After eight years of war in
Afghanistan, the inability of Western imperialism to quell the
insurgency has entered into a period of crisis. Cracks and divisions
within the central government are becoming more and more critical as
the military and political situation becomes ever more unstable. Major
conflicts within Afghanistan’s Western-backed ruling clique were first
brought to a head in August during the presidential elections. The
accusations of fraud have left Karzai’s grip on power extremely
strained and have left Karzai wondering whether the NATO mission is more
hindrance than help.
Drawing by Latuff.After
eight years of war in Afghanistan, the inability of Western
imperialism to quell the insurgency has entered into a period of crisis.
Cracks and divisions within the central government are becoming more
and more critical as the military and political situation becomes ever
more unstable.
Major conflicts within Afghanistan’s Western-backed ruling clique
were first brought to a head in August during the presidential
elections. Massive fraud led to President Hamid Karzai’s closest
challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, boycotting the
run-off election, allowing Karzai to be installed into a disputed
second term. However, the accusations of fraud have left Karzai’s grip
on power extremely strained. Western imperialism’s failure to stabilize
Afghanistan has been translated into a deep mistrust of Karzai and a
desire to diffuse the power he wields as president (which is
considerable). On the other side, Karzai has begun to view the NATO
mission as more of a hindrance to his authority and continues to rely
ever more heavily on his warlord base of support. As well, he is making
increasing overtures toward Iran and the Taliban itself.
A Desperate President
Since the invasion in 2001, we have said that the war in Afghanistan
was an unwinnable one:
“Despite the public self-congratulations, the Americans are still
blundering around in the dark, groping for a way out. But no way out
presents itself. Yet again, we see how the Americans have thought
nothing out to the end. They imagined that once they had pushed the
Taliban out of Kabul, the problem would be solved. But this is not at
all the case. The fall of Kabul has taken place in a manner not of the
Americans’ choosing and even less to their liking. They see that the
Alliance leaders are already installing themselves in the capital, and,
once this occurs, it will not be easy to dislodge them. Washington does
not trust the Alliance. They fear that, now the common enemy is
removed, the "united front" will break up into its constituent parts.
This is very likely. The result will be chaos and civil war.” (Alan
Woods, “Afghanistan After the Fall of Kabul: Is the War Over?
,” 15 Nov. 2001)
These perspectives have been completely validated by events and are
now reaching critical mass. The fraudulent elections last August were
the straw the broke the camel’s back for the “united” central
government. At the time we wrote:
“Afghanistan is entering a period of acute crisis that could put
the final nail in the coffin of the imperialist intervention there.
Contradictions in the military and political situation have been
building beneath the surface for years. The inability of NATO to defeat
the Taliban is a direct reflection of the corruption, nepotism, and
incompetence of the Karzai regime” (Julian Benson, “The
Afghan Elections: Imperialist Adventure Continues to Weaken,” 3
Sep. 2009)
But what exactly are the “constituent parts,” and how are they
reflected in the Afghan political situation and what role are they
playing in events?
The Karzai regime has always relied on the various warlords and
regional strongmen as its main base of support. Through a system of
cronyism and appointments, Karzai has placed many of these allies in
key positions in the provinces, ministries, and in Parliament. The West
was all too happy to support these thugs as long as they, in turn,
supported Western imperialism. However, as the war progresses and
NATO’s victory appears less and less likely, many of these elements are
moving towards conciliation with the Taliban (and subsequently,
towards the Iranian sphere of influence) and away from the interests of
Western imperialism. Karzai himself has directly reflected this. As
one commentator with the British bourgeois paper The Telegraph
put it:
“On both of my recent visits to Kabul, senior NATO officers have
privately expressed their deepening concern about Mr Karzai’s personal
dealings with the Taliban—which, I’m told, now take place on an almost
daily basis. For the head of a government that is committed to a
process of political reconciliation, establishing a dialogue with the
Taliban makes perfectly good sense. But Mr Karzai’s refusal to discuss
the precise nature of his contacts with the insurgents has led some
Western officials to conclude that the Afghan president has an
altogether different agenda: that of encouraging the Taliban to
continue their attacks on NATO. That was certainly the view of one
American general I met, who was convinced that Mr Karzai was backing
the Taliban.” (Con Coughlin, “Hamid Karzai is making some pretty
unpleasant friends,” 2 Apr. 2010)
Karzai sees where the war is taking him and is desperate to avoid the
consequences of being tied to NATO’s sinking ship. Having concluded
that NATO will not be able to defeat the insurgency he is hoping to
come to a compromise peace with the Taliban in order to, he believes,
protect his own power. Not surprisingly, Washington is very displeased
by this.
The Battle over the State
The rift between Karzai and the West, and between the various
factions within the government itself, has been building under the
surface for a long time, but the election fraud in August has acted as a
catalyst to bring it more and more to the surface. The battle over the
Elections Complaints Commission (ECC) has been at the centre of the
controversy.
The ECC, which is currently made up of five members, three of which
are appointed by the UN, is the body that oversees Afghan elections.
The ECC was responsible for disqualifying over one million votes during
last year’s presidential elections that forced Karzai into an
embarrassing run-off election. Karzai’s influence was further hurt when
his opponent pulled out of the race citing fears of further fraud.
Karzai is no democrat, but neither are the imperialists. The West was
quite happy having warlords running the country so long as they did
what they were told, but now that Karzai’s clique is viewed as less
than reliable, the imperialists have suddenly become absolutely
exacting in their review of Afghan democracy. This was a direct
challenge to Karzai’s power.
In February, during the Afghan parliament’s winter recess, Karzai
responded by unilaterally decreeing that he had the authority to
reappoint all five members of the ECC with his own choices, and to the
exclusion of foreigners. This enraged the imperialist camp.
The Obama administration reacted by cancelling a planned trip by
Karzai to Washington, which seems to be intended to publicly embarrass
the Afghan president. In reply, Karzai hastily arranged a state visit
for Iranian president Ahmadinejad to visit Kabul. Karzai’s response is
telling of which direction he is moving politically. The Seattle
Times describes the situation like this:
“Last month, Karzai had been expected to visit the White House,
but U.S. officials told The New York Times he was disinvited over his
stance on the election panel. Incensed, Karzai extended an invitation
of his own — to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who flew to
Kabul and delivered a fiery anti-American speech inside Afghanistan’s
presidential palace.” (Seattle Times, “U.S. Turns up heat and
Karzai smolders,” 5 Apr. 2010)
In addition to reaching out to the Taliban, Karzai has also been
making increasing overtures towards the Iranian regime. Karzai has had
two official meetings with the Iranian dictator in the last month, both
of which were far more publicized than Obama’s recent trip to Kabul
(which was so secretive, Karzai didn’t find out about it until an hour
before the US president landed). Karzai knows that he cannot survive
without international backing, and is attempting to balance between
rival powers to secure his position.
This combined with a deteriorating security situation, has given the
West an increasing sense that things are nearing a breaking point. The
Western imperialists recently mobilized their diplomatic corps to whip
up the Opposition in Afghanistan’s parliament. They even suggested a
change to the constitution so as to add the position of “Prime Minister”
in order to diffuse the president’s power. It is amazing how active
the imperialists are in changing Afghan law when it is a question of
their own power in the country. Where was this concern for fair and
democratic government when their then-loyal puppet Karzai was passing
laws that legalized the rape of women?
On the 31st of March, the lower house of the Afghan parliament
overwhelmingly passed a resolution that rejected Karzai’s decree on the
take-over of the ECC, saying that he did not have the authority to do
so. The next day Karzai, at a public address, lashed out at the West
saying, “There was fraud in presidential and provincial council
elections—no doubt that there was a very widespread fraud, very
widespread. But Afghans did not do this fraud. The foreigners did this
fraud.”
He went on to say that such actions by foreigners, interfering in
domestic affairs, have the risk of NATO being seen as “invaders,” and
the insurgency becoming “a national resistance.”
Though he downplayed his remarks in the face of outrage amongst
Western governments, he did not retract them. Two days later, the
Afghanistan upper house (1/3 of which is appointed by Karzai) vetoed
the lower house’s resolution, thus restoring the president’s authority
to reappoint the ECC, which will be overseeing the all important
parliamentary elections later this year.
What does it mean?
The Karzai regime did not just suddenly become tyrannical and
corrupt; it has been like this since it was put into power by Western
bayonets in 2001. However, it is only recently that the imperialist
camp started to whip up opposition to the regime due to these factors.
This is not just a coincidence. There is a real possibility that
Karzai, and many in his clique, have lost faith in NATO’s ability to
win this war and are drifting closer and closer towards the Taliban.
This is a direct reflection of the bloody quagmire that Afghanistan has
become for Western forces. The failure to progress militarily is, as
we have said on many occasions, a direct reflection of the inability of
capitalism to progress Afghanistan politically and economically.
Imperialism and the Taliban are two sides of the same coin. One is
the military imposition of finance capital; the other is its twisted
and reactionary offspring. Karzai is caught in the middle, trying to
balance between the two sides. The tight rope he is walking may well
turn into his noose. The fact is that all the fracturing and conflict
between these various groups are representative of the inability of
capitalism to provide anyway forward for regular Afghans other than
endless war and grinding poverty.
Only the unity of the Afghan people with their comrades in Pakistan,
Iran, and the Arab states into a Socialist Federation of the Middle
East and Asia can provide a way forward. Only the pooling of resources
and labour, under a democratic plan of production, can give the Afghan
people employment, infrastructure, literacy, medical treatment, and
other necessities so that they can, once and for all, end their
country’s tragic history of foreign oppression and build a new, free and
socialist Afghanistan.
