Looking at Afghanistan's future with great sadness

Afghanistan: So many sacrifices, for what?

Victor Ângelo

 

Coming in like a lion, and then, exiting like a baboon. Perhaps this popular expression does not fully apply to the withdrawal of the American troops and their NATO allies from Afghanistan. It is, no doubt, an inglorious exit after almost twenty years of enormous human and financial efforts. The way in which they abandoned their main military base in Bagram, about an hour north of Kabul - in the dead of night, leaving behind an indefensible and unmanageable situation, namely a prison with more than five thousand prisoners linked to terrorism - has a dramatic symbolic value. It signifies impasse, retreat, and abandonment of the Afghan government and people to their fate. In a word, defeat. With Taliban fanatics gaining ground across the country, the withdrawal will allow them to reach Kabul before the rigours of winter. This is the ideal time of year for military campaigns in Afghanistan and the way is open for the assault on power.

There are many possible reflections on all this. At this moment it is especially important to understand the reasons for the American pull-out. Afghanistan has lost the strategic interest it held for years, when the fight against Islamist terrorism was considered a priority in Washington. The United States now thinks it is sufficiently protected against such threats. This is where they have a huge difference with their European allies. The Europeans continue to see terrorism as a major danger and view the Taliban offensive with great apprehension. But the Europeans in NATO had no choice but to uncritically align themselves with the American position.

For Washington, Afghanistan has come to be seen as an endless war and as a distraction from the new and now far more important focus: China. And it sees the rivalry between the two superpowers as resolved in the region where Afghanistan is located. This is why it does not want to waste any more time and resources in this geopolitical space where China already has the subordination of the two countries that matter most: Pakistan and Iran. The China-Pakistan economic corridor, which ends at the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea, is perhaps the most relevant project of the New Silk Road. In Beijing's eyes, it is guaranteed. On the other hand, Iran signed a long-term economic agreement with China in March 2021. Chinese investments are expected to reach $400 billion in the coming years. It is Iran's passage into China's orbit. In the middle will remain the Afghanistan of chaos and radicalism, but without the capacity to harm Chinese interests in the region. The Taliban are dependent on these two neighbours, especially Pakistan, and should not act against their interests.

But beyond the strategic games, there are the people, victims of a cruel conflict, poor but resilient and dignified. They are deeply concerned, as are many of us here in Europe. First, because a regime based on a primitive vision of life in society has no regard for human rights. It treats all people, starting with women and girls, in an incredibly oppressive and inhuman way. We cannot remain indifferent to the extreme suffering that is looming for millions of Afghan citizens. Second, because potential terrorists in Europe will find in the resurgence of Taliban tyranny a new balloon of oxygen. Third, because radical killers operating in the Sahel and elsewhere in Africa, in countries that are part of our historic alliances, will be able to gain new opportunities for support.

One lesson that will be drawn from all this is that you cannot count on support from Westerners. That support comes and then disappears, in the dark of night, according to convenience, the direction of the political wind and the priorities of those who live far from the problems.

To think that these are some of the outcomes of the long and painful Western intervention in Afghanistan can only leave us desolate. Above all, we are left with a bitter feeling of failure and impotence. Of a Europe that is submissive in foreign and security policy, in a world where it weighs little and counts for less.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

China is firing into many directions

Today’s text, translate through AI, published in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias (printed version)

 

The fragilities of a giant

Victor Angelo

 

The economic corridors that China is building through Myanmar and Pakistan are two pillars of the New Silk Road, the gigantic ambition that President Xi Jinping formulated after coming to power in 2012. Gigantic is, in fact, an inadequate adjectivization, even minuscule, given the enormity and complexity of this ambition. Moreover, the scale of the New Silk Road has caused anxieties in many circles of geopolitical decision making in Europe, America and Asia, and explains a good part of the feeling of disapproval, of even opposition, that now exists in relation to China. In politics, as in life, unreasonable ambition ends up being a source of great conflicts.

The China-Myanmar corridor is above all an investment in pipelines - about 800 kilometres - which have already been completed and which I had the opportunity to visit about a year ago. A complementary project is currently being planned, consisting of the construction of a railroad that will follow the route of the oil and gas pipelines from the Burmese sea coast in the Gulf of Bengal to Kunming, the capital of Chinese province of Yunnan. This infrastructure is intended to facilitate China's oil imports, avoiding the long and dangerous route through the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea. Oil and gas will come from the Middle East and Africa. The railway will be part of the link, which will continue by sea, between China, Mombasa and Djibouti, two ports of great strategic importance, both as points of entry into Africa and as bases for the transit of goods to Europe. Djibouti also offers an exceptional location for the protection of navigation between the East and Europe.  Chinese, Americans, French, Japanese, Indians, and others all want to have a military presence in Djibouti. China is the only power that combines in this territory defence with economic infrastructures.

Returning to the corridor that crosses Myanmar, I noticed that the large Chinese oil, gas, and public works companies have the green light from the Burmese military and Aung San Suu Kyi's civilian government. They also consider that it is up to the Myanmar authorities to deal with the fate of the communities affected by the projects. The problem is that no one has explained anything to the people or promised any compensation for expropriations and other losses. The result, for now, as I have personally seen, is the growing hostility of different Burmese communities against the Chinese. Later, the very security of the projects may be at risk.

The Pakistani corridor is presented as the flagship in the New Silk Road universe. It begins in the Chinese region of Xinjiang and ends in the Pakistani port of Gwadar in the Indian Ocean, close to the entrance to the strategic Gulf of Oman. I did not visit this Pharaonic undertaking - an investment of US$87 billion to finance roads, railroads, power plants and special economic zones. But I see that the intention is clear. China is helping Pakistan modernize communications, power generation, industrial, and port infrastructure. In return, it has direct access to the Indian Ocean and several free zones, where it can count on Pakistan's abundant and cheap labour. It also reinforces the political and military power of a key ally in its growing rivalry with India. I know that here too, as in Myanmar and other countries where the Chinese have large-scale investment, there is the problem of acquiescence or hostility of the populations. China is seen as an ally of the regime and the regime is seen as extraneous to the interests of the people. We have again the fragility mentioned above.

There are, however, those in China who are aware of these things and know that agreements with regimes of dubious legitimacy have feet of clay. Some think tanks have already begun to debate the impact of megaprojects on affected communities in Asia and Africa, as well as the disconnect that exists between political leaders in host countries, who are in favour of Chinese penetration, and the populations, who consider their politicians to be the main beneficiaries of the investments in question. I have been surprised at the frankness of certain interventions by Chinese academics. A monolithic China, yes, but with some subtlety of tone. 

 

 

Investing in Chinese private security firms

The Chinese leaders are very much aware that the protection of the infrastructure built in foreign lands as part of the gigantic Belt and Road Initiative will be a major issue. Such infrastructure will face a variety of menaces. They also know they can’t exclusively count on each participating country’s security apparatus. It’s a fact they will increase the security cooperation with the States concerned. We will see in the next few years a serious push in the area of bilateral security cooperation. State to State cooperation, the official side of the matter, will be competing with the security assistance coming from Western countries. It will become a new front of tension as well.

However, the Beijing leaders do not consider that form of cooperation as enough. Consequently, and without any fanfare, they have opened a new door in their domestic economic edifice. We are now witnessing a rapid expansion of the private security firms in China. This is a fast-growing sector of the economy.

My sources tell me that there are already more than 4,000 Chinese companies ready to operate overseas and protect their country’s investments. In addition, the industry related to the production of security gadgets for the use by private companies is also expanding fast. It is a high-tech sector of the economy. We should have no illusions about that. Two weeks ago, in Kunming, the capital of the Yunnan Province, an area that borders Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam, a beautiful region for that matter, there was a major exhibition of Chinese-produced security items. Without going into the details, the show was a major eye-opener. One could see the Chinese are far more advanced in that industry than what we can guess.

Japan and the EU, on the same side

I am not sure that Friday afternoon is a good time for great political moves. At least, from the perspective of public information and support. The weekend is around the corner and the media tend to go slow. If they mention the action, it will be in a lazy line that gets lost fast. On Monday, it is already an old story. And it would have been overtaken by events happening during the weekly break.

The deal signed on Friday between the President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister of Japan seems to have fallen into this trap. Jean-Claude Juncker and Shinzo Abe put their signature of approval on an ambitious agreement that will see both sides cooperating in different parts of the developing world, including in the Balkans and other countries of Europe outside the EU, to build infrastructure and promoting digital industries. A lot of emphasis will be placed on thorough development projects, sustainability, transparency, national ownership and partnerships with the recipient countries and the appropriate multilateral organisations.

They called it a connectivity partnership between the EU and Japan. It can work, if we consider these are two of the largest economies. Together, they represent over 23 trillion US dollars of GDP, which is larger than the US ($21 trillion). And much bigger than China (USD 9.2 trillion).

The point is about politics. Both sides must make this cooperation a priority when dealing with developing nations. And they will be competing with China’s offer, the fast-moving Belt and Road Initiative. That will not be an easy competition. The Chinese leadership are deeply invested in the Initiative. To compete, the Europeans and the Japanese have no choice but to insist on projects that have the support of the populations – not just of the political leaders in the concerned countries – and are financially sound and proper. These are no technical or money matters. They are about strategic political engagements.