AFGHANISTAN: THE GREAT GAME REVISITED
I. Afghanistan and the rest of the world
II. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Pashtunistan and the “Durand Line”
III. Elections and Democracy in Afghanistan.
IV. Afghanistan’s women: a veiled strength
V. The confidence of the Taliban.
VI. Can the war in Afghanistan be won?
I. Afghanistan and the rest of the world
“Dr. Watson, Mr. Sherlock Holmes”, said Stamford, introducing us.
“How are you? …..You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive.”
A Study in Scarlet – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Afghanistan is a country which lends itself to anecdotes. A very interesting one which I heard in Herat in 2005 concerned a visit by a senior British officer to the Elders in the Helmand region. The purpose of the visit was to explain that British military activity in the area, directed against the Taleban insurgency, would take on a more intense dimension. At the end of the interview one of the Elders approached the officer and told him: "My Grandfather knew your grandfather.” What the Elder actually meant was that his ancestors had met the British many decades back and had beaten and expelled them from Afghan territory. The message was interesting and important, for it illustrates the long and complex history of Afghanistan’s relationship with foreign powers.
After some decades of obscurity as an all-but-forgotten Central Asian backwater, Afghanistan now has returned to the forefront of the world’s attention. However, the period of relative obscurity through which the County lived, by and large, from the beginning of the forty-year reign of Zahir Shah (1932 - 1973) until the Soviet invasion of 1979 constituted an exceptional state of affairs. Even before and most certainly during the nineteenth century, Afghanistan traditionally had been a Land of conquest, violence and international intrigue, characterized by strong resistance to all types of foreign occupation.
Afghanistan’s present state as a reluctant protagonist in the scheme of world politics is the result of a series of events which followed, one upon the other, each of them triggering a series of far reaching consequences. First came The Soviet invasion, then the subsequent civil war and Taliban domination and, finally, the occupation by NATO led allies as an aftermath of the events of September 11th, 2001.
In the years following the British renunciation of attempts to conquer the country (Treaty of Gandamak, 1879), Afghanistan, now a recognised nation-state and a fully fledged member of the international community, began a new stage in its long history.: In the ensuing years and decades the principal powers opened Diplomatic missions (as Legations, not Embassies) and Afghanistan embarked upon a long career as a fiercely neutral independent state, continuing in its function as a valuable buffer between empires.
The path, particularly in the first decades, was not easy. The second King to occupy the throne, Amanullah, probably inspired by the Turkish experience of Kemal Ataturk, tried to do too much, too soon in “modernising” his country, and was ultimately brought down, perhaps mainly because of his insistence on creating a railway, which the religious leaders – possibly inspired by the Soviet Union – considered a diabolical device. There followed a period of instability in which power was seized by a bandit chief – “Batcha e Sackao” or “the Son of the Water Carrier” – who was ultimately defeated and executed by Nadir Shah, king Zahir Shah’s father, who was in turn assassinated three years after being enthroned.
The reign of Zahir Shah, and the short-lived “Republic of Afghanistan (1973 – 1979)” which followed the bloodless coup with which Zahir was dethroned and sent into exile, marked a period of relative stability and some social and economic development even though, in the eyes of most Afghans, especially in the northern and western Provinces, the king was still viewed as “the Emir of Kabul”. In this period the Afghans mastered the art of neutrality, and were thus able to resist strong pressures both during and after the Second World War, when they had to balance the blandishments of the Axis with the growing threats of retribution by the Allies (particularly Great Britain and the Soviet Union).
The apparent stability of those years, however, masked underlying tensions. The unresolved rivalry between tribes and ethnic groups, the uneven development of the country’s economy and, perhaps most of all, the growingly overt hostility of the more conservative part of the clergy against the progressive, albeit slow, westernisation of Afghanistan, at least in the larger urban areas, eventually led to the dramatic events subsequent to 1979 which caused violence, suffering and destruction bringing the country to the brink of being judged a “failed state”..
I have been privileged personally to witness some aspects of this evolution. During the years of World War II, although still a child, I was able to notice some of the interaction between Afghanistan and the Axis powers, with the strong additional interference of the Empire of Japan on the one hand, and of Great Britain and the Soviet Union on the other, and to appreciate the intelligent and subtle means by which the Afghans avoided being caught in any ideological trap.
A quarter of a century later, I was again in Afghanistan as a young diplomatic officer. The place was a haven of tranquillity, but the delicate balance of power and influence among the main international actors – a remnant, as it were, of the “Great Game”, albeit with some new contenders – hid an ominous build-up which, only a few years later, caused the Soviet invasion with all its grim consequences.
My third stint in Afghanistan, this time in the western city of Herat, took place recently, between 2005 and 2007, giving me further insight into the country’s very complex realities and inducing some pessimism concerning future developments. The problem which receives the greatest and most immediate attention is, of course, the continuing insurgency, but there are other aspects which should not be neglected, such as the complex relationship with neighbouring states (particularly Pakistan) and the difficulties connected to all attempts to impose western style democracy on the country.
(To be continued)
lunedì 11 febbraio 2008
sabato 9 febbraio 2008
The Italian Dilemma
ROME, February 4, 2008
The current political crisis in Italy, caused by a no confidence vote which brought down the Government headed by Romano Prodi does not, in itself, appear much different from dozens of similar situations which have plagued Italian political life for many decades, and the scenario that is now unfolding seems painfully familiar. Well beyond the immediate causes and the political significance of this last crisis, there is, however, a general consensus that Italy today is a particularly troubled Country, though it seems difficult to analyze the origins and the extent of this present troubled state.
The fact is that whereas, in the past, situations of political crisis, with governments collapsing and elections being called before the end of the Legislature seemed to be observed with considerable – sometimes cynical – detachment by Italian public opinion, there is today a palpable air of malaise – or “malessere” – which seems to be bringing a growing number of people to distance themselves from politics and to treat all parties and all politicians with a contempt that is sometimes, but surely not always, deserved.
Attempts at analysis of the situation have been numerous and well qualified both from within Italy and from the outside. A recent book on the subject – “La Casta” – has, for instance, become a best seller in a society not particularly devoted to reading, while the non Italian press, on its part, has been quite liberal in its offerings on the subject. A few weeks ago, for example, the New York Times published an excellent, intelligent and eminently readable article about Italy in which the Rome correspondent, Ian Fisher, expressed some very accurate critical comments, most of which, in reality, echoed much of what Italy’s more responsible journalists had been writing for the past months.
Italians seem well aware of the country’s predicament, which is a constant subject of debate both in private conversations and in the media, and which has opened the doors to a novel form of populism, dubbed “antipolitica” personified by a very popular comedian, Beppe Grillo.
It was therefore surprising that recent critical opinions in the foreign press, and particularly the New York Times article, caused a considerable storm, and reactions were immediate and hostile, going as far as a public statement by the president of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, to the effect that, even though the Country was perhaps experiencing some problems, these would be overcome by the “animal spirits” of the Italians.
There followed the customary Italian reaction to “foreign attacks”, and the usual gamut of responses were fired in rapid succession. The glories of the Roman Empire, the Italian Renaissance, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Federico Fellini all were brought into play, and going down (or perhaps up) the cultural ladder, even pasta, pizza and the Football World Cup ended up being used as ammunition in the defense of Italian Pride: the motto seemed to be: “no criticism, please, we’re Italian”. Eminent pundits dismissed articles such as these as “the customary anti-Italian attacks in the Anglo-Saxon press”, and it should be noted that for most Italian intellectuals anyone who is either a part time or a full time English speaker, from Cape Town to Dublin, is regarded as “Anglo-Saxon”.
These reactions could appear inexplicable and, above all, utterly disproportionate unless an additional factor were also taken into account, which, in reality, tends to be ignored both in Italy and abroad. Because of a stubborn, almost aggressive refusal to learn the main vehicular languages, English in particular, spoken by now all over the world, Italians, one of the last monolingual people in continental Europe, find themselves in a growing state of cultural isolation. The Italian public doesn't even get to see foreign films, no matter how famous, if not in atrociously dubbed versions, and is cut off from all the leading international sources of information, except for snippets filtered through by the Italian media, which, in truth, tries to deliver a fairly extensive coverage of international events, trends and opinions. Although Italy is, by all accounts, a democratic society, and although the Italian press is extremely free and outspoken, the Italian pubic thus finds itself in a state of dependence on the choices of the national media – almost as if in an autocratic regime – for any glimpse into the workings of the outside world.
A stubborn belief is therefore prevalent, in Italy, that the rest of the world is gripped by a feeling of admiration and respect for all things Italian, and, as a result, the filtering down of critical comments, sometimes merciless, comes as a deep shock causing resentment and hostile reactions.
This state of isolation, of course, is not in itself the cause of the current political turmoil, but it does contribute continually, albeit subtly, to the general feeling of depression and frustration prevailing in a Country usually known for rather buoyant responses to situations of crisis. This fact should be a cause for concern and some anxiety, because the continued sapping of a people’s self confidence is often conducive to populist solutions, some of which already appear to be maturing outside of the accepted political arena.
Carlo Ungaro
The current political crisis in Italy, caused by a no confidence vote which brought down the Government headed by Romano Prodi does not, in itself, appear much different from dozens of similar situations which have plagued Italian political life for many decades, and the scenario that is now unfolding seems painfully familiar. Well beyond the immediate causes and the political significance of this last crisis, there is, however, a general consensus that Italy today is a particularly troubled Country, though it seems difficult to analyze the origins and the extent of this present troubled state.
The fact is that whereas, in the past, situations of political crisis, with governments collapsing and elections being called before the end of the Legislature seemed to be observed with considerable – sometimes cynical – detachment by Italian public opinion, there is today a palpable air of malaise – or “malessere” – which seems to be bringing a growing number of people to distance themselves from politics and to treat all parties and all politicians with a contempt that is sometimes, but surely not always, deserved.
Attempts at analysis of the situation have been numerous and well qualified both from within Italy and from the outside. A recent book on the subject – “La Casta” – has, for instance, become a best seller in a society not particularly devoted to reading, while the non Italian press, on its part, has been quite liberal in its offerings on the subject. A few weeks ago, for example, the New York Times published an excellent, intelligent and eminently readable article about Italy in which the Rome correspondent, Ian Fisher, expressed some very accurate critical comments, most of which, in reality, echoed much of what Italy’s more responsible journalists had been writing for the past months.
Italians seem well aware of the country’s predicament, which is a constant subject of debate both in private conversations and in the media, and which has opened the doors to a novel form of populism, dubbed “antipolitica” personified by a very popular comedian, Beppe Grillo.
It was therefore surprising that recent critical opinions in the foreign press, and particularly the New York Times article, caused a considerable storm, and reactions were immediate and hostile, going as far as a public statement by the president of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, to the effect that, even though the Country was perhaps experiencing some problems, these would be overcome by the “animal spirits” of the Italians.
There followed the customary Italian reaction to “foreign attacks”, and the usual gamut of responses were fired in rapid succession. The glories of the Roman Empire, the Italian Renaissance, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Federico Fellini all were brought into play, and going down (or perhaps up) the cultural ladder, even pasta, pizza and the Football World Cup ended up being used as ammunition in the defense of Italian Pride: the motto seemed to be: “no criticism, please, we’re Italian”. Eminent pundits dismissed articles such as these as “the customary anti-Italian attacks in the Anglo-Saxon press”, and it should be noted that for most Italian intellectuals anyone who is either a part time or a full time English speaker, from Cape Town to Dublin, is regarded as “Anglo-Saxon”.
These reactions could appear inexplicable and, above all, utterly disproportionate unless an additional factor were also taken into account, which, in reality, tends to be ignored both in Italy and abroad. Because of a stubborn, almost aggressive refusal to learn the main vehicular languages, English in particular, spoken by now all over the world, Italians, one of the last monolingual people in continental Europe, find themselves in a growing state of cultural isolation. The Italian public doesn't even get to see foreign films, no matter how famous, if not in atrociously dubbed versions, and is cut off from all the leading international sources of information, except for snippets filtered through by the Italian media, which, in truth, tries to deliver a fairly extensive coverage of international events, trends and opinions. Although Italy is, by all accounts, a democratic society, and although the Italian press is extremely free and outspoken, the Italian pubic thus finds itself in a state of dependence on the choices of the national media – almost as if in an autocratic regime – for any glimpse into the workings of the outside world.
A stubborn belief is therefore prevalent, in Italy, that the rest of the world is gripped by a feeling of admiration and respect for all things Italian, and, as a result, the filtering down of critical comments, sometimes merciless, comes as a deep shock causing resentment and hostile reactions.
This state of isolation, of course, is not in itself the cause of the current political turmoil, but it does contribute continually, albeit subtly, to the general feeling of depression and frustration prevailing in a Country usually known for rather buoyant responses to situations of crisis. This fact should be a cause for concern and some anxiety, because the continued sapping of a people’s self confidence is often conducive to populist solutions, some of which already appear to be maturing outside of the accepted political arena.
Carlo Ungaro
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
