MB Naqvi

The writer is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist

mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

Let's be realistic. The next Afghan government is to be made by American smiths alone. Pakistan has been eliminated from this whole business. Actually the US is at war with Pakistani proteges, if not proxies: the Taliban. Tony Blair of UK looked like giving a consolation prize to General Pervez Musharraf by declaring in Islamabad that Pakistan has valid concerns about the formation of Afghanistan's next government. Colin Powell withdrew even that before touching down in Islamabad. He ticked off India, Pakistan and all other meddlers: the US would not give a veto to any other power over government-making there. In other words, the Yanks mean to nominate their own guys. Pakistanis, stunned as they were on the military regime's U-turn on Taliban, are being asked to forget all about strategic depth dreams. Has the full extent of the change been realised?

Pakistanis find it hard to learn from history or their own experience. The government and all its cheer leaders are signing wonderful songs of devotion to ex-King Zahir Shah; their loyalist sentiment, a sudden development, would do honour to his one-time courtiers. But no one seems to have asked President Musharraf or Bush questions. A King who was overthrown 28 years ago and after him a nationalist republican dictatorship and later a communist regime ruled Afghanistan, effecting many changes in Afghan perceptions. Later still, there was an anti-Communist, foreign-supported rebellion that succeeded. There followed three Pakistan-made governments of not much varied hues of Islamicists, all intolerant and ruthless dictatorships, with their components given to pillage, rapine and murders. Now experienced men of affairs and experts have hit upon the idea of Zahir Shah as the only possible saviour of Afghanistan, as if time has stood still for all these eventful 28 years and Afghans' minds have retained their pristine tribal purity.

There is also a wonderful mantra on official lips: a broad-based government is what Afghanistan needs. True, the idea has been around since the Soviets withdrew their troops. The UN and supposedly Pakistan have supposedly been chasing this ghost. It has always eluded them. Now the US, UK, Pakistan and the entire new anti-terrorist alliance is claimed to be engaged in the arduous labours of beating into shape a broad-based government. In more tranquil times a broad-based government meant one that enjoyed a large mass of support from its people. Now what do they mean by this term?

Superficially, they seem to imply an Afghan government that includes representatives of major ethnic groups that make up the Afghan population. In practice, it means some representatives of the Northern Alliance - Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens and others from northern areas - and some representative of the Pushtoons of the south. 'Representatives' did one say? No, no, not representatives in the sense of popular or elected ones. Just warlords, with a militia, will do because there has never been an election. That means all warlords among Pushtoons, Uzbeks and Tajiks will want to muscle in. All such ethnic groups are in millions. Not all wanting to be in the government can be in it. So, either an outright victory or someone far more powerful's nomination will be the necessary qualification for getting into the charmed circle-to-be. That's why Powell shooed off Pakistan and India from being obstreperous. It is now America's turf.

Many are voluble on Loya Jirga. This is now a sort of totem for Afghans. But can't people remember all the varied calls for Loya Jirga for diametrically opposed purposes. How many times have we not heard calls for it? Today, Maulanas, Fazulr Rahman, Samiul Haq and others of this school of politics have called for Loya Jirga. Fine. So have Ajmal Khattak, Wali Khan and Mahmoud Achakzai. Would the actual members attending the Jirga be exactly the same? Who will determine the participants? Will it not the person or authority convening it? How many have called for it at different stages - for widely different purposes. Didn't Dr Najibullah call a Loya Jirga in his days and didn't it Okay his reforms? The worthies should stop pretending that they are all calling for the same thing.

A whole romantic mythology has been built up around Pushtoons. Although Pushoonwali is a genuine article, much of the mystique around the unique Pushtoon way of arriving at a consensus through a Jirga, comprising officially-paid Maliks and other well-to-do tribal leaders, was originally a part of British romancing of their army. It might be that earlier Afghan masses were too ignorant and simple to disobey a Jirga, a hoary tradition of Panchas in the rest of South Asia. But times change and with that the level of awareness and functional independence of the individual grows. This has happened all over South Asia. Would Afghans be the only exception who refuse to take notice of the march of time and their level of awareness and determination to save their own and their families' skins in wars, droughts and civil wars does not improve? Could it be that it suits the well-to-do Pathans to go on pretending that Pushtoons and Afghans are still the same as they were in previous centuries.

Moreover the chatter about a broad-based government (under Zahir Shah) is a snare. How precisely will a government become broad-based? The consensus among Pakistani officials appears to be: if it has ministers that belong to Pushtoons and other minority groups in the right mix, it will be one. That has several additional catches in it. What is a 'right mix' of Afghan nationalities or ethnic identities? Which Pushtoons it will have? And who will select and what is the criteria for selecting? That goes for all ethnic groups. Finally, who precisely will choose the next government? Maybe Islamabad is demanding - supposing it can - a few of its Pushtoon nominees? One hopes not. Not even a brigade of wise men can choose the right mix of nationalities and names of ministers out of all the candidates, with their long sharpened knives.

Now that history has forced, against Islamabad's dearest wishes, its exclusion from Afghanistan's major affairs, lock, stock and barrel, it is about time that Pakistanis instead of trying to influence US policy recognised simple verities. First, Afghanistan should be for the Afghans. Let all others be irrelevant to the future of Afghanistan. And that includes Pakistanis. Whether the Americans will be a part of the crowd staying out is not certain. But we can wish, say and even hope that they too will keep out while the Afghans go about the business of rebuilding their government, homes, economy and a political life.

The question recurs: who actually should and will select the next Afghan government. A made-in-America regime will last while American bombers and commandos remain hovering around to save it. It will collapse speedily enough after Americans withdraw and civil war will resume. If Loya Jirga institution might not work, as is being argued here, because it excludes the actual Afghan people from determining the future shape of the state and composition of the next government, what will? There is now no ordered society and conceivably there may be no known authority except a commander or warlord of an area or city. How can common Afghans be brought together, consulted or enabled to express their wishes? Well, there is no known Afghan way. There are far too many groups and armies and ambitious warlords in every corner of that devastated country. And too many ambitious outsiders desiring to somehow determine who rules this strategic area. There seems to be no alternative to a big outside power imposing order and a government. That will today be the US. Is that OK?

By no means. We all want to change the law of the jungle in which the strong imposes its will on the weak. This is however the reality of international relations today, notwithstanding the sop of the UN. Actually to describe this as the jungle law is an insult to both animals and nature. The strong eat the weak because that is the only way to survive; no carnivore actually forces weak to act the way it wishes. The thing to do is to change this jungle-looking situation. A weak animals' trade union is needed and their cooperation is the only solution.

In other words, the people of 186 odd states plus Switzerland should 'unite for peace' in the UN General Assembly and create an international security force or peace enforcers for Afghanistan. It should ask the US to peacefully hand over Afghanistan to the UN Trusteeship Council, place it directly under UN General Assembly and it should run Afghanistan for five to seven years with the help of officers from small democratic states - to re-establish an administration, restore vital infrastructure, reconstruct the economy and re-establish rule of law - if necessary borrowed and adapted laws from any modern state that grants human rights to its people - allow free political expression and activity, while armed Afghan groups are disarmed and the country prepared for a free election. Once an elected Assembly emerges, let power be transferred to it. This is not fanciful. That is what the UN did in Cambodia, though it will cost some money.

There are precautions to be taken. All the mumbo jumbo that has kept Afghans poor, voiceless, divided and sans rights all along - should be firmly rejected. Loya Jirgas being proposed are advocated by those who hope to slip in a few nominees of their own into it. It is the poor, unlettered (not ignorant) Afghans who should be empowered with the vote and other human rights. Maybe they will make mistakes. So what? What have Pakistanis or Turks or Egyptians to show for all their 'development'? At any rate, Afghanistan is, and should be, the business of all Afghans, not merely for their rich only. They are normal human beings and deserve normal human rights.

Then, there is the most difficult of all precautions. Keep the big powers out. That means the veto-infested UN Security Council is also to be kept out. True, the UN General Assembly is not a collection of supermen or angels. They too have not been heroes. But they are us and that is all we have. Even as a pretension and a promise, it is useful.

World's liberal opinion, especially in the west, has a task ahead. It has to force major powers to opt for a fair and humane solution for the Afghan imbroglio. A government of US stooges presupposes long-term US imperial presence in the area, motivating others to counter and replace it. That equals perpetual strife and cold wars.