Failing to recognise Taliban: The Ultimate Profit or Loss Statement
Surrounded by its treacherous peaks and vast deserts, the mysteries of conflict in Afghanistan are buried deep in its own trenches. Its rugged geographical nature seems to add to the enigma that drowns the country. Be it the Khiljis, Ghaznis or the Mughals, association with the Afghans is an early indication of conflict and imbalances. History dictated Afghan rulers to hold the seat of power in any territory they conquer but today, Afghanistan has lost to the politics of power play of the world.
The country occupies an extremely important location on the world map, serving as one of the primary entry points to India and being an important destination along the celebrated silk route. Its strategic location is beneficial to modern-day trade, hence the fight for control over its trade borders has led to dire consequences. The Soviet-American cold war turned Afghanistan into a battlefield for power-hungry and vested nations to churn profits out of its political instability. While America nurtured the Taliban to fight against the Russians, Taliban’s rise to power seemed to backfire on American efforts at holding ground in Afghanistan. The 21st century development in installing a Taliban regime, several countries like the United States have refused to establish foreign relations with a government led by an armed community. The 21st century development in Afghanistan has led to the United States and several other countries’ failure to recognise a Taliban led Afghan government. Is this consideration being held on humanitarian grounds or motivated by a selfish interest?
The United States has been supplying weapons to the Afghan government since its intervention in 2001. It has accounted for a whopping 87% of Afghanistan’s arms imports as reported during the time period 2015–2019. America’s financial investment in the war doesn’t stop there. It provides bulk of the equipment to train the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces along with being the superior manager of the NATO ANA Trust Fund (NAFTA) that has been supporting the war against Taliban. Media reports declare American losses of $5 trillion due to its engagement with Afghanistan. But what escaped the eyes of the world was the involvement of leading American arms production companies. Lockheed Martin Corporation, DynCorp, Northrop Grumman just to name a few have won big bills over the last few years. Lockheed Martin alone provides employment to over 1 million workers and recruits over 16,000 American suppliers . Foreign arms sales in 2018 brought in $55.6 billion into the economy, a 33% increase since the previous year. America’s reliance on a weapon economy was also reflected in ex-President Donald Trump’s Conventional Arms Transfer Policy that allows foreign actors to acquire security systems easily. It’s a simple equation: American military companies’ success equals America’s success.
With the suspension of arms supply to Afghanistan , the American arms market needs to find an alternative source of income. The American rationale to sell weapons in war torn zones is based on the simple economic concept of risk assessment. Any rational decision maker would look to earning profits and ensuring those market conditions to persist that enable the entity to make the best use of resources to maximise profits. Hence, a nation invested in producing and developing arms would look towards tapping into the most vulnerable and war-torn zones irrespective of the side that receives the arms. In essence, such countries would rather have the guns firing to fill their coffers. No arms supplying country would declare such an approach out loud, but the thought is explicitly visible through the conduction of their foreign policy and increasing arms production numbers. Afghanistan’s turmoil and its association with the non-state actors in the Middle East and Pakistan since Taliban’s entry have increased prospects for illegal trade as well as resulting in an increased demand for arms and ammunition from the American end.
In this case, wouldn’t it be more pragmatic for the United States and other countries to empower the Taliban given their heavy reliance on arms and ammunition to carry out their operations? By recognising and legitimizing the existence of a government in a particular country, you would be held partially responsible for any miscreant behaviour of your ally nation. Your association to the rogue nation would propagate the idea of your ideals aligning with your allies. In the case of the United States, though recognizing the Taliban government may be economically profitable on paper, it would tarnish their efforts spent on launching a global war on terrorism. Failing to establish relations with the Taliban to the outside world provides the United States indirect access to the arms market.
The Middle East has always been the recruitment ground to Taliban and its safe haven when it was banished after its rule in 2001. Saudi Arabia has been the world’s largest importer of arms with73% of its weapons flowing in from the United States. This situation is a glimmer of hope that America can capitalize on. Trade to the Taliban via Saudi in arms and opium(legally or illegally) would persist given the relationship between the two parties. Hence, by using Saudi Arabia as an intermediary, the United States has the power to successfully continue its sale without having to disclose it on paper or make a public declaration about the same. Another country that the United States has access to the Taliban market is through Pakistan. Though the latest developments in the Pakistan-US dynamics is beyond the scope of this article, an important observation to note here is Pakistan’s unscrupulous allegiance to countries based on its requirements for economic investment, arms supply and an anti-India policy.
Today’s world politics is indeed the hunger games- the hunger for supremacy and power. While thousands of people lose their lives and homes in Afghanistan, the rich don’t fail to profit out of this situation too. At the end of the day, it’s us humans that spend every moment fearing for their lives. The fragility associated with life and power has driven individuals to extremism today. Probably you blame capitalism as an economic system that made us selfish or traditional economic theory that forced us into rationalism. Eventually, we as a community bear the brunt of the losses. I leave you with the thought- Does the revenue from holding power outweigh its costs?
By Sahana Suraj
Edited by Pratiksha Jena
Additional Readings
