US double-dealing on foreign policy blasted
While the United States and its NATO allies are propping up Ukraine’s resistance against Russia’s military operations with arms and diplomacy, analysts wonder about the contrast in attitudes and actions by Washington and NATO in starting devastating conflicts in Asia.
Amina Khan, director of the Centre for Afghanistan, Middle East and Africa at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad in Pakistan, said it is unfortunate that there is a dichotomy in the policies of the international community — “be it Americans or the Europeans” — when it comes to their perspective on Afghanistan and Ukraine.
She said all conflicts should be given adequate importance, and particularly so in the case of Afghanistan, as US President Joe Biden’s “decision to withdraw rather irresponsibly is being viewed as a regional problem”.
“But I think the international community fails to realize or understand that Afghanistan has always had an international connotation, and it has always had international consequences, or ramifications,” Khan said.
In the US-led invasion of Iraq, which began in March 2003 on the basis of false intelligence, then United Nations chief Kofi Annan called the war illegal and said it was not in conformity with the UN Charter.
Syria has been divided into enclaves since a civil conflict started in 2011. In January this year, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar was quoted as saying that the biggest problem between Turkey and the US is the latter’s support for the Kurdish YPG militia in northern Syria, despite the YPG being formally designated as a terrorist group by Turkey, the US and the European Union.
On Monday, Moscow said it was concerned about the decision of Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which is largely responsible for invading Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of fake information or a thin rationale, and this has led to human tragedy.
Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies in Pakistan, said the US provided financial and military support to Ukraine because the US and NATO have “no boots on the ground”.
Farhan Mujahid Chak, associate political science professor at Qatar University, said: “Now, Finland and Sweden both want to join NATO and that has been referred to as another red line by Russia.”
Amjed Rasheed, a senior researcher at nonprofit Open Think Tank, said as the Ukraine-Russia conflict drags on, he believes the situation is not at a stalemate, but at an impasse.
“Impasse, in a sense, (that) there is always an option not to escalate. I think this is the difference, strategically speaking (and) geopolitically speaking,” said Rasheed, adding that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan had their own context.
He noted that as the conditions have changed with the rise of China and the restoration of the Russian position in the Middle East, the US can no longer act solely without considering the Russians, the Chinese, or even its European allies.
As the US reportedly reviews intelligence failures in relation to Ukraine and Afghanistan, an assessment of its blunders in Iraq and Syria should be revisited to determine if lessons have been learned and similar tragedies avoided by NATO, and the compensation of the sufferings of people in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the analysts said.
Widespread distrust
They noted that the US’ intelligence review on Ukraine and Afghanistan could put a spotlight on Iraq and Syria, and encourage more scrutiny as there have been widespread concerns and distrust over Washington’s aggressive foreign policy.
In the past decades, more and more people have pointed out the US’ alleged faking of information and excuses in launching attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan.
Chak said reported US intelligence failures suggest that foreign policy in Washington has been framed amid “dishonest appraisals that benefit vested interests” to push certain agendas.
“Looking back, the US also got it grossly wrong in Iraq when it claimed it had weapons of mass destruction. Any thoughtful reader (or) thinker will wonder, have lessons been learned, and what is the US establishment doing about it,” Chak said.
“I would encourage an overall US intelligence review from 2000 to now, to look hard at the origins and reasons for all these ‘intelligence failures’.”