Wither Afghanistan?
By Andrew Thomson
The American bombing campaign in Afghanistan is approaching its one-month birthday, looking to be wandering aimlessly from day to day. Some call it "Operation Infinite Justice," others (mostly media pundits) have deemed this "America Strikes Back."
Regardless of which verbose moniker is being used, many North Americans are beginning to recover from the initial shock of September 11 and the start of the military hunt for alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. Many have replaced their curiosity of the day-to-day bombing operations with more long-term questions, especially with concerns to the future of Afghanistan and its citizens.
Will the Taliban eventually be ousted from their theocratic perch in Kandahar? If so, what does this mean for the millions of Afghans immersed in the daily struggle for survival against starvation and destruction of their land by internal and external forces? Does the West have the patience or will to impose a liberal political and economic culture on this land? If the United States were to withdraw after the capture (dead or alive) of bin Laden, can we expect the al-Qaeda syndicate to fold its tent? And perhaps most pertinent to institutionalists and those involved in Model UN, what becomes of the United Nations? Will there be new peacekeeping? How will these past two months impact the future of international law and criminal courts?
Let’s begin inside Afghanistan itself with a look at the Taliban regime. In terms if diplomatic recognition, they have lost little as a result of September 11. Although no other country (including the UN) formally recognizes their legitimacy to govern, the fact remains that even before September only three states (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E.) actually did consider them legitimate. Afghanistan’s seat at the United States is still held by the government of Bernahuddin Rabani, ousted to the north from Kabul in 1996. Much of the rest of the world had condemned them for one reason or another, ranging from human rights abuses to the destruction of priceless Central Asian pieces of art (ie. The Buddha statues at Bamiyan). The Taliban have consistently ignored external pressure to tone down their implementation of radically-interpreted Islamic law. This was the case even though most Afghans belonged to a liberal Sunni sect of the Muslim faith, the Hanafi sect, based more on local tribal traditions.
To be sure, the Taliban are not the first rogue state in history, nor will they be the last in all probability. Why then, is the United States determined to see its end? Quite simply and obviously, they allowed Osama bin Laden and scores of other terrorists operating under the guise of Islamic fundamentalism to live, plan, and train within their borders. Considering the published reports of close personal relationships between bin Laden and key Taliban officials, it isn’t much of a stretch to assume there was some knowledge of his whereabouts prior to the attacks, possibly even knowledge of his intentions. But this is all heresay. Let’s give the benefit of doubt and suppose the Taliban did not know what was to happen, or where the nerve centre of al-Qaeda is. Without an actual Afghan national armed forces, this may be a valid argument. But if the scholars and clerics composing the Taliban were true representatives of Islamic law and justice, would they not be interested in seeing bin Laden’s end as well? To go one step further, would this not provide an opportunity for global recognition of the Taliban?
They have dug themselves into a deep hole. In a November 2nd lecture at Carleton University, internationally acclaimed Canadian journalist and military analyst Gwynne Dyer succinctly stated the main thrust behind the American campaign to at the very least capture bin Laden and topple the Taliban.
"There are 270 million very angry people right now, and these are the minimum demands of the public," he said.
However, having said this, the idea of removing the Taliban and the people of Afghanistan magically converting to a democratic and prosperous state is facetious. The original reason for their rise to power in the mid-1990’s was the chaos of civil war, the indirect result of the Soviet withdrawal of 1989. Warlords and factions once united in opposition to the Red Army make a mad dash for power after the collapse of the Communists and the ascension of Rabani to the presidency. There is little evidence to suggest a similar conflict would not erupt if the Taliban were overthrown, even with Western intervention.
What about the ethnic question? To speak of the people of Afghanistan as a unified cultural and ethnic unit is akin to saying the same for Canada. While the Taliban are comprised of Sunni Muslim Pashtuns (or Pathans) mainly from the southern areas of the country and neighbouring Pakistan, the rest of the population is divided among Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Baluchs, and Hazaras. The ill will created by the imposition of the Taleban’s power cannot be easily wiped clean and forgotten.
A case could be made that these bombings may eventually strengthen the Taliban’s hold on power in Afghanistan, the same way that Saddam Hussein has consistently galvanized the people of Iraq to unite against the "Great White Satan" for the past ten years. But for most Afghanis, these political questions and scenarios are meaningless without food, shelter, jobs or personal safety.
Iranian refugee camps located on the border now hold approximately two million people, mostly those fleeing from Afghanistan. These camps are ripe with disease: outbreaks of cholera, tuberculosis and dysentery have been reported. The situation is graver within the country itself. The World Food Program has made the unfortunate prediction of up to one million deaths from starvation this winter without more aid. Needless to say, democratization and economic reforms are not at the forefront of daily concerns for the average citizen in Afghanistan.
And once the dust is settled, the foreign troops have left, and the bombings stopped, are the industrialized nations of the world going to be truly committed to building a civil society in Afghanistan, along with a plan for economic recovery? The aforementioned ethnic and health problems aside, it is hard to believe that the West will have the patience or the motivation to take on the task of a making a newer, shinier Afghanistan open for business. To be sure, corporations will still be interested in building oil and gas pipelines, and drug addicts and muffin aficionados may keep opium demands high, but the types of economic building blocks needed for this region could take decades to take form. One needs to look no further then Afghanistan’s collapsed infrastructure and relic education system to see this.
As for the UN, what role will it play in sorting out this messy situation? Because of its versatility and scope, it could conceivably be involved in everything from peacekeeping to refugee work, from food drops to building new democratic political institutions, from children’s aid to education. So far the extent of action by the Security Council has been to first condemn the attack in a September 12 Resolution (#1368), and then pass Resolution 1373 on the 28th of September. The latter resolution spelled out demands for states to freeze all assets of known terrorist organizations, forbid state financial or moral support for these same groups, and to work co-operatively to combat terrorism through improved communication and intelligence trading.
Will these events have an impact on attempts to increase the strength and mandate of the International Criminal Court? It has figured prominently in recent times, especially with regards to Balkan war crimes and the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. If the perpetrators are caught, be it bin Laden or not, how will the wheels of justice be put in motion? A simple federal or state trial in New York, or something more internationally-based comparable to the case of the 1988 Lockerbie trial, where the Libyan nationals accused of blowing up Pan Am Flight 103 were tried in the Hague under Scottish common law? What happens if suspects are taken alive into custody will therefore be an important facet of the situation to examine, as it may set a precedent for future hostilities.
Maybe these discussions are irrelevant. Perhaps George W. Bush, Tony Blair and friends will sit in a circle, holding hands in meditation and using their unworldly powers of mind control. Poof! Osama bin Laden and his cohorts will emerge from their underground hideout, offering to confess all crimes and hold the trial in Texas! The Taliban will voluntarily give up power and go into hiding, leaving the rest of Afghan population to spontaneously create a representative and responsible government with real infrastructure! Afghanistan will magically become an economic powerhouse begging the West to exploit its natural resources and people! Islamic fundamentalist terrorism will cease to exist for the duration of humanity!
However, we’re a few centuries away from our elected leaders exhibiting telekinetic powers, Mackenzie King notwithstanding. And so far there have been no reports of David Copperfield entering the 2004 presidential race. Therefore we can safely assume that these issues will not resolve themselves and that we need to discuss them, not only for the betterment of the people of Afghanistan, but those of us in Canada, the United States and the rest of the world. For when the last American plane or soldier has left the area, these questions and concerns will not be leaving with them.