Libération - 10.03.2020

WORLD TRENDS

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2020 THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL WEEKLY III

Afghan Peace, or Just a Way Out?

By DAVID E. SANGER
President Donald J. Trump
has left no doubt that his first
priority in Afghanistan is a
peace treaty that would enable
him to claim that he is fulfilling
his vow to with-
draw American
troops.
But a parade
of his former national security
aides say he is far less interested
in an actual Afghan peace. And
that creates an enormous risk:
that, like President Richard M.
Nixon’s peace deal with North
Vietnam in January 1973, the
accord signed on February 29
will speed an American exit and
do little to stabilize an allied gov-
ernment. It took two years for
the South Vietnamese govern-
ment to be overrun.
“Trump would not be the first
president to exaggerate the
meaning of a truce in an election
year,” said Joseph Nye, whose
book “Do Morals Matter? Pres-
idents and Foreign Policy From
F.D.R. to Trump” examines the
Vietnam precedent. In the heat
of the 1972 election, Mr. Nye
notes, “Nixon made great claims
about an imminent peace in
Vietnam,” and it was only after
his re-election — and resigna-
tion — that the image of a frantic
helicopter evacuation from
Saigon came to mark the failure
of a long, costly American ex-
periment.
Three successive American
presidents have promised vic-
tory in Afghanistan. President
George W. Bush began the Af-
ghan war to hunt down Osama
bin Laden after the September
11, 2001, attacks. Yet he soon
turned his attention to Iraq and
bled resources from the Afghan
effort. President Barack Obama
called Iraq a strategic mistake,
but pledged not to lose the “good
war” in Afghanistan. Yet his
“surge” failed to strike a deci-

sive blow. Mr. Trump has long

lamented the cost of “endless

wars,” and by the time he took

up direct negotiations with the

Taliban, he knew Americans

were interested mostly in one

thing: ending participation in a

war that has now dragged on for

over 18 years.

When historians look back,

they may well conclude that

Washington ended up much like

other great powers that entered

Afghanistan’s mountains and

deserts: frustrated, immobi-

lized, no longer willing to bear

the huge costs. The British

retreated in 1842 after suffering

4,500 killed. They gave up their

sovereignty over the country

in 1919, in another retreat that

heralded the beginning of the

unwinding of an empire. The

Soviet Union abandoned its

decade-long effort to control

the country in 1989, months

before the fall of the Berlin Wall

marked the collapse of the Com-

munist superpower. That led

to the power vacuums that Bin

Laden exploited.

The American-led attack

began on October 7, 2001. The

country was behind Mr. Bush.

While a few warned of the dan-

gers of entering the “graveyard

of empires,” it seemed more a

war of justice seeking than na-

tion building.

After Bin Laden was hunted

down in Pakistan in May 2011,

and with Al Qaeda a much-di-

minished threat, politicians

struggled to explain what U.S.

troops were fighting to accom-

plish. More than 2,400 American

service members have died

since the invasion, according

to icasualties.org. Neither Mr.

Obama nor Mr. Trump could

make a case that after nearly

two decades the United States

had much of a role to play other

than prop up a weak democracy.

For a while, that role seems

likely to continue. The accord

will initially bring down Amer-

ican troop levels to about 8,600

from about 12,000 now. If the

Afghan government can reach

its own accord with the Taliban

— in a so-called intra-Afghan

process that is now supposed to

begin — U.S. troop levels may

drop further, officials say.

But just as the South Vietnam-

ese were not part of the Paris

peace talks a half-century ago,

the Afghan government was

excluded from the long negotia-

tions with the Taliban.

Afghanistan has gone from

being the urgent “good war”

that America must win to the

longstanding burden that, like

the British, the Soviets and a

series of others, it now seeks to

unload.

NEWS

ANALYSIS

HUSSEIN SAYED/ASSOCIATED PRESS
A U.S. envoy and a Taliban leader recently signed a peace deal in Qatar after 18 years of war.

KIANA HAYERI FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Venezuelan Socialists

Warm to Capitalism

By ANATOLY KURMANAEV

CARACAS, Venezuela — As

Venezuela tumbled deeper into

economic crisis in 2017 and its

people searched for a way out, one

name kept coming up: Lorenzo

Mendoza. The family name is uni-

versally known in Venezuela. Em-

presas Polar, the food conglomer-

ate started by his grandfather, had

grown into the country’s largest

private company.

As President Nicolás Maduro’s

disastrous economic policies set

off food shortages and a refugee

crisis, Mr. Mendoza emerged as

an outspoken critic. Then, he dis-

appeared from view. Mr. Maduro

stopped calling him a “parasite.”

The government began to adopt

changes Mr. Mendoza had pro-

posed, like ending price controls.

The story behind Mr. Mendoza

and Mr. Maduro’s truce shows the

rapprochement between Venezue-

la’s self-styled revolutionary gov-

ernment and the business class it

waged war against for nearly two

decades. The thaw has been behind

Venezuela’s recent transformation

from a country where the govern-

ment closely controlled the econo-

my to a place ruled by an autocrat

willing to allow de facto capitalism

in order to stave off collapse and as-

sure his grip on power.

The move has hardly solved

Venezuela’s economic troubles.

But it has reignited sectors of the

economy, encouraged some in-

vestment and allowed Mr. Maduro

to withstand American sanctions

and international isolation. “It’s

very difficult to explain that we’re

in a very bad economic situation,

but that there’s optimism,” said

Ricardo Cusanno, head of Vene-

zuela’s biggest industry group,

Fedecamaras. “Serious people,

traditional people are deciding to

continue investing.”

Mr. Maduro’s ministries have

quietly handed back to private op-

erators dozens of companies they

had expropriated, a government

adviser who helped draft the pro-

gram said. Tracts of land taken by

Mr. Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo

Chávez, are being leased to any-

one willing to work them. Raids

on private companies have given

way to meetings between minis-

ters and business leaders. Laws

that had barred companies from

firing anyone without govern-

ment approval are disregarded.

Trade restrictions were replaced

with export incentives. Currency

controls ended.

Under Mr. Maduro, Venezuela

has lost almost three-quarters of

its gross domestic product, with

almost nine of 10 people struggling

to meet basic needs. Almost five

million have fled. But the liberal-

ization has created opportunities

for companies to adjust to serving

those with dollars to spare.

The government realized it

needed private capital to survive.

Before the economic crisis, Polar

employed 34,000 people. As Mr.

Chávez showered Venezuelans

with the proceeds of the oil boom

to build what he called “21st centu-

ry socialism,” Polar’s corporatism

offered an alternative. The compa-

ny’s generous benefits had earned

it the loyalty of its workers.

When the economy went into re-

cession in 2014, Mr. Maduro began

to accuse Mr. Mendoza of hoard-

ing products. Tax inspectors raid-

ed Polar’s facilities, pro-govern-

ment unions instigated labor un-

rest, and security forces hijacked

its trucks.

By 2017, Polar was nearing

bankruptcy. Mr. Mendoza sought

contact with Mr. Maduro’s eco-

nomic czar, Tareck El Aissami,

who had argued that the govern-

ment had to abandon its Marxist

dogma. Mr. Mendoza’s entreaties

culminated in a 2018 meeting with

Venezuela’s first lady, Cilia Flores.

That yielded an informal pact: Mr.

Mendoza would exit the public

stage, and the government would

stop harassing Polar.

Today, the government provides

major private producers with raw

materials and negotiates food pur-

chases on market terms, accord-

ing to industry sources. Shops are

full again, even if products are out

of reach for most Venezuelans.

Many of Polar’s plants are

shuttered, and the company has

shed about 15,000 workers. But

the changes have allowed it to re-

invent itself as a nimbler operator

focusing on Venezuela’s wealthier

customers and foreign expansion.

Gone are the legendary benefits.

Despite the cuts, many workers

remain committed to the company.

But maintaining that loyalty

also means letting go of what the

company was. Darwin Carmona,

35, worked his entire adult life at

Polar’s beer plant in Caracas.

When his newborn fractured an

elbow in December, he found Po-

lar’s health insurance no longer

covered her.

“When Chávez was alive, the

laws were respected,” Mr. Car-

mona said about Polar. Now, “the

government lets them do whatev-

er they want.”

KEVORK DJANSEZIAN/GETT Y IMAGES

Lorenzo Mendoza, who runs

Polar, a conglomerate, made

an informal deal with the

Venezuelan government.

People at a

restaurant

in Kabul

watching the

signing of a

deal between

the United

States and the

Ta l ib a n.