BY BRUSHING aside the United Nations, George Bush has
placed the attack on Afghanistan on the same footing as was the NATO
bombing of the former Yugoslavia over Kosovo, also undertaken with only an
implied mandate from the Security Council. The Afghan offensive is
arguably more justified for several reasons, especially under the
self-defence provision of section 51 of the U.N. Charter.
This mission, however, is fraught with far greater danger,
militarily and politically.
The anti-terrorist coalition is far more brittle than the allied
partnership ever was in Kosovo.
As in Kosovo, America is using firepower from a distance, keeping
American soldiers safe. Such long-distance war is even more suited to
Afghanistan, given its terrain, history, and 20 million land mines. There
is no immediate plan to commit American ground forces, except perhaps for
commando missions. The Northern Alliance militia will be the cannon
fodder, as was the Kosovo Liberation Army.
The declared American strategy is to soften the Taliban military
positions, such as they are. This should allow the Alliance — which has
only about 5,000 soldiers and controls less than 10 per cent of the
country but is strategically placed 50 kilometres north of Kabul — to
puncture through to the capital.
Should that happen, the war would be nowhere near being won. In
fact, it would have just begun. The Taliban control the area from Kabul
all the way south to the Pakistan border.
But entry into Kabul would have symbolic value, enough perhaps to
prompt the defection of moderates within the Taliban (these are relative
terms). This would destabilize the regime, which is widely unpopular.
But the Taliban are not likely to disintegrate without a fight,
especially by those around clerical leader Mullah Omar and Osama bin
Laden. The success of the American mission will depend on isolating them.
The allies and the Alliance would then part company. It has to be
cleansed of warlords, drug dealers, murderers and rapists, leaving only
the more acceptable representatives of the four northern minorities it
represents.
Ex-king Zahir Shah, 86, ailing and in exile in Rome, would be
dusted off as a symbolic head of a new national unity government, which
must include the majority Pashtuns to be acceptable to Afghans who,
despite all the internecine horrors, remain committed to the idea of one
Afghan nation. An interim administration without Pashtuns "would be like
having a British government with no representation for the English," says
Dilip Hiro, London-based author and an expert on West Asia.
Should all these scenarios unfold as hoped, the stage would be set
for rebuilding Afghanistan, as were post-war Germany and Japan and, more
recently, Kosovo and East Timor.
The job would best be done by the United Nations, as in Cambodia a
decade ago. Read the Taliban for Pol Pot and King Zahir Shah for Prince
Norodum Sihanouk. The situation in Afghanistan is even more deserving,
given the near-total breakdown of society.
The European Union has suggested just such an "essential role" for
the U.N. Helping in multilateral, financial and other commitments should
be the neighbours interested in stability in the region: China, Russia and
Iran, as well as oil-rich Arabs.
These are a whole lot of ifs, but they can be pulled off, one
hopes. More difficult to contain is the broader political fallout.
One can foresee the coalition cracking for any number of reasons:
Too much use of force by the world's biggest power on the most powerless;
too many civilian casualties; further flaring of the Arab-Israeli dispute;
any retaliatory terrorist acts, anywhere, but especially in any
Arab/Muslim country.
Author Arundathi Roy tackled two of those themes in a powerful
essay, The Algebra Of Infinite Justice, now being widely
circulated. "Can there be anything more ironic than Russia and America
joining hands to re-destroy Afghanistan? The question is, can you destroy
destruction? Dropping more bombs on Afghanistan will only shuffle the
rubble, scramble some old graves and disturb the dead." And, "How many
dead Afghans for every dead American? How many dead women and children for
every dead man? How many dead mujahideen for each dead investment
banker?"
Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf, walking a fine line supporting
America while fending off domestic critics, is already calling for an end
to the bombing. Other partners, from Central Asia to the Middle East, are
similarly nervous. Not that they do not want terrorists eliminated. But
they fear domestic backlash, so bereft they are of democratic legitimacy
and so strong the anti-American public sentiment.
The antenna of the Bush administration has picked up all these
strong signals. Hence the promised $320 million humanitarian aid and the
air-dropped food packages and pamphlets announcing that America is after
criminals, not ordinary Afghans. Even the slightest deviation from the
script could spell big trouble.
Haroon Siddiqui is The Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His
column appears Thursday and Sunday. His e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1pixel.gif
