With US and
NATO commanders on the battlefield of Afghanistan calling
for more troops, how best to defeat the Taliban is being
hotly debated by Washington’s policy–makers and their
media pundits. Yet, nowhere are the types of questions posed
by Arundhati Roy (the acclaimed Indian novelist and social
activist) on a recent visit to Pakistan to be heard in the
mainstream US discourse. Clarifying the purpose of her trip
during an address at the Karachi Press Club, she stated,
“I’m here to understand what you mean when you say
Taliban…Do you mean a militant? Do you mean an ideology?
Exactly what is it that is being fought?”
The
reason that such questions are not frequently addressed in
the US mainstream seems patently clear. The answers require
one to move beyond the atrocities of ‘9/11’ and such pat
ideas as the ‘threat’ posed the ‘civilized world’ by
the Taliban/al–Qaida ‘militant’ and their ‘ideology,’
as well as the ‘human rights’ and ‘anti–woman’
abuses they perpetrate in their ‘Muslim’ homelands. In
fact, Roy’s questions require the respondent to first and
foremost recall that precursors to the Taliban
– groups and leaders with similar ideologies and
methods, including Usama bin Laden – were wholehearted
supported by the US, with Saudi Arabian and Pakistani
assistance, during the 1980’s, when fighting the USSR and
its Afghani ally, the Najibullah regime. Of course,
acknowledging that the Taliban–style ‘militant’ was an
ally and his ‘ideology’ was considered an asset, not to
be fought but nurtured and supported, is no great revelation.
Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged exactly
this in an appearance before the House Appropriations
Committee in late April, 2009.
She stated:
“Let’s
remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded
them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were
locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded
Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control
Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President
Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who
said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s
deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go
recruit these mujahideen. And great, let them come from
Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahhabi
brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And
guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost
billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union. So there is a very strong argument which is… it
wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let’s
be careful with what we sow… because we will harvest.”
What
Clinton neglected to mention, however, and Congress avoided
asking, is the full extent and duration of that support, as
well as the actual date and circumstances under which the
ally was reassessed as an enemy, leaving the impression that
the US withdrew after the USSR was defeated in 1989, only to
return after the atrocious ‘harvest’ of ‘9/11.’
Regarding
the extent of support, Washington insiders do not mention
that the Taliban’s “harsh form of oppression on women
and others,” which everyone from Madeleine Albright to
Hillary Clinton have argued provides cause for war, is not a
concern when relations
with ‘Wahhabi’ Saudi Arabia are pursued, and was
not a concern when the US’ closest ally in the region,
President (General) Zia ul–Haq of Pakistan, promulgated a
version of ‘Islamic Law’ whose intellectual roots were
identical to those of Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, as
evinced by such ‘anti–woman’ legislation as the
removal of all images of women from public spaces (including
TV), and such ‘human rights’ violations as public
flogging. Zia ul–Haq’s regime entirely changed the
complexion of Pakistani society, bringing the religio–political
parties that would later instruct the Taliban on ‘Islam’
– that is, the Jama’at–i Ulama–i Islam – firmly
into the political arena and leading to an entire generation
raised under the impression that at least the social aspects
of Taliban–style ‘ideology’ represents the ‘true’
face of ‘Islamic Law,’ whether they stand for or against
it.
As
for the duration of US support for the ‘militant’ and
his ‘ideology,’ not even the USSR’s withdrawal from
Afghanistan in 1989 stemmed activity. In fact, just as the
USSR’s withdrawal did not mean an end to its support for
the ‘communist’ regime it had left behind, the US found
reason to continue supporting the Taliban–style forces
arrayed against the Najibullah regime. This was accomplished
by continuing to work through Pakistan with Saudi Arabian
aid in the support of a coalition of seven Taliban–style
outfits, known as the ‘Afghan Interim Government.’ This
proxy war did not end until 1992, after the US and the USSR
concluded a deal to stop providing military and financial
aid to the Afghan Interim Government and the Najibullah
regime, respectively. The collapse of the USSR itself only
sealed the deal and, consequently, the fate of Najibullah
regime; the latter fell by early 1992 and the Afghan Interim
Government, held together by the common enemy of Najibullah,
soon followed.
The
fall of Najibullah, however, did not end US entanglement
with the Taliban–style ‘militant’ and his
‘ideology’ in Afghanistan, despite Hillary Clinton’s
so often repeated claims. Rather, the inauguration of
President Bill Clinton in 1992, signalled an emphasis on
ties with the ‘Northern Alliance’ – itself a band of
Taliban–style groups, sprinkled with regional ‘warlords,’
known for their drug running and human rights abuses. This
relationship was actually initiated by Clinton’s
predecessor, George Bush (Sr.), in 1989, with the
appointment of a US charge d’affair for the Northern
Alliance, at the very moment that the charge d’affair for
Afghanistan as a whole was withdrawn and the US embassy in
Kabul closed. In other words, the US now joined Russia,
Pakistan, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia in backing one of the
other of the Taliban–style militants and warlords vying
for control of Afghanistan, the result of which was the
destruction of major cities like Kabul and most of the
country’s infrastructure, as well as the continued killing,
rape and torture of thousands more civilians. Meanwhile, the
official attitude of the US and its NATO allies, who today
wage war in the name of ‘human rights’ and ‘women’s
emancipation,’ was aptly captured in the following line
from a London Times article published in the moment: “The
world has no business in that country’s tribal disputes
and blood feuds.”
As
the carnage continued in Afghanistan, across the border in
Pakistan, General Zia ul–Haq, the US’ prime conduit for
the aid and training provided all the Taliban–style
militants during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, had
been killed in a mysterious plane crash in 1988, clearing
the way for the ‘democratic’ administrations of Prime
Ministers Benazir Bhutto (1988–90) and Nawaz Sharif
(1990–93). Even while continuing to funnel funds and aid
to Afghani militants from 1989–1992, these administrations
were left to deal with the fallout of the last decade’s
hottest front in the Cold War on their own. This not only
included the ‘militant’ and his ‘ideology’
bequeathed by the US, Saudi Arabia and Zia ul–Haq, but
extended to millions of Afghani refugees, the proliferation
of weaponry outside of state control and the infusion of a
drug culture driven by the Afghani combatants’ and their
backers’ preferred method of funding their exploits.
Further hampering the ability of these ‘democratic’
administrations to function, beginning as early as 1990, the
Bush (Sr.) administration imposed economic and military
sanctions on Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment – a
country–specific law that singles out Pakistan on the
nuclear issue – a consequence of which was the withholding
of Pakistan military equipment contracted and paid for prior
to 1990, worth about $1.2 billion, as well as the suspension
of military officer training in the US. This was followed in
1992/93, under the Clinton administration, with threats to
declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism and, in the
summer of 1993, the imposition of additional sanctions under
the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime).
Continuous
meddling in Afghanistan, despite the USSR’s withdrawal,
coupled with the shift in attitude toward Pakistan, should
make it apparent that the ‘New World Order’ sought by
Bush (Sr.) played an important part in directing the Clinton
administration’s policies as well. In particular, the
changing relationship between the US and India envisioned in
the ‘New World Order,’ is pivotal to understanding the
sides taken in Afghanistan and the hostility toward Pakistan
described above. During the Cold War, India had leaned
toward the USSR, as evinced by military, economic and
cultural pacts, despite professions of ‘non–alignment.’
In fact, until the fall of the Afghani Najibullah regime in
1992, India had been one of its major supporters –
Najibullah’s family, for example, finding refuge nowhere
but in New Delhi. Even before the end of the Cold War,
however, the Indian body–politic had begun swinging
rightward, thus making room for a new strategic and economic
partnership between it and the US; a reflection of which is
India’s support, alongside the US, for the Northern
Alliance in the Afghani civil war. As this new US–India
relationship unfolded, however, Pakistan’s backing of
alternative Afghani militants, support for Kashmiri
separatists in conflict with India, as well as its nuclear
program and array of conventional weaponry (either acquired
under US watch or directly procured from the US and other
NATO members) stood in the way. A significant
‘down–grade’ in US–Pakistan relations, therefore,
was obviously perceived to be required if an
‘up–grade’ in US–India relations was to follow. Thus,
as Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the longest serving Pakistani
Ambassador to the US (1994–97; 1999–2002), has written:
“The
irony about U.S. non–proliferation policy in South Asia
was that while the impetus for proliferation at every step
came from India, it was Pakistan, and not India, that was
subjected to penalties, embargoes and sanctions. Perversely,
Pakistan became the victim of penalties for what India had
done in 1974 with its explosion of a nuclear device. US
non–proliferation laws such as the 1976 Symington
Amendment which was later modified by the 1977 Glenn
Amendment, called for halting economic or military
assistance to any country which delivered or acquired after
1976 nuclear enrichment materials or technology, unless it
accepted full–scope safeguards. This meant that India
which had already acquired a reprocessing capability was
excluded from the ambit of American non–proliferation laws.
The Pressler Amendment enacted in 1985, specifically
prohibited U.S. assistance or military sales to Pakistan
unless annual Presidential certification was issued that
Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. This
certification was denied in October 1990, triggering wide–ranging
sanctions against Pakistan.”
All
that needs to be added to Lodhi’s assessment to complete
the picture is the fact that the growing depiction of
Pakistan as a ‘state sponsor of terror’ was not merely a
consequence of Pakistani policy in Afghanistan (discussed
below), but also support for militants of a similar bent in
Indian–administered Kashmir. Meanwhile, the ‘state
terror’ unleashed in Indian–administered Kashmir, like
India’s nuclear weapons capabilities and its support for
the Northern Alliance ‘militant’ and ‘ideology’ in
Afghanistan, did not lead to vociferous protestations from
the US, let alone modifications in US policy toward India.
While
the US played ball with the Northern Alliance, sanctioned
Pakistan and fostered bonds with India by turning a blind
eye to its nuclear program and activities in Kashmir or
Afghanistan, the Taliban movement had begun to coalesce in
the refugee camps of Pakistan –their stated goal to rid
Afghanistan of its criminal rulers and enforce their own
version of ‘Islamic Law.’ Whether or not the Pakistani
military establishment had a hand in creating the Taliban
may be debated, but it is quite certain that the former
played an important part in promoting the latter as part of
their own policy of ‘strategic depth’ in the perennial
conflict with India. As previously stated, the Taliban’s
scriptural training was provided by the very
religio–political party that recruited and indoctrinated
many of the militants who fought against the USSR in
Afghanistan, had begun fighting in Indian–administered
Kashmir by 1990, and had benefitted most in Pakistan’s
body politic from Zia ul–Haq’s ‘Islamization’
policy; that is, the Jama’at–i Ulama–i Islam. At any
rate, by 1994, the Taliban had taken Kandahar, and was
pushing north to Kabul to unseat the Northern Alliance
President Burhanuddin Rabbani (himself head of the
‘Jama’at–i Islam,’ a political, though not
necessarily an ideological, rival of Jama’at–i Ulama–i
Islam, both movements being rooted in the Indian
‘Deobandi’ school of Sunni thought). The irony of the
entire scenario, however, was that the horse backed in
Afghanistan and the censure of Pakistan by the US, soon
proved to have been premature given one of the central
concerns of the ‘New World Order’ under construction.
The
collapse of the USSR in 1991 had ushered the independence of
the oil–rich Central Asian republics to the north of
Afghanistan. The ‘Center for Research on Globalization’ – a
Montreal–based, independent organization of scholars,
journalists, writers and activists concerned with
globalization – is one among many groups to have published
extensively on the scramble to harness Central Asian oil
reserves. In sum, authors affiliated with such groups reveal
that one of the first companies to gain access to the oil
fields of Turkmenistan, was the Argentine corporation,
Bridas. Soon after, Bridas proposed a pipeline through
neighbouring Afghanistan, for which it also negotiated a
30–year agreement with Kabul’s Rabbani regime to build
and operate a pipeline, to which was added an accord with
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan (then in her
second stint in office) by 1995. Bridas, however, was not
the only oil company to be operating in the region. By 1992,
Unocal, Amoco, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon–Mobil,
Pennzoil, Texaco, Enron, Phillips and British Petroleum
represented 50% of all investments in the region. Although
Bridas offered to negotiate a consortium with some of the
latter, the offer was spurned to go directly to regional
players with their own plan of action.
As
one ‘Center for Research on Globalization’ article
explains, drawing a great deal from the renowned journalist
Rashid Ahmad’s research:
“Much
to Bridas’ dismay, Unocal went directly to regional
leaders with its own proposal. Unocal formed its own
competing US–led, Washington–sponsored consortium
[CentGas] that included Saudi Arabia’s Delta Oil, aligned
with Saudi Prince Abdullah and King Fahd. Other partners
included Russia’s Gazprom and Turkmenistan’s
state–owned Turkmenrozgas... John Imle, president of
Unocal (and member of the US–Azerbaijan Chamber of
Commerce with Armitage, Cheney, Brzezinski and other
ubiquitous figures), lobbied Turkmenistan's President
Niyazov and Prime Minister Bhutto of Pakistan, offering a
Unocal pipeline following the same route as Bridas...
Dazzled by the prospect of an alliance with the US, Niyazov
asked Bridas to renegotiate its past contract and blocked
Bridas’ exports from... [certain oil fields in
Turkmenistan]....”
Similarly,
Unocal’s consortium, CentGas, was able to win over the
Pakistani government with a contract to end its pipeline on
Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast.
The
mention of Richard Armitage (a Pentagon official under
Ronald Reagan and the Bush (Jr.) administration’s Deputy
Secretary of State, also associated with Unocal and
ConocoPhillips), Dick Cheney (most recently Vice President
in the Bush (Jr.) administration, also associated with
Halliburton), and Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security
Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, member of various
committees under Reagan, co–chairman of the National
Security Advisory Taskforce under Bush (Sr.), and also a
consultant for Amoco), only refers to those members of the
US government (Democrat and Republican) who have had
affiliations with oil companies and the US–Azerbaijan
Chamber of Commerce. If the criterion were expanded to US
government officials with ties to oil companies active in
Central Asia more generally, the list would be too long to
reproduce in this context. Thus, it should come as no
surprise that once CentGas secured rights to both ends of
the proposed pipeline, ‘friendship’ with Pakistan was
immediately added to the Clinton administration’s agenda.
The first and foremost difficulty for the Clinton
administration and Centgas was the fact that Bridas still
had the contract with Rabbani’s regime in Afghanistan. The
problem would be addressed through the Pakistani–backed
Taliban.
1995
was the year in which the Taliban began to be courted by
Unocal–led CentGas and Bridas, while the US Congress and
Clinton administration softened their stance toward Pakistan
in return for promoting the Taliban’s advance in
Afghanistan and sidestepping its deal with Bridas.
Concerning the latter action, by January 1995, Defence
Secretary William Perry had visited Pakistan to mend
relations by reviving the ‘Pakistan–US Defence
Consultative Group,’ which had not met since 1990. Upon
his return to Washington, Perry also declared that the
Pressler Amendment was not achieving its objectives, and the
Clinton administration followed up the gesture with an April
meeting between Clinton and Bhutto. This led Clinton, with
bipartisan support from Congress, to promise to revisit the
Pressler Amendment, particularly with regard to military
sanctions, arguing that a broad, regional approach to
nuclear non–proliferation was required. In Lodhi’s
words, then serving as the Pakistani Ambassador in
Washington:
“In
May 1995, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted by
a near unanimous, bipartisan vote, an amendment moved by
Republican Senator Hank Brown to ease Pressler sanctions.
This sought to remove from the purview of Pressler all
non–military assistance. In the House of Representatives,
a similar effort was spearheaded by the newly elected
Republican Chairman of the House International Relations
Sub–Committee on South Asia, Doug Bereuter, who proposed
an amendment to remove Pressler restrictions on all forms of
non–military assistance…These actions proved to be vital
building blocks in the laborious process of American law
making leading to the adoption, later in the year, of the
Brown Amendment. The amendment, sponsored by a Republican
Senator and promoted by a Democratic Administration,
reflected a bipartisan consensus in Washington to repair the
bilateral relationship by taking the first significant step
towards ending the iniquitous treatment meted out to
Pakistan under the discriminatory Pressler Amendment…This
modification of the Pressler law removed from its ambit all
non–military assistance, as well as provision of IMET
(International Military Education Training), while
providing, in a one–time waiver of the Pressler Amendment,
the release of embargoed military equipment worth about $368
million. Not released under this law were the 28 F–16s for
which President Clinton made a good–faith pledge to
reimburse Pakistan the money it had paid for the fighter
aircraft [during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Washington
visit in 1998].”
Across
the border in Afghanistan, following US Assistant Secretary
of State for South Asia Robin Raphael’s visit to Kandahar
in autumn 1996, the Taliban received a green light to enter
Kabul, displacing the Rabbani government and depriving
Bridas of its local partner in the oil pipeline it had
proposed. Unocal went on to offer ‘humanitarian aid’ to
Afghan power–brokers, should they agree to form a council
to supervise the pipeline project. A new mobile phone
network between Kabul and Kandahar was funded, and promises
to help rebuild Kandahar were proffered. As well, the US
State Department authorized USAID to provide significant
funds for education in Taliban territory. All these efforts
culminated in two trips to Dallas and Washington by Taliban
officials in 1997. The softening of the Clinton
administration’s stance, however, had the unforeseen
effect of prompting other US oil companies to challenge
Unocal. The same year that Unocal and government officials
were wining and dining Taliban representatives in the US,
Bridas found a partner in Amoco, with the help of such
mainstays of US finance as Chase Manhattan, Morgan Stanley
and Arthur Andersen, as well as such towering figures of US
policy–making as Zbigniew Brzezinski (a consultant for
Amoco). Furthermore, when Amoco merged with British
Petroleum a year later, the deal was facilitated by the law
firm of Baker & Botts, whose principal attorney is James
Baker – the Bush (Sr.) administration’s Secretary of
State, and a member of the Carlyle Group.
The
Taliban regime was clearly unsure which of its suitors to
wed. The main stumbling block for Unocal was that its
pipeline was closed to Afghanistan (meant for export only),
while that proposed by Bridas would also service the local
market. Furthermore, tensions between the US and Russia led
Gazprom to withdraw from the Unocal–led consortium,
CentGas. Thus, as it became clearer that Taliban
policy–makers were beginning to lean toward Bridas by late
1997, the Clinton administration responded by suddenly
paying heed to human rights/women’s groups who had been
protesting Taliban conduct for the past two years. In
November 1997, after years of relative quiet, Clinton’s
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publically condemned
the Taliban’s treatment of women during a visit to an
Afghani refugee camp in Pakistan. She also made it plain
that the US government was ‘opposed’ to the Taliban
regime, stating: “It’s very clear why we’re opposed to
Taliban. We’re opposed to their approach to human rights,
to their despicable treatment of women and children and
their lack of respect for human dignity…” By January
1998, the Taliban regime had responded by signing an
agreement with Unocal to begin raising funds for a pipeline,
but made no commitment to actually engage Unocal in its
construction. Thus, Unocal’s Vice President of
International Relations appeared before the US Congress in
February 1998, basically calling for the removal of the
Taliban regime. By March that year, Unocal formally
announced that it was delaying the project.
While
anti–Taliban statements from the Clinton administration
grew more frequent in the coming months, matters were not
brought to a head until August 1998, when the US embassy
bombings in East Africa (attributed to Usama bin Laden)
prompted Clinton to launch a barrage of cruise missiles on
Afghanistan and Sudan, and call for the Taliban to expel Bin
Laden. Interestingly, the latter’s presence in Afghanistan
since 1996 had not stalled the courtship of the previous
years, despite being implicated in earlier acts of
‘terror’ for which the Sudanese government hounded him
out of their country to avoid sanctions. The day after the
missile strikes, Unocal announced that it was halting its
pipeline project. By December 1998, a formal withdrawal from
the project was issued. The Clinton administration then
issued an executive order seizing all US–held Taliban
assets and prohibiting trade, effectively breaking off
diplomatic contacts in the process. Soon after that the UN
Security Council passed a resolution imposing sanctions and
calling for the Taliban regime to “turn over the terrorist
Usama bin Laden.” The Taliban regime offered negotiations
on Bin Laden’s handover, particularly with regard to whose
custody exactly the ‘terrorist’ would be released, but
these overtures were ignored in favour of another UN
resolution and further sanctions on the heels of the USS
Cole bombing in 2000 (also attributed to Usama bin Laden).
As for US–Pakistan relations, cordiality prevailed, as
already suggested by Nawaz Sharif’s Washington visit in
1998, but chilled considerably, particularly after the 1999
Kargil Conflict with India in Kashmir, and General
Musharraf’s subsequent military coup.
Returning
to the ultimate question of ‘Exactly what is…being
fought,’ the above history confirms that just as in the
Cold War period (1979–89) and the era of proxy war
(1989–92), so too in the early phase of the Taliban era
(1992–1998), neither the ‘militant’ nor his
‘ideology’ was being fought. Rather, he was courted and
his ideology utilized for US strategic and economic
interests, particularly as both converged in a slick of oil
by 1995. Furthermore, considering that it was only when
absolute control of that oil was challenged that the Taliban
regime was openly discredited, it must be said that although
this ‘militant’ and his ‘ideology’ were publically
‘being fought’ from 1998 to 2001, other ‘militants’
with similar ‘ideologies’ continued to find support, and
even that could have been dropped in favour of the Taliban
at any point if it had compromised on the issue of oil.
Confirmation of this hypothesis, in fact, comes with the
inauguration of President Bush (Jr.), one of whose first
acts in January and February, 2001, was to open negotiations
between the US and the Taliban regime, conducted in
Washington, Berlin and Islamabad, in which Laila Helms
(niece of former CIA Director Richard Helms) was hired by
the Taliban to act as go–between; negotiations that ended
around May, 2001, according to various sources including a
former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, with the ultimatum
that the Unocal pipeline would go ahead or bombs would rain
on Afghanistan. From 1998 to 2001, therefore, the Taliban
‘militant’ was fought in the name of his ‘ideology,’
but in the interests of oil.
But,
what of planes becoming bombs over New York and Washington
on September 11, 2001? Did that not change everything?
According to Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy
– a study of the convergence between US Evangelical
Christian ‘extremism,’ US geo–political policy and
global oil interests – one thing did change. Although the
Taliban continued to offer negotiations on the handover of
Usama bin Laden, the atrocities of 9/11 “gave Washington
[oil] policies a convenient new all–inclusive
justification: fighting terror was about everything, and
everything was about fighting terror. Oil motivations,
rarely a popular or easy foreign–policy justification,
could now be submerged within a primal response to a
deep–seated national combination of fear, loathing and
outrage. Petroleum strategy could now become only a minor
facet of an antiterrorist mobilization.” Furthermore, as
Bruce Lincoln – professor of religion at the University of
Chicago – adds, taking into account Bush’s
‘religious’ affiliations, the pursuit of strategic
interests could even transcend the previous rhetoric of
‘human’ and ‘women’s rights,’ to be framed as an
eternal, uncompromising struggle between ‘good’ and
‘evil’; a form of rhetoric ironically akin to that of
Usama bin Laden himself. And finally, as David Domke –
associate professor of communication at the University of
Washington – asserts with a chorus of other scholars, in
the double–speak of the Bush administration, what this was
meant to imply is that by fighting the Taliban and
al–Qaida, “the US government…[was] doing God’s
work.”
That
interests on the more worldly ground of US oil strategy lay
behind this ratcheting of rhetoric under the Bush (Jr.)
administration, is confirmed by a number of other factors,
including bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq on the
unfounded accusation of links to 9/11, not to mention
‘WMDs.’ Furthermore, consider the major players
post–9/11. Apart from Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage and
other prominent Republicans’ affiliated with oil companies
active in Central Asia, it can be added that Condolezza Rice
(Bush’s National Security Advisor [2000–04] and
Secretary of State [2004–09]) had served on the board of
Chevron before entering government. As well, Zalmay
Khalilzad (appointed US Special Envoy to Afghanistan
[2001–03], Ambassador to Afghanistan [2003–05],
Ambassador to Iraq [2005–07] and Ambassador to the UN
[2007–09]) was a former consultant for Unocal and part of
the Unocal team that courted the Taliban in the US. At the
time, he wrote, “We [the US government] should ... be
willing to offer recognition and humanitarian assistance and
to promote international economic reconstruction.”
Furthermore, Hamid Karzai, whose rise to power was in no
small measure facilitated by US aid through the offices of
Khalilzad, was also a Unocal consultant who had participated
in Unocal’s courtship of the Taliban in the US. One of
Karzai’s first acts as President of Afghanistan, in fact,
was the signing of a new agreement with Turkmenistan and
Pakistan on the building of a pipeline in 2002. The greatest
problem in going ahead with pipeline plans during the tenure
of the Bush (Jr.) administration, however, was a collective
failure in defeating the Taliban to bring about the
stability necessary to get down to work in Afghanistan. In
fact, the failure was so complete that the Taliban also
sprouted a Pakistani chapter that began to threaten the
ability of all involved to even consider the Pakistani
portion of a pipeline safe for investment in the immediate
future.
And,
what of the election of President Obama and his
administration’s ‘new’ plan for the region; has that
not changed everything? To be sure, the Obama
administration’s abandonment of Bush’s ‘religious’
rhetoric has to some extent succeeded in redressing the
impression created by Bush among ordinary Muslims that his
was a ‘war against Islam.’ Obama’s rhetorical lumping
of Pakistan together with Afghanistan as part of the
‘Af–Pak’ problem is novel, too, but ultimately
reflects no more than a response to the failure of the Bush
administration to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan,
leading to the destabilization of nuclear–armed Pakistan.
The warfront is now bigger and all that the ‘Af–Pak’
strategy reconfirms is that an important element of the
‘New World Order’ now cannot go forward unless the
Afghani and Pakistani Taliban is defeated or co–opted.
That only his ‘militancy,’ rather than his
‘ideology,’ is at stake, however, continues to be
confirmed by various maneuvers. The US–backed Karzai
regime in Afghanistan, now as before, accommodates the
Taliban–type ‘militant’ and ‘ideology’ within the
Afghani body–politic. In fact, Hillary Clinton has even
publically endorsed President Karzai’s attempts to open
talks with “moderate” members of the Afghani Taliban.
The only definition of the “moderate” she provided was
those “willing to abandon violence, break with al Qaeda
and support the constitution.” As well, the US–backed
Zardari regime in Pakistan, now as before, accommodates the
Taliban–type ‘militant’ and ‘ideology,’ and
Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke met with the leader of
Jama’at–i Ulama–i Islam as recently as October, 2009.
Most telling, however, is the recent promulgation of the
Kerry–Lugar Aid Bill, which includes specific conditions
concerning Pakistani support for ‘militants’ in
neighbouring countries, but makes no real mention of
‘ideology’ abroad or at home. From 2001 to the present,
therefore, just as in the period from 1998–2001, the
Taliban ‘militant’ has been fought in the name of his
‘ideology,’ though the failures of Bush (Jr,) have added
such immediate concerns as military defeat in Afghanistan
and the stabilization of Pakistan to the long–term
interests of oil.
‘Exactly
what…is being fought’ today, Roy astutely asks. The
short answer is that today, as has been the case since 1979,
neither a specific ‘militant’ nor ‘ideology’ is
‘being fought.’ Rather, the target of operations, for
which more troops are now being sought, is anyone who
challenges the interests of an oil–drenched ‘New World
Order.’
(*) M. Reza
Pirbhai is an Assistant Professor of South Asian History at
Louisiana State University. He can be reached at:
rpirbhai@lsu.edu