Maneuvering the relativity of security: the unobtrusive perspective on Afghanistan
As I sit to write this opinion piece, I close my eyes and replay the nightmare that was the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan on the evening of 30th January 2021. I ask myself, the same question that was echoed across dinner tables, by journalists on reputed news channels, world leaders then: how did we fail the citizens of Afghanistan in providing them security, even after a history of advocating for liberal democratic principles; why we became so helpless as Kabul fell in the hands of the militancy of The Taliban, how they were to be now recognized as a legitimate government in Afghanistan and what security as a concept had changed forever.
States and post war Intergovernmental bodies, like the UNSC, NATO throughout history have grappled with, a looming threat of Violent extremism and terrorism. However, what is interesting when one grapples with the term terrorism or radical militia, post 9/11, conversations are usually driven through a pre structured path; the western narrative of the securitization of Islam as an existential threat to Western liberal democracies. The case of Afghanistan, therefore, is quite complex
with numerous actors, each with their own idea of security in the hope of
finding the same. Shortly after the Bush administration waged the “War on
Terror” after the 9/11 attacks, the subsequent actions taken by the
administration were ironically largely towards catering to America’s national interest
under the umbrella term of “taking revenge”, latent under the narrative of restoring security to the world from the global
threat of terrorism.
Afghanistan that
housed and gave ground to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was the hotbed of nurturing
terrorists and was on the lookout by the U.S. Therefore, in 2001, the US under the
Bush administration, invaded Afghanistan in the name and promise of driving out
terrorists and started the 21 year long war which ended in absolute turmoil. Since 2001, as US military presence in Afghanistan became
normalized and the narrative of securing American citizens resonated at the
cost of the security of Afghanistan citizens. With little or no change in
perspective, Obama devised the self-legitimized authorization, to single handedly go
after Osama Bin Laden, and leverage thousands of innocent Afghanistan lives,
spent billions of dollars just to prove its hegemony and show what they were
capable of.
“Broadening security studies thus refers to the need to
address threats and sources of insecurity beyond the military security of the
territorial state, the most prominent of which have been environmental or
economic challenges, but which have also included issues such as transnational
migration, global health, food, energy, or human rights.” (Krause,
Williams, 2018).
This essay is not an antithesis to the western narrative, but rather is an extension to the broader debate on the relativity of security, in order to understand the larger looming question of terrorism. By using studying the case of the United States in Afghanistan, I try to paint to show to the audience, how the idea of security can be highly contested and why "what one person, group, society, or state perceives as a threatening source of insecurity, another may not." (Krause, Williams, 2018).
I thus, provide, three reasons why, the United States that asserted the tag to its name as being the sole restorer of security for its civilians and for people around the world post 9/11, in reality posed as big if not a bigger cause of threat, to global security because of its response.
Strengthening identity at the cost of the
other
The U.S response post 9/11 was no doubt one that was hasty and highly problematic in hindsight. It was less on addressing the issue terrorism but was, rather on hastily politicizing and securitizing Islam (evident by its policies and use of language), and reuniting the country on a common national interest that was a threat to the "American identity." Therefore, drawing upon Wæver’s conception of security as a ‘speech act’ here, by identifying the Muslim/Islamic community as a threat to national security, the U.S therefore, immediately sanctioned the use of its military force in order to kill the perpetrators who were behind 9/11. (Wæver 1995) With the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, stating “democracies must ‘fight this evil’” and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary-General George Robertson called it “intolerable aggression against democracy” (Atherton, 2021), the US and its allies counter-radicalized language taking a form of a sanitized vocabulary, language that provides a “symbolic power that underlines the assumption that Islam is inherently a religion of violence”. (Khan,2015) As a result of this, the threat that was posed by this negative securitization of Islam was unthinkable. At least 48,000 innocent Afghanistan civilians have been killed in U.S airstrikes as a result of the war on terror. Additional deaths occurred in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and Libya. Numerous instances of Afghanistani detainees being held in the Guantanamo Bay without proper trail- tortured in inhumane ways which even violate the Geneva Convention and International Human Rights Laws is one of many evidences why it is therefore essential to highlight the security breaches by the United States. Passing of legislation like the Patriot Act, which allowed for the US government to limit its right to privacy to its Muslim citizens were the many were some of the many ways in which security of the Muslim community living inside and outside the United Sates were threatened.
Even as the U.S troops withdrew from
Afghanistan last year, the security of the Afghanistani civilians who had
defected and helped the American troops during the war against the Taliban, was
at a limbo along with others who their faith in the US administration
to negotiate a better deal for the transfer of power even after the White House signed the order to remove US troops from Afghanistan. So even as the U.S tried grappling to find
a successful solution to the growing terrorist militancy and religious extremism that sowed its seed in Afghanistan, the U.S should have anticipated
their responses better, keeping in mind the innocent men and women and children
on both sides of the War.
The United States
intervention poses security threats beyond the geopolitical
The end of American occupation not only produced a fragile political situation on ground; but also an environmental one. During the evacuation of the troops, the military bases the U.S. handed over to the Afghan forces contained toxic detritus that are said to be extremely harmful in nature. During the course the U.S. operation in Afghanistan, the facilities that were open by the U.S and its allies for almost 20 years, as part of the sites’ routine functioning, generated waste, including substances that are evidenced to increase the risk of cancer and other diseases. (Atherton, 2021) These materials have potential to produce long-lasting environmental hazards in and around the sites as they seep into the ground, remain exposed in uncovered landfills.
U.S. Army soldiers watch garbage blaze in
a pit in Afghanistan (Source: The Scientific American)
In a 2017 report, the Government Accountability Office
estimated the final cost of such cleanups in bases closed inside the U.S.
between 1988 and 2015 would be nearly $15 billion. (Atherton, 2021)
No clear intention of military
intervention in Afghanistan: Unfinished promises to secure rights of Afghanisthani women
Over the years, as US military presence in Afghanistan became normalized there was a shift in the narrative, from fighting the growing terrorism towards the protecting the plight of Afghan women under the Taliban regime. Soon, The Bush administration claimed that the war on terror waged in Afghanistan was "also a fight for the rights and dignity of women” as also reiterated by Laura Bush, the then First Lady of the U.S.A, in her November 16th 2001 radio address. Numerous reports came out by the State Department elaborating on the conditions of women under the Taliban and detailed how Taliban policies denied girls access to education, prevented them from working outside their homes, limited women's access to health care, and denied women freedom of movement.
This, at the face of it, sounded like a moral and responsible task, taken up by the U.S, was highly problematic, as this characterization of a liberatory U.S. military action was alleged to be a mere façade by many analysts and feminists in the U.s and Afghanistan. Feminists have argued how the U.S military merely used Afghan women as symbols and pawns in their geopolitical conflict to legitimize their invasion. Many accuse the U.S of portraying itself as the sole restorer of women’s rights throughout the “War on Terror '' which allowed it to conceal the number of human rights violations it itself had made throughout the war. There as also a clear case of disproportionate funding. The International community has repeatedly voiced its commitment to Afghan women's rights which has not translated into concrete support for the Women's Ministry of Afghanistan" (Relief Web 2002). Furthermore, the United States has spent billions of dollars on the military campaign in Afghanistan; however, it has only committed approximately $300 million for humanitarian aid which is only 2 percent of the military campaign fund and would hardly make any changes in the vast humanitarian needs of the nation.
Construction of the Ring Road
The reconstruction of the Ring Road, running from the
capital, Kabul, to Kandahar. was the cornerstone of the US strategy
to rebuild Afghanistan after the invasion in 2001. Starting
with the Kabul to Kandahar section, the US and several other countries pledged $1.5
Billion dollars to the Ring Road. the road would connect Afghanistan’s 4 biggest cities - tying these
communities together. It gave the the new government in Kabul more
legitimacy and security around the country. (Vox,2018) The Ring Road also allowed the US and NATO
military to send troops and supplies around the country faster, so they could
keep the Taliban in check. But the US never finish the job. In 2003,
the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan become second priority. Funding,
reconstruction, resources, and experienced leadership, including generals and
diplomats were all diverted to the war in Iraq. The Ring Road was far
from complete yet reconstruction funding was cut by $1.2 billion a few years
later. The US preoccupation with Iraq gave the Taliban an opening to
return, and they seized it.
Thus, looking at the American intervention in Afghanistan as an intention of restoring peace and security among nations is one that is quite controversial. This controversial nature of it thus reflects an example of relativity of security. What one person, group, society, or state perceives as a threatening source of insecurity, another may not. (Krause, Williams, 2018). What, at the surface, seems to be the US, entering a crisis as the security agent, when deconstructed nuancedly, was more of a threat object to many than a security agent. And thus, the War, today that ended with the capital city of Afghanistan, Kabul, falling into the hands of the Taliban is often and can be blamed on the United States itself.
Bibliography
1. Atherton, Kelsey D. “U.S. Forces
Are Leaving a Toxic Environmental Legacy in Afghanistan.” Scientific American.
Scientific American, August 30,
2021. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-forces-are-leaving-a-toxic-environmental-legacy-in-afghanistan/
2. Berry,
K. (2003). The symbolic use of Afghan Women in the War of Terror. Berlin.
Retrieved 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23524156 .
3. Khan, Azmat. “Ghost Students, Ghost Teachers, Ghost Schools.” BuzzFeed News. BuzzFeed News, July 9, 2015. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azmatkhan/the-big-lie-that-helped-justify-americas-war-in-afghanistan.
4. Krause, K., & Williams, M.
(2018). Security and “security studies.” The Oxford Handbook of
International Security, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198777854.013.2
5. YouTube. YouTube, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKVDXbIpW9Q.
6. Wæver, Ole. 1995. “Securitization and
Desecuritization.” In On Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
Comments
Post a Comment