Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Afghanistan’s script unlike Iraq’s

Daniel Sneider San Jose Mercury News

The sight of millions of Afghans casting ballots for the first time in their history was heartening. After decades of civil war, foreign invasion and extremist rule, the prospect of a peaceful future for Afghanistan is a cause for hope.

President Bush eagerly seized on this as validation of his vision of implanting a model democracy in Iraq. That is not only wrong — it is also dangerously naive.

It is wrong because Afghanistan departs from the script followed in Iraq on almost every key point.

And while the presidential vote was welcome, Afghan life is still dictated by powerful forces of ethnicity and tribal loyalty. To brush over that Afghan reality is dangerous. It encourages the United States and others to walk away prematurely from the difficult job of rebuilding that nation.

Afghanistan differs from Iraq in three key respects – political legitimacy, the role of the United Nations, and international cooperation.

Unlike in Iraq, a sovereign Afghan government representing longstanding movements within the country formed almost immediately. The American and British air attacks on Afghanistan began in October 2001. The next month the forces of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance marched into Kabul and ousted the Taliban. In early December, representatives of the Afghan groups, including exiles, met in Bonn and reached a deal to form an interim government. It was sworn in by the end of the month.

The United Nations played a key role in overseeing the political process in Afghanistan, from hosting the Bonn meeting to organizing the elections that had just taken place. A recent poll by the Asia Foundation found that while the United States enjoys a favorable rating of 65 percent among Afghans, the United Nations rates even higher, at 84 percent.

Last, but not least, Afghanistan has been a true international effort. The number of countries contributing troops there is greater than in Iraq. A U.N.-authorized international security force was in place within a few months. At present, there are 9,000 peacekeepers in Afghanistan (about half the U.S. troop level), organized under the command of our NATO allies in Europe.

These elements – legitimacy, a U.N. lead role and a true coalition – mean that unlike in Iraq, the United States is not widely perceived as an occupier.

Even then, the road to democracy in Afghanistan is hardly smooth. The vote was postponed twice due to the lack of security, mainly caused by a revival of the Taliban. Parliamentary elections were put off until next March.

The presidential vote was somewhat marred by charges of fraud fed by the discovery that an indelible ink to mark those who had voted could be easily removed. And the poor security conditions meant that international monitors were small in number and not widely dispersed.

Traditional Afghan power structures – village and tribal chiefs and religious leaders – directed votes to the man of their choice. “Any politician who wants you to believe that the Americans have brought Afghans the gift of democracy seriously underestimates the Afghan power of adaptation,” one Washington Post reporter wrote.

Choice seems to be largely dictated by ethnic loyalties. The leading presidential candidates were all clearly associated with their ethnic group.

“Afghanistan has never been a nation-state,” Afghan human rights activist Habib Rahiab told me. “Every person first considers themselves Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek and other ethnic groups. And then they consider themselves Afghans.”

President Hamid Karzai, the American-backed choice, moved openly in the last eight months to associate himself with fellow Pashtuns. The Tajiks, who formed the core of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, are increasingly restless.

Such tensions have led to civil war before, including after the ouster of the communists in the early 1990s. The fear of American military might may keep things from going down that road. But the coming parliamentary vote is likely to reinforce ethnic alignments, while Karzai relies on an axis of warlords and fellow Pashtuns to rule.

This makes it imperative that the international community increase – not draw down – its commitment of peacekeepers and development aid to Afghanistan.