Can America’s Afghan policy be driven by experience in Germany and Japan?
“Of the thinkers who dominated US policy in the 20th century, Brzezinski is now dead and Kissinger is old. This has created a void that many other experts are finding hard to fill.”
Two foreign policy thinkers & diplomats Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski dominated the direction of US policy in the last three decades of the 20th century. Kissinger was pro-war and a believer of using coercive power for diplomatic gains. Brzezinski was a believer in pre-emptive diplomacy to avoid a probable future war.
Both were children of Eastern European immigrants deeply impacted by the devastation of Second World War and rise of communist Russia. They were pro-Israel but it is not clear whether their Jewish roots played any role in that. They believed in American values and its promotion around the world as a force for good. Kissinger dominated US-China diplomatic relations and played critical role in the gradual evolution of a good partnership. Brzezinski advocated for bringing Russia into the European fold after the demise of USSR. He believed ignoring Russian strategic interests in her near abroad will be detrimental for building mutual trust that was critical for allaying any fears of an ideologically defeated nation. Kissinger’s advice was accepted and implemented but Brzezinski’s advice was ignored resulting in gradual deterioration of relations with Russia.
Brzezinski is now dead and Kissinger is old. This has created a void that many other experts are finding hard to fill.
As a student of foreign policy, I am also concerned about the long term direction of US foreign policy and reading extensively to find some sense of it. I recently finished two books from two expert foreign policy thinkers. Ian Bremmer, the founder of Eurasian Group, is considered a leading voice on US-Russian relations and published a book titled Superpower: Three Choices for America’s Role in the World, published May 2015. It was published before last Presidential election as an effort to inform and guide the new administration. Richard Haas held positions in past US administrations and currently holds the position of President of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He published a book titled A world in disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old older, published January 2017. After reading both these books it is clear to me that American policy makers are confused and unsure about the role of their country in the world. Let me try to explain this point.
After the Second World War, America emerged as a victor with its economy and military power largely intact. That enabled her to play the role of a dominant power for the next 70 years. But as a geographically isolated country by Atlantic and Pacific oceans, she relied on her own history, without any respect for histories of others, as a guide. As long as America was strong this disrespect for others history, culture and values was tolerated but despised beneath the surface. Both Bremmer and Haas in their books emphasise that America should abandon its reliance on values to drive her foreign policy but should rather exercise its dominance in military might, economic size, and diplomatic muscle. In other words, they believe the might of a nation is directly proportional to its geography, money in the bank, the number of tanks/troops, and the size of its diplomatic corps. But there is no historic confirmation of that. Britain was a global power despite its small size in every aspect. Rome was also a big power despite being small. Japan has always been a major South East Asian power despite being a small island. So tangible assets do not make a country a major power. So then what does?
“…geographically isolated by Atlantic and Pacific oceans, America relied on her own history, without any respect for histories of others, as a guide. As long as America was strong this disrespect for others history, culture and values was tolerated – but also despised.”
In all my foreign policy pieces I have suggested that there are three kinds of powers i.e. super or global powers, bridges and satellites or pawns. A super power has superiority in the military, has a big economy, and has effective diplomatic muscle. In this, I have never proposed that quantity or size of each is directly proportional to the power it derives. Military might does not come from the numbers alone but rather the gap in quality of innovative weapons between countries. For instance, Mongol hordes overran much larger adversaries because they were expert riders and could use arrows while riding fast. From this respect, America may have a large number of weapons and extensive reach but it is only marginally ahead of Russia and China. If the USA has the mother of all bombs then Russia has the father of all bombs. In economy a country’s influence is based on a number of linkages it has. America is breaking trade pacts rather than forming more linkages. NAFTA with Canada/Mexico, Transpacific Partnership (TPP) with South East Asia, and Transatlantic Trade & Investment Pact (TTIP) with Europe are all either put on review or abandoned. China, on the other hand, is forming linkages and promoting multilateral and bilateral trade pacts. In diplomacy, America promoted a rule based world order which it has herself disbanded by the legally questionable war in Iraq and extensive use of drones in violation of respect of sovereignty promoted by UN Charter. It is asking countries to be subjugated to its power rather than become allies with an equal voice in an issue. The recent reduction in State Department budget is an indication of this diplomatic withdrawal. The greatest damage to American image is her decision not to consider human rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of political choice as universal rights. Both Bremmer and Haas suggest that when it comes to American interest these values should take a second priority.
In the light of this new approach to foreign policy, let’s review their upcoming Afghan policy which is under consideration. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been asked to step aside in this process and the lead has been given to Secretary of Defence James Mattis. Mr Mattis on various occasions suggested that America should consider long term presence in Afghanistan as they have in Germany and Japan. But is Afghanistan really comparable to Germany and Japan defeated in WWII? I don’t think so. The key question to answer is whether these nations considered the presence of Americans as occupation forces. Afghan’s, on the other hand, consider Americans as occupiers and want them to leave. If that was not the situation then Afghan Taliban that has the foot soldiers on the ground could not succeed in holding 47% of the territory without significant resistance from people. Afghanistan is not Germany or Japan for the USA but a Vietnam. The sooner American planners realise that the better.
America blaming Pakistan for its military failure in Afghanistan is also unrealistic. Since President Obama announced the complete departure of forces from Afghanistan all regional players are now involved in it including Iran, Russia, and China. This means that by targeting Pakistani cities Karachi and Quetta through drones using the pretext of pursuing Afghan Taliban leaders would only destabilise the country while the Afghan Taliban commanders could be residing comfortably in Iran or Northern former USSR countries. Will America then expand drones to these countries? It is not the solution. The solution is to develop a regional platform comprising of Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran, USA, and Afghanistan to find a viable political and security solution. EU and India can also play their due role in the process by helping build the governance and economic capability.
Confusion of American policy planners could be costly for the world. It is important that other powers exert pressure that a multilateral approach is adopted to find solutions to Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Ukraine crisis.
