A problem, at least it seems to me, is that as soon as you get yourself involved in other people’s business you have a responsibility towards them. Once you’ve intervened and influenced things, all of a sudden everything that happens in your responsibility and you have an obligation to see things through to the end, whatever that end might be.
This is what has happened with Afghanistan, with the Taliban’s declaration yesterday that they will retake the country when NATO leaves. They’re probably right, unfortunately. Once NATO leaves, the current government (if it can even be called that, it behaves like a nepotistic crime syndicate) will collapse, with most of its members defecting to the Taliban, and the psychopathic, sexually repressed lunatics in charge of the insurgency will roll into Kabul, triumphant in their victory. More than ten years of foreign occupation will have not made one bit of difference to what will ultimately happen in Afghanistan, except perhaps that our governments will be poorer and those in Afghanistan who did not take the side of the occupation will be angrier. Women will undoubtedly suffer at the hands of their rulers, and much of the relative progress that has been made in the country since the invasion will be undone.
We already have a model of how Afghanistan deals with a prolonged military occupation – the invasion in the 1980’s by the Soviet Union. They, too, were attempting to instil their preferred model of government in the country, but could not sustain their military presence faced with a growing Islamist insurgency and impending bankruptcy and economic recession. The Soviet Union left Afghanistan in rubble, with the Taliban strengthened by their apparent victory. Whatever good came of the Soviet presence, secularisation of society, education for women, and an improved infrastructure was vastly outweighed by the damage the occupation inflicted on Afghan society.
In 2010, Time Magazine published a shocking front page. Stating “What happens if we leave Afghanistan”, it depicted an 18-year old girl who had been sentenced to have her nose and ears cut off by a Taliban commander for “fleeing abusive in-laws”. It was followed by a story about the plight of Afghan women, and how their lives had improved since the overthrow of the Taliban.
This headline is moronic and offensive for several reasons, but it helps to make the only necessary point we need to take into account when discussing the occupation. First of all the picture, and the cover, is misleading. The horrific crime which has scarred this young women obviously took place while the occupation was happening, so it more seeks to demonstrate how incapable we are of protecting Afghan women from the Taliban. But more importantly, it highlights the real problem with humanitarian intervention in the first place – why should the citizens of a nation be forced into taking on the responsibilities of another because our governments tell us to? Really. It’s not as though we went into Afghanistan with benign intentions – we went in to get Osama Bin Laden. And now our political and military leaders, particularly in the United States, are masking their incompetence in defeating the Taliban and orchestrating a withdrawal by waving horrifying pictures in our faces and telling us its our fault if women can’t go to school.
I feel a great amount of sadness when I am presented with the state of women’s rights in Afghanistan, and I would argue a failure of the left has been the failure to recognise the influence and power of NGO’s and international organisations that make distinct, concerted efforts to help people in these situations, without the need to be backed by a military. The idea that an occupation of a country can be humanitarian is a deadly mistake, and we have to stop seeing our occupation of Afghanistan through that lens, and see that we are only digging our own graves, and that, should we leave, the government that ultimately comes to power will not be sympathetic to the west, to ideas of freedom and democracy.
Whilst an immediate withdrawal would almost certainly lead to turmoil in the country, it is the best bad option at this point. Afghanistan represents the last frontier, the failed military venture which finally ends the warped dream neoconservative dream of “humanitarian” war, the idea that if we just kill enough of them, democracy will triumph.
“The contracting Powers shall use their best endeavours to control, or to cause to be controlled, all persons manufacturing, importing, selling, distributing, and exporting morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts, as well as the buildings in which these persons carry such an industry or trade.”
This was the first international agreement to limit the trafficking of narcotics, and while the intentions of the “War on Drugs” seemed noble and right, it has implicated the United States and its allies in innumerable crimes against humanity.
Another example is that of Colombia, a country which has suffered from invasive American policy for years. Since the 1960’s, a civil war has raged between forces loyal to the government, loyal to left-wing paramilitaries, and loyal to right-wing paramilitaries; the United States has consistently supported the government, giving millions of dollars in aid. But human rights groups and journalists have implicated the United States Government in involvement with, say, the AUC, a right-wing paramilitary group responsible for high levels of drug trafficking and gross abuses of human rights.
The United States supported the Contras in Nicaragua, a gang of cocaine dealing murderers of women, children and priests. When the monstrous activities of the Contras and the abject hypocrisy of the United States waging a “War on Drugs” (while simultaneously supporting with monetary aid a group directly involved in the supply of cocaine to the United States) was revealed by the press, Reagan and Bush circumvented congress and sold arms to Iran so they could continue funding the Contras.
The hypocrisy is astounding, and all too often political and strategic motives render moot the “good” intentions. During the Cold War the United States could support the most murderous and evil criminals, as long as they declared themselves “anti-communist”. Now the focus has switched, and those declaring themselves opponents of Islamic fundamentalism, such as Mr Karzai in Afghanistan, can be forgiven for their potential involvement with drug trafficking.
The solution?: Maturity. The centenary of the 1912 International Opium Convention is a chance to really begin to re-examine the attitudes that governments should have to drug use. Legalisation of personal drug use is a good place to start, as it makes the fundamental assumption about the nature of human liberty – that the state has no right to infringe on your personal choices if there is no detriment to the liberty of others. This is Mill’s harm principle. Why shouldn’t an individual be permitted to partake in recreational drug use in the comfort of their own home? They’re harming no-one but themselves, and while the role of society should be to educate about the dangers of drug use, it is the individual’s responsibility to approach drug use in a mature manner.
The prohibition of alcohol in the United States in the 1920’s is often used as the historic example of why governments prohibiting personal use and the sale of an intoxicating substance fails: supply comes from criminal syndicates who enhance their own power and wealth, money is wasted in law enforcement and detention, and little significant change is seen. But to say this is to overlook the fact that the “War on Drugs” has already failed, as Richard Branson and Kofi Annan have already said, and its failure is self evident.
Imagine that God is dead. Not in an allegorical, Nietzschian sense, but literally. The physical being you believe represents everything good in the world, whom you have worshipped since you were a child, is gone. The being whose birth, you believe, “…was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens,” dead.
The people of North Korea are experiencing this now; or, at least, this is what the government of the last truly totalitarian state in the world would like us to believe. The “Dear Leader”, absolute ruler of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since 1994, has died at the age of 69 of a heart attack. And the North Korean people’s reaction to his death demonstrates the bizarre irony of this “Communist” state – that they revere their leaders like the most fundamentalist of believers. Anyone wanting to understand this country, dubbed “the Hermit kingdom”, has to understand that the people of North Korea truly believe that their leaders are god-like. In many respects, the ideological structure of the country is more like Ancient Egypt, with an enslaved population living to revere their “god king”, than anything Marx and Engels envisioned.
After the death of his revered father, Kim Il-sung, whose death was greeted with now infamous hysteria, Kim Jong-il came to power as International Communism drew its last breath. The Eastern bloc, once a bastion of orthodox communist statism and an important ally of isolated states like North Korea, was embracing capitalism and democracy. The Soviet Union had destroyed itself, and the People’s Republic of China was beginning to reap the benefits of its market revolution. The South was undergoing unprecedented prosperity, having shrugged off the military dictatorships which had hampered its democratic development, and was witnessing massive growth. The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea was isolated, with only China as a reluctant ally.
However, the Dear Leader did not falter. Having consolidated his absolute power by becoming General Secretary of the Party and Chairman of the National Defence Commission by 1997, Kim Jong-il faced a country whose centrally planned economy was decomposing – totally inefficient and facing a food shortage. His people starving, the Dear Leader implemented the now notorious “Military First” policy to strengthen the state and the grip of the dictatorship. While this policy has led to positive growth for the North Korean “economy” (if it can be called that), millions had died due to the famine.
The Dear Leader also presided over possibly the most totalitarian state in world. Desperate to force its citizens into “the socialist way of life”, North Korean citizens are, its government has surmised, undeserving of basic rights. It controls nearly all aspects of life, no freedom of speech, press, assembly, or religion, and the Government operates large scale concentration camps where thousands have been killed. Human Rights Watch claims that: “Virtually every aspect of political, social, and economic life is controlled by the government.”
The cult of personality is unlike anything else, a twisted religion where North Koreans are forced to worship Kim Jong-il and his father “the Eternal President”. All culture is based on the reverence of the father and son, and North Korean citizens are compelled to thank them for everything they have, for all “blessings”. Some North Koreans have gone so far as to believe that the Dear Leader can control the weather with his moods. This is the insanity of North Korea, and the fanatic religion into which the country’s murderous autocracy has forced its people.
The North Korea he leaves behind is a nightmarish place, where conformity is forced upon a brainwashed and miserable population. For most citizens, their entire lives are based around a rigid obedience, struggling to feed their families whilst being forced to constantly praise the dictator for all he has provided for them. The sycophants, those who work hard and make their way up the social ranks, get to live in Pyongyang – the silent city where ghostly women and children walk the streets and visiting foreigners are perplexed by the deserted roads with their lonely traffic conductors.
The mistake that many make when discussing Kim Jong-il is that assumptions are made too quickly. They hear the stories about the Hennessy cognac (one of the company’s biggest customers), the giant rabbit plan, the harem of women and the cinephilia and make a very reasonable deduction – that the man was a spoilt eccentric who only got the top job because daddy was in charge.
Not the case at all. A quick look at his biography reveals that Kim Jong-il was a shrewd and cunning politician. His rise to power within the Workers’ Party of Korea did not go unchallenged, and, upon his succession, he was quick to purge those disloyal to him. There is also significant evidence to suggest that the political structure of North Korea became even more autocratic and absolutist under Kim Jong-il. Whilst his father was keen to take advice from ministers, the Dear Leader demanded absolute loyalty from them and regarded any dissidence as treacherous.
But as he reached his mid-sixties, Kim Jong il’s health began to wane, and rumours that he had suffered a stroke began to circulate. A chain smoker and heavy drinker, the Dear Leader was beginning to fall apart, and many saw his decision to quickly begin promoting his son to top positions as a preparation for what he knew was coming. He died of “a suspected heart attack” on 17 December.
So what will happen now the Dear Leader lies in state? His son, Kim Jong-un, who was presented last year as the obvious successor, seems ill-prepared for the leadership, and appears weak in a country whose culture venerates seniority. His father and grandfather were steeped in the intrigue of the country’s politics, aware of the difficulties of maintaining absolute power. The press is revealing that the man who will advise the “Great Successor” is Kim Jong-il’s brother-in-law, Jang Song-taek, a machiavellian character who was reprimanded numerous times by Kim Jong-il for “attempting to accumulate power”. With his father dead, Kim Jong-un will likely have to share power with this man.
Now that Kim Jong-il is dead, predictions abound as to what will happen. The hope is reunification. Korea has been divided for more than 50 years, families apart and a nation in a constant state of war with itself. While the South has grown rich and powerful, with some of the highest standards of living in Asia, the North is stunted, oppressed by a vestigial ideology and a ruthless ruling class. This ghoulish junta will not go easily, nor without a fight. Is a North Korean revolution imminent? History has taught us that no matter how brutalised or oppressed a people are, they have infinite energy when it comes to defeating those who have perpetrated tyranny upon them.
“No-one trusted their promises, but they said when they came to Iraq they would bring security, stability and would build our country, now they are walking out, leaving behind killings, ruin and mess.” - Iraqi grocer Ahmed Aied
So the Iraq war ended today. Mission accomplished. American imperialism has once again triumphed – the rightness of “humanitarian” intervention vindicated.
The American flag, which throughout the nine years of the occupation flew over Baghdad, was lowered, and various U.S officials praised the troops for their bravery and commitment, emphasising the nobility of their mission.
The news comes, unsurprisingly, as Barack Obama sees the 2012 election rearing its hysterical head. And while the end of foreign occupation of any country must be welcomed, the cynicism with which the President makes this decision stops me from being entirely content. But such an end is fitting for a conflict which was driven, from the very beginning, by cynical politicians in the United States cooking up their neo-conservative dream. Encouraged by groups with sinister names like “The project for the New American Century” (a think-tank which aimed to promote “Global American Leadership”), the American political class, exploiting the tragedy of September 11th, began a military project which lasted almost a decade and cost thousands of lives. And what was the price the American taxpayer paid for this? Close to one trillion dollars. The results? No WMDs, and certainly no connection to September 11th.
Let’s not forget that this announcement is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things – continued American presence in Afghanistan and their recent involvement with NATO in Libya show that interventionist foreign policy is here to stay. And it comes at the same time as the President’s decision that he will not veto this year’s authoritarian additions to the “Defence Authorization Bill”. This piece of legislation, which is renewed every year as Congress approves the existence of the Department of Defence, has been adjusted this year to “[allow] the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.”
The spectre of the “War on Terror” - used by our leaders to justify war, torture, supporting of murderous dictators, invasions of privacy, mass surveillance and endless hypocrisies and deception - continues its mission to treat us like frightened, stupid infants. Innocent until proven guilty? the British Transport Police and the TSA think differently.
Obama, it seems, will try to paint himself as the peacemaker; and he wouldn’t be wrong to do so. One of his campaign commitments was to get the troops out of Iraq, and that is what he is doing today. Liberals who may have become disenchanted with their hero can use it as fodder against the opposition.
However, troops remain in Afghanistan. He is not the peacemaker. Roughly 90,000 marines continue to occupy a country often described as “the graveyard of empires”, a country with a population resentful of foreign invasion. A country where the West supports a crooked autocrat and his drug dealing brother. A country where we can, at least in the near future, never be victorious.
Hopefully this is the beginning of spring for Iraq. Governed for decades by the sadistic tyrant Saddam, who slaughtered his people and presided over a disturbing cult of personality, the Iraqi people’s new found freedom was hampered by bloody sectarian violence and an American occupation incapable of dealing with an insurgency. Free of Saddam, the Iraqi people have a (relatively) democratic process and a stable government. But as with this most complex of regions, the future is never certain. Here’s hoping Iraq will go the way of Tunisia, or Egypt. But the scars the country bear from having freedom and democracy dropped on it from American bombers are deep. Understandably at this point, the Iraqi people are probably not all too keen to embrace “western” values.
