The figures of the past, both during the Cold War and during the two decades of the Republic, are overwhelmingly affiliated with the West, and most of them were and are allies of the Western countries at the head of the United States.
Author: Fayaz Bahraman Najimi, analyst of regional and global issues, member of the Sangar Advisory Board.
Why is the world interacting with the Taliban? The answer is very simple. We live in a capitalist world in which competition and conflict are based on profit, not on conflict and opposition to change or the victory of one over the other, which was suggested by the Stalinist doctrine of the Soviet Union until the early 1950s, and its goal was the destruction of capitalism and the victory of Russian -Stalinist socialism.
After the victory of the Trotskyists in the person of Khrushchev and its continuation to Gorbachev, the Soviet Union took the path of reconciliation and coexistence with the capitalist West, because the USSR moved from Stalinist socialism to state capitalism without democracy. Because of this, the Soviet Union fell due to the lack of financial capital and liberal freedoms without conflicts and wars with the West.
There are two types of capitalism in the modern world: one is democratic liberalism, pioneered by the Anglo-Saxons and possessing great financial resources, and the other is a complex of emerging industrial capitalism, as exemplified by China, India, Russia, and a number of other countries.
From an economic point of view, both are in the same camp and pursue the same goals, i.e. increasing profits by creating and expanding spheres of influence through the export of capital or industrial products.
This process began with the era of industrial capital and continues in various forms.
Neither the Mujahideen in the past, nor now the Taliban were and are not enemies of capitalism. Similarly, ideologically, no group of Islamic fundamentalists in the world is an enemy of the capitalist system. From an economic point of view, everyone is the protector of profit and capital!
Their struggle with the West is a kind of reaction caused by frustration, which is in no way an alternative to the Western economic system. At the same time, let's not forget that after the Second World War, the West supported dictatorial and totalitarian systems on all continents from Europe to Latin America and from Africa to Asia for more than three decades. At the time, the debate was not about the values of democracy, but about the capitalist economic system.
For some time after the collapse of the socialist camp and the Soviet Union, Western countries, led by the United States of America, were intoxicated by the fact that their soft power, i.e. the values of Western freedom and democracy have won forever and "history has come to an end."
The post-Soviet world has become a world of globalization both economically, politically, and culturally. Rivalry was channeled and managed within the framework of the World Trade Organization. The prosperous advanced countries called the "North" began to rob the backward countries of the "South" or "Periphery" extremely cruelly. They suppressed any resistance under the pretext of freedom and democracy.
The gap between wealth in the North and poverty in the South has widened. Meanwhile, some of the developing capitalist countries, known as the "BRICS" group with authoritarian tendencies, came out to lend a helping hand to the southern countries and began some kind of interaction and cooperation. The main part of the BRICS countries are former colonies, which aroused confidence in them among the southern countries.
Developing countries or BRICS are not much different from the former colonial West, both of which are ultimately marauders, but as the first young force, they want to oust the West from the field of competition.
This competition has just begun, and it will either push the world towards a new division of centers of power or bring destruction.
I don't want to discuss factors and cyclical crises etc., I just want to get back to the main topic with this brief background.
Interaction with the Taliban is mainly based on competition and the interests of the two currents. It doesn't matter if the Taliban are aware of this big game or not. It is important that they are able to survive in such a competitive environment because there is no alternative for them.
As I already mentioned, figures and political structures, both during the Cold War and during the two decades of the Republic, are affiliated with the West by an absolute majority. They don't have an alternative plan. Most of them were and are allies of Western countries at the head of the United States of America. None of them are thinking about change, but they are interested in sharing power with the Taliban. They value neither democracy nor freedom. The only thing they want is participation in power. Weak slogans about protecting women's rights or restoring the republic are not an alternative to the Taliban for the future either!
Both have a common view on the issue of preserving and strengthening the Taliban-Afghan system. Among both, there is criminal capitalism, and they have a close connection with it. Therefore, not enmity with the Taliban, but the chance of remoteness from the power pie is the main reason for their discontent. The Taliban are well aware of this, so they honestly guard their property on the advice of the Americans and the British.
Now, opposition aside, the Taliban are not America's enemy but its natural and potential ally. Also, the same Taliban have good relations with the other side, who are known as rivals of the West. The group of non-Western countries not only considers the Taliban regime a good economic partner but at the same time has no desire to criticize its leadership and management.
The most important value for China, India, and Russia are the traditional values that the Liberal Democrats lack, such as LGBT or homosexual freedom! This is one of the common features of authoritarian countries and the Taliban.
About “how to fight the Taliban?” we'll talk about in the next article.
