The drive by President Hamid Karzai to strike a deal with Taliban leaders and their Pakistani backers is causing deep unease in Afghanistan's minority communities, who fought the Taliban the longest and suffered the most during their rule. The leaders of the country's Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities, which make up close to half of Afghanistan's population, are vowing to resist - and if necessary, fight - any deal that involves bringing members of the Taliban insurgency into a power-sharing arrangement with the government.
Alienated by discussions between President Karzai and the Pakistani military and intelligence officials, minority leaders are taking their first steps toward organizing against what they fear is Mr. Karzai's long-held desire to restore the dominance of ethnic Pashtuns, who ruled the country for generations. The dispute is breaking along lines nearly identical to those that formed during the final years of the Afghan civil war, which began after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1989 and ended only with the American invasion following the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 100,000 Afghans died, mostly civilians; the Taliban, during their five-year reign in the capital, Kabul, carried out several large-scale massacres of Hazara civilians...
More at The New York Times.
Comments
Cole,
I am glad to see that someone is actually thinking about this issue of future ethnic conflict. The Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkmen, Hazara, Aimaq know that they face a grim future when we withdraw and the Taliban/Pashtuns seek a return to power. Based on the history of the past 32 years these minority ethnic groups are wise to prepare for civil war. Your model of a separate non-Pashtun nation is a possibility. However, this may result in a Yugoslavia type situation with conflict among the remaining ethnic groups. You need only to look no further than Kyrgystan to see potential problems. The 750,000 Uzbek minority in Kyrgyzstan was recently the subject of ethnic cleansing by the majority population with over 1,000 deaths and 100,000 refugees. The 2.5 million Uzbeks in Afghanistan are at similar risk if the Taliban return to power. Would the Uzbek government stand by in such a situation or would it intervene militarily to protect the Uzbek minority ? The same is true with the Tajiks and Turkmens. Would Tajikistan or Turkmenistan intervene in Afghanistan to protect the Tajik or Turkmen people ? An alternative solution would be for the Uzbek regions of Afghanistan to be annexed by Uzbekistan, the Tajik regions by Tajikistan, and the Turkmen regions by Turkmenistan. Independent nations could be created for the Hazara, Aimaq and Nuristan peoples. Yugoslavia eventually broke up into 6 nations. The only ones where ethnic conflict still occurs are Bosnia and Kosovo, where there is significant ethnic admixture. If Pakistan were to annex the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan, how is that a problem for us ? If they destroy the Taliban, it is to our advantage. If they support the Taliban and the return of Al-Qaeda, then we know the Pakistan government is responsible and can take appropriate action.
The latest from Afghanistan Analysts Network, examining the non-Pashtun element of the insurgency:
http://aan-afghanistan.com/uploads/20100623NORTH.pdf
Nat
Believe it was this one because it was in a MI journal:
http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/673
Given that the Durand Line left millions more Pashtuns living in Pakistan than Afghanistan, it would be helpful if Pakistan gave up lands as well...but one step/problem at a time.
Guess I'm wondering if the Balkan separate-state model is better than looking to Vietnam, Malaya, or Iraq for lessons. Perhaps allowing Pashtun areas more autonomy sans occupation would preclude jihadist attacks and attempts to dominate other ethnic group areas.
SWJ Eds,
It's an interesting question; how do we bring the Taliban into the Afghan political process without fracturing an already fragile cooperation between Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns.
As seemingly dire, the article does not leave much in the way of discussing demilitarising Taliban fighters, or separating hard-core from reconcilables. The concerns about a wave of Taliban influence could be blunted if it was known to what extent Taliban and Taliban-supporters are prepared to participate in Afghanistan's development.
Nat
This seems an appropriate venue to raise an issue. A while back, read a Major's article advocating the need for a Pashtunistan. This article's cited ethnic tensions reinforce that, even if Pashtunistan was exclusively inside Afghan boundaries and Pakistan would not give up territory.
Some may argue such a division would not have worked in Iraq, because the oil is in Kurdish and Shi'ite areas and only a Shi'ite country would have sea access (plus Turkey probably would invade a Kurdistan). In Afghanistan, there is no obvious wealthier area or area with greater resources. Plus, the whole country is landlocked.
Forget the COIN criticisms, or arguments over pop-centric vs. enemy-centric. Don't raise ancient history to argue one way or the other. It's even possible to somewhat omit the Iraq experience. Instead, look at the Balkans to see the possibilities.
Tito, regardless of his politics, did a pretty amazing job of holding many ethnic groups together in then Yugoslavia. In the absence of such a leader with Karzai, wouldn't a similar break-up into separate nations create homegrown ethnic rule? At least in Afghanistan, nearly everyone is Muslim, so you would think coexistence would be easier without the "Christian" vs Islam genocide problem going on in the Balkans.
Envision either a separate nation with all the Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazara/Aimaks being a new country under Abdullah Abdullah, and Pashtunistan being the other nation with Karzai as leader. Another possibility is one nation with separate Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara/Aimak and two Pashtun (northeast and southeast) largely autonomous states.
Not sure where the U.S. would fit into such an arrangement. Many coalition partners are already mostly in northernmost provinces not dominated by Pashtuns and thus suffer far fewer casualties. Compare that to the U.S. never occupying Serbia and thus suffering few casualties. Yet our presence still precluded much trouble by safeguarding other ethnic groups and countries.
Could the same arrangement eventually work in Afghanistan by moving most ISAF troops to Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara/Aimak areas and leaving only big ISAF bases like Bagram, Kandahar, and Jalabad, and maybe Khost in Pashtunistan? Would Pashtunistan even agree to our bases? Without them and COPs/FOBs in more locations, would it turn into Gen McChrystal's Chaosistan and an al Qaeda haven? Could we not still launch air and UAS attacks if it was such a haven (as we did with an uncooperative Serbia)?
Guess you would still have a problem dividing up multi-ethnic Kabul just as Baghdad would have been a problem. That may support a one-nation, multiple autonomous-state solution or a division of Kabul like Cold War Berlin or Jerusalem? A multi-ethnic Army also argues for the one-nation/multiple states solution. But not sure it will ever work having Tajik troops dominating Pashtun areas...