A civilisational lens may better decode today’s complex global conflicts, and make comprehension of world politics easier, more authentic, and connected to a larger purpose
Syed Shahab Ud Din Andrabi
There are different paradigms through which the behaviour of states is examined and judged. These paradigms are like the lenses one wears when evaluating the behaviour of the world. Almost every International Relations theory holds some water, but it is the prevailing circumstances that determine the relevance of that theory. Likewise, in the realm of International Relations, the Realist approach and paradigm hold a very preeminent and distinguished position.
The Realist approach posits that since the international system is anarchic, the natural inclination of states is power pursuit, self-aggrandisement, and the advancement of their own national interests. This is all they care about. There is no contestation on this. States definitely pursue power and their own interests. But are these things the only driving forces that shape the behaviour of a particular state? The answer will always be in the negative.
The Afghanistan Conundrum
Let me present a real scenario. In the aftermath of the tragic 9/11 attacks, the United States led an incursion into Afghanistan in October 2001, named ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’. The United States was not alone in this, but assembled a coalition of thirteen countries to carry it out. From 2001 to 2021, the United States spent approximately 2.3 trillion dollars in Afghanistan. The objectives the United States sought to achieve in Afghanistan—economically and militarily—exhausted it to such an extent that it eventually decided to withdraw.
How was it in the interest of the United States to invade Afghanistan and squander the hard-earned money of its taxpayers? Realists often find themselves in a state of quagmire when confronted with such a proposition.
Realists will argue that since Afghanistan posed an existential threat to the United States and challenged its sovereignty, it went on the offensive. Be that as it may, this argument is flawed. Simply put, how could a country whose people could barely make ends meet put the existence of the United States in crisis? If there was anyone the United States should have attacked, it should have been China, not Afghanistan.
The Taliban’s Offer
The former Afghan ambassador Mulla Abdul Salam Zaeef has written a book titled My Life with the Taliban, in which he sheds light on this scenario. According to Zaeef, when 9/11 happened, and the United States demanded the unconditional handover of Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban refused when the United States became recalcitrant in sharing evidence with the Taliban government concerning Osama’s involvement. Instead, the Taliban government proposed that if the United States agreed, Osama would be tried neither in Afghanistan nor in the United States, but in some other Muslim country, provided that the United States agreed to share evidence during the trial there. The United States rejected this offer as well and became increasingly intransigent in its demand for Osama’s handover, which the Taliban did not accept.
I am not saying Osama did not commit 9/11, nor am I saying he did. All I am saying is: if he did, why was the United States reluctant to share the evidence, even with a third country? Furthermore, when Osama was expelled from Sudan, he lost around 30 million USD as a result, which further casts doubt on his involvement. A person who is running for his life and hiding in the caves of Afghanistan—how was he able to plan and execute such a meticulously calibrated attack on the world’s sole superpower?
The purpose of this discussion is to establish that Afghanistan was neither a threat nor an intimidating competitor to the United States militarily. Therefore, the invasion of Afghanistan is a case study that does not fit the framework of the Realist approach.
Limitations Of Realism
To put it simply, Realism cannot explain Afghanistan, Algeria, or the Israel-Palestine conflict satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, Realism cannot even explain the reasons behind why the United States and Israel struck Iran and martyred Imam Khamenei. Realists have no excuse whatsoever, as it has been satisfactorily acknowledged and stated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there is absolutely no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb.
The Need For A Civilisational Lens
To understand present-day scenarios, it naturally becomes imperative that we change the paradigm—or the lens—through which we are trained or accustomed to evaluate events unfolding right under our noses. The civilisational approach, at the moment, serves better in divulging the intricacies of the horrors being unleashed. When we study the world with a civilisational lens, the measurement and comprehension of world politics and invasions become not only easier and more authentic but also connected to a larger purpose.
an*********@***il.com