A short while ago I wrote about the tragic consequences I thought the US decision to pull out of Afghanistan would have on its population. It is unfolding as badly as I thought it would.
I am by no means an oracle on Afghanistan, nor a historian, so please bear this in mind. But I did oversee the news output from Afghanistan for a total of six years as well as looking after the safety and welfare of my staff, both international and local, who were stationed both in the main office in Kabul and in various cities and regions around the country.
I apologise if I repeat some of the points I made in the last article in this one. For me this is somewhat of an emotional journey as I am still close to many of my ex-colleagues there. I am deeply saddened by what is currently happening as I know it will have a major impact on their lives.
 |
| It was the author’s birthday during one trip to Kabul. The Reuters bureau staff threw a party and baked a cake. |
It is clear the United States has made yet another of its massive foreign policy mis-steps with the intelligence services, yet again, getting it seriously wrong. In fact they got it so wrong that when President Biden announced the troop withdrawal was going ahead and a reporter asked. “Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?” Biden confidently replied “No, it is not,” Because you have the Afghan troops have 300,000 well equipped, as well equipped as any army in the world, and an Air Force, against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.”
He even went further saying it was not only not inevitable but actually unlikely. “The likelihood there is going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely,” he said.
It would be funny if the consequences were not so tragic in terms of the human cost.
 |
| The hillsides around Kabul are packed with shanties which house those who have fled the Taliban strongholds, mainly in the south, over the years of the US occupation. Of the near 400 districts in Afghanistan before the US pullout the Government controlled 35%, the Taliban 23% and 42% were contested. The Government, nor the US ever fully controlled the country. |
This has made the US look extremely foolish in the eyes of a shocked world that is looking on askance and wondering how the most powerful nation on earth with 20-years experience in Afghanistan could have got it so disastrously wrong.
Bear in mind the troop pullout was negotiated by the Trump administration, although the Republicans are trying to pretend it wasn’t, but the Biden administration must take the blame for the appallingly botched way it has been carried out.
Frankly there is nothing left to be said really. It is what it is. The country is back in the hands of the Taliban as it was before the Americans invaded on October 7, 2001 as part of its Global War on Terrorism, just a month after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in New York.
The rights and wrongs of the so-called Global War on Terror are endlessly debatable, but the United States has for years set itself up as the world’s policeman and has put itself on somewhat of a pedestal as the saviour of freedom and democracy. So this latest rash act, which seems to be anything but about freedom and democracy, has rightly sparked a debate about US commitment.
Particularly in any country with more than just a regular relationship, of which Taiwan is clearly one. There has been much talk here about whether it is a good idea to be as close to the US as Taiwan undoubtedly is, although the obvious answer is...What is the alternative?”
Most countries have different types of relationships with other countries. Some talk about ‘special relationships’ which can be based in history or because of shared interests. When you think about it the European Union is really just an extremely strong grouping of special relationships between countries where they all agree on some very strong legal and economic bonding. As we have seen with Brexit, even these extremely strong special relationships can be broken.
Take the UK and the US as another example. They share a massively strong historical bond having both joined a conflict against the shared enemy of Germany in both World Wars, and Japan in the second.
Is it any wonder the two countries, having had soldiers fighting side-by-side against a common enemy with many buried side-by-side in the same cemeteries, have such a strong bond? But even here, neither side can totally rely on the other and cracks are beginning to show. The days of the UK Prime Minister Thatcher/US President Regan love-fest are long gone.
Indeed, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he dislikes the phrase special relationship.
According to one of Johnson’s aides he considers it to be “needy and weak.” How about “indestructible relationship,” Johnson suggested in an interview with the BBC around the time of the last G7 meeting in June. Biden called it a special relationship, Johnson wants to call it an indestructible relationship. This is called diplomacy.
Johnson is desperate for a trade deal with the US after Brexit and keen to reinforce ties to the US. But the point is that all relationships are viewed differently by the countries involved and both sides have their own agenda which can change over time.
Any diplomatic ties have to be, to use that awful phrase, a win-win. But clearly one side will win more than the other in any relationship - ask any married couple.
So Taiwan has huge historical ties to the US and its relationship is arguably even closer than the UK’s, because it is enshrined in US law. This is in the form of the Taiwan Relations Act enacted on April 10, 1979 after the US recognized the People’s Republic of China and established diplomatic relations with it as the sole legitimate government of China.
Taiwan’s relationship with the US is about as different from Afghanistan as it is possible to be, and to say Taiwan should rethink its relationship with the US because of what has happened in Afghanistan begs the question. Well, if you think that, what’s the alternative?
Could Taiwan, through diplomatic channels develop a close relationship with a superpower who would provide up to date military equipment and training and "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." As the Taiwan Relations Act stipulates.
Where could Taiwan find that kind of deal in terms of security? The answer is no-where. Would it be wise to say to America...Hey, we don’t really trust you any more so let’s forget all this?
Nothing is guaranteed to last forever. The world’s diplomats are not climbing into photo booths together and taking Best Friends Forever snaps with cartoon hearts popping out of their heads. That’s not actually how diplomacy works, surprisingly enough.
Those urging caution when dealing with the US are right to do so. But telling a diplomat or a government that is akin to teaching your granny to suck eggs.
Maybe a few brave souls here will suggest getting closer to China, but I doubt it, as it would be political suicide. Reading between the lines, it’s obviously what some in opposition think, but they will never say it out-loud.
It was a mistake to invade Afghanistan in the first place, and 20 years later the US has botched its withdrawal, hence the widespread comparison with their Vietnam venture. I can’t see how that equates to being anything other than normal diplomatic caution when dealing with the US in Taiwan’s relationship with the Americans.
And that is just run of the mill, day-to-day normal diplomacy. It is happening now, and will continue to happen. The Afghanistan situation changes nothing in Taiwan’s case and it would be sheer folly to in any way sour a relationship which clearly benefits Taiwan more than it does the US.
There is a famous last line from a poem written in the early twentieth century by Hilaire Belloc in his Cautionary Tales for Children which included the story of Jim, who ran away from his nurse, and was eaten by a lion.
“Always keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.”
阿富汗事件激發的疑美論
上個月底我寫了一篇文章〈阿富汗悲歌〉，認為美國撤出阿富汗的決定將會導致悲劇性的後果，接下來的發展和我想像的一樣糟糕。
我絕不是阿富汗問題的神諭，也不是歷史學家，請記住這一點。不過擔任路透社南亞總編輯六年期間，我的確必須對所有從阿富汗向全球發出的新聞負責，還要負責境內本國籍外國籍員工的安全和福利。除了首都喀布爾的主要辦公室，路透社在阿富汗全國各地還有許多合約記者。
悲哀已開始
如果在此我重複了上一篇文章中提出的一些觀點，我深表歉意。討論阿富汗在情感上對我而言是困難的，因為我仍然與在那裡的許多前同事保持密切聯繫。有一次進入阿富汗剛好是我的生日，同事們訂了一個有機關槍和手榴彈圖案的蛋糕，我們在辦公室的院子裡烤肉喝酒一直到深夜。
目前正在發生的事讓我十分悲傷，因為我知道他們的生活即將產生難以想像的巨變。
很明顯美國在重大外交政策中，再度犯了一個嚴重的錯誤，尤其在情報方面。美國總統拜登宣布撤軍時有記者提問：「塔利班接管阿富汗現在是不可避免的嗎？」拜登自信地回答：「不，不是。因為阿富汗有三十萬裝備精良的軍隊，和世界上任何裝備精良的軍隊一樣，還有一支空軍可以對抗七萬五千名塔利班，這並非不可避免。」
拜登甚至進一步說，這不僅不是必然，實際上是不太可能。「塔利班統治並擁有整個國家的可能性極小，」他說。
如果後果不是以人命為代價，他這番話是好笑的，但現在這讓美國在震驚的世界眼中顯得極其愚蠢。這個世界正疑惑地看著，想知道這個在阿富汗擁有 20 年經驗，地球上最強大的國家，怎麼會犯下如此災難性的錯誤。
儘管共和黨人試圖假裝不是這樣，請記住撤軍是川普政府交涉定案的，但拜登政府必須為令人震驚的拙劣執行方式承擔責任。
其實現在真的沒有什麼可說，事情就是這樣了。這個國家又回到了塔利班的手中，就像 2001 年 10 月 7 日美國發起全球反恐戰爭之前一樣，那是在 9／11 紐約世貿中心恐攻一個月後。
姑且不論所謂的全球反恐戰爭的對與錯，美國多年來一直將自己定位為世界警察，並在某種程度上將自己置於自由和民主的救世主地位。因此，最近的這一輕率行為似乎與自由和民主無關，理所當然也引發了關於美國承諾的辯論。
如何看待美國的承諾
這種辯論在與美國不僅僅是一般關係的國家中特別明顯，台灣就是其中之一。這幾天有不少關於台灣和美國關係密切是否是個好主意的討論，儘管顯而易見的答案是：其他選擇是什麼？
多數國家與他國有不同類型的關係，有些「特殊關係」是基於歷史或共同利益。只要想一想，就知道歐盟實際上只是一個非常強大的國家之間的「特殊關係」群體，這些國家都同意他們之間有一些非常強大的法律和經濟連結。但是從英國脫歐的例子看來，即使是非常牢固的「特殊關係」也可能被打破。
以英國和美國為例，他們有著深厚的歷史淵源，在兩次世界大戰中打擊共同的敵人德國和日本。兩國士兵並肩作戰，毫無疑問在對抗共同敵人後產生了強烈的情感連結。但他們依舊不能完全依賴對方，裂痕開始出現，前英國首相柴契爾夫人和前美國總統雷根如情侶般在全世界眼前翩翩起舞的日子，早已一去不復返。
現任英國首相強生已經表示他不喜歡「特殊關係」這個詞。據強生的一位助手說，他認為這個詞讓人覺得「有需要而且軟弱」。強生在 6 月份G7會議期間接受 BBC 採訪時建議用一個別的詞，「堅不可摧的關係怎麼樣？」
拜登稱之為特殊關係，強生希望稱之為堅不可摧的關係，這就是外交。
現在強生迫切希望在英國脫歐後與美國達成貿易協議，他當然只看見英國的利益，但重點是相關國家對關係的看法不同，雙方都有自己的目標，這些目標也可能會隨著時間而改變。
任何外交關係，用那個可怕的詞來說吧，都必須是雙贏，但很明顯在任何關係中，一方都會比另一方贏得更多，問問任何已婚夫婦就知道這個道理。
台灣與美國的關係是極具歷史意義的，台美關係某種角度看來甚至可以說比英美關係更密切，因為它以 1979 年 4 月 10 日美國總統簽署生效的《台灣關係法》形式載入美國法律。
台灣能脫美入中嗎？
台灣與美國的關係和阿富汗與美國的關係更是大不相同，要說因為阿富汗發生的事情，台灣就應該重新考慮與美國的關係是很有問題的。好吧，就算你這麼認為好了，你的選擇是什麼？
台灣是否可以通過外交管道與另一個超級強國建立密切關係，而且後者將提供台灣最新的軍事武器，並如《台灣關係法》明載，「任何企圖以非和平方式來決定臺灣的前途之舉──包括使用經濟抵制及禁運手段在內，將被視為對西太平洋地區和平及安定的威脅，而為美國所嚴重關切」？
在安全方面，哪裡可以找到這種交易？答案是沒有。你覺得對美國說：嘿，我們真的不能再信任你了，所以讓我們忘記這一切吧，是明智之舉嗎？
當然我們都知道沒有什麼保證是永垂不朽的，世界各國的外交官不會一起爬進可以印上卡通圖案的快照機裡拍下死黨大頭照，然後在上面貼滿愛心。外交不是如此運作。
希望在與美國打交道時謹慎行事是正確的態度，但告訴外交官或政府要怎麼做，這真的就像打算教數學博士一加一等於二。也許一些勇敢的靈魂會建議更接近中國，但我懷疑這會是政治自殺。仔細推敲顯然這是一些反對黨的想法，但他們不會大聲說出來。
一開始入侵阿富汗是錯誤的，20年後美國又搞砸了撤軍，這是正在發生的事，但我看不出為什麼這可以和對台美關係如常保持謹慎相提並論。
這只是普通的日常外交，台美關係正在發生並將繼續發生。阿富汗的局勢對台灣的情況沒有任何改變，而且以任何方式破壞台灣和美國的關係都是十分愚蠢的。
貝洛克（Hilaire Belloc）於 20 世紀初在他的《告誡兒童的故事》書中寫了一首詩，描述淘氣的吉姆逃離護士，最後被獅子吃掉的故事，其中最後一行是最著名的。
「始終緊緊牽住護士的手，否則可能會發現更糟的情況。」
No comments:
Post a Comment