The Ethics of Withdrawal

In August of 2021, the dialogue within the international community shifted in response to the apocalyptic scenes from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of American troops after 20 years of occupation. Regardless of the sentiment toward American presence in the region for almost two decades, organizations, leaders, and populations across the globe collectively balked at the affronting images of Afghans crowded around American planes and depictions of women painted over in fear of the wrath of the new government. Mere days after the withdrawal of its occupying power, Afghanistan has descended into authoritarian chaos at the hands of the Taliban. Unfortunately, chaos after the withdrawal of a foreign power is not a new phenomenon, but the Afghanistan case is most likely the best publicized in recent memory. The past century of decolonization and de-occupation by Western powers has resulted in many such circumstances: former colonies left in political chaos resulting in authoritarian, militaristic regimes that continue to haunt the affected populations today and resulting in mass human rights violations and atrocities. It appears that Afghanistan is well on its way to joining the dishonorable list.

This list encompasses myriad regions of the world that were subjected to Western occupation, liberated, and then, due to circumstances that were largely created by the Western colonizing powers, descended quickly into political and social anarchy. The Rwandan genocide, often identified as one of the worst atrocities in human history, was predated by the German and Belgian colonizers deepening the divides between the Hutu and Tutsi peoples in order to consolidate control. The Belgian Congo, immediately after its independence in 1960, quickly devolved into a period of conflict between tribes with little unity but who were forced together through arbitrary, colonial borders. Myanmar, since independence in 1948, has constantly been embroiled in several civil wars and under military rule.

It is morally questionable at best to even suggest that the occupied population is overall better off from the continued presence of its colonizer. It is beyond the scope of this article, and very well documented in other analyses, why the violation of sovereignty, cultural erasure, and imposed governance, among countless other factors, illustrate the ethical abhorrence of colonialism. Yet, when colonialism and other variations of foreign occupation occur, it is the moral responsibility of the colonizing power to withdraw in such a way that the population is left with a government that not only reflects their interests, and not those of the former colonizer, but also has the legitimacy, infrastructure, and military as well as economic capability to govern effectively and protect itself from external attempts to seize power. Governance during the period of occupation drew its legitimacy, for lack of a better term to describe the control of power, from the military and economic influence of the colonizer. When that substance is abruptly withdrawn, the government’s authority collapses, leaving a hole for opportunist extremists to fill. The former colonizer must withdraw from its former colony slowly, implementing measures to create a democratic government that is representative of its population and utilizing its resources to assist the country in developing infrastructure that will survive after the withdrawal is complete.