The Division Bell
The United States of Afghanistan—an old idea comes to the fore again, and Pakistan is alarmed
But Sehbai's proposal had Islamabad go ballistic. Director-general of the Afghan desk at the foreign office, Aziz Khan, told Outlook: "Afghanistan will not be disintegrated. All Afghans are unanimous on this matter, even though they have differences with each other. Afghanistan will remain united as the integrity of the country is very important to the Afghans." Earlier, shaking his head in sheer disbelief, he told journalists in his long years of experience of Afghanistan he had never come across any Afghan who endorsed the Balkanisation of his country.
Obviously, Khan didn't mention the other bitter truth—there's little chance of agreement among Afghans over the nature of a broadbased government.No wonder Sehbai is critical of the Pakistan government's attitude: "Establishing a broadbased government is the thinking in Islamabad. It's a bizarre and quite woolly-headed idea."
There are indeed reports that even the US is contemplating dividing Afghanistan. UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi reportedly mooted this proposal on his recent visit to Teheran, which expressed its opposition. Says senior journalist Nadeem Malik: "The US has envisaged and is likely to press ahead with its plans of an East Timor-like UN security cover for Afghanistan in order to ensure its sustained military presence in the region. One report talks of a possible parallel government in Afghanistan, with the Taliban ruling the entire southern belt and a UN-led government in the north. This looks more likely, as there are still no signs of the Pashtuns (represented by the Taliban) collapsing."
Argues Sehbai: "Now that the blueprint for the future is being drawn by foreign powers who have overt corporate interests, and have invested heavily as well, let there be a discussion on self-determination for Afghans of different ethnic origins. After all, the concept of self-determination is so close to Pakistan's heart and so central to the Kashmir cause. It would only be fair to apply the same yardstick to the hapless Afghans."
But official Pakistan is extremely reluctant to accept this. For instance, the isi is still sympathetic to the Taliban and considers it absolutely essential to have a friendly government in Kabul. A senior isi official told Outlook: "You can't take away years of hard work, our contacts with the Taliban, just by a few cosmetic changes in the isi or with a U-turn in foreign policy. These policies are a result of years of hard work and will be the last which can change overnight. How will the next government in Kabul deal with us knowing that Pakistan betrayed its own creation and could dump anyone else too?"
The division of Afghanistan, argues Sehbai, takes care of Pakistan's interest of a trouble-free border. "Is it better to have an unfriendly Kabul which means all of Afghanistan would be unfriendly to us, or is it better to have the south where eventually the Taliban will be pushed to be friendly to Pakistan?" asks Sehbai. His contention is that a friendly government in southern Afghanistan would not only ensure peace on the border but also protect trade routes to Central Asia.
Former foreign minister Sartaj Aziz, himself a Pashtun, says that way back in 1988-89, he had told Sahibzada Yakub Ali Khan, another ex- foreign minister, that a peaceful Afghanistan can only be a loose federation. "Today, it's a reality because Uzbeks and Tajiks do not want to be ruled by anyone else. But the question is—and this is not clear to me—how does one go about it," he asks. Saying a United States of Afghanistan can be achieved only after traversing a long and arduous road, Aziz points out: "Traditionally, Afghanistan has been a loose federation even when there was a monarchy in Kabul. Today, the issue is not the degree of autonomy but of creating a functioning government in Kabul which could then grant autonomy to the provinces."
But there are many others who simply blanch at the idea. For instance, Gen Nasirullah Babar, credited with fathering the Taliban, says: "This is a US idea and no Afghan will allow this. Because of the bombings, Afghans are no longer divided on ethnic basis. The Pashtuns are the largest group and in the tribal areas they say that the Kabul takht (throne) will always be with a Pashtun. "
The plan of dividing Afghanistan would not be acceptable to the Pashtuns also because the economic resources of the country are concentrated in the north. As Ahmed Rashid in his book, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, points out: "Although most of Afghanistan's population is concentrated in the south, 60 per cent of Afghanistan's agricultural resources and 80 per cent of its former industry, mineral and gas wealth are in the north." Ahmed says this was precisely the reason why the Taliban attempted to defeat the warlords in the north and unite the country.
International TV channels have already started debating the issue of dividing Afghanistan, while the officialdom in Islamabad is burning the midnight oil to stave off this challenge. But sooner or later, Pakistan will have to come to terms with this idea. For, anyway, with Burhanuddin Rabbani's Northern Alliance moving closer to Mazar-e-Sharif, and the Taliban still intact in the south, a division of the country will informally take place. A United States of Afghanistan, or such other proposals, would then only require the approval of the other USA—the United States of America.
Published At:
Tags