 2002. Reprint for fair use only.
| ||