Afghanistan, China, Middle East, Politics, Society

China preparing to capitalise in Afghanistan

ESSAY

Intro: Just days after the U.S. and its Coalition partners prepare to leave Afghanistan, China is preparing to gain a direct route to the riches of the Middle East. With billions in the Chinese war chest, just where will China’s ambitions end?

THERE is a reason why Afghanistan is known as “the graveyard of empires”. Every few decades this beleaguered nation emerges from obscurity to remind an apparently invincible invader that his army is not the first to bite the bitter dust there. Afghanistan is littered with examples of invading armies sent into retreat and heavy defeat. 

In 1842, the first of Britain’s four Afghan wars ended in catastrophe. Only one man survived from a force of about 4,500, plus 10,000 or so camp followers, linguistic interpreters, and local allies – and he was set free only so he could recount the scale of the defeat and the dire end of his comrades.

After ten years of brutality trying to convert Muslim Afghans into ‘modern’ communists, the once mighty Red Army found itself in humiliating defeat from Afghanistan in 1989. It would mark the beginning of the rapid fall of the Kremlin’s dominoes from Eastern Europe to Moscow itself.

Today, we see the U.S. and its coalition partners leaving Afghanistan in defeat after almost 20 years; the superpower discovering that Afghanistan’s fragmented tribal culture masks an unbreakable resilience. President Joe Biden, a recent convert to the cause of ending what he has described as a “forever war”, has set a deadline of September 11 for the last American troops to leave.

It is, of course, a highly symbolic act that marks 20 years since the 9/11 attacks by Al-Qaeda – which had its training camps in Afghanistan – that destroyed the World Trade Centre in New York.

Within two months of the invasion in October 2001 by the U.S.-led Coalition forces, Al-Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, had fled to Pakistan and the fundamentalist Taliban routed. But the mission soon lost its way, at a cost of thousands of military and civilian lives.

Now the U.S. cannot get out fast enough, abandoning its huge airbase at Bagram overnight on 2 July. Today, the situation around the capital Kabul is chaotic, its population in panic, and the Taliban is sweeping back into territory it had been forced to flee by Coalition forces.

Afghan soldiers loyal to the fragile Western-backed Kabul government are being routed. After clashes with newly strengthened Taliban units, an estimated 1,600 have fled and dispersed across the border into neighbouring Tajikistan.

Others have abandoned their weapons and uniforms to return to their homes or switched to fight with the Taliban, which is also taking territory it did not hold prior to the Coalition’s arrival.

Despite more than $2.3 trillion spent waging a war against a badly armed and underfed ragtag of rebels, the Americans leave their enemy in better shape than ever before.

But this will not deter the world’s newest superpower – China – which is waiting patiently in the wings. The Dragon of China will soon enter the fray.

In a development that should strike fear through Western capitals, Beijing scents an unrivalled opportunity to extend its influence in the region and gain strategic territorial and economic advantage that could rewrite the geopolitical map in its favour.

For President Xi Jinping’s Marxist government, Afghanistan is a prize beyond measure. It offers a portal through which Chinese military might could access the Arabian Sea, via Iran or Pakistan.

And the war-torn country could provide two other things China desperately wants: overland access to Iran and the Middle East, and a route to the Indian Ocean and on to Africa.

To reach these markets currently, Chinese goods must go the long way round, via container ships through the disputed South China Sea. But the short border Afghanistan shares with north-western China offers potential for a mega-highway, a high-speed rail link and fuel pipelines.

Beijing is confident that it can succeed where Whitehall, the Kremlin and the White House have failed over the centuries, for the simple reason that it is not interested in transforming Afghan society.

It has learned from the mistakes of the Russian communists. Chinese communists have no desire to remake Afghanistan (or anywhere else) in their own image.

Threat

Nor will its goals be achieved by brute force; President Xi has a far smarter plan. When the Kremlin occupied Afghanistan in 1979, it saw it as a steppingstone to dominating the oil-rich Middle East, but Soviet communism had little to offer compared with the wealth of modern China.

Xi prefers to use financial muscle as much as the threat of military power and, if reports that Beijing is prepared to invest $62 billion in Afghanistan are true, it is following a blueprint perfected in many countries from Malaysia to Montenegro.

Under a policy known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), vast loans are offered to cash-strapped countries for infrastructure projects. In return, China gains access to new trade routes and ports, as well as banking hefty interest payments on its investment.

If the repayments are late, the Chinese could step in to reclaim land, mineral rights, or other collateral as compensation. It is a business plan more common in the underworld of gangsters and organised crime groups: victims are lured into a “debt trap” and forced to repay, one way or the other.

In return for its largesse, China will also expect the Taliban to ignore the “genocidal” oppression of their fellow Muslims, the 12 million Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province, which sits close to the Afghan and Pakistani borders.

The last thing Beijing wants is an anarchic scenario in which a rise in Islamic fundamentalism on its border threatens domestic security in China.

But it has seen how indifferent strict Islamic regimes in the Middle East are to Uighur rights. The oil-rich Arab monarchies will much prefer doing lucrative deals with Beijing than bothering about its treatment of fellow Muslims.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, the former international cricketer Imran Khan, who cynics argue has reinvented himself as a born-again Muslim to cement his political power base, has spoken up about the Uighurs – but only to defend China’s handling of them.

And even before Khan came to power, Pakistan’s generals saw the Taliban as a natural ally against their number one adversary, India. China, too, is at daggers drawn with India, so it will view an anti-India Taliban regime in Kabul as a possible ally.

Uncertain days lie ahead and as the remaining American troops gather to stockade the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and protect the dwindling band of Westerners there, there are many observers who recall evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Saigon in 1975. 

Similar humiliating scenes are likely in the coming weeks. Up to 1,000 U.S. troops are expected to be stationed at Kabul Airport to protect departing Western civilians.

Bleak

That will be little comfort to all those Afghans who have worked bravely with Coalition forces over more than two decades trying to improve life for their own people. Betrayed, their future is now bleak.

And, as for our pledges to women and girls – with the likely return to power in Kabul of the Taliban – they will lose those rights and freedoms that Allied intervention had brought.

China sees Afghanistan – even with the Taliban back in control – as one of the most crucial squares on the chessboard of world politics. And like a chess grandmaster, President Xi Jinping is not planning for a quick checkmate.

Historians will no doubt look back at what is happening now and see that China did indeed learn the lessons of history. Where Britain, Russia and America have failed, it may yet triumph, gaining the influence it seeks without having shed the same terrible price in blood and human sacrifice.

Appendage

– Afghanistan and China share a short 46-mile border. Afghanistan has huge strategic importance for China.
Standard
Britain, Government, Society

Britain’s betrayal in Afghanistan

TROOP WITHDRAWAL

WITH hubris and complacency, former British prime minister Tony Blair dragged Britain to war in Afghanistan with three overarching objectives: to crush the Taliban, eliminate the opium trade and promote democracy.

To the people of that benighted nation, he also made a solemn pledge: “We will not walk away.”

As a symbolic ceremony marked our final withdrawal after 20 bloody years, those words should make him and the entire political class cringe with shame.

For all the heroism of our at times woefully equipped troops, the mission – just as it was in Iraq – was an unmitigated disaster.

More than 450 British soldiers lost their lives, with thousands more maimed or broken mentally.

And for what? As Coalition forces have pulled out early, the Taliban is resurgent. Opium production flourishes, and rather than reducing the terror threat, our intervention has increased the danger.

As for not walking away from the Afghans, words cannot express the dismay and futility of the situation left in the wake of our withdrawal: thousands who risked their lives serving our troops, including interpreters, are terrified of being left to the mercy of the vengeful Islamists. These men and their families need and deserve asylum in the UK.

The British Government promised not to abandon them. Cutting them adrift would be another unforgivable betrayal.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, European Union, Government, Islamic State, Military, National Security, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

NATO requires direction and purpose…

NATO

The two-day NATO summit in Newport, Wales, represents a key and defining moment in the organisation’s 65-year history. More recently it has become apt to question whether the post-war transatlantic alliance even has a future, particularly when NATO ends combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of the year. Defence budgets among the leading European powers have been severely cut and, coupled with the crippling lack of political will to reach consensus on vital security issues, critics of this Western alliance have been able to make a convincing case that the organisation is in real danger of becoming obsolete.

NATO’s future continuity and preservation as a global entity for good will now depend to a large extent on how leaders of the 28-nation alliance respond to the alarming array of new challenges that threaten not only the security of Europe, but the wider world.

The horrific and gruesome murders of two American journalists by Islamic State terrorists in Iraq, and the imminent possibility that a British hostage could soon suffer a similar fate, has highlighted in graphic and disturbing detail the very serious threat to Western security posed by radical militants associated with the self-proclaimed Islamic State – one that has taken root in lawless areas of northern Syria and Iraq. Then there is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s blatant and ruthless military intervention in Ukraine, actions which have led to Russia brazenly supporting rebel and pro-militia groups loyal to the Kremlin in maintaining the tempo over the challenge to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and encroachment of a sovereign state. The true extent of the rebel support was realised earlier this week when a Russian tank column was identified as being in support of capturing Luhansk airport. As if to confirm his disregard for Western attempts to rein in Mr Putin’s new-found spirit of adventurism, Moscow even boasted that it could take Kiev in just two weeks if it wanted to.

When considering too the continuing threats posed by al-Qaeda, the uncertain fate that awaits Afghanistan when the US-led NATO mission completes its withdrawal later this year, and the endemic lawlessness in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa, it is clear that the West is facing its most difficult period since the end of the Cold War.

NATO’s ability to provide an effective response to these multifarious threats will depend ultimately on whether it can summon the collective political will and leadership to take decisive action against its enemies. For an organisation whose decision-making process requires consensual agreement, attempts to find a common policy amongst all the nations of the alliance have all too often been hampered by deep political divisions. Most recently these have surfaced in the way the major European powers have sought to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine, with countries such as Germany and Italy unwilling to back the more robust stance favoured by Britain and the U.S. But neither has the NATO cause been helped by President Barack Obama’s reluctance to become involved in overseas conflicts. Mr Obama’s detached approach was evidentially confirmed in the last few days when the president admitted ‘we don’t have a strategy yet’ for dealing with Islamic State militants: this, despite their murderous assaults on American citizens.

There are some encouraging signs that NATO is preparing to rise to Mr Putin’s bellicosity in eastern Europe. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the outgoing NATO secretary-general, has already announced the establishment of a new, 4,000-strong rapid-reaction force capable of reacting to any future crisis in eastern Europe with just 48 hours’ notice. Many European member states will also come under pressure to honour the NATO commitment of spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence. The decision to establish new logistics centres along the Russian border to enable the rapid provision and requisition of military equipment in the event of a crisis is also another welcome indication that NATO’s members are not prepared to tolerate any further territorial incursions by the Kremlin. Whilst encouraging that there are signs the alliance has rediscovered a real sense of purpose, effective political leadership is now urgently needed.

Standard