The new government in Kabul has accused the United States of “interference” in its internal affairs. The charge is untenable right now, though it could become valid in course of time if Pakistan continues to back the Afghan insurgents and if America supports Islamabad in this effort, as it appears to have decided to do. Kabul has said that America, China and Egypt have trained the rebels in Pakistan. This may be true in respect of China. There is no evidence that Washington and Cairo have a hand in this affair. On the contrary, till last week Washington was lukewarm towards Pakistan which gives shelter to about 400,000 Afghan refugees and allows the insurgents to cross the frontier at will. The US administration would not have turned down Islamabad’s repeated requests for rescheduling of old debts if it was involved in sustaining the Afghan rebels. The new Afghan set-up has also proclaimed that “no one has the right to stop any country from seeking help from another country for its own defence on the basis of an international treaty.” This is without question the case in international law. But the present government was not in office when the Soviet Union airlifted several thousand troops into Kabul early last week. The Kremlin could have acted on the basis of a request from the luckless Hafizullah Amin and its troops could have legitimately stayed on to help his successor if the former had been brought down as a result of an internal revolt. But Moscow itself has not made a claim to that effect, and quite understandably. For Soviet troops were involved in the overthrow of President Amin last Thursday. Once installed in office Mr. Babrak Karmal has sought to legitimize the massive Soviet built-up in Afghanistan by requesting Moscow to assist him in defeating the threat to his country. This is exactly what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Soviets first overthrew Mr. Dubcek and installed Mr. Husak who in turn invoked their help in terms of the Warsaw Pact.
Kabul’s protestations are pointless. They will not convince anyone. It is clear that the Russian action in Afghanistan conforms to the Czarist-Stalinist tradition. Stalin regarded, as is well known, the Red Army as the principal instrument of communist revolution and Soviet influence. He believed that Russia should seek to establish communist regimes only with the help of the Red Army and only in lands contiguous with it. That was one reason why he was not at all keen to help Marshal Tito during World War II. He deviated from this strategy in the case of Greece in the post-war period. But he quickly abandoned the Greek communists once he fell out with Tito and it became clear to him that the Americans would not easily let him have his way there. His successors withdrew their troops from Austria in the mid-‘fifties in return for the neutralization of that country. But that has been the only such case. Other countries like Egypt, Sudan, and Somalia from where they have had to withdraw their military personnel are not contiguous with the Soviet Union or its allies. Afghanistan borders on the Soviet Union and possesses considerable strategic importance in the East-West competition for control of the oil-rich Gulf. Thus, going by past experience and Afghanistan’s importance, it can be safely inferred that Russian troops are in that country to stay. The Kremlin may reduce the number if it succeeds in smashing the insurgents, as it is trying to do. But it will not withdraw for a long, long time.