IS BUSH GOING TO BETRAY THE AFGHANS AND KURDS?

Jack D. Forbes, UC, Davis

Al Gore has charged that Bush' obsession with Saddam Hussein will lead to the neglect of the "War on Terrorism." I will argue, based upon reports from the press, that Bush has already virtually abandoned Afghanistan's reconstruction and that there is a possibility of a Taliban-anti-USA revival if the economic progress and democratization of that country continues to wallow in inadequacy.

When Bush went into Afghanistan to destroy its functioning, although repressive, government, he obligated the US to create conditions leading to a viable and democratic society. Now Bush is ready to invade yet another country and we must doubt, based upon the hard evidence, that he has any interest in reconstructing a democratic post-war Iraq. Afghanistan clearly needs many things. For example: It needs a new road system and, I would think, some major railroad lines connecting ex-soviet Central Asia and Iran with Pakistan and India. Railroads can move oil but they have a tremendous advantage over pipelines: they can also move people, food, and goods of all kinds. A railroad through Afghanistan could provide a rail link from Europe all the way to south Asia!

One of the saddest things about Bush' proposed war on Iraq is that the Kurds in the northeast and the Shiites in the south will be expected to provide manpower to help overpower Saddam. But what will they get in return for such a sacrifice? Many Kurds, most likely, would like to possess their own independent republic at long last (or at the very least some meaningful form of sovereign autonomy). But the U.S., beholden to neighbor Turkey, seems opposed to any true self-determination for the Kurdish tribes. In Turkey the government has waged a U.S.-supported continuous campaign of suppression against the Kurds (who occupy most of the southeast of what is now Turkey).

But U. S. opposition to Kurdish self-determination is not based upon Turkish pressure alone. The U.S. has for many decades been opposed in principle to virtually all movements of ethnic liberation and self-determination. In fact, since the 1890s, and with the brief exception of Woodrow Wilson's last years in office (1918-20), the U. S. has been downright hostile to independence movements (except, perhaps, when they can be used by the CIA to weaken a regime hostile to the U.S., such as the former Soviet Union). In 1898-1902 the U.S. waged a war to destroy the Filipino Republic, while at the same time seizing Borinquen (Puerto Rico), Guam, and the Kingdom of Hawaii, along with transforming Cuba into a U.S.-controlled semi-colony. Thereafter, I would suggest, the U.S. could not espouse principles of self-determination because Filipinos, Boricuas, Chamorros, Native Americans, and others might demand the same! (And Guantanamo might have to be returned to Cuba).

The U.S. has come to support the "sanctity of state borders" even in a world where so many post-colonial borders do not make any real sense. The recent break-up of Yugoslavia and the USSR were processes over which the U.S. exercised no control. Since then the U.S. has shown no inclination to support the right of self-determination for the Chechens, the Abkhazians, the West Papuans, the Timorese, or other oppressed peoples. In the UN the U.S. delegates have done their best to prevent strong guarantees of rights for indigenous peoples, including American Indians.

Should not an attack on Iraq, if it occurs, be accompanied by firm guarantees of the right of self-determination for the Kurds, regardless of Turkey's animosity? Should it not also be accompanied by guarantees of a popularly-elected democratic government for the balance of Iraq with a specific promise that Iraq's oil will be owned by the people of Iraq and not be divvied up among foreign corporations and governments? Certainly, our government should not be promising percentages of Iraqi oil to others as incentive for obtaining support for an attack. To go into a war without clear objectives and guarantees will simply lead to another Afghanistan, quickly forgotten and set aside for other targets, or, perhaps, to a compliant and repressive dictatorship.

Jack Forbes, Powhatan-Delaware, is a historian, social critic, and poet, covering issues of international and inter ethnic relations for 45 years. He can be reached at:http://cougar.ucdavis.edu/nas/faculty.html,http://cougar.ucdavis.edu/nas/faculty/forbes/personal/forbes.html, Native American Studies Department, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave.. Davis California 95616 ( 530)752-3626.This article is reprinted, with permission, from his E-mail publishing.