geopolitics

A tragedy in progress

(photo from internationalaffairs.org.au)

The interview was a moment of clarity and despondency. A cable news anchor asked an Afghan-Canadian activist what the West should do to save the Afghan people, especially women and girls, from the Taliban.

The hesitation by the interviewee probably conveyed the hopelessness so many feel in direct proportion to their geographic or familial proximity to the crisis. The most powerful, heavily resourced military the world has ever known left Afghanistan this month after almost 20 years. Instantaneously, it seems, all the work of nation-building, developing security capacity and attempting to instil the structures of civil society, evaporated. If that force, backed by other Western powers, including Canada until 2014, could not hold back the tide of the Taliban, what can ordinary Canadians possibly do?

Based on the lessons of history, and the comparatively recent invention of the concept of “responsibility to protect,” the world, by any measure, should be coming to the aid of the Afghan people. But U.S. President Joe Biden is also correct, declaring, “American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves.” U.S. leaders faced an impossible choice, probably with no possible good outcome.

It is unquestionably inhumane for the world to leave the Afghan people to the whims of tyrants. But the American people, particularly military families, have understandably had enough of “endless wars.” Who will step up to fill that vacuum? The United Nations was created, in part, for precisely this sort of moment but it has been, in many ways, corrupted and deracinated from the humanitarian foundations on which it was created.

If there were an easy solution to this quagmire, you wouldn’t be reading it in the pages of a small Jewish newspaper on the Pacific fringe of the continent. We have little beyond hopes and prayers to offer the Afghan people.

The fall of Kabul almost certainly represents something enormous, although we may not understand yet the full implications.

The beginnings and ends of historical eras are not always visible to those who live through them. Our current era, which began almost exactly 20 years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001, in some respects, came to an end this month with the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan.

Many observers have compared the chaos at Kabul airport with the Saigon airlift in 1975, when America fled, as some put it, with its tail between its legs. Forty-five years later, America remains a force not to be trifled with. But neither is it the undisputed powerhouse it was since the Second World War. Whether it remains a recognized (and feared and respected) superpower – or whether the fall of Kabul is a bookend to the fall of Saigon in the longer fall of America – remains to be seen. Whatever eventuality, America is no doubt diminished.

This comes, not coincidentally, as central Asia and the Middle East roil with instability and the broader troubles of that part of the world will certainly present problems for Israel. But Israel has faced existential threats throughout its history and will most likely adapt to the new reality.

The events of recent weeks will have many consequences we cannot yet foresee. One thing is particularly notable, however. Hamas, who control Gaza, sent a message of congratulations to the Taliban for “defeating” the United States.

With thankfully few exceptions, no one believes the Taliban to be a force for any sort of good. When people who for decades have defended or apologized for Hamas violence against Israel are faced with the realization that Hamas and the Taliban are ideologically adjacent, will that alter the attitudes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

We won’t be holding our breath.

Get involved in election

Canadian elections do not generally pivot on issues of foreign affairs. Yet, the split screen image Sunday of Justin Trudeau calling a federal election juxtaposed with images of the Taliban seizing control of Afghanistan was a stark one. Canada left Afghanistan in 2014, having joined an international coalition after 9/11 to attempt to bring the terrorists who found free rein in that country to heel.

The remaining American forces were slated to leave this month, with U.S. military officials candidly acknowledging that their departure would almost certainly result in a Taliban revival. They were wrong only about the timing. Estimates were that it might take the fundamentalist Islamist sect weeks to take back the country. It took mere days.

The implications for Afghan citizens are bleak. Desperate Afghans were hopelessly clinging to U.S. military aircraft taxiing on the runway at Kabul airport. Afghan women will, based on prior experience under the Taliban, become some of the most oppressed in the world. There are also expectations of violent retaliation against anyone and everyone who, in the past two decades, “collaborated” with Western forces. The possible scenarios for Afghan people are horrible to envision.

And the implications go beyond the borders of that country. Optimists, such as they may be on this subject, say that the 20-year Western engagement in Afghanistan has not been for naught. The United States captured Osama Bin Laden and has not experienced another 9/11-type terror attack in that period, though whether Americans are actually safer, with other forms of domestic extremism and violence on the rise, is another question. Regardless, in a region with so much instability and contending factions, the Afghan situation further disrupts an already deeply troubled part of the world.

We may not immediately see the consequences of what is happening halfway around the world, but already domestic politics are being affected by the developments. Canadian military planes are rescuing interpreters and others who assisted our forces when they were in Afghanistan. There are calls for Canada and other Western places of refuge to accept more refugees from what seems destined to become a theocratic dystopia. But we cannot, apparently, save the entirety of the Afghan people and their country from the grips of their oppressors. Western powers held the Taliban at bay for 20 years but understandable domestic pressures to put a halt to “endless wars” inevitably brought us to this point.

This week’s election call comes amid a conflagration much closer to home as well. British Columbia is seeing wildfires and weather events unlike anything we have witnessed before. The hypothetical impacts of the climate emergency have gotten very, very real for Canadians with any sense of cause and effect. Appropriately, opinion polls suggest that Canadians view climate and the environment as a top – if not the top – issue as they ponder for whom to cast their ballots.

One problem with democracy is that those who seek public approval are disinclined to tell voters things they do not want to hear. Canadians (and other earthlings) need to understand that this crisis demands that our leaders impose potentially painful policies that will impact our emissions-producing lifestyles. We say we need to address the climate emergency, but will we be so enthusiastic when it impacts our own pocketbooks and comfortable routines?

One might imagine that scenes of the province on fire might make voters look seriously, finally, at a political party with the climate as its No. 1 priority. But the Green Party of Canada has been in turmoil since the Israel-Hamas conflict last spring. Annamie Paul, the Jewish, Black leader of the party, has been fighting an internal battle against insurgents in her own ranks. We hope that her voice will be heard and that all parties will take this existential issue with utmost seriousness.

The continuing pandemic will play a role in this campaign as well – both as Canadians assess the achievements of our government during the crisis and, more immediately, in the way candidates and campaigns pursue votes while adhering to safety protocols. The parties should be judged on what kind of COVID recovery plan they propose, and how they intend to follow through on supporting the most vulnerable Canadians through this health, economic and social crisis.

Whatever issues are important to you, this is the time to make your voice heard. Consider reaching out to your local candidates. Discuss your concerns with them. Volunteer for or contribute to their campaign if you like what you hear – consider connecting through the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs distils information about various party platforms and policies. Our country and our world face urgent issues. An informed, active electorate is the key to ensuring that our elected officials reflect the concerns that matter most to us.

EU’s split personality

The European Parliament. (photo by Treehill via Wikimedia Commons)

Dr. Sharon Pardo is a member of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the director of the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society. He has been awarded the Ad personam Jean Monnet Chair – and was the first Israeli scholar to receive it. He also was elected to join the advisory council of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, a think tank funded by the German government, another singular accomplishment for an Israeli scholar. Pardo was in Vancouver last month, where he gave a lecture at the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver.

A major theme of Pardo’s research is the disjunction between the public stance the European Union has taken on Israeli policies – its “normative position” – and the economic and trade relationships between individual member countries and Israel. Contrary to the common perception that the EU is anti-Israel, Pardo argues that the reality is much more complicated.

“The truth is that trade relations proceed with no regard to the normative position,” explained Pardo to the Jewish Independent in an interview at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver on Aug. 21. “That is, in fact, the very thing that allows the EU to speak with one voice – the fact that individual member countries know that their own trade relations with Israel will not be affected by the normative position of the EU.”

The professor explained that there are two different voices, “the normative voice on the supranational level and the economic voice on the trade-relations level, on the realpolitik level of the individual member countries. We could say that Europe has a split personality.”

photo - Dr. Sharon Pardo of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev spoke in Vancouver in August — Dr. Sharon Pardo of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev spoke in Vancouver in August. (photo by Dani Machlis, BGU)

The facts on the ground are that Israel and the EU have such extensive relations that, for most practical purposes, Israel is already a member of the EU, said Pardo. EU members have well-developed trade relations with Israel, and the EU and its members fund research and development and other initiatives in Israel. The EU accounts for 35% of Israeli trade, said Pardo, and perhaps 41% of Israelis are would-be citizens of the EU.

Pardo contends that the critical position of the EU towards Israel on issues related to the occupation and Israel’s wars are not intended for external consumption at all, but are actually directed inwards as a means to establish an integrated European identity.

“These normative positions are being used to shape the new European identity through asserting shared values,” he said. “They are for internal consumption. The EU has striven to unite 508 million citizens around a set of values – the rule of law, human rights, etc. – which are perceived as European values. Since 1957, Europe has been asking the question, ‘Who are we? How do we define ourselves?’ One way to define ourselves is against the other. Israel is the ultimate other: Israel is part of us, but Israel is what we are not.”

Citing as an example of the emptiness of many of the EU’s statements, Pardo pointed to the 2012 EU guidelines for the territories occupied by Israel.

“We call these ‘guidelines for nothing,’” said the professor. “There are a total of five research institutions in the territories, none of them were ever supported by the EU. There was one institution, Ahava, a private project which received some funding. The reason it is so easy for the EU to author those guidelines is that there is no trade there. A total of 0.6% of Israeli trade with the EU comes from the territories.”

As an expert on the EU, Pardo can also speak to Brexit. He calls it “an accident, both at the U.K. and EU levels. Brexit was not meant to issue in a real British exit,” he said. “Little Britain surprised David Cameron – the amount of euro-skepticism was underestimated.”

Pardo worries that there will be dire consequences for Britain, and potential negative fallout for Israel as well.

“This is going to be a nightmare for the British economy and the city of London,” he said. “The EU has no choice but to crush the city of London because it will be unregulated in its competition against other European capitals. The EU cannot offer them a good deal – they can only be offered the worst deal possible, and they will be offered the worst deal possible. Theresa May is stuck with this strange decision, which is a result of PR companies manipulating the British public. Just imagine having now having to negotiate 192 new trade agreements with the rest of the world!”

While Pardo is optimistic about the relationship between Israel and the Jewish people and the British leadership, he is concerned about the effects of Brexit on Israel as a country.

“David Cameron was one of the friendliest European leaders to Israel, and Theresa May will also be friendly. She has been a friend to the Jewish people and an enemy of antisemitism,” he said.

But, he added, “Brexit can weaken the European integration project and have major implications for Israel.”

Pardo said it is essential for Israel to adopt a more explicit “grand strategy” with regards to the EU.

“Israel needs the EU,” he said, “and we need to be clearer about what we want from our relationship and how we plan to conduct it. We will not serve our own interests with the kind of anti-EU rhetoric that some Israeli politicians employ simply to get votes from an Israeli public that resents the normative positions of the EU.”

Matthew Gindin is a Vancouver freelance writer and journalist. He blogs on spirituality and social justice at seeking her voice (hashkata.com) and has been published in the Forward, Tikkun, Elephant Journal and elsewhere.