“Have Your Say”
During the last few months we have tried on a couple of occasions to start a discussion forums on AfghanNews.net but due to lack of interest it never turned to be an active forum that we hoped to be. This time we are trying once again and we hope that our valued visitors will try to let other people know about their views related to Afghans, Afghanistans and topics related to this subject.
We hope that our valued visitors will respect the point of views expressed by others and dicussions are conducted in a decent, friendly and informative atmosphere.
Thanking you all and wish you a nice time while being here.
Panjshiri said
End of Imaginary Durand Line
The Durand Line
Afghanland.com – The British presented a signed document with the person of King Abdul Rahman Khan in 1893 referring to the borders between Afghanistan and British India. This document was in English and the person of Abdul Rahman Khan did not understand the English language, therefore leads the suspicious nature of forgery and or false documentation. The Dari or Pashto translation of this document or agreement has never been signed by Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, suggesting that he nullified this agreement. But the following researchers have provided arguments to the contrary that this document was signed and has expired. in either scenario, the Durand line does not exist today and the agreement was nullified the day it was written..
The argument between Afghanistan and Pakistan centers on the issue of Durand Line Agreement and its validity. But, the Government of Balochistan (GOB) in Exile challenges the “legality” of the Durand Line Agreement between Afghanistan and British India in 1893, not its “validity”. We believe that the Durand Line Agreement is an illegal agreement, and therefore, it is null and void.
DURAND LINE AGREEMENT
In 1839, the Afghan and British governments agreed to demark a 2,450-kilometer (1,519 miles) long border dividing British India and Afghanistan. The signatory of the document, known as The Durand Line Agreement, were His Highness, Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, ruler of Afghanistan, and Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, the foreign secretary of the British Indian government.
Since British India ceased to exist in 1947 with the independence of India, Pakistan, and princely States, it was assumed that the Durand Line Agreement will be automatically upheld by the International Court of Justice as a binding agreement under uti possidetis juris, i.e, binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are “passed down” to successor independent states.
AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN CONFLICT
The Durand Line has been a source of contention between Afghanistan and Pakistan. On September 30, 1947, at the UN General Assembly meeting, Afghanistan even caste a vote against the admission of Pakistan to the United Nations.
International Law states that boundary changes must be made among all concerned parties; and a unilateral declaration by one party has no effect. So, when in 1949, Afghanistan’s “Loya Jirga” (Grand Council) declared the Durand Line Agreement invalid, it was considered a unilateral declaration, and therefore, could not be enforced. Furthermore, Durand Line, like virtually any international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is there any mention of such in the Durand Line Agreement, which is contrary to the popular beliefs of certain Afghan scholars that the Agreement lapsed in 1993 which is after a hundred years of its signing.
To this date, the relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan are characterized by rivalry, suspicion and resentment. The primary cause of this hostility rests in the debate about the validity of the Durand Line Agreement. But, so far, it appears that Pakistan’s position in this debate is legally correct, and the Government in Afghanistan has never challenged Pakistan in the International Court of Justice.
BALOCH-BRITISH RELATIONS
In 1839, when the British army advanced through Balochistan towards Afghanistan, they battled with the Baloch for the first time. During this conflict, 400 Baloch were killed along with Mehrab Khan (ruler of Balochistan), and the British took 2,000 Baloch prisoners of war. After recognizing Mehrab Khan’s young son, Nasir Khan II, as his successor, the Baloch and British signed their first treaty in 1841 that dealt with “Military Offensive and Defensive” matters. The British vacated Balochistan after the treaty was signed, and until 1854, there were no major diplomatic interactions between the Baloch and the British.
On May 14th, 1854, a new Treaty was signed which annulled the 1841 Treaty. The new Treaty focused on “Alliance, Defensive and Offensive” matters. It also demanded the Baloch rulers to oppose all enemies of the British government; required British consent prior to any Baloch ruler could negotiate with any other state; and it permitted the British to station troops within selected parts of Balochistan.
When the Baloch ruler broke certain provisions of the 1854 Treaty, diplomatic relations between Balochistan and British were discontinued in 1874. But, after two years, in 1876 the Treaty of 1854 was rectified with minor modifications allowing the British government to mediate any Baloch tribal disputes, and lease Quetta valley to establish a military cantonment. Although the Baloch ruler’s writ still ran over Balochistan, but now it was under the watchful eye of a British Indian government.
From 1890 to 1891, to contain the Pashtun tribes of the Suleman Mountains from conducting border raids, the British carried out a series of military expeditions that resulted in the occupation of Zhob valley. Soon afterwards, they constructed a cantonment at Fort Sandeman along with extensions of a line of outposts.
In 1893, serious differences arose between the ruler of Balochistan, Mir Khodadad Khan and the British. Soon after, on instigation of the British, Mir Mahmud Khan deposed his father and became the new ruler of Balochistan in November 1893. By July 1899, the Baloch administration had negotiated perpetual lease and transfer of management to British agency of the Nushki district and Niabat with all rights, jurisdiction and administrative power, in lieu of perpetual rent. This secured direct British control of the great highway connecting Quetta to Taftan. This arrangement prevailed till August 1947 when British India was dissolved.
SOVEREIGNTY OF BALOCHISTAN
On August 11, 1947, the British acceded control of Balochistan to the ruler of Balochistan, His Highness Mir Ahmad Yar Khan – the Khan of Kalat. The Khan immediately declared the independence of Balochistan, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah signed the proclamation of Balochistan’s sovereignty under the Khan.
The New York Times reported on August 12, 1947: “Under the agreement, Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state with a status different from that of the Indian States. An announcement from New Delhi said that Kalat, Moslem State in Baluchistan, has reached an agreement with Pakistan for free flow of communications and commerce, and would negotiate for decisions on defense, external affairs and communications.” The next day, the NY Times even printed a map of the world showing Balochistan as a fully independent country.
According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, all treaties and agreements between the British Government and the rulers of States were terminated as of August 15, 1947. On that day, the Khan addressed a large gathering in Kalat and formally declared the full independence of Balochistan, and proclaimed the 15th day of August a day of celebration. The Khan formed the lower and upper house of Kalat Assembly, and during the first meeting of the Lower House in early September 1947, the Assembly confirmed the independence of Balochistan.
Jinnah tried to persuade the Khan to join Pakistan, but the Khan and both Houses of the Kalat Assembly refused. The Pakistani government took an aggressive stance against Balochistan, and in March 1948, the Pakistani armed forces started their operation against the Balochistan government. They invaded Balochistan on April 15th, 1948, and imprisoned all members of the Kalat Assembly.
LEGALITY OF THE DURAND LINE AGREEMENT
Throughout the period of British rule of India, the British never occupied Balochistan. There were treaties and lease agreements between the two sovereign states, but neither state invaded the other. Although the treaties signed between British India and Balochistan provided many concessions to the British, but none of the treaties permitted the British to demark the boundaries of Balochistan without the consent of the Baloch rulers.
The Durand Line Agreement of 1893 divides boundaries between three sovereign countries, namely Afghanistan, Balochistan and British India. According to International Law, all affected parties are required to agree to any changes in demarking their common borders. In reality, the Durand Line Agreement was a trilateral agreement and it legally required the participation and signatures of all three countries. But, the Agreement was drawn as a bilateral agreement between Afghanistan and British India only, and it intentionally excluded Balochistan. Hence, under the rules of demarking boundaries of the International Law, the Agreement was in error, and thus, it was null and void as soon as it was signed.
The British, under false pretenses, assured the Afghan rulers that Balochistan was part of British India, and therefore, they were not required to have the consent of anyone from Balochistan to agree on demarking borders. Meanwhile, the British kept the Baloch rulers in the dark about the Durand Line Agreement to avoid any complications. This policy helped the British to concentrate on fortifying their military positions in the region without causing any tensions between Afghanistan and Balochistan about demarking their boundary lines, otherwise this could have resulted in a war between Afghanistan and Balochistan.
To ascertain that Balochistan and Afghanistan were not discussing the legality of the Durand Line Agreement among themselves, the British continued to reaffirm the Durand Line Agreement by each of the successive Afghan rulers who followed His Highness, Amir Abdur Rahman Khan. King Habibullah (1901-19), King Amanullah (1919-29), King Nadir Shah (1929-1933), and King Zahir Shah (1933-1973) reaffirmed the Agreement during their reign.
A FACADE
The British ruled parts of Afghanistan without any legal authority, but through treacherous use of a piece of paper, the Durand Line Agreement, which did not have any legal standing in any court of law. As long as the British kept Afghanistan and Balochistan in the dark and apart from each other to discuss the Agreement, the British could continue to rule Afghan territory.
But, in 1947, the British Indian government was dissolved, and hence, there was no reason for the British to continue this façade. But, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his legal team immediately found out after Pakistan’s independence that the Durand Line Agreement was not a legally admissible/binding document. To continue the illegal occupation of territories belonging to Afghanistan, it was important for Pakistan to keep the flaw in the Agreement a secret. But, the dilemma was that Balochistan was an independent country, and one day the truth might be reveled to Afghanistan about the Agreement. This truth could result in Pakistan losing its Pashtun dominated areas to Afghanistan.
It was very important for Pakistan to either annex or invade Balochistan to continue with their illegal occupation of Afghan territories. When Jinnah failed to convince the Baloch government to annex with Pakistan on basis of the two sovereign states being predominantly Muslim countries, he ordered his armed forces to invade Balochistan and, under duress, forced the His Highness, the Khan of Kalat to sign legal documents to merge Balochistan with Pakistan. This simple act of aggression against a sovereign nation assured Pakistan that their secret about the Durand Line Agreement would remain intact.
Once Balochistan was secured, the Pakistanis deceptively used the law of uti possidetis juris to their advantage and continued occupation of territories belonging to Afghanistan.
CURRENT AFFAIRS
Pakistan is in illegal occupation of territories belonging to Afghanistan under false pretenses. To maintain its current territorial integrity, it is in Pakistan’s interest to have a weak and destabilized government in Afghanistan so there is no one to challenge the authenticity of the Durand Line Agreement. Therefore, Pakistani intelligence agencies have provided shelter for members of Al-Qaeda and Taleban who are committing acts of terrorism within Afghanistan to destabilize the democratically elected government of President Hamid Karzai.
US armed forces in Afghanistan are eradicating remnants of terrorists from Taleban era. The Americans are also helping to rebuild Afghanistan and strengthen the democratic process of government to get a strong foothold in the country. But, Pakistan has waged a proxy war against the United States, and continues to terrorize the Afghan nation in hopes to frustrate the US to leave Afghanistan and weaken the Afghan government.
Meanwhile, the Baloch have launched their “War of Independence” in Iran and Pakistan. Three tribal Sardars (chieftains) have united their forces and are engaged in a guerilla war against the well-equipped Pakistani armed forces. The Baloch freedom movement is gaining momentum, and people from all walks of like are joining in droves.
SOLUTION
Afghanistan and Balochistan should form a legal team to challenge the illegal occupation of Afghan territories and Balochistan by Pakistan in the International Court of Justice. Once the Durand Line Agreement is declared illegal, it will result in the return of Pakistan-occupied territories back to Afghanistan. Also, Balochistan will be declared a country that was forcibly invaded through use of force by the Pakistanis; and with international assistance, Balochistan can regain its independence. It is the right time to act now because the US and Allied forces in Afghanistan are positioned to facilitate the enforcement of the Court’s judgment.
After Pakistan vacates territories belonging to Afghanistan and Balochistan, a new boarder should be demarked amicably to determine Baloch dominated areas to become the new Balochistan, and Pashtun dominated areas to be merged into Afghanistan. And, with the help of the US and Allied forces, the Afghans and the Baloch forces can flush out members of Al-Qaeda and Talebans from their respective countries.
A wise observer once said, “Pakistan is a completely superfluous and artificially created spot on the world map that has become a breeding ground for extremism, and trouble that would be best done away with.”
Mir Azaad Khan Baloch
In 1948 Pakistan began the arrest, imprisonment and execution of prominent NWFP Pashtun leaders who did not want to be ruled by Pakistan. Also Pakistan does not have any educational, social and economic plans for the NWFP. Children of Pashtun are thought urdu in schools and businesses are forced to deal with Karachi so that Pashuns of the NWFP never reach powerful status.
Its Time to Raise National Flag of Afghans in Peshawar and Queta
Panjshiri said
SPEAKING FREELY
Afghanistan’s stability lies with Pakistan
By Haroun Mir
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
KABUL – In 1989, the Soviet Army withdrew from Afghanistan. Simultaneously, the West disengaged from the Afghan conflict, which left the Afghans at the mercy of regional powers. The collapse of the communist bloc provoked a shift in US policy in the region. Because the US lacked a strategic interest in Afghanistan, Washington [delegated the formulation] of Afghan
policy to both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are two close allies of the US. The Saudis had no other interest in Afghanistan than the desire to create a government in Kabul that was hostile to Iran.
Although Iran shares a common language and culture with Afghanistan, it has historically had a limited influence on the country. This limited influence resulted from the religious differences between the Sunni-majority Afghanistan and the Shi’ite-majority Iran. With the blessing of the both the US and Saudi governments, Pakistan remained the major player in Afghanistan.
In 1992, the communist regime fell in Afghanistan; mujahideen groups entered Kabul, where two alternative options were presented to Pakistan. One option was to stabilize Afghanistan through mediation among major mujahideen leaders who lived in Pakistan. This option would have economically benefited Pakistan with open trade roads to Central Asian countries. The second option was to pursue the strategic goal of Pakistan, which consisted of having a puppet government in place and a fragile economy.
This option would have kept Afghanistan dependent on Pakistan both economically and politically. Ultimately, Pakistan’s military elites opted for the second option, even though it went against the conventional wisdom of their own people. The military chose this option because it had always feared that a strong Afghanistan would pose a serious threat to Pakistan.
In fact, the creation of Pakistan is rooted in controversy. In 1947, Britain chose to partition India to create a new country for British India’s Muslim minority. The creation of Pakistan was based on the assumption that the Muslim minority could not coexist with the majority Hindus. Currently, minority Muslims living in India appear satisfied with being engaged in the political process through a democratic mechanism.
Muslims who live in Pakistan, however, are denied basic rights by a military dictatorship. It is not surprising that Indian Muslims do not want to emigrate to Pakistan. It is evident that an individual’s political and economic inspirations bypass his or her religious affinity; this notion was confirmed with the partition of Pakistan between East and West, when in 1971, the people of West Pakistan chose to become the sovereign state of Bangladesh.
The ethnic issue has indeed shattered the dreams of the founding father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who envisioned Pakistan as a modern, democratic and pluralistic state. After his death, the domination of political and military power by Punjabis caused a growing resentment among other ethnic groups such as Bengalis, Sindhi, Balochis and Pashtuns.
Very much like Bengalis, who opted for partition from Pakistan, Balochis have also struggled for independence since the creation of Pakistan. They refused to become part of Pakistan until 1948; in that year, the military forced Balochi leaders to adhere to Pakistan. For instance, the current military conflict in Balochistan is the continuation of the Balochis’ struggle for independence (like those of Kurds in Iraq).
Similarly, Pashtuns who live in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) will remain with Pakistan until they receive large enough monetary subventions from Pakistan’s federal government. Pahstuns and Balochis live across the border in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan’s military leaders fear Afghanistan’s potential influence over Pashtuns and Balochis who live in Pakistan; this is because Pakistan lost its western territories due to the similar influence of India over Bengalis.
After losing the largest chunk of the territory to Bengalis, Pakistani leaders feared that similar dismembering could happen with the Balochi people in the east, and with Pashtuns in the NWFP. Pakistan is squeezed between two hostile countries – India and Afghanistan.
In addition, Pakistan has always viewed an economically prosperous and militarily strong Afghanistan as a threat to its existence; this is because a contentious borderline between the two countries exists. Upon the inception of Pakistan, the Afghan government resisted the membership of this new country in the UN because the question of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan remained unresolved.
The long border between Afghanistan and Pakistan has never been officially ratified by the two countries. The existing borderline issue dates back to an old agreement – known as “The Durand Line” – between Afghanistan and British India. On November 12, 1898, the Afghan ruler, Emir Abdul Rahman Khan, and the foreign secretary of British India, Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, signed the demarcation line between British India and Afghanistan. Indeed, this border question has remained at the core of Pakistan’s negative policy on Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s military has always feared that a strong Afghanistan would dispute the current border between the two countries. In addition, an economically prosperous Afghanistan would become more attractive to Pashtuns and Balochis who live in Pakistan, which is the result of their cultural affinity with the Afghans. Therefore, according to Pakistan’s military leaders, a powerful government in Afghanistan would pose an existential threat to Pakistan.
In 1989, the US left Afghanistan at the mercy of regional powers, giving Pakistan an opportunity to accomplish its long-term strategic goal to make Afghanistan dependent on it. In fact, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 helped Pakistan achieve its strategic goals. The Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) had specific plans to destroy Afghanistan’s military, economic and social infrastructures.
There are obvious examples of the ISI’s clandestine involvement in Afghanistan. For instance, in 1992, mujahideen groups took over Afghanistan and agreed to share power by creating a coalition government in Kabul. As a result, Pakistan immediately ordered its best Afghan puppet, the militant Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to disrupt normal life in Kabul with deadly rocket attacks.
As a result of the destruction, foreign embassies closed; the educated, prosperous people left the country. Similarly, the ISI instructed its agents across Afghanistan to destroy Afghanistan’s military hardware, industrial machinery and all other equipment, which had been left by the Soviets.
Numerous poor and ignorant Afghans have collaborated with Pakistani agents to destroy factories military assets such as tanks and airplanes, and other sophisticated equipment. These were then sold in Pakistan for scrap. Eventually, Pakistan’s puppet Taliban regime closed schools, universities and public offices in Afghanistan, in an effort to keep future generations in total ignorance and darkness.
Despite the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which led to the liberation of Afghanistan from the ruthless Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist network, Pakistan’s policy has not changed in respect to its strategic goal in the country.
Since the arrival of coalition forces in Afghanistan, schools have been torched, economic development has been stalled, foreign experts have been beheaded, suicide bombers have flooded in from Pakistani madrassas, and Taliban and al-Qaeda allies have found a safe haven inside Pakistan.
In recent times, a consensus among North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military and intelligence officers has indicated that some in Pakistan’s military turn a blind eye to the activities of the Taliban in Pakistan; further, this consensus has suggested that they collaborate with al-Qaeda.
The path to Afghanistan’s stability is through Pakistan; it is the responsibility of the Afghan government and the coalition countries in Afghanistan to respond to the strategic concerns of Pakistan. Afghanistan is not in a position to get involved in the ethnic rift inside Pakistan. Also, the issue of the Durand Line between the two countries should be debated and settled with a plebiscite on both sides of the border.
Pakistan’s military leaders should recognize that their fear of a democratic and economically prosperous Afghanistan is irrational. Pakistan’s civilian leaders understand that they would benefit economically from a stable, democratic and friendly Afghanistan, as opposed to a Taliban-type regime that could be detrimental to Pakistan’s long-term interests in Afghanistan.
Haroun Mir served for over five years as an aide to the late Ahmad Shah Masoud, Afghanistan’s former defense minister and leader of the Northern Alliance. Haroun Mir is currently president of SIG & Partners Afghanistan in Kabul.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
Beryl Shannon said
How do I sign in to the “Have Your Say” I can’t find it on the web site for news from Afghanistan
N.R.J said
First of all, I would like to condemn the inhuman, ridiculous & wild air/land attack that the American Special Forces had in the western-region Herat Zirkoh Valley of Shindand district. As a matter of fact, so far the NEWS that were released by the Americans of killings of Taliban and Al-Qaeda was baseless, I have been there my self and to be honest there were no Taliban and Al-Qaeda existing. The American Special Forces with no culture respect broke into innocent civilians houses for house search and caused lots of physical and property damage to the people and at the end of killings and beatings telling people “sorry” what should our poor people do with their sorry, should they eat, drink or wear their “sorry”, Poor children, women were killed under the devastation of their buildings caused by bombings of the American B52/ A10 Air crafts. This is an unforgettable heart-scrapping incident and If Americans do not quickly learn from their mistakes they will be wiped out of the country by the brave men of the Afghans.
One thing, which is really experimented, is a say that taught us by our elders, “ Seeing is believing”. If some body tells you that the cat ate you nose first you have to look whether your nose is still on place or its really eaten by cat, then you have to plan to kill the cat or revenge from it. The NEWS that Americans heard that Lots of Arabs, Chichinians and other Al-Qaeda forces are in Zirko valley they had to properly investigate, and had to find proves that yes for sure they are in Zirko then they had to start Air strike.
Iam really driven nuts and I do not know why is this damn catastrophe happening in our dearest homeland.
Regards,
NJR
JaysonAmuir said
I am very sorry on behalf of all peace loving cannucks
Please do not Think of us to be like people from the states who are violent and racist .As a country we want no more death or distruction for Afghan people
only peace and prosperety.
as with all peoples of the world we have our good and our bad. But we are mostly good people like you .
I am sickened by the behavior of those whose fear drives them to shoot first and talk later but all countries have these.no matter what colour your skin we all bleed red .your enemies our ours because evil is rooted in fear not in the name of the land where we live .we all know that god does not respect borders we are all his children and the planet earth is our home .love is the path to peace as much as fear is the path to distruction .We all need to focus on what good things we have in common not in differences that we dont understand.
may peace come to you all swiftly.
I am not your enemy but I am a CANADIAN.
GOD BLESS US ALL
Tony said
I am an American National Guardsman and I can’t think of any place I’d rather be than home with my wife and family. Instead, I am in Afghanistan to help this country secure freedom and rule of law for all of it’s citizens. I don’t understand why the Taliban would want to stop food from getting to poor or under nourished Afghans nor do I understand the logic of puposefully targeting Afghan citizens, soldiers, and police. I have carried weapons and ammunition every since I arrived here but, I have never harmed an Afghan. I ask you then, who are the “true” enemies of Afghanistan. My prayer to God is that Afghanistan can rid itself of these cruel and ungodly people so that the law abiding citizens can enjoy peace and prosperity for years to come. I believe that when the Afghan people catch a glimpse of what it is like to live free, they will also join me and the coalition in the fight for their soverignty and independence. Then I will be able to return to my family having left these precious people to safely raise their’s.
God Bless the USA
God Bless Afghanistan
Tony said
I want to thank Panjshiri for the enlightenment of Afghan history. Afghanistan is a long way from the USA both geographically and politically. I do think that the ANA and ANP will be able to serve the country well in securing rule of law for it’s people. Then anyone who is an Afghan will be able to join the politcal process here without fear. Best wishes.
PrideandSurvival said
This is a reply message to brother Tony, who was, or is, in Afghanistan to fight for our “freedom,” and “secure the rule of law.” First off, I very much admire you spirit and kindness of having a good will towards Afghanistan and its people. I am glad that gaurdsmen and marines like you exist out there, and it is good because it disparages the belief, gravely held by most Afghans, that most of the American troops are evil and their mission in Afghanistan is not to help the Afghan people, but rather a solely selfish evil mission to retaliate against their enemies (Al qaeda). However, just to answer a question you asked, “I understand the logic of puposefully targeting Afghan citizens, soldiers, and police..and who are the ‘true’ enemies of Afghanistan?” The answer to that question simply lies in nationalism and resistance. The Afghan people are more nationalistic than religious. Sometimes their political inspirations bypass their religious affinity. The main goal of Taliban is to get rid of the Western forces, or as they call them “Western Terrorists,” and reinstall their form of government. The purpose to target civilians, soldiers, and police is a form of revenge against the “traitors,” and unleash a feeling of hatred towards the Western forces by causing such bloodshed. You asked, “who are the true enemies of Afghanistan?” I am sure that Afghanistan is not the enemy of US either, and in retrospect, no Taliban hijacked a plane during 9/11. The taliban are nationalistic people and they want a soverign, free of western influence Afghanistan. They don’t want to be Japan after W.W II. They are nationalistic as anyone would be. Let me ask you this, for example, China deems its communistic government as the best form of govenment and freedom and thus wants to expand this freedom by conquering America. Wouldn’t the Americans resist, and take arms against the Chinese soldiers, police, or even citizens during times of war? Wouldn’t the Americans want no presence of forieign troops in D.C, or elsewhere? That was my point. Thanks, and good luck.
Abdullah Haiwad said
Dear Readers;
It is important to address Pashtunistan issue more seriously as the heart of the regional tension lies on both sides of the now expired Durand Line;
We demand the international community and the UN to actively involve in this issue and resolve the 60 years old tension between the two neighbors by removing the Durand Line as border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and recognize its regional borders pre 1893 Durand agreement.
As McArthur assert in his paper ‘in 1947, following the partition of India, it became the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This line, which runs through areas inhabited by the Pashtun’s, was never accepted by either Afghanistan (which signed it under duress) or the Pashtun’s (who sought to create their own homeland called Pashtunistan). As early as June 1949, Afghanistan’s parliament cancelled all the treaties which former Afghan governments has signed with the British-India government including the Durand Treaty and proclaimed that the Afghan government does not recognize the Durand Line as a legal boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ever since then every government in Islamabad military and non-military has desperately tried to reach a bilateral agreement with successive regimes in Kabul to convert the Durand Line into the international border, but without any success. Despite propping up several pro-Pakistan regimes in Kabul, Islamabad was unable to get any of them to endorse the Durand Line as the international border. In 1996, when the Durand agreement and line completed a century, it was considered to have lapsed. Consequently, Pakistan’s de jure western border ceased to exist.
We want Afghanistan’s borders to extend to Punjab on one side and to Send on the other side. We want international community to join in the process and help Afghans on both side of the expired Durand line in its development and peace process.
After the accession of Pashtunistan to Afghanistan, we would like to remain Pakistanis’ friends as long as they do not interfere in great Afghanistan’s internal affaires and do not prostitute information or intelligence across the bothers of great Afghanistan.
The plea to Afghans on both side of the Durand line is to keep the movement of the great Afghanistan stay in the limelight of media and international community, until justice is done and Pashtunistan and Afghanistan is once again reunited.
Barrie Higgins said
The Bush Administration in the USA has a very poor grasp of history and foreign affairs. I don’t know what Europe’s excuse is for NATO’s involvement or for that matter the UN’s excuse is for going beyond its stated mission of assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority and creating a secure environment by organizing the Afghan National Security Forces, Afghan Army and Police forces, disarming illegally armed groups, building educational and medical facilities, counter-narcotics, etc.
There is a huge amount of work to do and in the Spring of 2008 hundreds of thousands of people will be leaving the refugee camps and returning to their home towns in Afghanistan. More than 4 million Afghans have been “assisted home” claims the UNHCR since 2002, with over 3.2 million going from Pakistan and 860,000 from Iran. Some 3 million registered Afghans remain in exile in the region today, including about 2 million in Pakistan and 910,000 in Iran.Where will they live? How much help is ready for them? All the money and energy is being spent on military operations having more to do with fighting Pakistan’s Durand Line issues confusing territorial disputes with “terrorism”.
In 2006 the UN Afghan refugee budget was $56 million(US dollars) and 2007 it’s $47 million, why the cut?
The US cost of the two “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008 budget is for $ 481.4 BILLION dollars, borrowed from China. So many have said military is not the solution; that reaching minds and hearts is the only way to peace but look how the money is being spent!
Tony said
In response to PrideandSuvival.
Sir , I apologize for the delay in this response but I have been busy. I am still in Afghanistan trying to do what is asked of me here. I talk to Afghans almost daily now and I get a mixed response to our (USA) presence here. I take it from your comments that you would like for us to leave as well. For me, it is complicated because I have to do what the military says do. For now, the military says stay. I do agree that I would not like a foreign military presence in the USA but, history tells us that we asked the French to come there and help win OUR independence from Great Britain. In a case where the military is truly there to assist and not to occupy, it would appear that is sometimes a necassary side effect. I do not believe that the US is attempting to force our way of life, religion, or form of governemt on the Afghan people. I think that we are simply here to help stop bloodshed. Will the Taliban stop killling if we were to just pack up and leave? I think not. Will there be peace and prosperity for all Afghans if we disappeared from the landscape? The answers are not easy. I can say that I have made a lot of friends here that I would not want anything to happen to them once I am back in the USA. And the children are so precious. Just yesterday several were murdered by a homicide bomber. Is that the pathway to independence? If the Taliban or any one else in Afghansitan were really interested in getting the coalition out of the country, they would attempt to join the political process and get their views across through public elections. I think they know that won’t work because their form of government is not what the majority of Afghans want. So they resort to killing innocents. My desire again is peace. Not to change Afghan culture but just simply peace. It is not impossible if people were not so worried about a shift in power. You say that all the Taliban wants is a sovereign and free Afghanistan. That is never going to happen until the Afghan people stop thinking of themselves as Poshtu, Tajik, etc. and start thinking of themselves as AFGHANS! There is much to be proud of here but, much work to be done. Again, the fastest way to romove the Coalition from Afghanistan is to just stop killing. Period. I am looking forward to hearing from you again.
Ahmad Fawad said
I simply came home to my origin… leaving my good way of life abroad just to serve Afghanistan, the land of my birth. However sad to observe that Afghans enjoy sipping there own blood. .. the modern day Dracula initiated by fanatic Talibans. These Talibans were hacked by Al Queda culture of terrorism, using the tradition of Alamut.
.
Sad to say that I am ashame as Afghan-origin abroad because of what is happening to the land of my birth now. .. and realized that the only aim of Talibans is to drain all Afghan bloods to promote their Alamut culture.
Adam30 said
We should all live in Peace!
http://www.zarinas.com/
Traditional Clothes and other Fine Goods from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia as well as the Middle East.
Nick Wright said
Speaking as a Canadian who is not in the military, but who is paying attention to what is happening in Afghanistan, I think we are in a time of transition.
I don’t mean the transition from “rogue state,” as the U.N. described the Taliban rulership, to a “democratic state,” as the stated goal of the Western democracies. I mean the transition from an experiment in imposed democracy to whatever comes next–which no one can reliably describe at this point.
While our militaries (U.S. and Canadian) keep trying to sell us “progress” and “improvement” in terms of the number of “Taliban” killed, civilian organizations such as Senlis and the U.S. National Security Council are telling us that the Taliban are increasing their hold on Afghan territory, the Karzai regime remains weak and corrupt, poppy cultivation is at another record level, and the war effort is deteriorating. In short, the wheels are coming off this effort at “nation building.’
President Karzai is negotiating with the Taliban, which seems sane to me, but if the Taliban are as absolute and intransigent in their views and ambitions as they were up to 2001, the recipe is for renewed civil war, because the warlords currently in the provinces and in the Karzai government won’t stand still and let the Taliban re-occupy everything but Kabul. In other words, we don’t know where this going.
The consequences for Canadians (who cling almost self-destructively to a naive vision of good guys saving beleaguered Afghans against monstrous evil and ignore everything else–including Afghanistan’s history and cultural realities) is not so good; i.e., we will likely find ourselves suddenly trying to figure out how to leave, not how long to stay. The consequences for NATO are severe, but what is NATO anyway? Maybe failure in Afghanistan will finally make that question unavoidable by its membership.
In the meantime, I wish the Afghan people a peaceful outcome and a return to security and freedom from want. The powers that surround you should finally tire of meddling in your affairs, and instead, for once, give you the help you need, on your terms.
RICHARD SHERWOOD said
better to leave and let people sort themselves out
Ahmad Fawad said
BBC BREAKING NEWS …
An Afghan was given “Death Sentence” for criticizing Islam;
Once again the classical arrogance of gobbledygook Islam belief blindly and moronically handed down the rigorous religious anathema.
.
Why ??? Is to criticize inhuman faith is wrong? What is good in Islam?
.
It is a pity to be born in Islam domain for human shall be transform into robot. .. shouting Allah Oh Akbar and doing ugly things. Why not set those people free? Give them free will to chose what faith shall be their choice. Or are they afraid that no more follower to sustain their ego? No more member to be treated like slave? Common … Islam followers … wake up and be rational. Forget Islam and live freely.
Ron said
We check your news site daily. Our son is with the Canadian forces there.
You should have an email address for news tips. Right now for example, you are missing the news about 1000 new combat troops committed by France two days ago, for easter Afghanistan.
Ahmad Fawad said
What Afghanistan needs are troops that specialist in extracting human-oxygen.
They should be deploy … specially in the southern region to implement the program of oxygen-extraction. KEEP IT ON THE LOOSE … until those fanatics can no longer function to access oxygen anymore. The only chance that these new reformed Afghans can enjoy the peaceful lives … freely and rationally. And remember … the world is already over crowded and culling is extremely necessary. Start on these problematic maniacs.
Sher e Khorasaan said
I ask all Afghans to stand against blody pakis government for killing those inocent Afghan in Indian embassy blast, meanwhile those fucking taliban need to be wiped out by proud Afghan Army, and i want to tell those fucking taliban to go and save your wives from punjabies especially the speaker of taliban zabihlla mujjahed, fucking bastard
Ahmad Javed Wafa said
First of all thanks from the management of the Afghannews for giving me a chance to express my view.
From the last three decades Afghanistan is facing non-countable and numerious problems in its governance and leardership, i want to briefly discuss some issues which are addressed above by our countrymates too.
Durand Line is a very deep rooted issue. it can not be solved by force as well as by any other means right now. Currently we have a very limited area which is not at peace. if we glance at some of the provinces of Afghanistan it is still lucking basic security. we better focus on the security of Afghanistan instead of bringing new clashes and conflicts to Afghanistan. If we get the area which we claim right now(Durand Line), what will happen to Afghanistan. Again the Taliban who are residing on that side of the border will occupy our country and our country will face lots of problems. even if the Durand line side is given for free with the people residing, i won’t accept it. we have huge land, if we want to work for the development of the country, first develop the country then think about the extra land, so that it can be useful for further development. Afghanistan Govt is not in a position to have durand line.
As being the student of political Economy and socio-economics, i think the existence of coalition forces, ISAF and NATO in Afghanistan is better for the time being. The reason behind is that Afghanistan is not a self-sufficient Economy and doesnot have any strong leadership and power. it won’t be able to live freely. if today coalition forces leave Afghanistan, Pakistan will be again occuping Afghanistan indirectly through Pakistani Taleban. if Pakistan is not able then IRAN will be able to keep Afghanistan under its influence, if Iran is unable then Rassia will be able to bring it under its own influence. and so one. in this era of science and technology Afghanistan cannot survive except to accept others leadership. so it is better to have international community than a single country directly imposing their rules and achieving their objectives through a sever way.
Ahmad Fawad Jan, Don’t call to Islam the religion of problems. Islam is the religion of peace, people call it complete code of life. and if now something is going wrong in the world of Islam that is not islamic teachings but rather some of the muslims’ wrong understanding of Islam. You won’t find any verse of Quran to aprove Suicide attacks. so you can call to such act of terrorist the policitical objectives. these are policitical games appearing with the names of Islam. Arabia is domain of Islam, have you seen any suicide there. the reason is they properly understood the revelation of islam.
at last i will say to all Afghans, try to be committed to Afghansitan. work for the development of Afghanistan so that you and your family should be in peace otherwise the word Afghanistan won’t be able to find for itself a free land.
take care
Harvard Hollenberg said
TIME FOR U.S> TO COME HOME FROM AFGHANISTAN
By Harvard Hollenberg
Let us first set aside for future consideration the Machiavellian view of President Obama. Such a perspective would hold that Republicans dropped a campaign plot to play the race card — and play it hard — because candidate Obama agreed to send up to three new brigades of U.S. forces to Afghanistan, while drawing down troops in Iraq. The implicit promise made to the multinational corporations who rule America was that Obama was firmly on board with the proposition that our country should remain in a perpetual state of war to ensure eternal profits for the belligerency ghouls.
Let us, rather, examine the Afghanistan issue in context and on its own terms. Within the Islamic world, there is a struggle to identify whether Islam is a religion or a polity. No slurvian solution is possible. Islam is either a religion or it is a polity. If Islam is a polity, then the question becomes, what form of government will serve Islam best? Could it be a secular republic or constitutional monarchy, informed by Islamic principles and traditions, with or without democratic leanings? Must it be a theocracy – and if only a theocracy will do, must that theocracy be based upon statism?
I define statism to mean a form of government under which the intellectual lives of the people, their needs, their wants, their personal liberty, their ambitions and aspirations, and perhaps, above all, their tastes are thoroughly subordinated to the dictates of those in power. Statism can take the form of absolute monarchy, as in Saudi Arabia; faux republicanism, as in Egypt; Soviet style Communism; Italian fascism; German Nazism, North Korean megalomania, and military dictatorship, as in Myanmar. Under statism, the demands of the rulers, no matter how illogical or extreme, are always rationalized in terms of the needs of the nation. Statists rule, they do not govern. And they rule by internal terrorism, so that the effectiveness of statists is inversely proportional to the justice of their policies and practices. No one can know what conduct or speech will cause that they be arrested, tortured and killed, because injustice works to control people precisely because it is unpredictable. Under statism, there is no such thing as a legal precedent.
Suppose a man is a Moslem and he comes to the conclusion that Islam is a polity. Suppose, further, that he believes his religion demands that he support a theocratic form of government that is statist. Having reviewed all forms of government, he has come to the conclusion that whether he likes it or not, the only choice he has, as a Moslem, is to engender or choose a statist regime, firmly Islamic, and rationalized in terms of nationalism, defense, religious chauvinism, and ultimate (promised) prosperity.
George W. Bush can talk himself blue in the face about democracy. His entire argument is regularly undercut by his “base,” which relentlessly insists that America is a Christian country. When the far right is seeking to sound ecumenical, they sometimes refer to our “Judeo-Christian” heritage. Is it not obvious why such an assertion, which in its palpable ignorance omits the Ancient Greeks and British secularists as wellsprings of our national philosophy, cuts no ice with Moslems, half-a-world away?
That Moslem man may say that he truly admires aspects of liberal Western democracy, but as a Moslem, such things have no relevance to him. Instead, he adverts to the fact that more than one hundred thousand innocent Iraqi’s are dead, who would be alive today but for the mendacious and murderous liberal Western democrats, as well as the existence of a liberal Western democracy in the form of a Jewish state in Palestine. He may truly appreciate the virtues of the Americans and the achievements of the Israelis without seeing, in the least, how any of that could apply to his situation and his country.
The above analysis applies to the Iranians,who have accepted statism as a corollary of the principle that Islam is a polity. No matter how many “hospitality” quotes can be coaxed from Iranians evincing an admiration for the United States and the American people, there is no real nexus between such positive protestations and any willingness to accept liberal Western institutions. Moreover, at a time when North Korea broke its promise to Bill Clinton and resumed its deadly construction of missiles and atomic weapons, the response of George W. Bush was to threaten to bomb Iran, at least four years away from even developing a nuclear weapon. Stated otherwise, North Korea has missiles capable of being armed with nuclear warheads. Those missiles are easily pointed at Seoul and Tokyo. They are just as easily planted on camouflaged fishing boats on the Pacific Ocean, potentially within range of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. The Iranians are entitled to ask two questions. Doesn’t a double standard as between North Korea and Iran belie the liberal Western precept of personal and nation-state equality; and when was the last time America went to war with a country she really thought could fight back?
Although not all Moslems are, we assume, torn by an inner struggle over the issue of whether Islam is a religion or a polity, the people of Afghanistan are ripe for taking up the issue and resolving it in favor of the latter, in light of the complexity and ineffectuality of secular local governmental structures.
In a learned paper detailing the realities of the local government problems and possible remedies, Dr. Hamish Nixon observed:
“The challenge of improving governance through
institutional change in Afghan provinces has
thus far been approached in a piecemeal
fashion. New structures such as Provincial Councils
and Provincial Development Committees
(PDCs)have been created, and administrative
reform and support efforts have taken place.
The result, however, has not been an overall
strengthening or clarification of the formal
institutions of state, but rather simply the
creation of a confusing and incoherent array of
institutions with unclear responsibilities, resources,
and relationships.”
*******************
“The fundamental challenge to subnational
governance reform is the lack of a coherent
vision for practical implementation of a
subnational governance framework within a
context where local government efforts are
diluted and confounded by local politics
with strong war-time legacies.”
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit
Synthesis Paper Series – Subnational State-Building in Afghanistan
The situation is now being thoroughly exploited by the Taliban, as recently reported in The Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2008.
“The Taliban are setting up courts and other local-government institutions across southern Afghanistan, challenging U.S. efforts to pacify the country and bolster the authority of the central government in Kabul.
“Senior American military officials said the Taliban run roughly two dozen law courts in southern Afghanistan, one of the armed Islamist group’s main strongholds. Drawing on a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law, the courts work to resolve conflicts over property, grazing rights and inheritances, the officials said.
“The Taliban have also appointed unofficial governors and mayors to exercise day-to-day control over remote areas, amounting to a parallel government independent of Kabul, according to the U.S. officials.”
With United Nations local government projects stymied by violence and a population that is estimated at 25% illiterate, the facility of adopting the doctrine of Islam as a polity has become all the more appealing. The corollary of the necessity of statism is hardly a novel concept for the beleaguered people of Afghanistan, who were promised democracy by George W. Bush and were delivered, instead, as was so typical of the sequellae of the Bush Doctrine [to quote Justice Holmes], “chaos with an index.”
American historians tend to assert that the thirteen American colonies were ripe for creating a national government based upon democratic principles because we were literate and had experience with self-government. They frequently elide another sine qua non of democracy, namely, a thriving, growing middle class. I suspect they are reluctant to say so because it is a view that, however true, could hardly ingratiate them with multinational corporations that govern access to publication and also batten on the poverty of people to whom they outsource jobs. The truth is that King George III was genuinely surprised that the colonists refused to pay a few pennies extra for tea and for authenticating public documents, since most residents of English-speaking North America were far more affluent than all but the richest Britains.
The bourgeoisie are the only class with both the motive and the space to insist upon democracy. Democracy requires the capacity to abstract principles of civil liberties, such as free speech and due process of law, and civil rights, such as universal suffrage and the equal protection of the law.
Here is the progression. Par example, in Iraq, a journalist throws his shoes at George W. Bush. [Symbolically, of course, his act is even more primitive, because he was representationally, actually throwing feces.] Next step: a disgruntled sojourner only says “I throw my shoes at you.” Next step: I form an opposition political party. Next step: I muster support and votes for opposition candidates. Next step: I run for office and if elected, I assume the role of a very different kind of decider.
Poor people are so beset with concrete problems, they cannot formulate or act on abstract principles. They have difficulty even maintaining moral distinctions – or as Bertolt Brecht put it, Erst kommt das Fressen, dan kommt die Moral [“First feed the face, and then talk right and wrong.”] (From Die Dreigroschenoper [“The Threepenny Opera,”] Tr. Mark Blitzstein).
According to The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, writing in September, 2008:
“Majority of Afghans have little access to clean water, jobs, job insurance and regular income to run their daily life smoothly.
“War-torn Afghanistan has experienced the deadliest year, in 2008, since the collapse of the Taliban regime in late 2001. So far this year more than 4,000 people including 1,445 civilians have been killed. Up to 18 million people in Afghanistan live on less than US $2 a day and are considered food-insecure, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) says.
“Driving factors towards increasing instability, according to Afghans, is the high rate of unemployment and poverty in the war-wrecked country.
“Many of those fighters joining Taliban insurgents are illiterate tribal people, young seminarians, and low educated jobless youths. The Taliban pay 400 U.S. dollars while a government soldier receives some 200 U.S. dollars a month.
“Though there is no exact statistic about the rate of unemployment in Afghanistan, it is said that some 40 percent of the country’s 25 million populations are jobless and some 5 million Afghans live under poverty line in the war-battered nation.
“The high rate of unemployment has driven thousands of Afghan youth to the neighboring countries Pakistan and Iran to seek jobs or to the ranks of the Taliban to fight government and international troops based in Afghanistan.”
When the United States is experiencing its own soaring unemployment, business failures, and home foreclosures, just how are we supposed to feed, clothe, house, and finance the businesses of tens of millions of the people of Afghanistan?
The Afghans are not entirely without resources. As we struggle to protect some of them, some of the time, from so-called insurgents, money is flowing to the enemy we deem to be ours, but about whose antagonistic interests the Afghans may not be so sure. If we cannot persuade tobacco growers in North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee to diversify their agriculture – and thus reduce America’s health costs by tens of billions of dollars each year — how are we supposed to persuade Afghan farmers to plant peas and carrots instead of opium poppies?
Although drought and flooding rains in different sectors of Afghanistan reduced the opium-cum-heroin industry, last year, the only effective policy incursions on that industry, according to that Government’s own 2008 Annual Opium Poppy Survey, came from strong leadership by some governors, for example in Badakshan, Balkh and Nangarhar, who discouraged farmers from planting opium through campaigns against its cultivation; moreover, effective peer pressure was abetted by religious leaders, elders and shura who are becoming increasingly effective in convincing farmers not to grow opium, not least because it is against Islam.
However, the industry still presents a staggering problem for Afghanistan. According to the same government report,
“Drug cultivation, production, and trafficking are carried out on an
enormous scale thanks to collusion between corrupt officials, landowners, warlords and criminals. Until they all face the full force of the law, the opium economy will continue to prosper with impunity, and the Taliban will continue to profit from it. It is the task of development agencies and military operations to maintain economic growth and improve security. These measures should be complemented by equally robust efforts towards good governance, efficient administration and honest judiciary: these efforts have yet to gain momentum.”
So here we are, again, at the need in Afghanistan for effective, honest, secure local governments that it would take vast American efforts to install – and even if we did, our efforts would lack legitimacy, in the eyes of the people, because we are not Moslems.
The Afghans are going to have to accomplish these objectives largely on their own, and it will be up to them to decide whether Islam as a polity needs to rehearse the statism of the prior regime. Perhaps the newly enfranchised women (in some parts of the country) will make the difference now.
Although we increasingly put American troops in harm’s way, ostensibly to protect the Afghans, it is becoming apparent that it is Pakistan, not Afghanistan, which represents the greater, if not, indeed, the greatest threat to ourselves and to stability in Asia. Pakistan must be divested of its nuclear arsenal.
I speak as a majority of one. I simply will not tolerate the ability of the Taliban to regroup, retrain and rearm in Pakistan for the express purpose of returning to Afghanistan to kill our sons and daughters. I will not tolerate the implicit threat of the Pakistani army to mutiny, seize control of their nuclear arsenal, and turn over weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda if we but harm a hair on the head of Osama bin Laden.
Pakistan must be disarmed and neutralized. I want them turned into the Austria of Asia. Here’s how we do it.
Pakistan developed its nuclear arsenal as a countervailing force to the nuclear status of India. The greatest bone of contention between the two countries is the disputed region of Kashmir. Therefore, I wish to transplant the proven effective concept, developed by the present King of Saudi Arabia, when he was Crown Prince, land for peace!
Pakistan should be required by the United Nations to:
·Withdraw all its troops from Kashmir, at once; ·Cede to India all rights and claims and title to the entire province of Kashmir, and ·Allow U.N. inspectors to chronicle and to dismantle and destroy
all of Pakistan’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.
In return, India should be required to sign a non-aggression treaty with Pakistan, guaranteed by His Majesty, the King of Saudi Arabia.
But as for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, we don’t belong there; we really aren’t helping, and we should just bring them home.
Harvard Hollenberg is pro bono Family Court Attorney for Family Support Services Unlimited, Inc., a not-for-profit agency that works under the aegis of the Bronx Family Court, providing and referring education, health and mental health services for families and children in foster care.
© Copyright Harvard Hollenberg 2009. All rights reserved.
Tony said
I have questions for Mr. Hollenburg. When was the last time you visited either Afghanistan or Iraq? When was the last time an Afghan citizen begged you not to leave because they were afraid the violence would return to their village? Everyone has an idea for what should or could be done but, the bottom line is people were and are dying. Innocent people. People who just want to live free and make a decent living for their family. Oppression and tyranny are NOT acceptable forms of government for a religion or polity. That Sir is why we are needed in Afghanistan. We may be leaving Iraq soon because of the progress there.
Elizabeth Royall said
“Afghanistan and Goldstone”
The United States has fallen victim to the Pottery Barn rule twice in the new millennium: you break, you buy. And so, at the start of 2009, the United States has bought two troubled nations: Afghanistan and Iraq. Luckily for still-green President Barack Obama, Iraq is slowly stabilizing. Unlucky for Obama, Afghanistan has been rapidly deteriorating since 2006.
The new administration is in process of reviewing Afghanistan and Pakistan policy, issuing several 100-plus page reports, and praying that their next gamble (for all wars are gambles) in Afghanistan pays off. In “Toward a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory” (2001) by Jack Goldstone, he quotes Fred Halliday, saying “don’t invade a revolution.” The United States has done just that, inviting a panoply of problems since our involvement in late 2001. While not getting into the merits and drawbacks of U.S. involvement, it is clear that we face a critical time in the ongoing operation in Afghanistan. Many mistakes have been made thus far, most notably, letting Afghanistan slide and allowing the Taliban to regroup while we focused on Iraq; but resolve, greater resources, and a new strategy is needed.
Like Halliday suggested, the way forward will be difficult. We waited to get involved until after the Taliban had mobilized, both in the 1990s and the mid-2000s. However, now Afghanistan is almost entirely dependent on the international community, both politically and economically. According to Goldstone’s analysis, this is both a blessing and a curse. International involvement does promote state stability—good news for President Hamid Karzai’s fracturing hold on power—though it severely complicates the end game in Afghanistan, when the international community will seek to wean Afghanistan off its support.
If Karzai is to retain the presidency after Afghanistan’s August elections, he would be wise to highlight his government as effective and just. Karzai has recently been largely criticized for running an ineffective government, particularly in his failure to root out corruption. According to Goldstone, efficiency and justice are the keys to having a stable government. Karzai has avoided, for the most part, accusations of injustice. However, he has been guilty of injustice by proxy in his support for warlords that make street thugs seem friendly.
This poses a danger for the battle for public support. The Taliban, for all their sins, united Afghanistan in relative security. They were effective and just—in a cruel manner—but nonetheless, the Taliban is slowly gaining support in Afghanistan, even if it is just tacit support. The Taliban has set up shadow governments in several provinces of Afghanistan, and regardless of how barbaric their justice is, it is fairly enforced. This battle for “hearts and minds” is more important than taking out individual Taliban or al Qaeda fighters.
Goldstone concludes, “Stability is not an inertial state but implies an ongoing, successful process of reproducing social institutions and cultural expectations across time. Failure to sustain that process, not any particular combination of incident factors or conditions, is what leads to state crises.” The United States and NATO ought to keep this in mind as they re-tool their Afghanistan strategy.
wali wardak said
hi my say about peace talk with taliban firstable i am not belong to any orgnization .there is only one option for afghans to live to gather which is peace not just taliban all nation in afghanistan and specialy for afghan leadres to be honest for land peaples and share there blood with each other.