(2 reports)
Australian Labor government escalates military involvement in Afghanistan
By James Cogan
2 May 2009
The Rudd Labor government announced on Wednesday a significant expansion of Australia’s military commitment to the US-led occupation of Afghanistan. The number of Australian troops operating in the southern province of Uruzgan, alongside Dutch and American units, will be increased from 1,100 to 1,550. The decision was given immediate bipartisan support by the conservative Liberal and National opposition parties and welcomed by the US Obama administration.
The additional forces will be performing various roles. A 120-strong detachment, likely made up of infantry and armoured support, will be sent for eight months to provide security in the lead-up to and following the August Afghan presidential election. The Taliban movement, which was driven from power by the 2001 US invasion and plays a major role in the growing resistance to the occupation, has declared the election illegitimate and called for its loyalists to disrupt the ballot.
A further 100 troops—also drawn from the combat arms of the Australian military—will be added to the 70 already embedded in a 3,300-strong, Uruzgan-based Afghan government Army brigade. Australian personnel trained the Afghan unit and have been accompanying it into battle since it began combat missions. Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon this week admitted that the quality and morale of the Afghan troops was “patchy”. In March, Australian Corporal Mathew Hopkins was shot dead when his Afghan patrol stumbled into a Taliban ambush. Ten Australian soldiers have now been killed in the impoverished country.
A 440-strong Reconstruction Task Force operating in Uruzgan will be boosted by another 70 troops, bringing its strength to 510. Forty army engineers are being sent to upgrade the airfield at the Dutch/Australian base in Tarin Kowt; 70 more troops will work in various US and NATO headquarters around Afghanistan; and 10 federal police have been assigned to train Afghan police in Uruzgan.
The current 330-strong Special Operations Task Group, which is made up of elite Special Air Service (SAS) troops and Army commandos and conducts offensive combat missions on behalf of the US military, will not be augmented. It is, however, already carrying out ever more ruthless operations. The Australian military claims the group killed 80 Taliban during a 26-day assault last month into an area controlled by resistance forces. At other times, its members function as hit squads, capturing or assassinating alleged insurgent leaders, financiers and bomb-makers.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s decision to dispatch additional forces is a direct response to the escalation of the war by the Obama administration. Washington is increasing US troop numbers to over 60,000 in preparation for a major offensive against the Afghan resistance, in Afghanistan itself and in the border region of neighbouring Pakistan.
Since 2003, the major focus of US foreign policy has been to establish a colonial-style puppet regime in Iraq and thereby control its substantial resources. Now it is being redirected to securing American geo-political interests in resource-rich Central Asia by consolidating a US client-state and long-term military bases in Afghanistan. This is part of a strategy aimed at stemming the mounting influence of US rivals, particularly China and Russia, in the region.
Washington is exerting pressure on all its European and Pacific allies to contribute to the Afghan “surge”. Canberra has acquiesced due to its ongoing dependence on US backing. Since World War II, the US-Australia alliance (ANZUS) has underpinned the ability of Australian imperialism to assert its geo-political, military and corporate interests throughout the South Pacific and South East Asia.
Like his conservative predecessor, former Prime Minister John Howard, Rudd supports US militarism in the Middle East and Central Asia in order to guarantee that the relationship will continue. He has announced the Afghan troop escalation in the context of growing concerns that China will exploit the global economic turmoil to extend its already considerable influence over the South Pacific states—Fiji, Papua New Guinea, East Timor and the Solomon Islands—that are viewed in Canberra as Australia’s strategic “backyard”.
The Labor government is acutely aware of the extent of popular opposition to Australian involvement in the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rudd told journalists on Wednesday that he anticipated the Afghan deployment was “going to become progressively an unpopular war”. A poll in March found that two-thirds of the population opposed any increase in the number of troops. After seven-and-a-half years of propaganda that the Afghanistan invasion was necessary to eradicate “Al Qaeda” and “terrorism”, millions of ordinary people regard the conflict in the same light as the criminal invasion of Iraq.
Rudd, nevertheless, is continuing his efforts to legitimise the war on the basis that Australian soldiers are in Afghanistan to prevent “terrorism”. He declared their role was to “deny sanctuary to terrorists who have threatened and killed Australian citizens”. He could not, however, omit mention of the real motive. Australian imperialism’s “second” interest, he declared, was its “enduring commitment to the United States under the ANZUS Treaty”.
The response to Rudd’s announcement sheds further light on the conflict developing within the ruling elite over whether the US alliance should remain the bedrock of Australian foreign policy.
Professor Hugh White, one of the country’s most prominent military analysts, bluntly criticised the troop escalation. In an April 29 interview on the ABC’s “Lateline” program, White opined that it was utterly pointless. Regardless of what Australia did, the war in Afghanistan would be lost because the United States had refused to commit sufficient forces to crush the resistance.
“If we regard success as establishing in Afghanistan a stable and effective government that can permanently deny the country to the Taliban,” White declared, “then I don’t think it is a matter of two years, or five years, or 10 years. We’re not doing an effort which is nearly big enough to achieve that result and I don’t think we will. I think this is an effort that is doomed to failure.”
White ridiculed Obama’s surge as “only” taking US troop levels to 60,000 in a country of 30 million people. He described the security situation as “really dire” and declared that the surge “did not give us a serious chance”.
The only reason Australia was involved in Afghanistan, White insisted, was to “maintain our credibility as a US ally... at the lowest level of cost and risk”. The implication was that Australia should extricate itself from the debacle, regardless of its impact on relations with Washington.
White is articulating the view of a layer who believes that the political and economic decline of the US has rendered Australian imperialism’s exclusive post war reliance on the ANZUS alliance in need of modification.
Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of the Murdoch-owned Australian, criticised Rudd from a different standpoint in an April 30 column. Sheridan wrote that Rudd’s “odd emphasis” on an Al Qaeda threat meant that the “real reason for the deployment—loyalty to the US alliance—has been shuffled back to No 2 in the list of public justifications”. Rudd’s references to terrorism, he declared, “reflects the growing unpopularity of the war... and the need to provide a more Australia-centric justification for it.”
The Australian, and Sheridan in particular, function as the mouthpiece for a layer of the political and military establishment that views the Afghanistan commitment as vital to the US alliance. Last September, he authored a column headlined “Let the infantry do its job”, echoing a plea by army officers for more frontline troops to be sent to Afghanistan.
In December, Major General Jim Molan, the former commander of Australian forces in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, called for the government to send an infantry-based task force of 6,000 to front-line combat in Uruzgan. In a February column in the Australian, headlined “End the pussyfooting in Afghan war”, Molan restated this call, declaring that “a credible relationship with our key allies lies at the centre of our defence and security policy”.
Sheridan, Molan and other critics believe that both the Howard and Rudd governments have been too sensitive to public opposition. In order to lessen the risk of casualties, both governments have limited Australia’s military contributions to largely support and logistical roles, deploying only special forces troops on offensive combat operations. This, the US alliance proponents assert, is impacting on Australia’s standing in the United States.
In his April 30 column, Sheridan wrote that the “nature and composition of the Australian troop commitment reflect a lack of seriousness” and an “unwillingness to be part of the sharp end of the US effort”. A real commitment, he asserted, would require Australia to “take the leadership in Uruzgan with a force of 3,000 of its own soldiers and deploy them to defeat the Taliban”.
As for domestic opposition, it should be ignored. If sending soldiers to kill and die in far-flung conflicts is necessary to maintain a strong US alliance, then governments should have no hesitation in complying.
Spain: Zapatero government sends more troops to Afghanistan
By Paul Stuart and Paul Mitchell
2 May 2009
Last month Spain became the first European country to increase its military mission in Afghanistan.
The Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) government of Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero announced it would be raising the number of Spanish troops deployed in NATO’s 55,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from 778 to over 1,200.
Foreign Minister Miguel Ánel Moratinos Moratinos declared, “Spain’s commitment [to Afghanistan] is among the most solid and important of the allies, combining military and electoral presence, training and aid.”
Moratinos’ announcement follows in the wake of the PSOE’s statement last December that it was lifting its self-imposed limit on the number of troops that could be sent abroad from 3,000 to 7,000. Defence Minister Carme Chacón said that, in future, Spain would only limit its intervention abroad “by the legality of the mission, by Spaniards’ will and by the capability of the armed forces.”
The increase in troops has taken place against the wishes of the Spanish people, the majority of whom are against the war in Afghanistan and want troops brought home. Spain has proportionally one of the highest casualty rates during the conflict-87 military personnel have been killed since 2002.
Back in November 2008, following the deaths of two soldiers in the western Afghan province of Heart, Moratinos told European Union foreign ministers, “The debate should not be over sending more troops, it should be about how to carry out a political-military development strategy that will end an unstable situation.”
When Chacón made her statement about increasing the 3,000 limit, she emphatically rejected suggestions more troops would be dispatched to Afghanistan.
In February, when US President Barack Obama first made his call for more troops, Moratinos repeated that “the answer is not to increase our military presence. The military presence has been increasing every year, and the situation has only gotten worse.”
The decision to send more troops to Afghanistan and maintain missions in Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia and Chad confirms that the PSOE’s withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq in no way implied opposition to imperialist war. It represented a tactical retreat in the face of mass antiwar sentiment that had led to the downfall of the right-wing Popular Party government under José María Aznar in 2004. Aznar, like Tony Blair in the UK, defied the popular will in giving full support to the US colonialist enterprise.
Zapatero’s opposition to the Iraq war expressed the concerns of sections of the Spanish elite that were critical of Aznar’s foreign policy, considering it to be too closely aligned with Washington. The resumption of Spain’s “traditional axis in foreign policy,” particularly an alliance with Germany and France, was viewed as a means of curbing the unilateralist ambitions of the United States and ensuring a share in the spoils from the exploitation of the Middle East and elsewhere for the European powers.
However, after withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq Zapatero immediately re-deployed the same number of troops to Afghanistan to placate the hostile response of the Bush administration. Moratinos said he was in “no doubt” as to the “legitimacy” of a Spanish intervention. It was accompanied by cabinet promises that Spain would never station more than 3,000 troops abroad at any one time.
The PSOE’s decision to jettison these promises is an overture to Obama and his strategic reorientation of US foreign policy towards securing control of Central Asia. In a break with protocol, Zapatero openly supported Obama during the US presidential elections. Immediately after Obama’s election the PSOE re-established high level diplomatic relations with the US after a total breakdown of relations during the Bush presidency. El Pais commented that “The Obama-Zapatero meetings can and must herald a gradual, essential and full normalisation” of relations.
Since then Zapatero has used his initial contacts with Obama to encourage popular illusions in the new US administration, explaining “My impression of [President Obama] couldn’t be better. The US and the world in general are experiencing a time of great hope.”
Moratinos praised the strong bond between Obama and Zapatero saying the two men were “on the same wavelength...partners, friends and allies”, who want to “strengthen and intensify their relations”.
During the Alliance of Civilisations forum held in Istanbul in early April, Moratinos justified the PSOE’s rapprochement with the new US administration saying, “I think that the Obama administration’s focus on international relations-supporting multilateralism, dialogue and respect for others and intelligent diplomacy-fully coincides with the Alliance of Civilisations.”
Zapatero and his ministers have refrained from publicly rebuking Obama for the continuing bloody occupation of Iraq, the indiscriminate bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and the cross border attacks into Pakistan. They have deployed “progressive” environmentalist arguments as a cover for securing US and Spanish interests. Moratinos has called for “a great green Marshall plan for Afghanistan”. The Christian Science Monitor has pointed out, “Many Spanish companies, including such names as Iberdrola, Abengoa, and Acciona, are leaders on green energy, especially wind and solar power, and many are hoping to increase their already significant role in US plans to boost renewable energy output.”
Spain is anxious that it is not left behind in the imperialist scramble for positions in the oil-rich and strategic zones of the world. Historically, the Spanish ruling elite, especially the PSOE, has paid special attention to strengthening Spain’s relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. Much of the economic liberalization that has taken place over the last three decades has benefited Spanish-owned corporations and Spain is using this to increase its bargaining power with the US and the other European powers.
More is required. A recent paper “Spain and the G-20: A Strategic Proposal for Enhancing its Role in Global Governance” published by the prestigious Elcano Royal Institute points out that the country ranks eighth in the world economy, but it is still regarded as a lightweight in international affairs. Spain’s invite to the recent enlarged G20 summit, for example, was in doubt up to the last minute and came only after intense diplomatic lobbying.
The paper states that “it is clear that the economic crisis is hitting Spain hard. But it is up to the government to tap the opportunities that the crisis provides in order to give the country a stable spot in the new world order, one that allows it to use its full potential as a global player. In order to do this, besides the structural reforms needed at the domestic level, the government must embrace a foreign policy with greater strategic clarity, and more strength and effectiveness.”
It continues “the structural problem of Spain’s small military budget (the lowest in NATO, when measured as a percentage of GDP) or its small number of diplomats and diplomatic missions (less than those of the Netherlands or Sweden) must be addressed if Spain wants to achieve its goal of playing a greater role in the process of globalisation. This, as we have stated earlier, will demand just the right blend of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ power.”
The paper calls for greater involvement from political parties, trade unions and business associations to exert “direct influence over everyday citizens” and “encourage intellectual thought on Spain’s role in the world.”
It concludes, “One cannot forget that an effective foreign policy depends to a large extent on domestic strength. While Spain’s main overseas asset is its success at home, its main challenge also lies in its obvious domestic shortcomings.”
Nothing could be clearer-wars abroad must be accompanied by stepped-up attacks on jobs and social services and the further erosion of democratic rights.
The aspiration of Spain’s ruling elite to a more prominent place amongst the imperialist powers has been dealt an immediate blow. Around the same time as announcing the increase in troops to Afghanistan, Chacón announced plans to withdraw Spain’s 620 troops from the 15,000-strong NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). She declared “Mission accomplished. It’s time to go home.” Zapatero added, “Our role on that stage lost a part of its sense.”
Both were forced to eat their words when the US administration heard the announcement. According to press reports Chacón had been unable to contact top US officials about it and left a message instead. She had not even informed the Spanish ambassador in Washington, Jorge Dezcallar, who was summoned to the White House to “clarify” what had happened. During the press conference that followed, the US State Department spokesman four times repeated how “deeply disappointed” the administration was with Spain.
The Chacón affair was a diplomatic disaster for Spain, which had made painstaking preparations for the G20 summit in London and NATO summit in Strasbourg in April. Within days, Zapatero’s top foreign policy advisor, Bernadino Leon, had been packed off to Washington “to explain the reasons for the withdrawal and to reach a joint decision on a timetable...The decision to leave has been made but we can be flexible over the timetable, be it one year, 18 months or eight months.”