INSIDE AFGHANISTAN

October 2001
		Afghanistan after the Taliban: Two experts responded to your questions.

Forum introduction Would a Western-style democracy be best for Afghanistan? How do we prevent a repetition of the power vacuum after the Soviets left? Would a new Afghan government commit to freedom of religion? What is happening to commerce in Afghanistan? What do we know about the Northern Alliance? How can we endure the voices of women will be heard? Is there a feasible solution for a multi-ethnic Afghan state?     Online Special: The Response Online Special: Afghanistan Sept. 28, 2001: Two experts discuss the battle between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Sept. 20, 2001: A look at Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

David Collins of Berkeley, California asks: The Iranians, Pakistanis, and Tajiks all seem to have different interests in Afghanistan. Is there a feasible solution for a multiethnic Afghan state? Is de facto partitioning of Afghanistan, and even Pakistan a possible outcome of these events? What is truly holding these groups together? Patricia Gossman responds: Despite 23 years of war, no Afghan group has advocated for partition. Although the United Front (Northern Alliance) is principally united by its opposition to the Taliban, a deep nationalist feeling is also common to all groups, and this could provide the basis for constructing a multiethnic state, perhaps a federal state. Pakistan is key to whatever happens. The groups inside Pakistan who support the Taliban are numerically small, but they have had a disproportionate amount of influence over successive leaders in Pakistan’s army and intelligence services. The challenge is to convince those leaders that Pakistan’s interests are better served by a stable Afghanistan through which Pakistan could pursue stronger economic ties to Central Asia.   Thomas Gouttierre responds: We must understand that Afghanistan, prior to the war with the Soviet Union, was a country of a multiethnic nature, and it had taken 200 years to kind of cobble that state together. And what we need to do is to help the Afghans to understand that now we are there to help them restructure their own nationality, their own nationalistic future. And it's true maybe Iranians, Pakistanis, Tajiks, even Uzbeks and others have different interests in Afghanistan, but I think what we need to do is help the Afghans pursue their own interest. The best way we can do that is to help them in the reconstruction of Afghanistan in a very, very significant way. It's important that the United States not take a backseat. I think the United States has to be out well in front and be the leader in providing for Afghanistan the type of reconstruction it should have had after the Soviet war that we did not provide. And is a de facto partitioning of Afghanistan a possible outcome of these events? Actually, Afghans, I think, are too nationalistic to see that happen. And I think that in many ways Afghans are more nationalistic about Afghanistan than perhaps even Pakistanis would be about Pakistan. So what holds these groups together, the Afghans, all of them, is maybe history, the more we focus on history and the traditions of that country, the more we can remind them that there have been periods in their country's history in which they have done very, very well working together.