Afghanistan: Strategic Partnership Declaration

Next the statesman will invent cheap lies, putting the blame on the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception…Mark Twain.

Heralded as the Strategic Partnership Declaration for beyond 2014, the acknowledged year of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, this initiative, currently under negotiation between the U.S. and the Karzai Government is in reality a permanent basing agreement. Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican from South Carolina and GOP lawmaker on U.S. military policy said during a telecast of Meet the Press: ‘That having a few U.S. bases in Afghanistan would be of benefit to the region and would provide Afghan security forces an edge against the Taliban,’ and that further he wants to see the ‘U.S. have an enduring relationship with Afghanistan to ensure that it never falls back into the hands of terrorists.’ Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in response to questions posed by an assemblage of inquisitive and somewhat cynical journalists, stated that the ‘U.S. position in the partnership is limited to an enduring commitment and must not be misunderstood as a desire by the U.S. to occupy Afghanistan against the will of the people’.  Afghanistan’s neighbors however, are uneasy over the prospect of an everlasting American presence in the region. For the record, currently the United States has 737 bases in 130 countries on every continent except Antarctica. Formal talks began last month under Marc Grossman, Obama envoy to Afghanistan/Pakistan and Frank Ruggiero, U.S. State Department official who oversaw the Kandahari Reconstruction Team.

The Devil Lurks in the Details: Russia and Iran have referred to this partnership as a ‘Permanent Bases Agreement,’ or the Great Game 3.0,drawing on the ill-fated British and Russian rivalry in the region during the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Russia, though supportive of NATO’s role in Afghanistan is alarmed over the American presence in what has traditionally been viewed as a Russian arena of heightened political interest and economic activity. Furthermore, Stepan Amkeev, former KGB official and political adviser to Russian President Medvedev, has said that while ‘we support the development of Afghanistan in all areas, security, economic and political by its own forces after 2014, the establishment of a permanent U.S. military presence will serve to create instability, promote radicalism and foster conflict.’

Tehran’s view corresponds in some ways to that of Russia. For Iran, the establishing of air bases and other military configurations is viewed as a pretext for a staging area for a possible pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iran, long advocated by pro-Israel, hawkish Republican Members of Congress, of which is the result of intensive lobbying by the American Israel Political Action Committee or AIPAC who generously donate large amounts of campaign dollars to cooperative Members.

Islamabad, with an eye to thwart covert initiatives by long-time rival India, continues to support the insurgency. For Pakistan, the American flirtation with the Northern Alliance represents an intelligence inroad for Delhi and would be contrary to their initiatives and or interests. The establishment of permanent American bases would be of questionable benefit to Islamabad, and would only in limited terms of a continued flow of U.S. aid. But the U.S. embrace of Afghanistan’s minorities, namely the Northern Alliance is problematical for Pakistan and will be challenged at every opportunity.

In light of Republican bellicosity, Iran’s concerns are well taken. Finally, light is being shed on the purpose of the massive new airbase in Western Afghanistan, distant from the Pashtun areas of major insurgency but within easy striking distance of Iran. Thus, it appears that there is more to the occupation of Afghanistan than merely fighting an insurgency.

China, also a regional player, interests are more mercantile-oriented as their recent Afghanistan (Ainak) copper mine project indicates. Energy development is also high on China’s list of priorities. Along with the U.S., Russia, and Iran, China also vies for exclusive rights from Kabul to develop the celebrated Trans-Afghan-Pakistan-India-Pipeline or TAPI. However, their participation in the SCO or Shanghai Cooperative Organization as Russia’s partner indicates a deep-rooted suspicion over and concern with America’s assumed leadership role, a result of overt military expansion and globalization manifesting as a regional, political and economic overlord.

The Afghan National Liberation movement, a.k.a. the Taliban, categorically reject the notion of a permanent American presence even with the questionable eventuality of a power sharing agreement. Polls repeatedly show the Afghan people growing more and more, weary of the nearly decade-long U.S. occupation and less willing to trust that the U.S. and its NATO allies do not have some endgame in mind. Were U.S. strategists not so pathologically ignorant of and blind to Afghan culture and history, they would understand that occupation is seen by the Afghan people as a foreign-born malignancy to be unceremoniously exorcised and forever resisted.

Undoubtedly, the endgame feared by a majority of the Afghan people is manifest in foreign dominance over natural resources, to include oil, natural gas, and such rare earth elements as lithium, uranium, gold, emeralds, copper, iron, and many, many other commodities once catalogued by Russian and U.S. geologists to number in the hundreds.  There exists as well a growing fear that an imperialist America bent on global domination would use Afghan territory to facilitate and expand their so-called war on terror. Such an eventuality would bring swift retaliatory and retributive responses from those who fell under American attack. Then too, once Afghanistan appears to its neighbors as an American political and or geo-strategic, vassal or colony, an influx of foreign, covert operatives will, as we witnessed during the Soviet-era, descend upon Afghanistan, recruiting and mobilizing a proxy force to represent their interests and thus undermine the interests of the Afghan nation in order to thwart American imperatives.

For decades, Afghanistan’s right of self-determination has been denied. If, as Washington suggests, it’s really international peace keeping then why not allow that the rest of the world contribute their share towards the U.N. Peacekeeping Force. If we are serious in our endeavor to establish representative democracies, running repressive, military dictatorships and armies of occupation is contrary to our stated mission and contrary to international law as well.

In summation, the Strategic Partnership Declaration, contrary to paternal statements by Secretary Clinton, represent a Trojan horse for the Afghan people.  For Kabul it’s a question of sovereignty, the right of self-determination, for Pakistan, it’s the danger represented by America’s covetous affair with Islamabad’s traditional enemies, the Russia/India-centric Northern Alliance. Iran’s concern over the possibility of a pre-emptive American attack from Afghan soil cannot be dismissed. And while Russia will continue to reject any such basing agreement in perpetuity, ostensibly over energy domination and other commercial ventures, yet, concerns over the possibility of a military confrontation between the reigning, nuclear superpowers (U.S. and Russia) as a result of U.S. penetration into heretofore Russian spheres of influence would rightly be construed as exaggerated, MAD or mutual assured destruction, an eventuality and world-altering consequence of which both Moscow and Washington are supremely aware.