- What did Medvedev have up his sleeve when he welcomed
Obama's new surge in Afghanistan, wonders Eric Walberg
-
- US President Barack Obama's now expanding war against
the Taliban is garnering support from liberals and neocons alike, from
leaders around the world, even from Russia. "We are ready to support
these efforts, guarantee the transit of troops, take part in economic projects
and train police and the military," Russian President Dmitri Medvedev
declared in a recent press conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi. Moscow and Washington reached an agreement
in July allowing the US to launch up to 4,500 US flights
a year over Russia, opening a major supply route for American operations
in Afghanistan. Previously Russia had only allowed the US to
ship non-lethal military supplies across its territory by train.
-
- So far, Obama has all European governments behind him,
if not their people. Despite a solid majority in all countries, from Canada
to Europe East and West, who want the troops out now, NATO Secretary
General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was able to deliver pledges from 25 NATO
members to send a total of about 7,000 additional forces to Afghanistan
next year "with more to come" with nary a dissenting voice. In
a macabre statement, Fogh Rasmussen welcomed Obama's surge: "The United
States' contribution to the NATO-led mission has always been substantial;
it is now even more important."
-
- Explaining the willingness of Euro leaders to ignore
their constituents, former US ambassador to NATO and RAND adviser
Robert Hunter told the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR): "In terms
of motivation, very few European countries believe that winning in Afghanistan --
that is, dismantling, defeating, and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban --
is necessary for their own security. A few believe that, but most do not.
When they add forces, it is to protect the credibility of NATO now that
it is there. NATO has never failed at anything it chose to do." Part
and parcel with this, Europeans want to keep the US "as
a European power, not just as an insurance policy but also as the principal
manager of Russia's future." He ghoulishly agreed with the CFR
interviewer that Afghanistan is a way for Europe to
"pay the rent" to the US for continuing to bully Russia.
-
- The combined US and NATO forces will bring together a
staggering 150,000 soldiers from more than 50 nations, not to mention the
estimated 80,000 mercenaries already there, bringing the total to 230,000.
Every European nation except for Belarus, Cyprus, Malta, Russia and Serbia will
have military forces there, as well as nine of the 15 former Soviet republics.
Marvels analyst Rick Rozoff, "Troops from five continents, Oceania and
the Middle East. Even the putative coalition of the willing stitched
together by the US and Britain after the invasion of Iraq only
consisted of forces from 31 nations." By way of comparison, in September
this year there were 120,000 UStroops in Iraq and only a
handful of other nations' personnel. The Soviet Afghan occupation force
in the 1980s peaked at 100,000 shortly before beginning to pull out in
1989; the British in 1839 had only 21,000 and in 1878 -- 42,000.
-
- The world's last three major wars -- Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq --
have all been testing grounds for the new, global NATO. Hence the flurry
of visits by US officials to prospective members to make sure they sign
up for the surge. For instance, Celeste Wallander, US deputy
assistant secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine andEurasia,
just returned from a visit to her new friend Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan,
to thank him for coughing up 40 "peacekeepers" who will start
training inGermany in January 2010 before deployment in Afghanistan.
As if to up the ante with its nemesis, Azerbaijan promised to
double its 90 troops. It would be interesting if the two warring nations'
troops were to share barracks. They have far more cause to fight each other
than Afghans.
-
- It is hard to imagine this heathen Tower of Babel as
an effe ctive force against devoted Muslims ready to die to repel the invaders.
But Fogh nonetheless chortles, "With the right resources, we can succeed."
Could it be that one of his "resources" is the "big one"?
-
- What explains Russia's quiescence at Obama's determination
to wrest Central Asia from its traditional sphere of influence?
Russian suspicions about US intentions are very strong on many fronts.
Sucking more than half of the ex-Soviet republics into returning to Afghanistan --
this time on the US side -- is surely brazen. Continuing to expand
NATO eastward is strongly condemned by all Russians and is not popular
in either Ukraine or Georgia, but continues nonetheless.
Russian intelligence is undoubtedly following US and others' machinations
in Chechnya, which continues to be a serious threat to Russian security.
Hunter's cynical explanation to the CFR of Euro complicity in the Afghan
genocide is not lost on deaf ears.
-
- Yet, Russia dawdles on its assistance to Iran both
in nuclear energy and in providing up-to-date defence missiles, clearly
at US prompting. And now seems to be happy that Obama is expanding what
all sensible analysts insist is a losing and criminal war virtually next
door. Is this evidence of Russian weakness, an acceptance of US plans for
Eurasian hegemony which could imperil the Russian Federation itself?
-
- Russia is still in transition, caught between a
longing to be part of the West and to be a mediator between the Western
empire and the rest of the world. Russia's ambassador to NATO, Dmitry
Rogozin, represents this conflict between the "Atlantist" and
"Eurasian" vision of Russia's future, terms which have been
popularised by Alexandr Dugin. In a TV interview with Russia Today, loose-cannon
Rogozin argued: "There is a new civilisation emerging in the Third
World that thinks that the white, northern hemisphere has always oppressed
it and must therefore fall at its feet now. If the northern civilisation
wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European
Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated
one by one."
-
- But Rogozin is not in favour of Russia merely
lying down to be walked over by NATO. He would like NATO replaced by a
Euro-Russian security treaty. It is no coincidence that just before Obama's
announced surge, Russia unveiled a proposal for just such a new pact, which
despite talk of "from Vancouver to Vladivostok" would essentially
exclude the US and include Russia. It would prevent member states from
taking actions which threaten other members, effectively excluding Ukraine andGeorgia from
NATO and preventing Poland and the Czech Republic from
setting up their beloved US missile bases. Rogozin's Atlantist
vision would see NATO defanged, and North America forced to ally
with a new, independent Europe, where Russia is now the
dominant power.
-
- NATO, of course, will not go quietly into the night --
unless its latest venture in Afghanistan fails. So Russia is
biting the bullet on this war -- for the time being. Just in case Obama
was too busy with Oslo to notice, Rogozin warned last week that
Russian cooperation over transit of military supplies to Afghanistan could
be jeopardised by a failure to take the Russian security treaty proposal
seriously. In Washington's worst-case scenario, if its Afghan gamble
implodes, not only will it have to take Russiaseriously, but so will Europe,
giving the Russian Atlantists the opportunity to integrate with Europe without
the US breathing down their necks. If by some miracle NATO succeeds
in cowing the Afghans and continues to threaten Russia with encirclement,
the Eurasians will gain the upper hand, and Russia will build
up its BRIC and SCO ties, forced to abandon its dream of joining and leading Europe as
the countervailing power to the US empire.
-
- As this intrigue plays itself out, any number of things
could tip the apple cart. For example, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan,
two quarrelsome ex-Soviet republics borderingAfghanistan which are
vital to Obama's surge, virtually declared war on each other earlier this
month, potentially complicating the shuttling of US materiel
to the front.Uzbekistan announced its withdrawal from the Central
Asian electricity grid, a move that isolates Tajikistan by making
it impossible for the country to import power from other Central Asian
states during the cold winter months. The Tajiks threaten to retaliate
by restricting water supplies that Uzbekistan desperately need
for its cotton sector next summer.Who knows how this will end? At least
they haven't any troops in Afghanistan, where, like the Azeris and
Armenians, they would be sorely tempted to turn their guns against each
other rather than against the hapless Taliban.
- ***
- Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly <http:///>http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You
can reach him at <http:///>http://ericwalberg.com/
|
