BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Nation-Building

  
 
Jack Fear
13:01 / 15.11.01
Now begins the work of building a multi-ethnic, broad-based post-Taliban coalition government in Afghanistan.

The only problem: Afghan culture, history, even its geography seem to conspire against such a government.

The "nation" of "Afghanistan" was created by a conspiracy of (Western) cartographers--the Hindu Khush mountain range quite literally cuts the country in two, with the North and South being ethnically, linguistically and culturally distinct. And the divides run deep: "Trust a snake before a whore, and a whore before a Pashtun," they say up North.

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?

Add in a long tradition of autonomous warlords, fortified settlements, and clan warfare, along with a traditional culture that holds independence and martial prowess as its highest virtues, and you've got what one commentator who grew up in Kabul calls "the Wild West with turbans."

It took some harsh measures by the US federal government to tame the Wild West: it seems likely that a similar taming of Afghanistan would require somebody to step forward and get tough with the warlords and the tribal leaders.

But the US coalition that it's not in the business of nation-building... which in one sense is well and good: that sort of foreign interventionism is blatantly unethical, and flies in the face of democratic values of self-determination.

On the other hand, sometimes it's the only way to keep the peace.

As the business of nation-building begins, perhaps it's time give up the fiction of "Afghanistan" as a single country?

I mean, we saw what happened to that other slapped-together, multi-ethnic "nation"--Yugoslavia. Once the heavy hand of autocratic Communism was removed, things fell apart along familiar tribal lines.

Should we aspire (and encourage other peoples to aspire) to some idea of national identity beyond that? Or should we, in the spirit of realpolitik, surrender to what seems inevitable--that people will prefer the company of those they consider their "own kind," and that trying to force tribal societies into a mode of Western-style "nations" is a recipe for disaster?

Should we instead be encouraging the foundation of a series of autonomous, loosely interdependent ethnic enclaves? Or does that simply set the stage for future unrest?

Thoughts?
 
 
sleazenation
13:08 / 15.11.01
Even the Taliban were unable to establish a central government... ending up reinstating various councils of tribal elders as the only effective form of government...
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
13:29 / 15.11.01
Originally posted by Jack Fear
"I mean, we saw what happened to that other slapped-together, multi-ethnic "nation"--Yugoslavia. Once the heavy hand of autocratic Communism was removed, things fell apart along familiar tribal lines."

I'm not sure that's a realistic appraisal of what happened, Yuogslavia under Marshall Tito was less an autocratic, communist state (they had more freedoms than most of the rest of the Eastern Bloc) and more of a semi-benevolent dictatorship/cult of personality. Tito didn't have to be heavy handed (though at times he was) he controlled through clever politics and playing power bases off against themselves.
 
 
Jack Fear
13:38 / 15.11.01
You're right, of course, about Tito: he mostly kept his iron fist in its velvet glove, and as such was the Commie dictator that it was okay to like (at least, if you were making US foreign policy).

However benevolent he was, though, he still presided over a dictatorship-slash-cult of personality--by definition, something deeply anti-democratic which prevents an expression of the will of the people.

Doesn't detract from my main question: how do you encourage democratic ideals when the "will of the people" seems mostly to be to kill each other?

[ 15-11-2001: Message edited by: Jack Fear ]
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:54 / 15.11.01
"Self-determination" along the lines of what most liberal-educated Westerners would see it for Afghanistan would be complete folly for both international security reasons and for the continue existence of many groups of the diverse peoples of Afghanistan. Can anyone imagine, say elections, being held in Afghanistan in 5 years? 10 years? It's ludicrous to even think about such a thing.

The most dangerous thing and divisive thing for such a racially/tribally pluralistic society would be a multi-party system. What could be more divisive than creating "political" units along ethnic lines (which surely is what would happen here) and thus coating over with a respectable sheen what the West would see as merely racially-motivated hatred.

As Jack Fear said, Afghanistan (and basically all of the developing world) is the creation of Western Cartographers that were heedless of cultural differences and the composition of nations. Since the national groups that live in the area of the state of Afghanistan also have large populations in the neighboring countries (and borders are really non-existant for all intents and purposes), would it make sense to split up the territory of the state of Afghanistan into smaller, homogenous nationality states?

The only thing I can see working is the long-term presence of UN peacekeeping forces from Muslim nations (ie, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan (though there seems to be much resentment of Pakistani citizens by non-Taliban Afghans, because of Pakistans key role in bringing the Taliban to power)). The U.S. should have a very small role in what happens next.

Someone has to govern the geographial location known as Afghanistan. A democratic government would not work. Forcing a country into democracy and liberal capitalism is just as bad as forcing a country into Stalinist communism.

I think I have to bring up the dirty word, but what I think is the only practical alternative: Dictatorship. Who gets to be the dictator of Afghanistan? That 80 year old King? I don't know. But a dictator with the backing of the UN seems the only way to stabilize the region.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:57 / 15.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Jack Fear:

Doesn't detract from my main question: how do you encourage democratic ideals when the "will of the people" seems mostly to be to kill each other?


You don't. And encouraging "democratic ideals" is what causes so much resentment around the world for the US. I think we have to face up to the fact that democracy, like capitalism, doesn't work everywhere.

[ 15-11-2001: Message edited by: Clever Clogs Todd ]
 
 
Ierne
14:15 / 15.11.01
I'm curious as to what sort of influence other Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, etc.) could/would possibly have in such a situation.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
14:28 / 15.11.01
Clever Clogs, dictatorship? Do you realize that your argument kind of comes down to a "they're just little children who can't handle themselves and need a guiding hand" a la the slavery argument?

You are using the same argument about elections ('the masses are too mixed up to make proper decisions' ) that was used to justify the fucking electoral college! Christ!

And talk about elitist!

I do think that with the amount of war Afghanistan and Afghans have been through over the past 30 years it will be challenging to put some sort of democratic, egalitarian governing body in power, but I believe it's possible.

Most Afghans look back on both the time that the King ruled and and the time when the communists were in power as a time when the people enjoyed a relative modicum of freedom (particularly pre king overthrow).

The power vacuum left by the Soviets and the Americans collective abandonment of Afghanistan led to the rise of the Taliban. I do believe we have an obligation to help Afghanistan set up a peaceable, humane governing body and as a westerner I can't pretend I know what exactly would be acceptable for the Afghans. I do believe something other than a dictatorship is possible, however.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
14:45 / 15.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Cherry Bomb:
Clever Clogs, dictatorship? Do you realize that your argument kind of comes down to a "they're just little children who can't handle themselves and need a guiding hand" a la the slavery argument?

Not at all. I just said that if Afghanistan is to retain its borders, and its neighbors' theirs, given the ethnic diversity of the "state" a highly centralized government that is not chosen by an electorate (which would be nigh impossible to assemble), ie a dictatorship, would be the only feasible way of governing that territory. Whether it is a monarchy or military junta or some council of wise elders is something else.

That doesn't mean that I think they are 'little children'. To make that statement you have to make two assumptions (A) dictatorship is a less intellectually developed form of government than democracy (b)no intelligent adults would choose a dictatorship as the best possible form of government in their situation. Both are predicated on the enlightenment tradition and are not objective facts.

quote:
You are using the same argument about elections ('the masses are too mixed up to make proper decisions' ) that was used to justify the fucking electoral college! Christ!

The Electoral College is actually of great benefit to the United States. It gives states with less population (say montana) a greater power in chosing the president. Since the US is a confederation of states, that's only right. It encourages more plurality, rather than less, as otherwise people in less populous areas of the country have less a say in the matter of electing a president. If you get rid of the electoral college, you shoudl also get rid of proportioning out US Reps according to state population as well.


quote:
Most Afghans look back on both the time that the King ruled and and the time when the communists were in power as a time when the people enjoyed a relative modicum of freedom (particularly pre king overthrow).


I think the key words here are "relative modicum of freedom". Democracy is designed to protect the rights of the individual in the face of the mass, where as in this case it is the mass that needs its rights protected from the individuals who could easily hijack the democratic process.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
14:48 / 15.11.01
Awesome image from some 'lither's blog ( i believe betty woo) that shows the ethnic division of Afghanistan:

  
 
Cherry Bomb
14:58 / 15.11.01
CCT - You make some good points there, but before I go any further I have to say that the electoral college is also known as flawed because it gives states with smaller populations disproportionate power. By that I mean the number of electoral votes is not proportionate with the number of electorates in the state. Not to mention the fact that the numbers haven't been updated since 1960 (though they will be for 2004).

But please - and I mean PLEASE - let's not get into the electoral college.

You raise a very interesting point about the assumption of dictatorship as less desirable than a democracy. I've never really thought about it. I've more thought, "Dictatorship = BAD!" And I still think that.
But this raises a question, ARE there sometimes in which a dictatorship is desirable?

The problem I see with dictatorship is the people are entirely at the mercy of the dictator. She could be a good dictator, or a bad dictator. Plus there is the possibility of the dictator becoming drunk with power.

I do think that dictatorship is a less intellectually sophisticated form of government by its very nature, however. A dictatorship says, "All right, you two can't agree, so I will decide." Is that neccessarily the best solution?

With democracy one is FORCED to work with a variety of groups and find a compromise in there somewhere, and I do think that takes more work intellectually than saying, "My way or the highway."

Still. Interesting, interesting.
 
 
QUINT
15:51 / 15.11.01
This is close to what I was asking in the other thread - my principles say 'democrary' or something similar.

Is that realistic?

I want it to work. I want them to behave the way I think they should.

Maybe it's like when the aid agencies told all the African farmers to stop this intercropping nonsense and use modern farming methods and then (oops) the crops were all washed away and there was a famine.

You can't always apply ideas outside the context where they came up.

Democracy is an industrial-era thing. Afghanstian is soooo far from that.

Protectorate? Kingdom? Partition?

On the other hand, what makes you think people always know what's good for them? We pollute, we allow exploitation and poverty, we act terribly stupidly all the time. Maybe we do know better than the Afghans because they simply haven't had access to alternatives in political life, and we should insist and educate...

It's not simple. And I don't understand any more.
 
 
Jack Fear
15:53 / 15.11.01
Let's try again on that image...



Is that working for everybody? Obviously I can see it, but that's cos it's in my cache...

Anyway, the link is hither.

[ 15-11-2001: Message edited by: Jack Fear ]

[ 15-11-2001: Message edited by: Jack Fear ]
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:33 / 15.11.01
I can see it. Thanks for fixing my blunder.
 
 
Fist Fun
16:51 / 15.11.01
Nation building. Goodness me the sooner we start bringing down these artificial constructs the better.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:00 / 15.11.01
Yeah, I'd love to live in Somolia or Sudan.
 
 
grant
17:35 / 15.11.01
How's about a republic model, with each ethnic area having the same role as, say, a Canadian province or US state?

It'd involve some, whatchacall, "districting," but other'n that, it'd at least have something in it to leave those fences up that make for good neighbors. Especially if said "states" were given a certain level of autonomy within the republic.

Reminds me of visiting Natal province during apartheid South Africa - the national gov't never successfully made a Zulu homeland, in part because the proposed map of their ethnic homeland (which was featured on a few bumper stickers) looked far more like a mud splash than a clearly-defined country.

This map doesn't quite do the diffuse-ness justice.
 
 
Jack Fear
09:02 / 16.11.01
To have a federation of republics, there has to be a central federal authority, and that in itself can lead to problems. The model you propose sounds like the one attempted after the breakup of the USSR--a "Russian federation of independent states."

Ask a Chechen how independent those states were, or what happens when the Federal authorities get impatient--if you can find one to ask.
 
 
Hush
09:02 / 16.11.01
quote: what happened to that other slapped-together, multi-ethnic "nation"-

You mean the United States? Emerging out of genocide and civil war.

Turned out ok I suppose.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
09:02 / 16.11.01
But it would be different from the states because their are not ethnicly streamed along state lines. What you proposing would be more like having a completely hispanic California, a completely black New York a completely white Texas.

Also dictatorship or democracy aside the only right we have in the West to make such decisions is that bought us by military intervention. You're attempting force your values on another society.

Dvil's advocate (cause I don't know the answer): Take everyone out of Afghanistan who's sick of war and wants to leave and leave them to it. If that's the way they choose to live then so be it.

I await flaming.
 
 
QUINT
14:42 / 16.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Buk:
Nation building. Goodness me the sooner we start bringing down these artificial constructs the better.How revolutionary.

Tell me, do you have a notion of how the world might work without them, or are you of the 'make it up as I go along school' responsible for all the finest fiascos and Terror states the world has yet produced?
 
 
01
17:40 / 16.11.01
Originally posted by The Scent:
quote: I want it to work. I want them to behave the way I think they should.

Democracy is an industrial-era thing. Afghanstian is soooo far from that.

From Grant Morrison's Website:

quote:America is gearing itself up to once more to assault a group of people who have yet to experience an industrial revolution of their own, who never had a scientific enlightenment of their own, let alone a 'green meme' information revolution like the one Western cultures are now experiencing. We are dealing with a culture which has yet to throw up an Isaac Newton or a Nietzche to tell them categorically that ALLAH IS DEAD.


Damn. This is appears to be true. The previous government didn't even let women go to school.
So. What kind of government do we encourage?
I really want to say "I don't know," but after supporting millitary action to overthrow the Taliban, I'd be subscribing to the line of thinking that created the Taliban in the first place. Help drive out the agressors so that even nastier ones can take their place.

Everything at this stage is extremely volatile. Local "warlords" trying to claim a piece of the pie. If allowed to continue, this will only cause further problems, and definitely more violence. The UN needs to go in and set up an interim government immediately to help stabalize the situation as much as possible. Peacekeepers should be brought in as well, and, like Chomsky illustrates, no Americans and no Russians. But this is only a short term soloution.

The real question is ,"What next?"

Timeless freedom or eternal control?

Here is an agrarian society that has suffered so much misery and conflict that it now probably equates the term "shell shocked" with the word "marathon." How do you begin the gargantuan task of forming a new government after 20 years of war? The thing is you can't. Not immediately anyways. The UN interim should run the country for a period of at least five years while a new infrastructure can at least begun to be built. Then, what should happen, is what Autopilot Disengaged proposed in another thread, "Feed the Afghani people and let them decide what to do with their country." If they want democracy, so be it. If they want another draconian relgious dicatorship, so be it. Extending the period of the UN interim would at least give the people time to make a clear decision as to their future.

But on the other hand, who the fuck am I to say? I'm looking out my window at an untouched skyline drinking coffee casually flinging around theories on the internet about the best form of government for a nation that I've never even remotely been in the proximity of. I don't know war. I've never seen it. I shot a bird with a bb gun when I was kid and felt horrible.

Right now there are probably some 18th dimensional plasmic entities kicking back laughing watching us on TV like we're the cast of "Three's Company" going, "Ha! Stupid monkey-minds. When will they ever learn? Just beginning to understand the paradox...Just starting to put their fingers on and feel out the edges of the supercontext. Pass me another memetic soda..."

[ 16-11-2001: Message edited by: zerone ]
 
 
Fist Fun
19:46 / 16.11.01
quote:Tell me, do you have a notion of how the world might work without them, or are you of the 'make it up as I go along school' responsible for all the finest fiascos and Terror states the world has yet produced?



Yeah, I get your point. Maybe that wasn't an appropriate comment for this particular thread. However, yeah I do think nations are outdated artificial, arbitrary constructs. How would the world work without them? Hmmm, well I think the answer to that is all in a Lennon song. Right now multinational business enjoys a relatively borderless world. I suggest we create some sort of world system for people rather than corporations.
A few weeks ago a guy was working in my department doing the same job as me. Now he is in a detention centre because his papers aren't in order.
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:43 / 16.11.01
Scent, your sense of history strikes me as rather idiosyncratic, to say the least. The nation-state system is a recent invention, only really emerging at the start of the twentieth century. Somehow, society existed as something other than terror states and fiascos for centuries before that.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure which states you are thinking of when you claim a 'let them make it up' approach produced the worst terror states and fiascos. On my understanding, many of the worst terror states of the twentieth century suffered the exact opposite - the uncritical imposition of the model of the nation-state on populations it was never suited to. This is as true of Nazi Germany (in relation to Europe, divided into nation-states and minorities by WWI peace treaties) as it is of the dozens of despotic regimes in Latin America the US has propped up since.
 
 
Hush
05:17 / 17.11.01
Whereas as the USA just congealed out of different settlements languages and cultures.

And for all it's faults is better overall than other superstates on hunanitarian stuff.
 
 
QUINT
06:44 / 17.11.01
quote:Buk: How would the world work without them? Hmmm, well I think the answer to that is all in a Lennon song....I feel sick...or, to be less offensive, that's all very well, but it's not something I'd put any great faith in. It's amazingly difficult to get people to love each other. Or even recognise each other's status as humans...

quote:CAB: Scent, your sense of history strikes me as rather idiosyncratic, to say the least. The nation-state system is a recent invention, only really emerging at the start of the twentieth century. Somehow, society existed as something other than terror states and fiascos for centuries before that.Er...there were, indisputably, nation states before 1900. France comes to mind - revolution was, oh, and hundred years before that...oh, and I think there was this place called Britain...

But perhaps more importantly, sure, there were other forms of societal organisation before the nation state. But the state was not capriociously created to make life nasty. Nor are those other forms necessarily any use to us now. I didn't say 'the nation state system is perfect', I said 'you better have something to replace it with, because people who rip their states apart without a follow-up agenda have a bad history of purges, cultural revolutions, and murder in the aftermath'.

As to which state I was thinking of, I had the USSR and China in mind. You are right, of course, in saying that Nazi Germany does not follow this pattern (though I dispute that the problems there arise from 'uncritical imposition of the model of the nation-state on populations it was never suited to' - I would have said an ideology based on hate was the problem).

IJINLW: In no sense did the USA 'just congeal'. It's a generated nation, spoken into existence, with basic ideological texts and a defined ethos. The USA, more than any other country in the world, is a set of constituitive rules. As to whether it's a success..."It's too early to tell."
 
 
Fist Fun
10:22 / 17.11.01
quote: It's amazingly difficult to get people to love each other. Or even recognise each other's status as humans...

...but just imagine.
 
 
Jackie Susann
05:59 / 18.11.01
I'm sorry I was unclear in my last post; I didn't mean there were no nation-states before the twentieth century, but that there wasn't a 'nation-state system' -- the kind of global system of interlinked sovereign nations we have today. While I don't think post-revolutionary France was by any means 'indisputably' a nation-state, I'll accept it for the sake of argument. Nevertheless, nation-states were clearly outnumbered by other forms of social organisation until at least the early twentieth century.

I'm not familiar enough with the recent history of China or the former USSR to really argue thet point, but it doesn't seem to me that there's much of a case for either becoming a particularly egregious terror state following the collapse of the nation-state system. Indeed, I don't see either as an instance of the collapse of the nation-state form; Russia started bombing Chechnya, for example, because the latter wanted independence as a nation-state. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

Ripping a state apart, moreover, is something quite different from abandoning the form of the nation-state. It may be this confusion we are arguing about. (We also seem to be in purely semantic disagreement about Nazi Germany - of course there was an ideology based on hate, but the forms that hate took couldn't have arisen independent of the way modern nationalism and post-wwi peace treaties divided Europe into nation-states and minorities.) I can't think of a single state or ex-state to have departed from the nation-state form - again, please correct me or offer counterexamples - so I don't believe there is any particular history for what would result.

I am not convinced it would necessarily be as terrible as you think. In particular, I am not convinced there is historical evidence that it would be as bad as you think.
 
  
Add Your Reply