Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

To enforce arms embargo, the UN Security Council has passed yet another resolution reflecting more of Washington's hardened Afghan policy than justice and fair play aimed to attain the real objective for which the UN was established. The latest resolution mandated the stationing of UN monitors in Pakistan and other countries bordering Afghanistan. Since the Afghan refusal to handover Osma bin Laden, Washington has regularly been using the UN in order to tighten the pressures on Afghanistan.

When an international organization begins to generate the impression of being biased, it initiates a process of credibility-erosion. It often happens when the chief executive of the concerned organization is a weak individual whose main preoccupation is to please those who regard the organization as useful instrument to advance their own policies. The UN came into being to prevent conflict and to maintain peace and security in a world of uneven states. By pushing a country to a corner is perhaps not the best way to serve the main objective of the UN.

Afghanistan has been subjected to many discriminatory UN sanctions primarily to punish the regime. It is often alleged that Afghanistan has provided training bases for terrorists. Some countries have also accused Afghanistan for sending the terrorist to their respective territories either to instigate insurgency or to help those who have already taken up arms against the establishment for one reason or the other. Whether or not the Afghanistan's current regime is training the freedom fighters or the insurgents or the terrorists continues to remain somewhat inconclusive in meaningful way, one thing is certain that the UN is helping promote policies of those countries that are either backing the Northern Alliance or have their own axe to grind.

Admittedly some countries may have reasonably legitimate excuse to be harsh on the Afghan regime, but one does not expect a world body to be so easily carried away to cater the whims of some powerful interested country. A world body is expected to refrain from such acts that can eventually establish a bad precedent for future. A world has to think of the impact of its action on the people of the target countries. Besides, a punitive approach does not always pay the desired dividends.

While it is not too difficult to ascertain the factors influencing and moulding the UN's punitive Afghan policies, it seem somewhat imperative to highlight the following factors should have been taken into considerations before deciding upon another punitive act.

First, the Afghans are fiercely independent people who have successfully defended their independence for so many centuries. However, at best of times Afghanistan had remained a backward and highly conservative country enchained in tribalism and rigid customs. For years the Afghan society has remained and continues to remain a highly orthodox and religious society. Despite efforts of modernization undertaken by many enlightened rulers, not much changed. Indeed few of its urban centers did generate somewhat deceptive impression of being modern. But they did not represent Afghan society at large and a vast majority of the Afghanis continue to be backward and orthodox.

Second, during the American sponsored and supervised struggle to bleed the Soviets in Afghanistan, many Afghani urbanites left Afghanistan and were settled in western countries. These people often vehemently talk against and vociferously criticize Talibans reflecting an exaggerated adverse image of Talibans. This of course does not necessarily imply that all acts of Talibans are appropriate. However it needs to be stressed that these were not the people who were classified by the west as part of the great Islamic warriors. Just as the struggle against the Soviets started almost all of them left. In fact the migration process started with the advent of Sardar Daud's regime in the 70s followed by two other waves of migrations after the arrival Tarrikai's coup and the departure of Hafiz Ullah Amin's regime. Although the largest chunk of Afghan refuges left Afghanistan when the ordinary life in Afghanistan was disrupted after the intensification of civil war between the Soviets and the Afghan resistance groups that were trained and equipped by the Americans.

Third, the Afghan civil war has ravished and reduced the country to rubbles during the last 22 years. The first phase of war was between pampered insiders and the outsiders but in the second phase the actors were all Afghans though some were and some still are given strength-injections by interested outsiders. In consequence the Afghanistan has been virtually destroyed. Not only its irrigation system has been enormously damaged but also its countryside has virtually lost all of its orchards. Virtually no schools, colleges and Universities exist at the moment. Two generations of Afghan children have grown under the shadows of guns. Apart from rudimentary religious studies in makeshift Madrassas, most Afghans remain uneducated. In addition, more than 1.5 million Afghans have been killed or permanently incapacitated. The number of widows and orphans is staggeringly high. Nearly two millions refugees still live refugee camps in awful conditions.

Four, while hundreds of Afghans are dying everyday due to draught and absence of food and basic facilities, talking to them about human rights appears to be no more than a cruel joke. While the regime may not be influenced by harsh UN policies, the ordinary people in Afghan continue to languish in abject poverty and extremely harsh conditions.

Five, While one may dislike and disapprove Talibans orthodox beliefs and rigid interpretation of Islam, their ability to pull the country out of civil war (in the Taliban controlled areas) and to inject much desired stability along with the initiation of rebuilding and reconstruction process needs to be credited. Deweaponisation, drastic reduction in criminal activities and eliminating the poppy cultivation are indeed no mean achievements.

Apart from the above mentioned serious conditions that should have been seriously subjected to objective thinking, the following three absurdities also deserve to be pondered upon; western prejudices, punishing the Afghan people rather than engaging them and expecting Pakistan to set Afghan society in accordance with western values. By extending active support and patronizing the Northern Alliance in a comprehensive sense clearly reflect the western prejudices and motives along with American obsession with Osma.

Second, the sanctions are primarily hurting the people and not the regime. Punitive approach is not necessarily the correct way out. It is time that the west begin to engage the regime in a constructive and meaningful way. One can attain the same objectives by negotiating and engaging the regime. By ostracizing and punishing the regime has so far not paid the desired dividends. Why not try the engagement approach now. Christina Rocca's meeting with Afghan ambassador in Pakistan is indeed a step in the right direction.

Third, to blame Pakistan for the situation in Afghanistan is another absurdity. The western belief that Pakistan enjoys tremendous influence over the Taliban regime is somewhat unrealistic. Being a next-door neighbour and one of the few countries that have recognized the Taliban regime, Pakistan does enjoy some influence over the regime. But this does not imply that the Taliban would adhere to Pakistan's advice on all issues.

The latest sanctions have not only further hardened the Talibans attitude but have also put Pakistan in a very awkward position. What the American do not realize that sponsoring such move could push Pakistan to the edge. Why should the Pakistanis adhere to a country that has adopted extremely discriminatory policy over sanctions? While the American would like to maintain the difference in approaches towards a democratic and a non-democratic regimes in terms of lifting or maintaining sanctions, the nuclear weapons capability remains as dangerous as it was at the time of imposition of the sanctions. Lifting sanctions on democratic regime implies that nuclear weapons capability is acceptable if it is wrapped in democratic wrapping paper.

Despite the realization that the latest move of the UN has put Pakistan in a difficult position, the Pakistani regime has expressed its willingness to comply with the UN resolution. Much will now depend how the monitors operate. The past history of monitors is studded with innumerable complex issues and problems. Indeed Pakistan will have to tread the path with extreme care as to allowing the monitors work and avoiding the annoyance of the Taliban regime simultaneously.