El American’s Live with Vanessa Vallejo, co-editor-in-chief of El American, once again focused on Afghanistan, but in this case, a debate arose among experts on whether the U.S. should intervene in a nation.
Based on the 20 years of Afghanistan with the United States and its allies at the forefront after the terrorist attacks suffered by the USA on September 11, 2001, and the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, for political scientist Noemí Díaz, intervening a country goes beyond “rights and freedoms”, which is why she questioned the U.S. intervention in the eastern country at all times.
The expert explained in detail the consequences that this brought years later, in which Afghanistan lies the same or worse than two decades ago.
“I don’t believe that the United States or any other country should intervene beyond its borders, it’s a question of rights and freedoms and the United States is not exceptional in this case,” she said.
“Ambassadors, heads of state and officials […] they themselves recognize the great failure of a 20-year senseless war. I am not in favor of intervention because I believe it does not bring anything good,” insisted Díaz.
For César Sabas, expert in International Security and International Relations, intervening a country will depend on fundamental factors.
“It depends on where, with what and why. If the United States is attacked or faces a danger in which it will be attacked and the international order and its allies will be destabilized, obviously it must intervene. This is a lesson we learned from World War II,” he said.
Díaz stated that even with the power that the United States has as a power, it has not always been coherent with its own interests.
“If the power elites, among them, headed by the political power, see that there is a threat looming against their own interests, that does not mean that they are objectively in the best interests of all,” he said.
The international security expert said that no country can wait until the enemy is stronger to intervene, “because they will attack when they are ready, not when we are ready to respond,” said Sabas, who recalled when Al-Qaeda attacked the US “when they decided to and when they were able to.”
“That is why representatives are elected who are the ones who know, who must act and they cannot wait for the country to be attacked, many times they have to attack before,” he stressed.
In this sense, Sabas indicated that the United States never declared war on Afghanistan because there was no massive attack against that country, but against the Taliban, accused of creating a terrorist sanctuary after offering protection to the group Al-Qaeda.
September 11 attacks could have been avoided, according to expert
The internationalist also said that the attack suffered by the United States could have been avoided if Al-Qaeda had been attacked before: “If we had reacted before, but because of the non-interventionist positions, then the enemies of freedom, of the West and of the USA were given the opportunity to strengthen and act”.
Noemi Diaz expressed that Sabas’ argument was “absurd”. She explained that if a country “is not attacked there is no crime and if a crime has not been committed and the country attacks another the criminal is you”, she detailed that these are fundamental bases of law. “You cannot put someone in jail because you have suspicions that one day he is going to rob you,” he said.
For Diaz, the U.S. mixing Al-Qaeda with the Taliban was a “trap.”
He also said he recalled that the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden, who was the leader of al Qaeda and responsible for the attacks against the United States in 2001, to the United States, but the U.S. allegedly refused to receive him.
Diaz recalled that bin Laden hid in Afghanistan, but that he did not hide with the Taliban. She assured that they “did not have close relations with Al-Qaeda”, so the expert determined that the United States “invaded a foreign population”.