Afghanistan Humanitarian crisis and the role of the US

Credit: The Diplomatic Insight

The Graveyard of Empires has buried all that came in its way. Britain during its colonization era invaded it thrice and ultimately left after world war I; the Soviets, one of the major powers during the cold war, dared to invade it and collapsed badly within a decade; the US, the global power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, resorted to attacking it and likewise the former two, it also collapsed after the two-decades-long battle. Meanwhile, the worst victims were the ordinary people. Human security retreated in the fight of major powers for vested political interests. The US left Afghanistan ultimately, but did it deliver on its motives why it entered Afghanistan and the Middle East under the operation enduring freedom or the so-called War on terror? We will try to analyze this question and try to find the answer.

Twenty-five million people in Afghanistan are on the brink of malnutrition since the US withdrawal. Many have difficulties in withdrawing their money from banks due to the US sanctions regime. This has increased the chances of Afghanistan’s turning into the biggest humanitarian crisis. It raises the question of whether the United States cares about the humanitarian crisis? Does it really want to guarantee human security? Was the purpose of entering South Asia and the Middle East to protect citizens? Let's understand from a historical point of view.

Watch full video: Democracy in Pakistan and Political crisis, click Global Lenses

It was a really very unfortunate day for the Americans that the two biggest towers of the world collapsed in the wink of an eye. Irreparable damage to the US was caused.  Obviously, the global leader had to revenge, but the motive for it, theoretically, was not US-centered. But it was aimed at protecting people from terrorism by eliminating it from the land. However, in practice, humans have felt the most severe impact in the last two decades from terrorism. So, where is that protection? It may be recalled that what allowed the US to legitimize its actions was the principle of ‘Humanitarian crisis.’ It’s better to understand the Humanitarian crisis first.

Read: China and Taiwan: the western bloc against China?

Humanitarian crisis and the US role?

It is the principle under international law that allows the international community to intervene in those regions that might be suffering from humanitarian issues such as genocide, starvation, and gross human rights violations,. Ironically, the US entered the Middle East to protect the Kurdish population from the regime of Saddam Husain but did not save the people of Rwanda, who were massacred on a large scale during the 1990s. Another genocide took place in Srebrenica during the same decade, but the US was not there as well.  The US failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre demonstrated its unwillingness to protect human rights. From this, it is clear that the foreign policy of the US to enter South Asia was motivated more by personal interests and less by protecting human rights.

Credit: Wikipedia

In international politics, states try to secure their strategic commodities which are believed to be vital for their national interest. The US, thus, wanted to secure oil resources from the Middle East and natural resources from Afghanistan. It also wanted to avoid any future attack by the terrorist organization on its territory. This can be gauged from China's foreign policy as well. Oil is a key resource for fast-growing China. Thus, one of the government's top priorities is to establish strong ties with petroleum-rich governments, such as Iran, Sudan, and Angola. China defends these states in international forums and provides foreign aid to guarantee continued supply.

The US was not concerned with human rights is reinforced again by its abrupt withdrawal when it found in its favor. This is not the first time in US  history. It also left Vietnam in a severe crisis. The American exit from Afghanistan has probably been more chaotic than it’s leaving Vietnam. However, the grounds leaving Afghanistan and Vietnam look alike. As the US lost domestic support, it packed off home in both cases.  LeavingAfghanisatn was important for the US to protect its national interest. How does it serve the national interest of the US? It must be recalled that the US and China have been engaged in power competition. Hence, staying in Afghanistan meant spending more expenditure on troops. The US believed it to be against its national interest to compete with China which has long been making ventures by using geoeconomics tools.  Mahbubani rightly said that excessive military spending is a strategic mistake of the US. Hence, leaving Afghanistan was inevitable.

However, once again the biggest victims are those that do not know about politics. It calls into question the moral claims of the major powers, which are the champions of democracy and the defenders of human rights. In this critical situation, some concrete steps are very appropriate to prevent the humanitarian crisis.

Read: Quadrilateral Group (QUAD): An alliance to contain China in Indo-Pacific 

Way out:

First of all, different approaches should be avoided by all stakeholders. This is not a matter of a single state but a collective responsibility of all stakeholders and others, at least out of humane sympathy. The United States, Europe, Russia, and China must work together to find a common solution.

Second, the Taliban government must be persuaded to put aside its ideological leanings towards conservative values. It is absurd to expect the Taliban to adopt a modern and pragmatic political culture without any recompense. States must resort to bargaining to force the Taliban. For example, promising to recognize them, easing sanctions, and delisting UN-designated terrorists would be tools of greed.

Third, sanctions should not be tightened if they remain in place. Professionals need to be paid on an urgent basis. These include medical doctors, teachers, and others. In addition, medicine should be delivered to the dying people of Afghanistan.

Fourth, the responsibility should not be placed on the Western doors only, even though they played a major role in creating the crisis. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) must come forward to save its brothers. The recent meeting held by Pakistan in Islamabad was a good sign. But actions speak louder than words. It is yet to be seen how it benefits the common man. One possible option at the OIC’s disposal is to initiate the trust fund. It should be encouraged and, most importantly, delivered to the general public without being subject to any corruption. To this end, OIC members need to devise a highly effective mechanism.

Subscribe to our website and allow notifications for more in-depth analytical articles.