The Curious Case of Afghanistan
Reporting from the United Nations General Assembly—Disarmament and International Security (UNGA-DISEC), Kavya Datla analyses the ever tumultuous state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Afghanistan).
The transition of the 20th century into the 21st century involved the shifting of several forms of governance. While some countries like the Republic of India (India), the Hellenic Republic, and the Federative Republic of Brazil flourished under this shift, the rest fell into severe tumult. One such case is that of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Afghanistan). The narrative of this state has become increasingly intricate over the years.
Afghanistan declared its independence from the British in 1919 only to fall into severe political unrest. Soon after that, Amanullah, the King at the time, fled the nation. Subsequently, the nation was under the monarchy of Mohammed Zahir Shah for over forty years until 1973. He was overthrown by his cousin Mohammed Daoud Khan (General Daoud) who turned the nation into a republic. This ray of hope towards building a conflict-free nation died along with General Daoud in the 1978 pro-Soviet coup.
Consequently, the nation slipped into further unrest resulting in polar political representatives. These were the People’s Democratic Party, backed by the Soviet Union and the Mujahideen rebels, backed by the United States of America (USA), People’s Republic of China (China), the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran), and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The 1979 Afghan-Soviet war lasted for nine years until 1988 when the Soviet Union pulled out due to lack of economic resources. However, another conflict was just on the rise during this period. With the Soviet Union no longer interfering, the Mujahideen rebels started to take control of parts of Afghanistan. This led to the birth of the Taliban.
The Taliban were predominantly students of the Pashtun region who were trained under the leadership of Mohammed Omar. After the return of Osama Bin Laden in 1996, the Taliban gained control over three major regions in Afghanistan and continued to run a government from 1996 to 2001. After several United Nations sanctions, it took a USA-led intervention to overthrow the Taliban.
Today, this splintered group continues to create chaos across the world.
The case in point is that Afghanistan has continued to remain in conflict since they acquired their independence. Afghanistan has constantly been under the radar for conquest—by the British in 1839, by the Soviet Union in 1979, by the United States of America in 2001, and constantly by other non-state actors. One of the major causes is its strategic geographical location. It is home to major trade routes between the east and west located between Iran, India, China, and the Russian Federation.
Afghanistan has always been a frontier between major trade routes. It was the key stop among several stops on the Silk Road while being home to the crossroads of trade between the East and West. Its location allows for it to be heavily dependent on building an economy around trade taxes. Naturally, almost all western states have had their eyes on Afghanistan—trying to gain power or maintaining friendly relations—even if that meant supporting conflict.
In its current state, Afghanistan has no scope of sustaining a modern trade route. However, in the coming years if the state and its neighbours get their act together, Afghanistan does hold the promise of being a potent pathway for economic progress and opportunity.
Sources:
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12024253
[2] https://www.cfr.org/asia/afghanistan
(Edited by Keerthisree Raghu.)
Fox in Wolf’s Clothing
Reshma Raghunadharao, reporting from the United Nations General Assembly–Disarmament and International Security (UNGA-DISEC), attempts to portray the role of state-sponsored terrorism in international relations in a new light.
“War is too important to be left to the generals,” quipped George’s Clemenceau. Drawing a parallel to the same, it can be said that state-sponsored terrorism is rather abstract and should be left to generals. But what happens when diplomats take over this scene? More often than not, state-sponsored terrorism is a form of diplomatic bargaining and not of war. [1] If this argument is proved to be sensible, the definition of diplomacy itself requires revision.
The general human population today is no stranger to terrorism on domestic and international levels. This is explained through the evocation of a sensational and direct involvement in political affairs, which is rather similar to the emotional response of people to natural calamities or war by itself. Methods of terrorism which have overthrown governments with pre-planned, unaccepted policies—political manipulation, with special emphasis on liberal societies where communication is easy—possess an allure, making governments use terrorism as a means of meddling with the policies of other governments. For instance, the hostage situation in the Republic of Iraq right before the Gulf War of 1991 is an instance where state-sponsored terrorism was used to establish foreign policy. The sheer defiance of the principles of the Rule of War, various customs pertaining to international relations, and the magnitude of the hostages shows the difference between similar events that precede it, which when questioned at the time, were completely denied.
Assassinations and clandestine violence are now means of progress to achieve objectives of a government and the potential state-sponsored terrorism is a sleek addition to this arsenal. Traditional rules pertaining to permission and procedure, which kept terrorism at bay, is now being rather blatantly pushed aside for the inclusion of state-sponsored terrorism. Examples of the same can be found in the methods implemented by Libya, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Cuba, to name a few. Here, we realise that terrorism is a key element in the foreign policy of governments.
Governments under conflict due to state-sponsored terrorism have inculcated a rather interesting attitude towards the same. With the lack of the ability to counter terrorism, in certain instances, governments have tapped into their “victim” status by including terrorism as a major issue in their domestic and foreign policy agendas. As a consequence, their status is also being used as a propaganda tool to gather public support within the nation and establish a foreign policy position against its adversaries. The prime example would be the conflict between the State of Israel and Palestine, alongside the Arab states.
Terrorism has been conceptualised as violent behaviour according to legal and social elements. Perusing through any literature on terrorism and its aspects, it is evident that terrorism is perceived majorly as a crime or a type of warfare. The reporter believes that the narrow-minded approach towards the same is the reason behind the lack of exploration of the idea of terrorism as a diplomatic tool. The reporter ascertains two issues that need to be taken into consideration to widen the scope of discussion.
The first issue is the delineation of the political aspects of state-sponsored terrorism. The gaping ambiguity that prevents the understanding of where and when state-sponsored terrorism becomes an instrument of foreign policy is the problem at hand. Contentions such as the prospect of elimination of hostile citizens on foreign territory when involving casualties for the situation to be considered state-sponsored terrorism and the nuances around the involvement of illegal methods by states to engage in terrorism need to be discussed.
The second issue is the evaluation of the responses towards state-sponsored terrorism. Politicians and mediators are inclined towards deciding on solutions based on the response from the general spectators. When there was no proper and effective response, diplomatic negotiations were preferred as the premier choice. From this, we can understand that there exists a blatant divide between the theory and the practice of state-sponsored terrorism, and the divide renders the rethinking of state sponsored terrorism to be imperative.
In a world that considers only the white flag to be a symbol of negotiation and diplomacy, entertaining state-sponsored terrorism as a tool of diplomatic bargain seems no less agreeable than traditional law. With discussion, the reporter believes that a refined grasp of this concept and deep understanding will bring this implausible idea into light.
(Edited by Keerthisree Raghu.)
“War is too important to be left to the generals,” quipped George’s Clemenceau. Drawing a parallel to the same, it can be said that state-sponsored terrorism is rather abstract and should be left to generals. But what happens when diplomats take over this scene? More often than not, state-sponsored terrorism is a form of diplomatic bargaining and not of war. [1] If this argument is proved to be sensible, the definition of diplomacy itself requires revision.
The general human population today is no stranger to terrorism on domestic and international levels. This is explained through the evocation of a sensational and direct involvement in political affairs, which is rather similar to the emotional response of people to natural calamities or war by itself. Methods of terrorism which have overthrown governments with pre-planned, unaccepted policies—political manipulation, with special emphasis on liberal societies where communication is easy—possess an allure, making governments use terrorism as a means of meddling with the policies of other governments. For instance, the hostage situation in the Republic of Iraq right before the Gulf War of 1991 is an instance where state-sponsored terrorism was used to establish foreign policy. The sheer defiance of the principles of the Rule of War, various customs pertaining to international relations, and the magnitude of the hostages shows the difference between similar events that precede it, which when questioned at the time, were completely denied.
Assassinations and clandestine violence are now means of progress to achieve objectives of a government and the potential state-sponsored terrorism is a sleek addition to this arsenal. Traditional rules pertaining to permission and procedure, which kept terrorism at bay, is now being rather blatantly pushed aside for the inclusion of state-sponsored terrorism. Examples of the same can be found in the methods implemented by Libya, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Cuba, to name a few. Here, we realise that terrorism is a key element in the foreign policy of governments.
Governments under conflict due to state-sponsored terrorism have inculcated a rather interesting attitude towards the same. With the lack of the ability to counter terrorism, in certain instances, governments have tapped into their “victim” status by including terrorism as a major issue in their domestic and foreign policy agendas. As a consequence, their status is also being used as a propaganda tool to gather public support within the nation and establish a foreign policy position against its adversaries. The prime example would be the conflict between the State of Israel and Palestine, alongside the Arab states.
Terrorism has been conceptualised as violent behaviour according to legal and social elements. Perusing through any literature on terrorism and its aspects, it is evident that terrorism is perceived majorly as a crime or a type of warfare. The reporter believes that the narrow-minded approach towards the same is the reason behind the lack of exploration of the idea of terrorism as a diplomatic tool. The reporter ascertains two issues that need to be taken into consideration to widen the scope of discussion.
The first issue is the delineation of the political aspects of state-sponsored terrorism. The gaping ambiguity that prevents the understanding of where and when state-sponsored terrorism becomes an instrument of foreign policy is the problem at hand. Contentions such as the prospect of elimination of hostile citizens on foreign territory when involving casualties for the situation to be considered state-sponsored terrorism and the nuances around the involvement of illegal methods by states to engage in terrorism need to be discussed.
The second issue is the evaluation of the responses towards state-sponsored terrorism. Politicians and mediators are inclined towards deciding on solutions based on the response from the general spectators. When there was no proper and effective response, diplomatic negotiations were preferred as the premier choice. From this, we can understand that there exists a blatant divide between the theory and the practice of state-sponsored terrorism, and the divide renders the rethinking of state sponsored terrorism to be imperative.
In a world that considers only the white flag to be a symbol of negotiation and diplomacy, entertaining state-sponsored terrorism as a tool of diplomatic bargain seems no less agreeable than traditional law. With discussion, the reporter believes that a refined grasp of this concept and deep understanding will bring this implausible idea into light.
(Edited by Keerthisree Raghu.)