 |
 |
I'm sure many list members share, as I do, Dave's reservations about Karl Carlile's analyses. However, simply complaining of "lack of knowledge" and "internal contradictions" doesn't really help; I (know I) don't have the specialist knowledge to properly assess Karl Carlile's claims, and from a Marxist point of view an account of the world which contains contradictions does not seem inherently disabling -- after all, we *expect* the world to be internally contradictory. Perhaps Dave would like to point out specifically in what ways this particular example is defective? Julian >-----Original Message----- >From: David Morgan [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >Sent: 18 October 2001 07:15 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Taliban, Pakistan and US > > >Now I've heard everything. >This post shows such an alarming lack of knowledge of South >Asian history as to be truly >breathtaking, not to mention its internal contradictions > >Dave >------------------------------------- >Karl Carlile wrote: > >> Pakistan has been seeking to extend its regional power base >in Central Asia. The >> attack on Afghanistan by US/UK imperialism constitutes a >response to this Pakistani >> colonialism. Without Pakistan's support there would have >been no Taliban regime in >> Afghanistan. Pakistan's strategy is the extension of its >influence, even control, >> over Afghanistan by ensuring that a compliant force, the >Taliban, is in power. In >> this way Pakistan would have significantly extended its >strategic influence within >> central Asia. This strategic advantage would have been of >geopolitical and commercial >> significance. Under these conditions Pakistan would have >significant influence over >> the fuel and other resources in Afghanistan. Its influence, >even colonisation, of >> Afghanistan would have strengthened its position concerning >its relationship with >> India over the Kashmir question. >> >> An expanded Pakistan would be better placed to further >extend its influence over the >> entire Central Asian region. This would provide Pakistan >with immeasurable political >> and commercial power. This would mean its increased >influence over the surrounding >> countries. Perhaps even the further colonialist expansion of >Pakistan beyond >> Afghanistan into neighbouring Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The >Pakistani bourgeoisie >> hoped to realise these imperialist ambitions through the >exploitation of Islamic >> fundamentalism. Through the exploitation of Islamic >fundamentalism it hoped to >> create a Pakistan that extended its tentacles into all of >Central Asia --an Islamic >> Central Asian state or federation. The realisation of this >ambition would have >> better placed it to proceed to the colonisation of Kashmir. >It is these ambitions >> that constitute the greatest danger to the Indian state. >Consequently India utilises >> Kashmir as a political device to thwart Pakistani ambitions. >> >> However the Taliban have been proving to be less than fully >compliant. The Taliban >> government has been proving a growing concern for Pakistan. >The Taliban even >> entertain ambitions of its own that are not entirely >congruent with Pakistani >> ambitions. >> >> Given this state of affairs the US/UK attack on Afghanistan >is essentially an attack >> on Pakistan. It is the expansionist Pakistani state that >US/UK imperialism is seeking >> to contain. US/UK imperialism cannot tolerate the emergence >of a Pakistani regional >> power in Central Asia possessing increasingly significant >geo-political and >> economic power. >> >> Musharraf has been cleverly exploiting the domestic unrest >in Pakistan provoked by >> Western intervention in Afghanistan to pressurise US >imperialism into accepting the >> installation of a new regime in Afghanistan acceptable to >Pakistan in the aftermath >> of the expected fall of the Taliban. If Pakistan is getting >its way, and it looks >> like it is, this means that Washington has been expending >considerable resources in >> an attack on the Taliban regime of which the end result will >be a new Afghani regime >> more compliant to Pakistan while possessing greater >international credibility. In a >> sense, then, the US will have undertaken a politically >delicate intervention to >> further the interests of Pakistan while weakening its own >imperialist interests. If >> this turns out to be the case then the terrorist attack on >New York and Washington >> will have had its desired effect. It will have provoked an >over-reaction from the >> Bush administration leading to the weakening rather than >the strengthening of US >> imperialism. However this will intensify capitalist >contradictions that will make the >> global situation potentially more explosive. Rather than its >military intervention >> leading to the defeat of Islamic fundamentalism it may lead >to its growth. The result >> in the long run, among other things, will be more terrorist >activity. Clearly the >> terrorist attack on New York and Washington and the >character of Bush's reaction to >> it is an expression of the weakness of US imperialism. >> >> Under these conditions the attack on Pakistan, through its >attack on Afghanistan, >> will have played right into the hands of Pakistan. Obviously >the situation is very >> delicate. One misconceived move by Pakistan could see its >entire strategy collapse >> like a house of cards. This is particularly true because of >the unstable political, >> social and economic conditions that obtain in Pakistan. The >recent Musharraf coup >> d'etat together with Pakistan's expansionist strategy are >confirmation of this >> instability. >> >> Regards >> Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) >> Be free to join our communism mailing list >> at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ >