A government for post-war Afghanistan
ONE major question that must occupy the minds of the leading figures of the world coalition against terrorism is the kind of government a post-Taliban Afghanistan should have. Given the country’s history in the wake of the Soviet pullout, the question assumes crucial importance and is directly related to the aim of the current military campaign against terrorism. When the Soviets left, the victorious Mujahideen leaders failed to stick together and give Afghanistan peace and a stable government. Instead, the erstwhile Mujahideen leaders turned into feuding warlords, each fighting ferociously for his and his factional share of power and land. The resulting fratricide killed thousands of more civilians, ruined Afghan cities, worsened an already impoverished economy and forced hundreds of thousands of Afghans to seek shelter in Pakistan. The emergence of the Taliban on the scene in the mid-nineties and their amazing military victories brought most of Afghanistan under their control, but the Northern Alliance, confined to a pocket, has till today continued its war on the Taliban. The result has been more misery for the Afghan people. A study of the causes of this fratricide is of direct relevance to the situation in the region now.
Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual country. While the Pashtoons are the largest ethnic group, the minorities taken together form an overall majority. Under the royalty, the government was stable, because it gave representation to all of the country’s ethnic groups. A major weakness of the Taliban regime is its predominantly Pashtoon character, for the Uzbek, Tajik and Hazara groups are not represented in it. The result has been an unending civil war.
A foreign office spokesman in Islamabad has done well to make Pakistan’s position on the issue clear. While Islamabad does have some reservations about the Northern Alliance, it has shown realism by affirming that a post-Taliban government must include some Alliance nominees. Similarly, Pakistan made it clear that such a government should also have Taliban elements in it. More important, Islamabad pointed out the unwisdom of imposing a government from the outside. As history has shown, the Afghans will never accept a government in whose making they do not have a hand. For this reason, the convening of a Loya Jirga deserves the world coalition’s attention. While it is not an elected forum, it is a grand assembly of tribal leaders. Traditionally, a decision by a Loya Jirga has invariably been accepted by all sections of the Afghan people. In the situation now obtaining in Afghanistan, a Loya Jirga alone can play a decisive role in giving the country a stable government. Such a government will be the Afghan people’s own and will command the loyalty and support it will need to restore peace and stability.
As Afghanistan’s neighbour, Pakistan has a stake in the kind of dispensation Afghanistan will have after the military operations are over. In case there is instability or a continued civil war, Pakistan will invariably be drawn in — a prospect that Islamabad cannot view with equanimity. As a front-line state and as a vital member of the world coalition against terrorism, Pakistan must make its viewpoint on the issue clear to the United States and its principal allies. The good thing is that Washington has shown a proper understanding of Islamabad’s concerns. Without doubt, only a broad-based government representing all the ethnic communities can bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and start the task of post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Canada’s anthrax climbdown
THE Canadian government has backed down from its attempts to bypass patent laws in order to deal with the current anthrax scare. The move came after strong pressure from the manufacturers of Cipro — the best known treatment for the potentially deadly bacteria. Millions of people have been taking the pill as a precaution following the discovery of anthrax in letters posted to various influential persons and organizations, mainly in the US. Faced with a massive demand following the scare, the Canadian government decided to order about a million tablets of a cheaper variant of Cipro from a Canadian pharmaceutical company. The manufacturers of the pill were predictably furious, claiming that the move set a dangerous precedent and threatened to take Canada to court for patent violation. Eventually, a compromise was thrashed out with the manufacturers offering to supply enough quantities of the drug to meet the crisis and at a much lower price. Canada’s climbdown is significant and raises a pertinent question: should we allow people to die just because of a patent?
This is the kind of question poor countries have been posing during their long struggle for cheaper drugs. If a developed nation such as Canada was unable to bypass the patent laws during an emergency, one can imagine what resistance poorer countries have to face in pursuing similar policies. Faced with a mammoth AIDS crisis, the South African government had earlier gone ahead and allowed the import of cheaper, non-patented anti-AIDS drugs only to find 39 large pharmaceuticals taking the country to court. While the South African government eventually won a victory on the issue, precious time was lost in legal battles and thousands died as a result. Poor countries have been demanding certain concessions that would allow them to use patents during emergencies without the permission of the original patent holders. They have also lobbied to be permitted to import cheaper, alternative life-saving drugs during such crises. These are eminently reasonable demands. The merits or demerits of a strict patent regime aside, there are strong moral and ethical dimensions where life-saving drugs are involved. What, after all, is the point of manufacturing such drugs if those who need them most cannot afford them?
Holding them back
MANY women councillors elected in the recent local bodies polls in NWFP’s Malakand division are not being allowed to discharge their responsibilities as elected representatives. A report from Buner near Swat quotes one such councillor, also trained as a doctor, as saying that husbands and other male relatives are not allowing them go to council sessions or attend to any other related work. As it is, those who managed to get elected had to overcome many problems and hindrances, particularly threats (before and leading to the election) by local extremists and religious leaders warning them not to take part in the polls.
It goes without saying that in a conservative and patriarchal society like Pakistan’s women will always have to go through a lot of hardship to prove their worth in the domain of professional or public responsibilities. Even when women come to acquire positions of power and responsibilities outside their homes, they have to encounter additional problems of non-cooperation, discouragement, open and insidious obstruction and numerous other limitations in the course of performance of their duties — all because of the prevailing widespread and deep-seated male prejudice against women. The problem in Buner unfortunately cannot be solved by legislation. In fact, the government did what it could by setting aside a significant proportion of seats for women. This has to do with changing attitudes and social mores that inherently give dominance to men at the expense of women. The biggest efforts at reforms would have to come from within civil society itself, particularly from non-governmental organizations, rights groups and concerned citizens. Let’s hope they are up to this challenge.