Respect history. The logo chosen following a broad campaign to celebrate the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome is misleading in affirming, “Together since 1957”. It is untrue. There were just six countries that created the EEC in 1957. The others were either indifferent, not yet free or hostile, like the United Kingdom, which did its best at the time to scupper the enterprise. From a linguistic point of view, English was not a Community language: the Treaty being commemorated, as well as European regulation did not exist in English. A further twenty years was required for this to happen.
No big deal? Perhaps not. But for the “veterans”, the slogan does not ring true. The history of European unification should not be tampered with. It's sufficiently beautiful not to have to add anything to it.
A mark of respect. I am well aware that my support for a withdrawal of European troops from Afghanistan is not shared by all, particularly not by Mr Landaburu (see this column in EUROPE 9294). I would, however, like to explain some points. Recent information indicates to what point developments in this country have been disastrous. Journalists on the ground there have pointed out that 80% of the population supports the Taliban and that it considers the presence of western troops there as an occupation. Even in Europe, some political forces and legal experts believe that those rebelling in Afghanistan are not terrorists but part of the “resistance”. We know what the term means in the European history of the last century.
Beyond strategic considerations, this situation is unacceptable. Europe's objective is to bring peace, stability and economic recovery; but nothing is going in this direction. In Afghan zones where, in theory civil power exists, this power does not, in fact, control anything. Elsewhere, power has been appropriated by those involved in trafficking or who are criminals, which was the case even before the Taliban came about. In Kabul, the population lives in poverty while drug barons and those stealing international aid (including European aid) get rich. In the countryside, the peasants are revolting against the destruction of opium harvests, their only source of wealth.
Responsibilities. I know only too well that the Afghanis are not chiefly responsible for this catastrophe. Before the invasions plunged the country into mourning they were obviously Muslim but they practiced tolerance and not fanaticism, all the different testimonies bear this out. Historians are still asking what reasons drove Brezhnev to occupy their country. At the time, the Americans armed and helped the Taliban to inflict damage on the USSR. In this way, the Taliban, supported by the USA, Pakistan and certain Arab countries was able to impose its tyranny and drive women into a form of slavery, added to which was the destruction of the cultural richness of the country (the Buddhas of Bamyan). Efforts made by Commander Massoud to respond were not sufficiently understood or supported by the West and Islamic fundamentalists brutally assassinated him. With the end of the USSR, the West succeeded in driving out the Taliban but now the Afghans are opposed to foreign troops on their territory.
My opinion is not only based on investigations by journalists. I can also cite the “Senlis Council” think tank because it is out in the field and because its conclusions are opposed to mine. It believes that NATO troops should stay in Afghanistan but with a radically different project headed by Canada. Its observations are staggering, “…the Taliban are winning both the military battle there and the battle for the hearts and minds of local Afghans…Extreme poverty is leading to growing anger and resentment against the international community and is directly fuelling the insurgency and support for the Taliban…the forced eradication of opium poppy crops is generating support for the Taliban”. It also explains that much of the rural population lost everything when their opium fields were destroyed. The destruction of these crops, however, is wholly inefficient because Afghanistan has become the biggest opium producer by far in the world.
I am quite aware that the “Senlis Council” analyses have been opposed by Canadian and United Nations experts and their suggestions have been described as “superficial and illogical”, notably the one suggesting the legalisation of opium production to meet world demand for analgesic medicines. But its observations are there, nonetheless.
If the presence of NATO forces is perceived as a foreign occupation in the country? Then they should leave. The war against drug traffickers, terrorism and extremism has to continue and even be intensified but in a different way. The withdrawal of European troops will not be an act of cowardice or weakness but rather, an act of respect for the Afghan people, free and responsible to make its choices.
(F.R.)