A "New" Afghanistan: Blessing or Anathema.

 In October 2001 those who saw American bombers drop tons of bombs on a Taliban controlled Afghanistan may have  felt it was a defining moment for the country. Almost two decades to the day we now have another defining moment for Afghanistan and the region with the Taliban's return to power. A 'new' Afghanistan is emerging not only because the Taliban are trying to impress upon us that they have changed, but because ground realities of Afghan society have changed. Gone are the war lords and private armies that helped the US and its allies. The new generation of Afghans, in the cities especially, may not be so submissive to the Taliban as they were in 1996. The West has pulled out with clarity that they do now wish to be involved in the country they tried to build back because the emotional, material and political cost was no more tenable. 

USA argues that if the purpose of the invasion in 2001 was to stop terrorist activity targeted against America then they see their Afghan war as a success. However, this is far from the truth because leaving Afghanistan in the manner they have and the Taliban's lack of cohesiveness on this issue means that countries fearing terrorist activity have to be more worried. There is a historical perspective to the Taliban's position on terrorism and its track record that influences its conduct in the future.

Since its inception the Taliban's central leadership has been firm only in terms of spiritual leadership. This central leadership has had some claims on spiritual and religious leadership and some of its senior leaders have either attended higher religious education or have studied under the tutelage of respected ulema (teachers) of Islam. However, local commanders of the Taliban, especially in far flung provinces, were lacking the knowledge and experience to be considered capable of even understanding the basics of Islamic traditions. This was true in the 1990's and even today holds true to a great extent. This explains the dichotomy in the way the Taliban have dealt with issues of women's rights, presence of foreign fighters and in general its conduct on social matters. 

Mullah Omar, who led the Taliban through the 1990's, relied heavily on the support of the local commanders and was surrounded by many who guided him on matters of policy. These local commanders used Pushtun codes of conduct in dealing with many issues. This explains why Mullah Omar refused to hand over Osama bun Laden to the Americans because under Pushtun code he was a guest and therefore under Pushtun code he was to be protected. The more modern minded 'mullahs' within Taliban felt that since bin Laden had continued to carry arms as a guest he had violated the code of protection and therefore could be handed over. In Mullah Omar's defence he did offer the US the option of trying Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan or sending him to Saudi Arabia to be tried under their laws, an offer Washington ignored.

This fractured leadership explains why the Taliban ended up having such contradictory policies where they banned prostitution and forced sexual slavery but still local commanders encouraged Arab and Pakistani fighters of Al Qadea to enslave women from the Uzbek and Tajik minorities. It seemed in many districts under Taliban control it was left to the local commander to decide if he thought foreign fighters were welcome or not. In most cases these commanders had little if any understanding of the issues of global terrorism and saw foreign fighters as allies who fought the Soviets alongside the Mujahideen and therefore were welcome. 

While the Taliban of today has presented a more understanding face when it comes to the issue of Afghanistan becoming a base for foreign fighters it does seem this is an assurance designed only for Western consumption. In 2021 when the Taliban swept through the country it released many prisoners which included about 2000 fighters of the Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) including its leader Mullah Fazullah. Pakistans request to the Afghan Taliban to either hand over Mullah Fazullah to Pakistan or at least not to release him were ignored by Taliban. Interestingly there are a number of groups active in Iranian and Pakistani Baluchistan who have some presence in Afghanistan and also receive tacit support from India. Some sources have claimed that the TTP is very much a terrorist group that has India's support even though India has, in the past, not been very warm to the Afghan Taliban. 

It is unlikely that the Taliban government will be able to curb existing militant groups from establishing some presence on their soil. There are already reports that some of the ultra conservative commanders within Taliban in provinces like Helmand, are not pleased with the 'concessions' the main leadership in Kabul is giving on issues of women's role in society. As these fissures grow it is highly likely that groups like ISIS-K (an off-shoot of ISIS) will draw these disgruntled Taliban to its ranks, as indeed it has done so in the past. On a more emotional perspective the Taliban take over of Afghanistan will be a boost to many militant groups in the region who may hope they can replicate the Taliban success elsewhere. 

In the years ahead the Taliban governments 'promise' of not allowing their country to be used as a base of any attack on another country will be put to test. However, there are subtle points to consider in the Taliban promise. While they may keep their 'promise' of not letting attacks be launched from their soil they cannot assure that attacks could be planned and supported from Afghanistan without any direct attacks from Afghan soil. It is highly likely that groups opposed to the US and its allies will slowly gravitate to Afghanistan and will set up shop in varying degrees. The groups may not need a 'friendly' government to make their presence felt, all they need is a government that is not actively seeking to shut them down and in this regard the Taliban may fit the bill. 

It is interesting to note that some elements within Pakistan have embraced and rejoiced at the Taliban victory in Afghanistan. The only positive one can see for Pakistan is that Kabul now has a government not hostile to Islamabad, however, this does not mean that the Taliban will reign in TTP. We have already seen a couple of attacks on the border areas of Pakistan carried out by TTP fighters operating from Afghanistan. Thus the notion that since Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia and the United States, had a major role in the creation of the Taliban in the 1990's it will continue to exert its influence today is not entirely correct. Without a doubt the relationship between Kabul and Islamabad will be a testing one, made all the more difficult with India wanting to not only mend fences with the Taliban but to counter act any influence that Pakistan (and perhaps China) might have in Kabul.

Western intelligence agencies are most certainly not comfortable with the changes that have happened within Afghanistan. First of all they these changes were too rapid for the agencies to develop new plans and relationships within Afghanistan that can give it the intelligence gathering capability to neutralise terrorist groups. Secondly, while at the district and village level the Taliban intelligence and knowledge may well be superior to that of the previous Afghan government, such intelligence is purely targeted towards elements who oppose the Taliban and may not necessarily be concerned about activities beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There are very deep questions to be answered about how the Taliban will develop an intelligence service capable of being useful to Western intelligence agencies. 

It is precisely these shortcomings which will attract the likes of ISIS, Al Qadea and dozens of other splinter groups to consider some sort of presence in Afghanistan. Such groups are assured that apart from the major cities, especially Kabul, they will have enough sympathisers within the far flung districts from amongst Afghans who have had a terrible experience of US and Western presence in the country. To the academics the biggest puzzle to solve is that how the United States went from being the country that helped the Mujahideen liberate Afghanistan from Soviet occupation to becoming the 'occupiers' who ended up being hated just as much as the Soviets?

Afghanistan Abandoned.

 As chaotic scenes of Afghanistan's fall to Taliban emerge we see a return of the Kalashnikov culture while the United States attempts to sugar coat what is essentially its defeat. Two decades ago few could have imagined that the ousted Taliban would ever return to power. In October 2001 US and its allies embarked on a war in Afghanistan with the ostensible reason to fight terrorism and rid the country of the Taliban who sheltered Al Qadea. In the two decades since then the US embarked on what it called 'nation building' with the aim to modernise Afghanistan and rebuild its armed forces as an eventual deterrent to the resurgence of the Taliban. 

Hamad Karazi was installed as the President who remained in power till 2014, winning re-election in controversial elections which were allegedly fraudulent. He was succeeded by Ashraf Ghani, who fled Kabul leaving it to the Taliban and thus bringing to the fore the current crisis. There is no denying that Afghans feel abandoned by the allies who not only propped these two Presidents over the past two decades but also promised a stronger country that could eventually stand on its own feet. 

There are many aspects to this debacle and is a text book case of how not to conduct such foreign adventures. The fall of Kabul is a failure of the United States and its allies as much as it is the failure of progressive Afghans and most of all the two governments of Karazai and Ghani. If the American current stance is that the purpose of their presence was to hold Al Qadea responsible for the attack on the US, then one has to ask when that was achieved ten years ago why was their presence still so overwhelming in the country? The usual answer is that US priorities were to help the Afghan government rebuild itself. However, it was well know that corruption was so rampant that all the money that poured into the country ended up lining the pockets of a highly corrupt group of people.

It would be wise to examine the implications of the current events and what led to this situation from the perspective of different actors and stakeholders. 

The United States of America.

Irrespective of how Washington paints the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the fall of Kabul, the imagery vividly reminds us of the fall of Saigon in April 1975.

There are indeed distinctive differences between the political imperatives in 1975 as compared to 2021, yet many, even within the US, will see the withdrawal as abandoning allies. In so far as US involvement in Vietnam was to fight communism, their presence in Afghanistan was to fight Jihadism as professed by both the Taliban and Al Qadea. In 2001 the Taliban government in Kabul were hesitant to hand over Osama bin Laden which then led to a US invasion of the country. In a fragmented and divided Afghanistan forging an effective central government was a challenge well beyond the comprehension of American policy makers. $143 billion were poured into the Afghan government, of which $88 billion went towards arming and training a new Afghan army. 

American's were aware of the rampant corruption in Kabul and did little to create a governance to ensure that these funds were used effectively. Analysts suggest that as much as 35% of these funds went into private coffers and at no time were the people in Kabul held accountable. Much like the 1970's American policy makers were ignorant to the fact that one cannot find military solutions to what are essentially political problems. 

While the Taliban were defeated in 2001, they did not surrender but simply dissolved into the general population. Their fighters for most of the time were either farmers or ordinary citizens to then emerge from time to time to carry out attacks and then dissolve back into the population. The US and the newly formed Afghan army may well have controlled the major cities and strategic points in the country, yet there was a general feeling that large tracts of the countryside were the domain of the Taliban. 

Successive US administrations talked of leaving Afghanistan but the ground realities indicated that the Taliban threat was always nascent and ever present. When the administration of President Trump began to negotiate with the Taliban the writing on the wall was clear. More importantly, for the Taliban these negotiations gave them a legitimacy that they had lacked for most of the past twenty years. US allies in Kabul were largely ignored in this rapprochement with the Taliban and political watchers felt that perhaps a comprehensive agreement for a 'new Afghan' administration was bring forged with the Taliban. Events have since shown this was not the case and as President Biden plugged the plug announcing a full pullout Ashraf Ghani and his government were pretty much on their own. 

While the Taliban have been emphasising that they are not the same as 20 years ago, talking of forgiveness and women's rights it is obvious they seek, principally from Washington, a recognition of their government which is vital to them. Interestingly Western commentators are wary of believing that we have a Taliban 2.0, (a new version) and are talking of 'holding them accountable to their word'. While this may well be the need one wonders why they commentators do not hold Ashraf Ghani and Hama Karazai accountable for the billions of dollars that were stolen from the aid and assistance provided to the Afghan government over the past twenty years?

US and Afghanistan's neighbours will be keen to see the Taliban keep their word on not letting foreign fighters make the country a base for operations. Somehow it seems there is a veiled message that if the Taliban are not recognised and supported then all bets are off. Indeed remnants of Al Qadea and ISIS will be keen to view Afghan territory as a possible friendly soil to plant their seeds in. If in the future Afghanistan were to become a hub for terrorist activity it will pose some unique challenges for the US. Unlike 2001 when there were numerous anti-Taliban factions, namely the Northern Alliance, to ally with the US, given their withdrawal in 2021, will be hard pressed to find allies within Afghanistan who would trust them. 

The Taliban.

As we are flooded with images of the Taliban having taken Kabul, there is a postscript that the Taliban likes to attach that his is a 'new' Taliban unlike that from twenty years ago. Their initial messages  are of guaranteeing the rights of women (under their definition of the Sharia law) and seeking to form an inclusive government all designed to show this new face of the Taliban. They are keen to gain legitimacy more so from the international community and one could give them the benefit of the doubt in so far as they may well have changed from the Taliban of old. 

The Taliban are aware that in the past two decades the dynamics of Afghan society, mostly within the cities has changed. The role of women as a potent and effective force within society has been visible. While the Taliban will try and roll back some of these social changes it is more than likely that their acceptance of women to work is influenced by a realisation that some of the freedoms of the past two decades cannot simply be bottled up again. 

However, the Taliban are not a monolithic organisation with an effective internal structure of command and control. While they have tried to portray an image of a unified central leadership in reality across the 35 plus provinces of Afghanistan there will be local commanders with their own agenda of leadership. Further, the emphasis that the Taliban have placed on following Sharia law, while simplistic in rhetoric, means that interpretations of Sharia law may well vary amongst local leaders. 

In addition if there is a fall out between the international community, especially the leading Western nations, and the Taliban over their acceptance within the international community of nations then the Taliban may well abandon this new image they have been pushing forward. Already the news that Afghanistans reserves of nearly $10 billion will not be made available to the Taliban till clarity of the form of the new government has emerged sows the seeds of such conflicts. 

Internally the Taliban have to contend with the minorities who do not confirm to the Taliban shade of ideology like the Hazara (many of whom are Shia muslims) or the Uzbeks and Tajiks. Two decades ago when the Taliban were in power these minorities bore the brunt of Taliban angst and anger with the extent of persecution reaching executions. Further these minorities were also the rank and file of the North Alliance that fiercely opposed Taliban rule. For the current leadership of the Taliban the biggest challenge will be how they will show inclusiveness with regards to these minorities. 

For the Taliban foreign relations will be vital in the current climate. Unlike 1996 when they formed their first government this time they are more dependent on foreign aid and assistance. Also in 1996 there was no backdrop of an attack on US by Al Qadea thus their actions within Afghanistan were not of much consequence to Washington. The task of building the economy of the country cannot be done in isolation and while Washington may not be as generous in dishing out money the Americans do understand that an   impoverished Afghanistan will be the hotbed for anti American groups to operate from. 

In a regional context the Taliban will have to ensure that groups such as the Tehrik i Taliban Pakistan, (TTP) who have been carrying out attacks within Pakistan are reined in. While the Pakistan Taliban are an entirely different group they will draw inspiration of the Afghan Taliban's success to test their ability within Pakistan. The Taliban, while formed in Kandahar, were at a crucial time of its history supported by Pakistan and while they may not be controlled by Pakistan they certainly are conscious of ensuring good relations with Pakistan. 

Establishing credibility will be a major issue for the Taliban as they have been making promises which are dramatically different from their previous stated position on women's rights and treatment of its opponents. Additionally they have stated that they wish to form an inclusive government and it will most certainly be a challenge in bringing in groups who have opposed the Taliban. It is highly unlikely that such a government will uphold a true power sharing mechanism and Taliban will most certainly hold key positions in such a government. For the moment the Taliban are holding all the cards and it remains to be seen what will be the trade offs for them to gain international legitimacy. 

The Afghan Public.

Afghan society is unbearably complex where segmentation follows religious, tribal, ethnic and urban considerations. While the country is predominantly Sunni Muslim (90%) there are around 10% Shia Muslims, many of whom are well educated and occupy important positions in government and society. Pushtuns make up 42% of the population from whose ranks the Taliban are formed. Tajiks (who speak Dari a language very closely assimilated to Persian) are 27%, Hazaras and Uzbeks are 9% each and then there are other smaller ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Hazaras have suffered the worst under Taliban rule and it is reported that in July 2021 the Taliban carried out some executions of Hazaras. 

The ethnic minorities, mainly the Tajik and Hazara have been the bulk of the forces that have opposed the Taliban. There is no denying that these ethnic minorities view Taliban promises of forgiveness and inclusiveness with great suspicion. On the  flip side a majority of the Pushtun population welcome the Taliban not necessarily for ideological reasons but for the fact that the Taliban seemingly can bring the security situation under control. In general for a population that has seen war and strife for over four decades they see safety and security is paramount concern. The US and its Afghan allies failed in many respects to provide the security and peace which in the end determines the success of an administrations efforts to govern. 

The Taliban must also be aware that in Afghanistan the younger generation has not only grown in the past twenty years but is also nurtured in the free social structure of the past two decades. This generation within cities like Kabul have been brought up with images of Taliban's brutal rule of the mid 1990's and thus form the bulk of the public opinion that feels the Taliban in 2021 cannot be trusted. It is not surprising that the majority of Afghans who worked with the US and its allies will feel vulnerable and fear reprisals from the Taliban.

In the more far flung regions of the country while there may not be feverish support for the Taliban take over it would be fair to say the people there have lost the will to resist. There are reports that in areas like Panjshir former Afghan army soldiers are organising a resistance. It would seem in the absence of US and NATO forces willing to continue the fight in Afghanistan such resistance will not be meaningful. At best it would position the Tajik and Uzbek leaders to negotiate a better participation in any coalition government.  

More importantly for Afghanistan it remains to be seen how the Taliban will deal with the major tribes and the ethnic minorities. While there is a the Loye Jirga (an assembly of all tribal leaders) the Taliban have in the past ignored the Jirga when it felt they were not siding with them. Yet at the micro level Taliban commanders in various districts of the country know that they cannot ignore the tribal chiefs and thus the jirga and its many tribal chiefs may well have some sway in the direction of Afghan society. The Taliban creed on social norms, as they see being religiously correct, have some commonality with traditional Pushtun tribal social norms regarding women and explains why for tribal Afghans (in rural areas) their dictums on 'burqa' are not seen as restrictive. 

This clearly does not gel well with the younger emerging educated women in cities like Kabul. If anything good came from the past 20 years of US and NATO involvement in Afghanistan it is the sense of empowerment they created amongst the younger generation. This is a key factor in the way the Taliban have portrayed themselves as a 'different' Taliban to the one from 1996. In the months ahead actions of the Taliban will determine how inclusive will they actually be in wake of a total pull out of foreign forces. The challenge of bringing trust back to a society that remembers Taliban actions of 20 years ago and from the recent past will be enormous for the Taliban leadership. The Taliban has, essentially, always been a movement and not a cohesive well administered body. While at the moment there seems some cohesiveness between the political leadership and local commanders within the Taliban, this will be put to test in the months and years ahead. 

Afghanistans Neighbours. 

There is a common misconception that Pakistan created the Taliban. The reality is that the Taliban were initially a home grown movement with the aim to creating law and order in two districts of Kandahar. As their popularity grew in Kandahar, Saudi, US and Pakistan intelligence agencies saw in them the potential of being the only group that could end the civil war in Afghanistan. US weapons, Saudi money and Pakistan logistic support backed the group as they swept across the country in 1995-96. 

In 2021 Pakistani intelligence agencies influence on the Taliban is peripheral and limited to issues of Pakistan's security and ensuring that relations are cordial enough for Pakistan not to close its borders to a landlocked Afghanistan. The emergence of a Taliban faction composed of mainly Pakistani militants operating out of Afghanistan but with an agenda to attack Pakistan changed the security perspective for Islamabad. While the Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is not in any way related to the Afghan Taliban there is no doubt that Pakistan's main aim is to eliminate this group. This would also explain the fencing of the border with Afghanistan and high level border patrols being installed on the Pakistan side of the border.

A large measure of Pakistans efforts in Afghanistan are to counter India's activities within Afghanistan. Many in Pakistan intelligence agencies are aware of India's support to anti Pakistan groups based in Afghanistan. India's closer ties with the fallen government of Ashraf Ghani were in part predicated by Delhi's desire to deny Pakistan any influence in Afghanistan. One of the major aims of Pakistan will be to push the new Taliban government to act against all the groups who have been operating against Pakistan interests from within Afghan territory. 

While Pakistan's influence over the Afghan Taliban may be limited in terms of internal affairs, there is no denying that it remains the only neighbour who could have some leverage over Kabul on regional matters. Even though the Taliban have taken pains to emphasise that Afghanistan will not host any group that operates against other countries, many splinter groups of ISIS, and Al Qadea will attempt to operate from Afghan soil. This is largely because the Taliban administration may not have the resources to commit to anti terrorist intelligence gathering. Pakistan has lost close to 40,000 military and civilian souls to the US sponsored war on terror and therefore will be very keen to help the Taliban create enough intelligence infrastructure to prevent a resurgence of both the TTP and the ISIL-K. 

It is also very likely that China will build its relations with a Taliban controlled Kabul not because of any affinity with the new forces in Afghanistan but because of realpolitik to protect its interests in the region. In addition China's thirst for minerals may mean it will work hard to get commercial contracts to exploit these mineral resources which are estimated to be over $1 trillion. It would therefore seem that given the China and Pakistan relationship is very close that these two countries could well be very important in the shaping of a new Afghanistan. 

Prospects of Civil War.

It is highly likely that civil and military strife will continue in various parts of Afghanistan given that there are segments within Afghan society that may choose to continue to resist the Taliban. In the north the Panjshir valley, which was the base of Ahmed Shah Masood's Northern Alliance, has already become a rallying base for the former vive President Amrullah Saleh and he has called for armed resistance to the Taliban to continue. It is unsure who, from the international powers, would support such a move, but many hawks in Washington and other Western capitals will not unwelcome the creation of some counter weight to the Taliban. 

Whether the brewing trouble in the Panjshir valley will become a full blown war with the Taliban depends upon how Kabul's new rulers deal with the many tribes of the Hazara, Tajiks and Uzbeks. Political forces within the Taliban would welcome some form of inclusive government if only to blunt any attempt to fuel a movement against the Taliban. Given that many of Talibans military commanders in the field do not completely share the views of its political leadership there is a chance that localised military operations against the ethnic minorities may continue sporadically. 

The Taliban are also conscious of the ISIL-K's presence within the country and they have already carried out a devastating bomb attack on evacuating Afghans killing scores of Afghans and over a dozen US  troops. While this group does not have widespread support its rank and file is composed of former Taliban fighters who are too hardline to accept any of the changes the Taliban professes. It remains to be seen if ISIL K will be able to recruit more Taliban fighters to its cause and if it can become a large enough force to be a serious military threat to the Taliban. 

Final Words.

As Western presence in Afghanistan crumbles to the quick exit we have seen of their military and the government they propped up one has to wonder what this two decade war was all about. If the task of remaining in Afghanistan for twenty years was about nation building then the US and its allies have failed miserably. Yes on the social front progress was achieved and a freer Afghan society was emerging in Kabul. Much has been said about women's rights and fears that Taliban will force women into the burqa and time after time we are reminded of this. However beyond the city of Kabul we must also acknowledge that Afghanistan is a tribal society where for centuries before the Taliban the culture of the Pushtun and Hazara always was steeped in traditions of keeping women covered and subservient to men. All the Taliban did was put a religious spin onto this and thus faced less criticism for their action in much of rural Afghanistan. Over the past sixty odd years this was changing in the rural areas where the strict burqa was being replaced with the chador (a shawl covering the hair). 

The issues of stability to Afghanistan is more than just dealing with the issue of the burqa, and in this respect the West failed to understand that Afghanistan has only been stable when there has been a strong central government. However a strong central government that is not corrupt and is willing to bring progress through the tribal system to the common people. The West knowingly ignored the corruption of the governments that were installed in Kabul and did not realise that the war against the Soviets and the civil war had left no single force capable to unify the country and also be a clean government. This is where the Taliban held the cards with an image of fighting corruption and ensuring security of the people. (after all the movement started to bring security to two districts in Kandahar). 

The only institution that US and its allies could have built as a stable force was the Afghan armed forces. However, the training and development of the Afghan army was shaped to be a support force to whatever the US and NATO did. Corruption was allowed into the military and it is estimated at over 35% of its operational budget was pocketed by corrupt generals and politicians. The lack of morale that followed indicated that even the best of times desertion rates were as high as 20% in the army. Given that the Afghan army needed constant air support for operations and logistic support very little was done to develop the Afghan airforce. Thus when the US decided to pull out Afghan units on the ground were left stranded not only operationally but also for supplies. 

Afghanistan's economic recovery will be a major concern. In addition to the damage of four decades of war there is little confidence in the Taliban leadership to have the capabilities to manage a modern states economic system. The mammoth task of creating an effective governmental administration has fallen on the Taliban who have never really managed their own affairs in a cohesive manner when it comes to economic matters. This will be the main challenge for Afghanistan as may see that while the Taliban may well provide security will they be able to do national building, something the US and its allies failed to do.

Afghanistan after the US withdrawal.

 Based on current announcements and actions it would seem the US and its NATO allies will soon be withdrawing all their troops from Afghanistan. This will be the end, as many hope, of the long US involvement in a war in a foreign country. One may question what did the US achieve in these two decades other than dislodging Osama bin Laden and the removal of the Taliban regime. Back in 2001 when the US invaded Afghanistan, it was safely assumed that majority of Afghans welcome the removal of the Taliban regime.

The adoption of a new Constitution in 2004 and general elections accompanied with economic and social reforms were seen by many as heralding a new era of peace and well being. Today as the US and NATO troops pack up to leave Afghanistan's future is more uncertain then ever. The fact that after the invasion of the country in 2001 the Taliban were never really militarily defeated negates the very purpose of the invasion and does not abode well for the future. In fact in most of the 38 provinces of Afghanistan, where the Taliban had major influence in the rural areas of the country, a war of attrition by the Taliban continues with occasional bomb attacks on both civilian and military targets.  The inability of the Afghan government and its Western Allies to bring peace and security to the Afghan populace highlights the incompetence of the current government and the failure of the policies of its Allies. Added to the incompetence is the large scale corruption within the government which is not only rampant but also blatantly visible to the common Afghan. 

The much touted economic recovery of the country and the rebuilding of government institutions including the armed forces was indeed a failure. These efforts by the US and its allies to help the Afghan government stand on its feet were an exercise prone to massive corruption. One report suggested that every single contract had an element of either bribery embedded in it or the whole contract award was fixed. This malaise of corruption effected the military too where it has been common to hear of theft of fuel, equipment and ammunition accompanied by a desertion rate in excess of 25%. 

While the Taliban have been engaging in a dialogue of sorts with the various stakeholders and suggesting a working arrangement with the current Afghan government, the reality is that once the Western forces are out of the country all bets will be off. Within the Taliban there are various factions and while the moderate ones have been speaking in reassuring tones, the more militant sections of the Taliban are unlikely to be reined in with ease. Securing the key assets after the departure of Western forces is the first priority and suggests that securing the Kabul and Bargham airports will be a major test of the new be t Afghan order. 

The US has been talking of a military presence in the region close enough to intervene if necessary. Such a role is more likely to be air support to Afghan troops. However, the Taliban will be flexing their political and military strength on the ground and through the local administration in the 38 provinces where air power is of limited influence. The US has tried to engage the principal stakeholders outside Afghanistan with little success. Indeed Pakistan, especially through its historical ties with the Taliban could play a constructive role but its leadership is aware of the instability this can produce within Pakistan too. India, while not a neighbor to Afghanistan will claim its stake for political influence more so to counter Pakistan than anything else.

Sadly the idea of a peaceful transition from the present to a new scenario without Western military presence in Afghanistan is only going to work during the transition process thereafter the risks of Afghanistan spinning into a civil war are high. There is no denying that the majority of Afghans would not a return to Taliban rule but the twin problems of corruption and incompetence within the current government have eroded the will of people. A civil war will not be good for Afghanistan's neighbors and countries like Pakistan, Iran and Turkey will try to influence the various parties to avoid a civil war but the dynamics are too complex to be assured of this. 

Ideally it must be the Afghans themselves who decide on the future course for their country. The Taliban are also aware that Western forces can return to the country just as easily as they left, even though one may doubt if the political will to stabilize Afghanistan will exist in Washington once all the troops are out. It is possible in the current situation China might be the country who may, directly, or indirectly through Pakistan, try and bring some element of order to Afghan society. A civil war in Afghanistan will not suit Chinese economic and political ambitions in the region and while Chinese troops in Kabul is not going to happen, it can create enough proxy power within Afghanistan to influence outcomes.

A question of race.

 Is race still an issue in the 21st century? The answer will depend upon who you are asking. To a coloured man yes race is still an issue. A liberal white man might say it’s a limited problem and point to the progress of coloured people. A white supremacist, on the other hand, will simply say it’s how society is and people are different. Racism is when one person or group considers itself superior to another person or group of people with different racial or ethnic characteristics. Typically a racist person will profile another person of a different race as inferior because of a belief that each race has characteristics that make it inferior or superior as the case may be.

Through the centuries racism has existed in each society in varying degrees and in medieval times social or ethnic groups who were victorious in war generally enslaved the vanquished. This sense of superiority did not come with the moral compulsion of what was right or wrong, it was the way the world was. The rise of naval power amongst European nations and the growing demand from development in Europe created a process of colonisation of large parts of Asia and Africa in the 17th century. The discovery of the New World, America, increased the need for labor and the slave trade boomed. 

Racism today is seen largely in the context of the enormous impact of slavery through the past 250 years and in a sense exhibited as white racism against black people. Racism is much wider than that and covers all ethnic and racial groups. When racism is over layered with class distinctions or religious prejudice the cocktail of phobias it conjures up are more disturbing. Africans and Asians are equally capable of racism and prejudices against others and even towards sub ethnic groups within their own societies. 

Perceptions towards racism vary from country to country only in so far as how history has shaped their racial experience. Most British people will state that they never subjected people to slavery as it was in the United States of America. However, Britain conducted its slavery in the areas it colonised and never really imported slaves into its own heartland. In contrast the development of American economy from agriculture to industry was on the back of slaves brought in from Africa. This shaped the racial experience of the two countries very differently.

Since slavery, in the US, was structurally embedded into the economic and social system after emancipation much of the struggle for equality in that country has been to tear down these structures. While emancipation ended slavery it did not end racial discrimination. Therefore much of the Afro American struggle has been for civil rights, addressing systemic racism within the structure of US society. This systemic racism is still the subject of impassioned debate progress towards equality for African Americans in the US and has been a slow laborious process. 

In Britain the involvement of its merchants in the propagation of the slave trade goes back to 1554 when notorious mariners like Jack Hawkins were financed to take slaves from Africa to modern day Colombia and the West Indies. As the British Empire grew slavery within the empire was common but no sale of slaves on British soil have been recorded. When slave trade was abolished in 1806 it took an other fifty years before white British merchants stopped their involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. After 1945 as the British Empire rolled back and granted independence to former colonies  there was a need for labour within Britain for menial jobs and legislative measures to encourage immigration were introduced. 

Thus in Britain racism was not supported by the equivalent of the US Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation. British immigration occurred from a vast swath of former colonies from the West Indian colonies to Asia and posed issues of integration the racism, which remain  this day. The idea of white superiority remained and remains secluded to few in society and very subtle and subdued. 

In the past decade and particularly the last five years race has become a more compulsive issue in US politics. Without a doubt former President Trump has contributed to a deterioration in race relations and in a sense empowered the white supremacist groups who previously was a marginalised  minority in the US. The polarisation has brought to the front not only hate crimes but also a need to address the systemic racism within US society. Movements like Black Lives Matter have gained prominence in the wake of recent police killings of young black citizens and accompanied with civil unrest  and protests.

This polarisation has resulted in a heightened sensitivity to race issues and can partially explain why Americans seem to empathise with Meghan Markle’s allegations of racism against her by the British Royal family. This sensitivity to race prompts people to use the race card, as she did in claiming her son was denied a royal title due to him being from a mixed marriage, and that comments about his colour were made, according her many times, her husband saying only once. When privileged people like Meghan Markle play the race card they discredit the genuine fight for equality and justice by people who are truly discriminated. 

While we strive to be politically correct we must recognise not only the context in which something is said but who says it and with what intent. Sometimes what are seemingly racist remarks are made through ignorance; like someone asking me where did I learn to speak English. Yet it’s not so much about what is said but how one is treated as a minority. Discrimination and racism is everywhere, the caste system in India, the treatment of minorities in Myanmar, views about minorities in Pakistan, and the list is endless. 

On the positive side there is a growing awareness for changing things and to end discrimination based on colour, sex or religious views. More people recognise that effective change needs to be made which cannot be cosmetic but effective. Seeing sportsmen taking the knee to support ending racism is symbolically comforting and yet begs the question would these sportsmen take the knee to raise awareness for the millions of children affected by war? 

Without a doubt racism is terrible and any form of discrimination is worthy to be condemned. We need empathy towards the under privileged and people targeted by racism and hate, irrespective of their colour, ethnic background or their religion or gender. The movement to achieve this  cannot be distracted by people playing the race card or distracting one from the universality of problem of this discrimination. This is discrimination not only of black people but of Asians, untouchables in India, Royhinga in Myanmar, Christians in Pakistan, the Hazara in Afghanistan, the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, the Native Americans in North America and the list goes on.

We stand, as the human race, at a unique crossroad where after fifty odd years of slow progress to eradicate racism and discrimination, we now have push back from hate and anger. A new understanding, a deeper understanding, and a more meaningful empathy is needed to guide us towards a more  integrated and tolerant society. Failure to achieve this will only mean that the human race will descend further into strife and hate the results of which are unimaginable.

Tractors and Tweets Test India

 India has for long championed itself as the worlds largest democracy and through most of the past eight decades it has tried to frame and shape its democratic principles. From the outside many of us in Asia have looked at Indian democracy with a blend of admiration ( Indira Ghandi’s removal) and at times shock (the revocation of Kashmiri state status) but we felt with its strong press and an independent judicial system India would continue to stumble along on the road of democracy, not a perfect road but not a washed out road. Much like the polarisation we have seen the world over India in the past decade or so has embraced a political flavour which is disturbing. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has moulded  his BJP party in the shape of a nationalist (mainly Hindu) agenda and strong arm tactics within the party resulting in a direction to India’s democracy that can only be concerning to many.

When Modi’s government changed the special status of Indian held Kashmir and revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution the protests were limited to Indian held Kashmir. A total lockdown of Kashmir, arrests of its leaders and various other draconian measures were largely ignored by the world community. India’s proactive diplomatic presence and a general apathy towards the Kashmiri people assured Modi’s government that it’s Kashmir strategy will not be opposed on the world scene. 

Modi, assured of his parliamentary majority and his iron fist control on his party then moved to pass three new Farm Laws which have resulted in the largest protests ever witnessed. The new laws are seen by Indian farmers, mostly from the Punjab and Haryana, as handing over the purchasing of agricultural produce to private corporates, who the farmers feel will manipulate the prices to drive farmers into bankruptcy. With small holdings most farmers have been struggling for decades and their only assurance of survival has been the minimum price mechanism which the Modi government wants to abolish. 

Through 250 years of Indian history rural India has been organised through ‘panchayats’, village based cooperatives, and this system has been vital in how farmers have lobbied for this interests and protected their fragile agricultural economy. While collectively the agricultural economy of India is massive, but given the fragmented land holdings individual farmers have always felt at the bottom of the ladder. However, the panchayat system gave them some comfort and protection. The fact that the Modi government did not consult with the panchayats and simply rammed the new laws through parliament not only shows their arrogance but this confidence that like the Kashmir issue this too will be accepted.

Estimates are that over 250 million people are involved in the protests by the farmers and these protesters have attracted world attention. The Indian government reaction to the protects has been high handed and resulted in over 167 deaths as of this writing. Hundreds of journalists have been arrested and celebrities who have spoken in favour of the farmers threatened with legal action. While it remains a showdown between the government and the protesters Modi’s gambit is that the farmers will eventually tire in their protests and they will return to their villages. Given the depth and breadth of the protests it is more likely this protests will not abate too soon unless the laws are repealed or seriously amended to meet the farmers demands.

On a broader level the treatment of the farmers by the Indian government is shameful and its handling not only of the protests but the journalists and others who support the farmers with their voice is disturbing. Journalists have disappeared and draconian measures are taken every day without any concern for censure. India has reacted to the international condemnation by insisting this is an internal affair. No India cannot aspire to be a regional and world power and when it suits you insist it’s an internal affair. Indian farmers are facing the worst possible hardships and these laws will set the stage for their demise and people have to speak out against the Indian government measures against the farmers. This is India’s moment to do the right thing rather than simply pretend that it’s the world’s largest democracy as it trampled upon 250 million farmers. 

COVID 9: Why some countries did better?

 A year has gone by and the devastating impact of the Covid pandemic is still going on with over 100 million infections worldwide and over 2.1 million deaths we know the pandemic is far from over. The pandemic, from its source of origin, its widespread infections across the globe, to the debate over how best to combat it remains an ever present topic of our daily lives. As the roll out of various possible vaccines occurs the virus, to make its point, surges ahead in a third wave which, with reported new variants of the Covid 19 virus, reminds us the battle is far from over.

Eventually the human race will over come this deadly virus, whether through its myriad of strategies and vaccines or the virus will just mutate itself into non existence, as did SARS, remains to be seen. A year down the deadly combat with this virus it seems less likely that self mutation of the virus into non existence is a possibility. Yet we have to wonder why some countries fared better than others. 

We can look at the statistical data and come to various conclusions but the debate then gets furious as we can argue about how the death rates are determined, the relationship of testing to over all performance, the importance of recovery rates, and hospitalisation rate to positive test ratios. Either way we see it on a statistical basis countries the USA, UK, Italy, and Brazil do not come out well on the death per million criteria. Same is true for infections per million where the USA fares the worst (78,000) but India comes in with only 111 per million, highlighting that testing is important as India has only tested 13% of its population compared to the US which has 91% tests including repeat tests. Some countries like UAE have crossed 242% tests as a result of strict internal testing protocols resulting in repeat tests. Israel, Australia Iceland and Denmark have all shown over 100% test numbers following the dictum that till you do not test you don’t know the impact of the virus.

However, data is a bit confusing as some countries with high testing still have high death rates compared to others who show that high testing resulted in better identification of the spread and resulted in lower death rates. In some cases the death rate only applies to people who died within 28 days after testing positive thus ignoring people who may have died from complications arising from COVID-19 after the 28 days as is the case in UK. Thus one can argue the UK numbers are understated. 

Moving away from the debate over the statistical data one can appreciate that while no single strategy can be earmarked as successful in the fight against  the COVID-19 virus it is clearly evident that both macro and micro strategies in combination achieved a higher level of success. 

New Zealand is highlighted as a country that has successfully contained the virus thus far. Admittedly with a smaller population of 5 million some would argue it could have been easier to tackle the pandemic. Indeed a smaller population in an island country is an advantage but still the country has a few major cities with concentration of the population and to record only 25,000 cases with only 25 deaths is remarkable. Testing is high, 300% test rate, but then a lot of things were done right from the beginning.

One of the strongest factors for New Zealand was and is its leadership under Prime Minister Jacinda Arden. A key factor was communication and transparency by the prime minister herself leading the daily briefings and in a very personal style calling the 5 million people “the team” that will fight the virus. This created a togetherness with the community and backed with honest communication the harder measures were understood and accepted by New Zealanders. Last year in mid March a strict lockdown was imposed across the country with social distancing and masking compulsory when the lockdowns were eased. A state of the art contact tracing was implemented and where localised outbreaks happened curfews and lockdowns in those areas followed. The contact tracing was believed to be so good that in one case the virus was tracked to a garbage bin in a particular neighbourhood!

Indeed a complete lockdown and no entry or exit from the country all had a massive economic impact on the economy but the calculation  was that  30 to 60 days of strict measures will allow a return to normalcy faster that otherwise. This proved right and by July of last year a graduated return to normal life was seen and now with the second surge the measures from the start showed the protocols were robust. In New Zealand’s case a central policy was possible from the prime ministers office unlike say in the United States where a federal policy cannot apply uniformly in all 50 states, even though there are ways to invoke an emergency nation wide. 

The case of Africa as a whole is  more interesting with 17% of the world population only 3.5 m cases have been reported with 87,043 deaths. One could argue that low testing levels (South Africa is the highest with 13%) suggests less detection of cases. But then death rates in general on the African continent have not gone up suggesting that impact on the over all death rate since the pandemic started is negligible. It is possible that given the past experience to pandemics like Ebola some countries in Africa were better prepared and while testing may not have been widespread at ports of entry the measures were strict. In the case of Nigeria, for instance, a strict lockdown was imposed a couple of weeks before the first case was reported. Researchers also suggest that given the average age of the population to be a low 18 years, resilience to the virus could be better. (In Germany the average age of population is 40 years). An additional factor could well be that a large proportion of the population spend their time outdoors thereby reducing the spread of the virus.

The United Arab Emirates was also one of the countries that showed a remarkable response to the virus. With a population of 9.7 million it acted quickly to force a lockdown and for a few weeks a nightly curfew  during which period streets and public places were disinfected regularly. While limited flights in and out were allowed there were protocols for testing and tracing. Masking and social distancing were quickly implemented and remain in force even a year later. While in December 2020 there has been an uptick in the numbers it has been accompanied by higher recoveries and mass roll out of vaccinations. 

Across Asia results of strategies against the virus vary. China, given its highly centralised government, initially may not have been forth coming about its numbers, even though it was quick to share the genetic structure of the virus with scientists around the world, it nevertheless enforced a total curfew in Wuhan, the source of the virus, and across much of China. It’s contact tracing systems remain one of the best and it would seem they have contained the virus. Mass roll out of their vaccine has been going on for a couple of months and cooperation with other countries is in the rise. South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Japan all have fared better then their western counterparts as their is a better level of acceptance of government policies on the pandemic. In addition face masks have been long accepted in some of these societies since over two decades which could explain why infection rates were relatively low in their countries even though lockdowns were not that severe. 

Elsewhere in Asia both India and Pakistan seem still to develop a comprehensive strategy against the pandemic. Low levels of testing, 13% and 3.4% respectively suggests either a lack of resources or willingness to examine the extent of the pandemic. With the availability of the vaccine both governments seem to follow a strategy of vaccinations to cover as many people as they can. Mask wearing has been only successful in a limited sense and mass gatherings have not been curtailed. It would seem their best bet is in the vaccine now with a acceptance that the vaccine may prevent the spread of the virus as government policy was an abysmal failure.

In the West the United Kingdom and the United States both present interesting case studies. 

In the UK the strategy has been a mixed confusion of decisions aimed to sound politically correct and the resulting measures have been ill conceived and ineffective. A year ago the government tried to calm nerves by insisting they had a strategy in place when in fact all Boris Johnson wanted was to avoid a lockdown that would effect the economy. Measure like social distancing and face masks were more suggestions then mandatory policies. Contact tracing was considered a violation of civil liberties and never really implemented. The NHS was not given the equipment and resources in time to deal with the first wave of infections and a year on some doctors complain of shortages of key supplies. 

When lockdowns did finally c9me into place, some ten months into the pandemic, they were tiered into different levels, a good thing, but then no testing for people moving from one tier to the other. The government has tried to be transparent but is briefings seem to just present the statistics but not explain the effect of the measures and why some are working and some are not. Ministers who have appeared in the media have not been able to defend  their policy and worse not been able to answer the most basic questions.

The United States response, for a leading western nation, has been far short of any expectations. A lack of leadership was compounded by the politicalisation of the Covid 19 issue with the then President, Donald Trump, not taking the lead to fight the pandemic. No effort was made to make social distancing and face masks a policy priority so much so that the President himself did not wear masks and encouraged events that contributed to the spread of the virus. Politics rather than science governed the response and supporters of the President took pride in not wearing the mask. 

Given the size of the country and the complex demographics one would have expected more coordinated policies between the various states under a federal government umbrella. States like New York and California while implementing reasonably sound strategies the lack of a national policy on testing inter state travel or have contact tracing meant that efforts of state governments were constantly eroded. Perhaps the greatest short  coming in the United States was not only the lack of transparency but the conspiracy theories about the virus and misinformation from the highest levels of public office. 

In conclusion the following are the lessons we have learned thus far from the way various countries have responded to the virus.

• Quick and early governmental action on lockdowns, face masks and social distancing.
• Honest and transparent communication on the virus, the measures being taken and possible outcomes. Such communication directly from the head of government and senior ministers was essential in building trust.
• Establishing a social mandate of trust and confidence with the community.
• Follow the science and not the politics.
• Establishing contact tracing so that the spread of the virus can be monitored and then contained.
• Widen the testing regime.
• Where a tier system of lockdowns are implemented testing of people moving between different tiers  to be obligatory.
• International travel to be eased in phased manner between countries with similar success rate in fighting the pandemic.
• As vaccinations roll put so too should the state of preparedness be improved as most likely a new variant of the Covid-19 will emerge or in a few years a new coronavirus will spread.

 

 

The Biden Presidency: the challenges

 Joe Biden’s Presidency commences at a moment of US history where it’s social and political fabric has pretty much been shredded through the divisive creed and politics of hate of the last four years. Donald Trump leaves the White House in the back drop of a violent insurrection he purportedly inflamed and epitomises the legacy of Trump as a narcissist, egotist to whom his own survival matters the most. The road ahead for the Biden administration is not going to be easy as the United States faces some unique challenges, some created by the Trump presidency, others resulting from global issues. Joe Biden has tried to talk positively on the issues and yet tempered expectations knowing that the challenges ahead are enormous.

While technocrats will welcome the Biden presidency as it might be return to process and plann8ng in tackling some of the key issues. The challenges for Joe Biden can best be summed up as :

Covid-19 response.

In as much as the COVID-19 pandemic and the way the Trump administration handled it was their undoing, how Joe Biden tackles this enormous threat will define the seriousness of his tenure. While Trump can be partially thanked for one of the two vaccines that have come out the lack of a cohesive response to the pandemic by the Trump team is the legacy that Biden inherits. On the one hand is the logistic challenge of getting the vaccines out to the American public there is the more touchy issue that many Americans, mostly Trump diehards, will refuse the vaccine. 

Vaccines alone will not roll back the pandemic and measures such as masking and social distancing, including selective lock downs will need to be considered. With close to 400,000 dead the impact of this pandemic has been devastating, therefore, building trust and acceptance into any plan that Biden has is vital. On a broader front the economic impact of the pandemic needs to be addressed more comprehensively. Biden has already announced a $1.9 trillion relief package which certainly will be welcomed but this is really a first significant step to a broader solution to the economic imp@ct of the pandemic.

The Economy.

The state of the US economy is far from healthy, whether due to the ravages of the Covid 19 pandemic or some misplaced economic  policies the reality is that US public debt is at an all time high, unemployment is rising and in the face of a global slow down it is clear that for Biden and his team the economy is going to be a major challenge. Indeed prior to the pandemic the employment data was very healthy and in step with the trend of the past eight odd years. Had the pandemic not over taken events it is unclear whether Trumps tax breaks, increased government borrowing and the trade war with China would in the end result in a better economy. 

For the Biden administration while providing the stimulus to the economy and helping Americans with one time payments seems a priority. However, they need to see further down the road and draw up an economic plan that restores health to the economy. Reigning in the debt is not going to be easy as initially further public debt will be needed to kick start the economy. It is unlikely that the trade war with China will be rolled back in one sweep and Biden may want to use the leverage of a roll back to have a reset in trade relations to be more balanced. 

Charter of Trust with American Society.

One of the most important tasks for the Biden administration will be to rebuild trust within American society. One of the legacies of the Trump presidency has been his strategy to create and alternate narrative that rejects any fact that does not please him and to advance a militant nationalism embedded into a segment of his supporters who will not see facts other than the way Trump wants to. The recent attack in the Capitol highlights this alternate agenda and its far reaching consequences for US politics.  

The social divisions are glaring and racism is an issue as is political violence. Social reforms may achieve a better standard of health care, education and justice but uniting the country and creating a more tolerant society are going to be considerable challenges. One would imagine that with Trump no more the President some of the fuel to the fire of divisiveness will die down. However Trump will do everything to try and remain relevant and it would do the Biden administration good to ignore citizen Trump.

On a broader front the Biden platform has been put together with the support of the progressive elements of the Democratic Party and they have expectations of their own. Managing those expectations is going to be a challenge, however, it is more likely that Biden’s social and economic policies will be more in line with the progressive agenda. Building confidence in state institutions and the process of democracy will be a bigger challenge. America is a currently a fractured society and it’s the healing of its soul that is the biggest task ahead.