Globalization and Afghanistan: Acceptance or Occupation?

While I've learned in my Globalization and Culture class that globalization is multidimensional, I maintain my opinion that globalization is a new word for imperialistic colonization. Economic trade, as some reductionists like to categorize globalization, has occurred for centuries. Humans have traveled the globe trading and acquiring. The first global empire was the Romans, who employed simplistic conquering techniques to acquire not only land, but also the subsequent resources. Then Britain took up the conquering cause, case in point, India. Now, in the globalization system, the United States, in partnership with our hegemonic example, the United Kingdom, is the economic and technological leader.

Historically, colonization has centered on territorial power-the more land power, the more economic power; the suppression and containment of Communism and the USSR, but always, behind the superficial was economic wealth. If countries, overtime, could not be coerced or convinced by economic promises, they were invaded. Vietnam and Korea supposedly to stop Communism, sanctions on China and Cuba for the same reason. A thriving socialist Granada was invaded and subsequently democratized with the typical results of capitalism-extensive rich-poor disparity and dependence on the United States.

Today, the imperialistic colonization has turned from the territoriality and falls under the realm of "soft power" (LaFeber, 159). Technology and communications infiltrate countries with the utopian projection of America. Most accept readily and submit to capitalistic ideology in return for the few elite enjoying the actual pleasures of capitalism, while the majority slave and dream, as do the majority in the non-utopian reality of the United States, of monetary acquisition. If over time, territories do no accept and submit, and the time span in waiting for acceptance is rapidly shrinking, they are invaded and occupied. Whether conquered through soft power or military might, imperialistic colonization, under the name of globalization, has real and lasting effects on the culture of the colonized or "globalized" countries.

My cultural object of study in this report is culture itself, and how globalization or cultural colonization affects the local cultures of the colonized territory. My focus is Afghanistan. My discursive formation is how the military occupation is a just another dimension of globalization. I will show how soft power globalization effects local cultures by examination of nations who have accepted or allowed globalization, such as China and Saudi Arabia; as well as examination of those that have resisted, such as Granada, and the nation of focus, Afghanistan. I will then explore the cultural differences and the public opinion of those changes in Afghanistan.

"Soft Power" as noted in "Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism" is the "influence of U.S. culture and commerce, rather than its military and political muscle" (LaFeber, 109). Since Vietnam, with the exception of Granada, the U.S. and its growing capitalist entities have relied mainly on soft power to conquer and benefit from resources of other countries, be they natural or labor. The Western propaganda that "the wealthy individual is the model of success that all should emulate" (Martin, 225) and that "personal accrual of wealth can solve the worlds problems (Martin, 224), has been hugely successful in convincing countries to accept cultural colonization. If it were not so, there would not be a cultural crisis among the civilized nations blamed on the Americanization and the development of "meaningless borders" (LaFeber, 143) by the expansion of transnational corporations and Western media. This crisis was exhibited in 1998 when the Canadian government hosted a gathering of 19 other countries, excluding the U.S., to discuss how to prevent U.S. influences and the cultural destructions those influences were causing. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote, "French and Japanese...believed the U.S. 'the capital of arrogance' because Americanization from Mickey Mouse to Microsoft has become a powerful, tempting and frequently destabilizing force, challenging every traditional society" (LaFeber, 163). If the Americanization concern was/is viable in rich and stable nations, how much more is the concern and/or fear of opportunistic colonization in developing countries?

In China, where children traditionally honored family and parents, the youth increasingly rise above as popularized by American media. Customs and time honored traditions of parental respect, for example, adults ordering the meals in restaurants, was discarded when McDonalds infiltrated, and parents sat subdued as the children took control. Families increasingly neglect the tradition of eating together because the youth now congregate at McDonalds in the projected American custom. Rural Chinese have so adopted the belief that McDonalds represents America that after slaving in a transnational sweatshop for barely subsistent wages, they deny necessities to save enough for a vacation trip to McDonalds for the chance to experience America. The same occurs in Taiwan, Cambodia, and India, or anywhere the state has willingly accepted the space-time compression of global economy in the form of transnational corporations. Most notably is Vietnam where "Nike and Coca-Cola triumphed where American bombs failed. Vietnam is capitalist" (Norberg, 173).

While Saudi Arabia's ruling royal family secretly bribed Islamic clerics to not attack them, they allowed the continued spread of the Wahabbi religion as well as anti-Western hatred, they also allowed a constantly growing U.S. military presences within their borders, and profited richly from oil exports to the largest oil consumer, the United States. The profits however, as in most capitalistic atmospheres, even though Saudi maintained its monarchy, were enjoyed by a select, elite few, and the rest of the country lives in poverty. The condemnation of this corruption and the presence of U.S. military caused the expulsion of Usama bin Laden to pacify the Saudi/U.S. relationship. Even though little has changed in Saudi, there are and continue to be cultural shifts that the traditional native people of Saudi are uncomfortable with.

Through the soft power of globalization, local communities lose agency and individuality as dominance is claimed by Western economy supported and promulgated by mega Western media. The profits and the benefits as well as the destruction are as multidimensional as the concept of globalization. Capital is accumulated by the labor of the marginalized, and the spending of the marginalized accumulates capital. The colonized self-consciousness, as theorized by Franz Fanon, is prevalent in globalization in that they are "organized and reorganized according to the invisibility factor" (Gautney, 71).

So, if capital is circulated so profusely and easily by soft power or media inspired stimulation, what would be the reason for military force? This is where Granada provides an excellent example. Beginning in 1979, Granada, under the rule of Maurice Bishop and the New Jewel Movement, imposed an ambitious and ultimately successful socialist program. The cumulative growth rate grew, unemployment dropped from 49% to 14%, and imports dropped by 12%, keeping the economy local. The United States refused to participate in any capacity, so Granada turned to Cuba for any assistance required. Yet, relations were not only with Cuba, there were also good relations with Western European nations, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. In 1981, when Reagan took office, economic assistance through the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank was blocked, and aid from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was restricted. In 1983, hardliners in Granada overthrew the successful socialist regime, mainly due to the lack of U.S, interest. The U.S. claimed Cuban involvement and invaded, supposedly to protect Americans still living in Granada.

Many believe the real reason for invasion was the bad example Granada set for other poor Caribbean states. It was not subservient to the U.S. and was not open to domination by U.S. corporate interests. Other Third World countries may take notice and follow suit. The aftermath? The quality of life for most deteriorated, radio stations and newspapers were taken over by U.S. Navy, and "although Grenada's economy has been expanding, poverty is widespread, and it appears that the country has little choice but to follow the neoliberal orthodoxy dictated by Washington and its allied international financial institutions" (Zunes, 2003). The result is Granada sinking to the epitome of devastation as one that dared to succeed without Western economic benefit. Since Granada has few natural resources, the social hierarchies of capitalism benefit mostly by control, and creating a U.S. dependent country of discontented people, again with little agency to act otherwise.

This brings me to my focal point, Afghanistan, and how the invasion and occupation of that country is little more than forced globalization, or in reality, imperialistic colonization. Although 19th century Afghanistan became a pawn in political ideology and commercial influence between Britain and Russia, Afghanistan has a rich cultural heritage covering more than 5,000 years. Because of its location in the crossroads of Central, West and South Asia, it has been home to waves of migrating peoples. While it was the scene of several magnificent empires and prosperous trade for over two hundred years, it was, and is the scene of great conflicts as well. Its Islamic roots run so deep that even Genghis Khan was unable to displace them.

Whether forced by circumstance or part of a long range plan, in 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The Afghan resistance, the mujahedin, armed and trained by U.S. support, held out against 100,000 Soviet troops. U.S, support was for no other reason than to contain Communism, so when the Soviet occupation ended, so did U.S. support, leaving the region with no functioning central government. Following two decades of civil war and political instability, the ultra-conservative Islamic regime of the Taliban controlled 95% of the country. After September 11, 2001, when America led a military invasion to cripple the Taliban and roust Usama bin Laden, the peoples of Afghanistan welcomed them. Today, however, evidence of class exclusion and Westernization abound in the capital of Kabul. "The obscene, sickening spectacle of import dependant boom in Kabul co-exists with deep impoverishment and destitution that is protected by 20,000 foreign troops" (Herold, 4).

Seventy-five percent (Montero, 1) of microcredit borrowers in Afghanistan are women, a population with a literacy rate of 14% (Montero, 1). The capital of Kabul is over run with global microcredit agencies who, backed by corporate conglomerates exploit women into business that will "allow Afghan women to be glamorous again" (Herold, 24), while what is needed is food and education, not mascara. "Elected" drug warlords are paid by the Pentagon to control the territory outside of the commercialized Kabul, where they torture, rob and murder citizens. Yet, the economy inside Kabul flourishes with warlords building $100 million ski resorts. This U.S. nation rebuilding feeds the World Trade Organization (WTO), IMF and World Bank, which in turn feeds transnational corporations, hence globalization, Americanization and imperialistic colonization.

The southern provinces that are submitting to, and welcoming the returning tyranny of the Taliban in exchange for food, jobs and security best express the public opinion of the occupation. This is cultural resistance of both soft and military globalization. The words of a former Mujahedin from Kandahar province tells the tale of the cultural effects of globalization/imperialistic colonization, whether accepted or forced:

"When you first came here we were so glad to see you. Now we have lived with you in our country for five years and we see you tell a lot of lies and make a lot of false promises. You are very good at telling lies to your own people as well. Maybe we don't care if you decide to lie to each other about what you are doing in our country, but don't expect us to believe them.

What kind of war is this? This was supposed to be a war to help the poor people of Afghanistan. In fact this is a war where the rich get richer, the foreigners who are here included.

We can tell that you don't really care about Afghanistan. We hear you talking to each other. This is about revenge for the people who died in your country on 9/11. How many innocent people died that day? How many innocent people have you killed since you got here? We have a saying about you now: Your blood is blood; our blood is just water to you.

You all keep your passports in your front pocket -you can do what you want here and leave any time. We have to stay and deal with the poverty and destruction you have left behind. We see now what kind of people you are.

The American, the British, and the Canadians-they are all the same to us. They lie to us, they lie to each other, and they lie to their own people. People are starving here. You are destroying the crops the poor people use to feed their families. You are a cruel people and we want you to leave our country. I will fight with the Taliban when they come. They are Afghans who will help the poor people.
I wish the foreigners would do what they said they would do when they came here and help us create a better life..."
Villagers and Former Mujahedin, Kandahar province. AfghanNews.net

In conclusion, while Western ideologies promote free trade, and democracy, the true result of globalization is imperialist colonization which is the spread of capitalism, and the benefactors of capitalism is the multinational corporations who "convert most social and political issues into economy, and culture into a commercial program" (LaFeber, 163). The difference with today's globalization versus past colonization is that less and less control belongs to the state, any state. The power lies in the hands of the monetary elite to dictate the circumstances under which they will exist. The current Western government support, culturally and militarily, of this expanded capitalism has failed to realize that it has also supported the "power to ignore the government" (LaFeber, 187). Globalization, imperialistic colonization, or the new capitalism, by any name, in the end, will have nothing to do with state sovereign or religion or nationality, but will be "capital versus capital" (LaFeber, 162), and will be colonization by corporation.

Works Cited
LaFeber, Walter. Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999

Gautney, Heather. "The Globalization of Violence in the 21st Century." Implicating Empire. Ed. Aronowitz and Gautney. New York: Basic Books, 2003. 65-82.

Herold, Marc W. "An Island Named Kabul: Trickle-Up Economics and westernization in Karzai's Afghanistan." Double Standards. December, 2004. http://www.doublestandards.org/herold3.html

Martin, Randy. "Geography Financialized." Implicating Empire. Ed. Aronowitz and Gautney. New York: Basic Books, 2003. 211-228.

Montero, David. "Afghan women start businesses, help reconstruct a torn nation." AfghanNews. May, 2006. http://www.afghannews.net/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=547

Norberg, Johan. "The Noble Feat of Nike." The New World Reader. Ed. Muller, Gilbert. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. 173-176.

Zunes, Stephen. "The US Invasion of Grenada: A Twenty Year Retrospective." International Relations Center (IRC). Foreign Policy in Focus. October, 2003. http://www.fpif.org/