WHO'S AFRAID OF THE TALIBAN?
The sweeping victories of the Northern Alliance over the Taliban took many people by surprise, but as the WEEK argued throughout the conflict, the danger of Islamic resistance to the allied campaign was always greatly overstated. Bigging up the opposition as the 'noble Afghan warrior' is one way to cover up the embarrassing truth of 'asymmetric warfare', that the Afghans never had a chance. But the willingness to believe that Afghanistan was another potential Vietnam had other sources, as well.
Western fears about an Islamic revolt against the West were always more indicative of the state of the West than they were of the East. Disturbances in Indonesia, and Pakistan were beamed into American and European living rooms as proof that 'they don't like us'. But, given the pounding visited upon Afghanistan, the demonstrations have been surprisingly muted. It is not the strength of anti-Western feeling that makes Westerners think they are hated, but their own guilty anxieties in relation to the less developed world. The perception of a great revolt just below the surface really has its well-springs in Western psychology rather than Eastern.
THE GREAT GAME
British Foreign Minister promised that there would be no more 'Great games' in Afghanistan, a reference back to the subordination of the country to a vicious rivalry between Russian and Britain. In fact the course of Afghan history is set to remain subordinate to forces outside of its borders. In the 1980s President Reagan chose to make Afghanistan Russia's Vietnam, funding reactionary Mujahideen militias to fight the Soviets. In 1996, embarrassed by the destruction wrought by the victorious, but squabbling Mujahideen groups, the US used Pakistan as an intermediary to establish the Taliban regime, out of Islamic seminary students. The Taliban's ascendance was a reprimand to Iran, which had ties with the Northern Alliance. Now again the West has used Afghanistan as a chessboard on which to fight its Great Game, this time a 'War Against Terror' - or in other words a war against its own Mujahideen militiamen of the 1980s.
Already a new Great Game is looming, as the 'rift' between the US and Britain opens up over whether to engage in 'nation-building' in defeated Afghanistan. British Development Minister Clare Short flew the kite by criticising US resistance to humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, British official briefed the press that they did not want to make the mistake of 'walking away' from Afghanistan. This is meant to be a criticism of what went wrong in the 1980s. In fact the problem was not that Britain and the US walked away, but that they got involved, provoking decades of war. The conflict between the US and UK is that America is happy to work through proxies, like the Northern Alliance, whereas Britain needs to station its troops abroad to increase its global standing. Sadly, the US will not walk away, which would be the best thing for all concerned.
SAUDS IN THE DOGHOUSE
US investigations into September 11 were impeded by the prejudice that the hijackers were travelling on false passports, and must be impoverished Egyptians or Palestinians. The slow recognition that most of them were from the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, led to criticisms that this most loyal US ally had 'gone over to the dark side', as Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker. A press advertising campaign in Western newspapers drew criticism for being 'Kim Il-Sungish' in its fawning adulation of Saudi and US leaders. President George W Bush has reined in criticism of the Saud's, leading some to suspect that his highly-paid consultancy with the Saudi backed Carlyle Group was influencing his judgement.
In fact the US's alliance with the House of Saud goes much deeper than the mutual deals of oil-barons. Saudi Arabia is America's most important ally in the region politically, and an economic ally too. Saudi supplies one quarter of the world's oil, though this in itself is not directly important to the US domestic economy, which imports just ten per cent of its oil. The money that Saudi Arabia generates by selling oil to Europe, though, creates an important market for US exports. The legendary profligacy of Saudi's 500 princes boost US exports, especially of luxury items, like limousines, and arms. In 1981 the Saudis bought the US AWACS air defence system, the first in a long line of arms exports. In 1996, seeking to curry favour with the Clinton White House, the Saud's bought $6 billion-worth of jets from Boeing.
America's claim on Saudi's surplus is conditional on the relative underdevelopment of the Kingdom. Outside the oil industry, which is largely served by migrant workers, Saudi Arabia has a service sector but precious little other industry. America prefers the Saudis to buy from the US than make their own, a system that generates vast, un-invested surpluses. The surplus cash was also used to fund right-wing militias, like the Contras in Nicaragua, and Afghan 'freedom fighters' like Osama bin Laden. -- James Heartfield