Courtesy of UCLA Department of Geography John
Agnew, chair of the geography department, answers
questions about how the United States should deal with
Afghanistan.
DB: You’re teaching in this quarter’s
seminar series on the Sept. 11 attacks. Your course is called
“Understanding the Taliban” ““ why is this an
important topic for discussion? JA: The U.S. has a
long history of carelessness in international relations. We
befriend nations and then turn away when our business is done
there. That kind of behavior won’t work this time. It’s
important to understand the Taliban and the situation in
Afghanistan if we want to capture Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda
instead of simply proceeding with military actions that may not be
successful.
DB: Why did you want to teach the class?
JA: When the university first proposed this ““ which
was rather quickly, actually, only two days after the attacks
““ it was the chancellor’s initiative. I thought, how
can I contribute to this? One of my interests is political
geography, and part of it is trying to understand why conflicts
emerge in the places they emerge. I’m trying to address a
couple of things with this class. One is just simply: What happened
in Afghanistan? Another is: What created the various groups like
the ones alleged in the attacks?
DB: What did happen in Afghanistan?
JA: Until 1973, Afghanistan had a relatively stable regime
for almost 50 years. They had a constitutional monarchy, there was
a balance of power between the various ethnic groups of the
country. But the Soviets invaded in 1979 and didn’t leave
until 1989.
DB: Would Americans still consider the regime before
1970 extremist? JA: What’s interesting is that
Islam, until the 1960s and ’70s, all over the world was
fairly tame in comparison to what we see in Afghanistan now. In a
sense, it was kind of like the mainstream Protestant revivals of
the U.S. A similar kind of thing happened in the Islamic world in
the 1970s. A lot of people trace this to the aftermath of the Six
Day War, won by the Israelis. They took over Jerusalem, which is
probably the third most important city in Islam after Mecca and
Medina. After 1967, it was no longer under Arab or Islamic control,
so a lot of people argue that one of the major roots of Islamic
revivalism is this strong sense of defeat and a need to reclaim
lost turf ““ literally, in the case of Jerusalem. But they
also wanted to combat the negative effects of the secular Western
world on the Arab world. So what you call “extremism”
was basically a shift in priorities. All Muslims interpret their
beliefs uniquely. This particular group had a more literal
interpretation and believed that religion should pervade the
government. Fighting “infidels” became one of their
goals.
DB: And this accounts for what we see in Afghanistan
now? JA: Among other things. It goes back to the
Soviets. They were in the country for 10 years, and in order to
support the local communist party they established in Afghanistan,
which was in serious difficulty, it exhausted their resources. They
also did immense physical damage in the country. It began the
demise of the Soviet Union and in many ways was like our Vietnam.
From the Afghan side, there was a call to Muslims to come and fight
the Soviet regime. A large number of Arabs returned to the country
to fight ““ they’re often called the Mujahadeen. They
were the ones who brought the money and supplies. The Mujahadeen
were funded largely by Saudi Arabia, Pakistani Intelligence forces
and the United States. They eventually took over the country when
they captured the capital, Kabul, and the Soviets started pulling
out their troops.
DB: And this is what we now know as the Taliban. Who
are they? They aren’t even recognized by most of the world as
a legitimate government. How do they stay in power?
JA: The Taliban is a bit of a ramshackle regime, and they
maintain their power with a heavy police presence as well as the
support of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirites and Pakistan.
Many of their key leaders were theologians who came from madrasas,
which are like seminaries. They’re of a very different
mind-set than Americans. They believe their religion should govern
their government. The most powerful administrator in Afghanistan is
the Minister of Virtue and Vice.
DB: As you mentioned, the Taliban relies heavily on
the support of other countries to stay in power. Pakistan has
basically been their closest ally. What happens now that
they’ve pledged to help the United States? JA:
Well, it’s definitely problematic for Afghanistan. Pakistan
has been a strong ally mainly because they need Afghanistan to
distill the threat of their physical relation to India.
They’re sandwiched between the two countries. Afghanistan is
claiming that there is popular support in Pakistan for the Taliban,
but I’m surprised at how few people have been turning out for
their protests. It’s also interesting how the president of
Pakistan came around so quickly after the attacks. Many middle- and
upper-class Afghans and Pakistanis think the Taliban is out of
control. This proves that some hostility exists and the leaders
realized it.
DB: Many people think the Taliban is out of control.
The Taliban is routinely criticized for human rights violations,
particularly against women. Do you believe these accusations are
fair, or do Americans just have difficulty understanding the
cultures of the region? JA: The Taliban is a very
extreme regime, by anyone’s standards. Americans are not
unjustified in their opinions.
DB: Afghanistan is not completely united. How viable
is the Northern Alliance, the opposition party in Afghanistan?
Should the United States offer military and financial support to
them? JA: The Northern Alliance is viable in a
military sense. They are in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan
and it’s been hard for the Taliban to infiltrate them.
However, they are a different ethnic group than the Taliban. They
do not ideologically represent a majority of the people. Funding
them may or may not be helpful and is one of the questions
we’ll have to address in the near future.
DB: What interest does Afghanistan have in harboring
Osama bin Laden, especially if the United States has sworn to come
after the nations who help him? JA: You have to
remember that the Taliban sees itself intertwined and dependent on
the Mujahadeen, of which bin Laden is a part of. The government
receives aide and help from these people. However, the relationship
is not necessarily co-dependent. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda do
not see Afghanistan in terms of a country, which the Taliban does.
The Taliban and Afghanistan are a means to an end ““ a hideout
if you will. Bin Laden’s goal is to spread his version of
Islam around the Islamic world. Afghanistan provides a potential
prototype for other future countries that will one day be governed
by his interpretation of Islam. The Taliban, on the other hand, is
concerned with Afghanistan as a state ““ and right now bin
Laden is a vital part of their continued position of power.
DB: So what does this mean for U.S. dealings with
the Taliban? JA: Well, it’s quite possible that
military action is not the best answer for us. If we want bin Laden
and al-Qaeda, we need to focus on the reason Afghanistan considers
him so valuable. Their country is almost complete rubble and has
been since the Soviets left. We might be more successful offering
them an economic relief package in exchange for bin Laden. Fifteen
billion dollars for streets, education and housing. Then the
Taliban might see the U.S. as less threatening. If you go in with
military force, you play into bin Laden’s hands. He wants to
portray the U.S. as a big, bad military giant. His whole operation
is dependent on his ability to give a face to the anger and
frustration of disaffected young men, which he does well. He is
very charismatic. If we provide more fuel for the fire, things
might explode. And to tell the truth, I’m rather nervous that
the current administration won’t pursue a diplomatic option.
Colin Powell is the only person I think might be capable of this.
We should hesitate to fire missiles and actually consider what
giving food and highways might do. Alas, this is seen by many as
backing down. But bombs may still not get us what we want ““
even if it makes us feel better.
Interview conducted by Maegan Carberry, Daily Bruin Senior
Staff.