La Russia ritorna in Afghanistan?

[carlomartello]

La Russia ritorna in Afghanistan?

di Andrea Forti


I giorni della vigilia del delicato voto afgano hanno coinciso con un anniversario che, sebbene passato in secondo piano rispetto ai ben più importanti appuntamenti elettorali, è carico di significati per la storia di quel martoriato paese asiatico. Il 19 agosto, infatti, ricorreva il novantesimo anniversario dalla dichiarazione di indipendenza afghana, pronunciata nel 1919 dall'emiro Amanullah, un monarca riformatore che rese indipendente un paese isolato dal mondo e sottoposto al dominio indiretto inglese dalle guerre anglo-afghane della fine del XIX secolo. L'emiro Amanullah riuscì a smarcare il paese dalla sfera di influenza britannica sfruttando la prima spinta anticolonialista che, dopo la prima guerra mondiale, era partita dai famosi «quattordici principi» di Wilson, che esaltavano particolarmente l'autodeterminazione dei popoli, e soprattutto dalla politica rivoluzionaria inaugurata dall'appena nata Unione Sovietica, che intendeva agitare la bandiera delle rivolte dei popoli colonizzati per abbattere il potere delle potenze europee capitaliste.

Il particolare momento storico dell'indipendenza afghana fece in modo che un monarca tradizionale, certamente «modernizzatore» ma pur sempre di estrazione tribale (pashtun), venisse prontamente aiutato dalla nascente potenza sovietica, allora nel pieno dell'euforia post-rivoluzionaria, che fu il primo paese a riconoscere ufficialmente l'indipendenza dell'emirato; dietro questa apparente contraddizione si celavano comunque interessi di Stato ben più concreti della retorica rivoluzionaria e anti-imperialista: all'emiro afghano occorreva una potenza che facesse da contrappeso agli inglesi, mentre i sovietici proseguivano, ammantandola di ideologia, la vecchia politica zarista di espansione verso l'Asia meridionale e i «mari caldi». L'invasione dell'Afghanistan da parte dell'URSS nel 1979, che diede l'inizio a un catastrofico «Vietnam sovietico» che si concluse solo nel 1989, rispondeva alle stesse esigenze di espansione verso il sud per rompere l'isolamento continentale che la geografia imponeva all'immenso spazio russo-sovietico, privo di sbocchi su oceani liberi da ghiacci o dal controllo di potenze marittime come il Giappone o l'Inghilterra.

Queste ragioni storiche spiegano come l'Afghanistan sia stato da sempre un elemento importante della politica estera del Cremlino, che sta cercando di intraprendere una nuova «politica afghana» dopo i rovesci degli anni '80 e il sostanziale disinteresse degli anni '90. Se è vero che i sogni espansionistici e imperialistici della Russia verso i «mari caldi» sono oramai da archiviare nel libro dei ricordi del '900, è altrettanto vero che l'interesse di Mosca verso quel paese non è affatto diminuito, anche se ora l'attenzione russa verso l'Asia Centrale è di natura eminentemente difensiva - dall'estremismo islamico e dai traffici di droga - e non più espansionistica. Proprio l'ascesa del militantismo islamista alla fine degli anni '90 (i Talebani presero il potere a Kabul nel 1997) risvegliò l'interesse del Cremlino verso l'Afghanistan, che divenne, assieme al confinante Tajikistan, allora in piena guerra civile, la trincea per la lotta ad un estremismo islamico che rischiava di estendersi ai paesi ex-sovietici dell'Asia centrale e agli stessi territori islamici della Federazione Russa, esposta ormai anche dal punto di vista demografico alla pressione dei popoli musulmani del sud. La Federazione Russa fu in prima linea nel combattere l'estremismo islamico dei Talebani, armando le fazioni afghane dell'Alleanza del Nord, quando ancora l'Occidente se ne disinteressava (quando non lo corteggiava per calcoli politici o economici) e tese subito la mano alla NATO quando questa, dopo l'11 settembre, si decise ad intervenire in quel martoriato paese.

La minaccia di destabilizzazione dell'Asia Centrale è talmente sentita dalle autorità russe, consce della fragilità del loro immenso ma spopolato paese, che nemmeno nei momenti di maggiore attrito con la NATO, come ad esempio durante la guerra con la Georgia, hanno interrotto o ostacolato la collaborazione logistica con le forze occidentali impegnate in Afghanistan. Ora la Federazione Russa sta riprendendo, a novant'anni dal riconoscimento sovietico dell'indipendenza afghana, una collaborazione bilaterale con il governo di Kabul che, per quanto difficile dopo i disastri della decennale occupazione sovietica, avvantaggerebbe grandemente anche l'Europa, che ha tutto l'interesse affinché l'Afghanistan e l'intera Asia Centrale non cadano preda dell'instabilità e del fanatismo. In questo quadro, le paure di alcuni think tank occidentali (come la Jamestown Foundation) circa un «ritorno della Russia» nello scenario afghano dovrebbero viceversa essere trasformate in vere e proprie opportunità strategiche.

Ragionpolitica - La Russia ritorna in Afghanistan?


carlomartello

[carlomartello]

Alcune considerazioni.

Intanto le elezioni afghane sono state un imbroglio, ha rivinto il narcotrafficante Karzai favorevole agli sciiti filo-iraniani e ai talebani "moderati" (sic) nonché uomo di Washington. Era auspicabile invece la vittoria di Abdallah, ex-braccio destro di Massud che al tempo venne appoggiato da India e Russia contro Pakistan e A. Saudita.

In secondo luogo, se i talebani vincessero la guerra, c'è il pericolo che si scateni una grossa destabilizzazione che vada dall'Inguscezia al Pakistan nucleare. Gli Zardari, che hanno preso il posto di Musharraf in Pakistan, sono collegati alla scuola moderata barelwi rivale di quella deobandi dei talebani e dei fondamentalisti pakistani, gli Zardari hanno denunciato recentemente un 'complotto angloamericano-indiano' per una invasione preventiva del Pakistan così da impedire che i fondamentalisti prendano possesso dei siti atomici ed in particolare accusato i servizi di intelligence angloamericani di destabilizzare il loro Governo. Quindi in teoria si potrebbero appoggiare gli Zardari contro ulteriori destabilizzazioni filo fondamentaliste. A questo punto però bisogna accettare la missione NATO in Afghanistan per bombardare i talebani e non farli avanzare verso i siti nucleari del Pakistan, oppure auspicare il ritiro di truppe occidentali a guida obamiana (brzezinskiana?) dall'area?

Se la Russia e l'India fossero più presenti nella missione in Afghanistan forse le cose cambierebbero.


carlomartello

[Corsaro]

The paradox of Afghan elections

20 August, 2009, 17:40

"Everybody knows Hamid Karzai is inefficient, weak and unpopular leader, still everybody would tell you he’s going to win," says Georgy Mirsky, a professor from the Institute of World Economy & International Relations.

“Still, Taliban is unable to disrupt polls in the main central provinces as they already tried before to no effect so the election is going to be all right.”

The paradox of Afghan elections - RT





Afghans must rally around national leader
permalinke-mail story to a friendprint version

20 August, 2009, 160

The Chairman of the Russian State Duma's Constitutional Law Committee Vladimir Pligin assures that “Russia is ready to co-operate with any political figure in Afghanistan properly elected by the Afghan people.”


He added “We hope this is going to be a united figure for all Afghan people who are now divided into different factions.”


Afghans must rally around national leader - RT

.

[Corsaro]

“They are not fighting, but playing”

23 August, 2009, 121

Differing interests from various political forces in Afghanistan could see war in the nation continuing indefinitely under current conditions, says RT former Afghan General Abdul Kadyr in an exclusive interview.

General Abdul Kadyr saw the fall of the Afghan monarchy and took part in two revolutions. Twice he was held the post of Defense Minister and later headed the Afghan Air Force.

RT: Mr. Kadyr, does the election in Afghanistan really reflect the will of Afghani people or it is just an exercise unlikely to evoke change?

Abdul Kadyr: To be frank, the vote in Afghanistan is more symbolic, because Afghani people have never voted. They do not know how and who to choose. This is a new practice for the people.

Read more

And I think that the Afghani people are being assessed from a political viewpoint. The world’s powers see that Afghanistan is a small poor socialist country. People here are not very educated in terms of politics. And somebody is using it. It is almost like a game. It seems like the people are given the opportunity to vote for someone, but in reality the President is appointed. Also there are huge divisions in political forces in Afghanistan. All the superpowers have their own interests in Afghanistan, and everyone will try to figure out now exactly how much power they have.

RT: You have mentioned several political dangers connected to the election but there are also physical threats made against the people in order to discourage them from taking part in the election. Is this a reflection of the opposition between the U.S. and coalition forces and the various political groups within Afghanistan itself?

A.K.: A very small percentage of the population actually voted. From the TV and radio reports we can see that the population is apathetic.


Afghan drug addicts smokeheroin in Herat, Afghanistan (AFP Photo / Shah Marai)
A town with 4,000 to 5,000 citizens has very low results with just over 1000 people voting. We think it tells us that people disagree with this vote, because there are some individuals involved who people do not want to see. That's why people do not participate in the election. If candidates were wanted by the people, then the turn out would be high. I think even 40-50% would have come to vote for the new leader.

It is only people related to these small groups who voted.

RT: You said the election does not reflect the people’s will. What about president Hamid Karzai, is he a leader that people had wanted? Does he reflect the people’s needs and will or he is simply a political puppet or can he still do something for the country?

A.K.: From the start Karzai was not the people's choice, he was appointed. With the game he is playing right now, he won't be able to do anything.

Karzai is playing a game with his opponents and enemies, as well as with his allies and friends.

There are people who would have been a better leader. But they are not among the candidates. There are people who are candidates, but they are worse than Karzai. And there are reasons for that. Karzai is the best of the candidates, because he has learned a lot, and knows how to speak to different people. But he is mostly playing games that don't benefit the people. His political games bring no benefit for the country.

RT: Do the American and coalition forces and troops in Afghanistan have a chance of achieving anything or are they tied to the cause, trapped in a never ending battle they cannot win?

A.K.: This will never end with the kind of game they are playing right now. They are not fighting, they are playing.

When our party was in power, American and Europe helped fundamentalists in their fight against us. Even China was against us. So are we to think that there was some sort of cooperation or alliance? Then we agreed to divide the power. There were those who were for it and finally they benefited from it. But those who were against, got no benefit at all. Americans were helping fundamentalists for a long time, but then fundamentalists turned against each other. The war started again! So what was it? A game? Was this the plan?

Indeed this was the plan – to turn fundamentalists against each other, continue the war, so that they are weakened and therefore obedient to America and fulfill their orders. So when the Taliban got too strong they had to start a war against the Taliban. Islam all around the world became more strong and popular. That was America’s big mistake.


Hamid Karzai (AFP Photo / Shah Marai)
So they needed a candidate from their group and put him in power. And Karzai came into the picture.

You may know that Karzai’s family is a very old one. At the very beginning of the country’s history, his family’s tribe was in power here in Afghanistan – this is one thing. And secondly, Karzai was prepared and trained for this. So when the Taliban could not fight anymore, they agreed to the Karzai proposal. It was not actually their wish; they were made to choose it. They were told that if they did not agree, then there may be a very bad option for them.

That’s how Karzai came to power. There was one period of his leadership, then another. The first vote was for Karzai, and now the vote will be in his favour too. Or maybe a person better than him will appear on the scene with a promise to do more than Karzai.

RT: In your opinion, what does Afghanistan need to become an independent, self-sufficient democratic country? What could be done to make Afghanistan prosper and develop?

A.K.: This is a very difficult question. Afghanistan has been divided into many groups according to language, religion and even geography. All these issues together have a great impact on the unity of the country. Our society is so badly-consolidated, it is so mixed! For example, there is a tribe in the North of Afghanistan. They use the language of our Southern neighbour Kyrgyzstan. They are small, but now they want to participate in the power division too. If such small groups ask for their rights, then what about those who think they are the majority? They have been in power for 280 years, and they think that they should be given the rights and power. Tadjik, Turkmen, Uzbek people who were under the rule of Pashtuns, now want democracy too. They demand equal rights. We used to fight against communism, and it’s our right to choose the authorities to be in power. This disagreement does not give allow us to make Afghanistan united right now. The situation has changed dramatically from what we had in the 20th century. Then there was only one strong power. Russia is now strong, and China has become a big economic power. India is a prominent state now too.

Remember the global shift after World War I. In 1925-1937 especially, the situation in the world looked a lot like what we see now. Different countries and forces unite. And as a military man I can say that it’s a very dangerous situation; countries may unite their forces and arrange a bloc. In my opinion, Afghanistan should be prepared for that.


?They are not fighting, but playing? - RT

.

[Corsaro]

“No one can win a victory over the Taliban”

21 August, 2009, 14:28

The only possible way to undermine the Taliban’s position in Afghanistan is through negotiation between the country’s political forces, says Konstantin Kosachev, head of the Russian State Duma Foreign Affaires Committee.

?No one can win a victory over the Taliban? - RT Top Stories

.