Iran Review

Dr. Hassan Beheshtipour

Pursuing Interests of Afghanistan or Those of US, Britain?

The International Conference on Afghanistan wrapped up in London on Thursday, 28 January 2010, by approving a strategy set out by the US and Britain which compels Western countries to render financial assistance to the Afghan government.

Basic Information

1-      Leaders participating in the conference as representatives of over 60 world countries, by approving the strategy set out by the US-UK, are obliged to support the Afghan government financially to enable the country to fight against corruption and to convince the Taliban insurgents to participate in the political trend of Afghanistan.

2-     The initial plan of the London Conference has also welcomed the Afghan-led plan for holding negotiations with agents of the Taliban insurgents in order to set aside their weapons, cut off relations with al-Qaida and other terrorist institutions and reintegrating them with the political trend in the country.

3-     In the final statement of the conference it was announced that countries have undertaken to allocate $140 million to support realization of the peace reconciliation in Afghanistan.

4-     Prior to the London Conference, the Afghan government had announced it would put free plots of lands at the disposal of the moderate Taliban.

Analysis of Conference Results

The conference was hosted by the US and Britain with an aim to achieve two main targets: firstly to justify their military presence in Afghanistan which is under the pretext of rehabilitation of Afghanistan and, secondly, prepare the ground for legitimizing their talks with the Taliban as the most effective countries in the Afghan crisis were present in the London Conference.

Interestingly enough, the Central Intelligent Agency (CIA) and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan in the year 1994 created the Taliban and in the same year General Nasrallah Barbad, the interior minister in the late Benazir Bhutto’s government, helped organizing the Taliban in order to take control of power in Kabul.

 But, in the aftermath of the 11 September incident, the Taliban group was included in the list of terrorist groups as an ally for al-Qaida.  Given that in the recent years the Taliban have been referred to as a terrorist  group, now it should be questioned what changes have been made that countries are proposing to negotiate with these terrorists, to offer them financial help and even participate them in the Afghan government. It should be said that adoption of such a policy towards the Taliban would not only fail in improving the situation in Afghanistan but would instead aggravate the problems in that country as there would not be recognition between “good terrorism and bad terrorism”. Now which terrorists have been turned good who could sit behind the negotiation table? Who are the bad terrorists who should be fought out? The London Conference in fact is a new political game masterminded by Britain and the US and therefore could not safeguard the interests of the Afghan people.

If the roots of creation of the Taliban could be found, they could be confronted more easily in numerous areas. In fact the Taliban developed in the poverty background of Afghanistan to such an extent that if the billions of dollars that have been spent on US, Britain and NATO forces had been spent on creation of jobs and development of Afghanistan, the Taliban would not have been able to continue their acts of terrorism.

A meeting is expected to be held in Kabul, capital of Afghanistan, to exchange views on mechanisms of possible negotiations with the Taliban. Meanwhile, a number of parliamentary representatives of Afghanistan who were also present in the London Conference, in interviews with European news media complained that no consultation had been made with the National Assembly of Afghanistan about the plan on talks with the Taliban and that the MPs had not been informed of the details.

It should be noted that such a policy would embody no positive result as it is basically impractical to separate the good Taliban from the bad Taliban. It is not clear on what basis the executives of the plan would divide the good Taliban from the bad Taliban. For example, Western sources opine that Ahmad Vakil Motevakel, former foreign minister of the Taliban regime, is among those who have adopted moderation and thus could be referred to as good Taliban. The mistake that Western analysts are making is that they would make their analysis on the Taliban as an institutionalized organization whereas the Taliban are void of normal institutional frameworks.

Therefore, persons such as Ahmad Vakil Motevakel by adopting moderate stands would practically be excluded from the zone of effectiveness of the Taliban and rendering financial assistance to such people would prove ineffective. However, it was in the London Conference where we became acquainted with the concept of good and bad terrorists. Up to the present, the Taliban were a terrorist group but with the London Conference approval reference has now been made to good terrorists.

Western experts with regard to the soft power and hard power believe that the decision has been taken soundly by the London Conference. But it should be admitted that the West has once again taken a wrong course on Afghanistan.

Another point is that there is no guarantee that the financial assistance offered to the Taliban would not be spent on their reorganization and purchase of arms. If the criterion would be set for a good Taliban and parts of the financial assistance would be spent on infrastructures of Afghanistan, it would have helped the Afghan people greater.  Recently, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in a critical article advised that instead of military expenditures, Obama should spend part of the financial resources for Afghanistan on infrastructures, mainly on its road construction, dam building, telecommunications and generation of electricity and safe water.

In a US strategy report on Afghanistan which was published a few months ago, al-Qaida had been put as the target not the Taliban but in London the Taliban constituted the axis for talks. Al-Qaida and the Taliban could be divided theoretically but in practice they work together. Their difference is in that al-Qaida is an organized terrorist institution but the Taliban is a trend which is apparently led by Mullah Omar in Quetta of Pakistan (according to Pakistani press).

Another problem emerging in the approval of the London Conferences is in that it has been said the assistance would be paid by Britain and the US but it has not been specified to which person and how. For example, they intend to select governors in provinces from among the Taliban or introduce a number of Taliban members into the cabinet. Although details of the plan have not been disclosed yet, however, it is clear that the speculative nature and subservience of the Taliban to Pakistan would hinder easy implementation of the plan.

Evaluation of Iran’s Absence from London Conference

Obviously, the decision about the London Conference had already been taken by Britain and the US. They were pushing Afghanistan’s neighboring countries to approve such a decision through their participation in the conference. In other words, if Iran had attended the conference, it would have guaranteed the interests of the West and not the interests of the Iranian and Afghan nations or peace and stability in the region. Therefore, Iran did not attend the conference. The approval of the London Conference is doomed to failure and if Iran had participated in it within the said framework, it would have shared such a failure. However, Iran wisely distanced from the Western game.

If a collective peace is expected to be restored to Afghanistan, the role of the neighboring countries, except for the US and Britain, should be specified and attention should be paid to it. If the US and British policies are due to be implemented in Afghanistan with an aim to stabilize their presence in that country, therefore there would remain no reason for Iran’s participation in that conference.
Basically Iran’s participation in the London Conference was against the national interests of the country. But, if a collective peace in its true sense were to be established, which would be at the disposal of the Afghan people to the extent that it could provide them with real peace and stability, the Islamic Republic of Iran should have been present there in line with its national interests. In the same way that security in Afghanistan would have its direct impact on security on the eastern borders of Iran, any type of insecurity would create new problems for Iran.