Pottery Barn rule and Afghanistan

The conduct of politics in Afghanistan is on a fast track and political issues there these days burn on the forward-burners under the watchful and very inquisitive eyes of the world that never stops listening and watching. Today, those that write on the subject of Afghanistan suffer from the ‘time and space dilemma’ — a dilemma that suggests that the outcome of any writing on the subject of Afghanistan may get overrun by the events. Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, scholar and the founder of modern political science, described “human affairs” as something “that cannot be without incontinence”. Afghanistan today is a typical example of how these affairs come either to a halt or proceed under such an environment of “inconvenience” caused by either of the many stakeholders who have their many interests associated with the future of Afghanistan.

Four benchmarks that define the US-Taliban’s peace process continue to hold their place. These are: a ceasefire, withdrawal of US troops, intra-Afghan negotiations, and a pledge by the Taliban that they will not allow Afghan soil to be used to stage attacks against the US. The two recent events, the declaration of the Afghan elections’ results in which President Ghani won and earned a second term with a thin margin (50.64%) of victory; and second, the appearance of an opinion piece in The New York Times, written by Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Deputy to the Taliban Chief, Maulvi Hibatullah Akhundzada. This opinion piece gives us an insight of how the Taliban see the future of the country as it showcases its vision of post-war Afghanistan.

Haqqani’s writing augurs well for the peace process and is very reassuring to the world, especially when he writes that “all Afghans would find a way to build an Islamic system in which all Afghans have equal rights, where the rights of women — from the right to education to the right to work — are protected.” However, the timings of the announcement of the Afghan elections’ result and the animosity and tension it may cause between various “political marquees” in a very versatile and multipurpose political Afghan landscape does not speak well for not only the peace process but its most important component i.e. the intra-Afghan dialogue.

There are chances that the relatively smooth flight that the peace deal is managing to take may now encounter turbulence. The reasons for this turbulence can be attributed to such factors as the results of fraud-ridden elections — as alleged by the opposition — may further weaken the Afghan government, the US waiting for a “demonstrable evidence” of reduction of violence in Afghanistan which any of the many spoilers can initiate, and the possibility of the Afghan top political leadership being at odds on agreeing on a negotiating team to face the Taliban for peace talks.

Abdullah Abdullah, the former chief executive of the unity government of Afghanistan, has been consistent in his demands that no conditions be set for the peace talks with the Taliban, while President Ghani wants an end to violence as a pre-condition for the initiation of the intra-Afghan dialogue. Also, there is no letup in US airstrikes in Afghanistan and statistics show that the US has dropped more bombs in Afghanistan last year than in any year since 2013. The Taliban cannot be expected to hold on to a ceasefire if the US finds reasons to initiate airstrikes. Since the end of 2014, when Pentagon announced an end to combat operations in Afghanistan, more than 25,000 Afghan soldiers and police officers have been killed and with such a rate of killing and murder the likelihood of a reactive US airstrike against elements that may indulge in such killings cannot be ruled out.

What unsettles the ongoing peace process is actually the lack of trust between the US and the Taliban. The withdrawal of US troops looks like a scenario which is a long way off given that even if the ceasefire holds and the peace process begins, there is no guarantee that a weak Afghan government that lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the Taliban can pull off a peace deal. Unfortunately, the signs ahead are of confusion and chaos, and if an impulsive Donald Trump gets his second term in office and throws up one of his usual surprises, we may again witness the Afghan forces pitched against the resurgent Taliban in a clash that may reignite the dying flames of the 40-year-old Afghan civil war.

However, it’s not all bad news. The acknowledgement by Sirajuddin Haqqani of a US role in the future nation building of Afghanistan through sustained economic and military aid means a lot for the country’s political, social and economic development.

Nation building reminds us of two different ways the world treated Germany and Japan after the World Wars. While the treatment of Germany after WWI was humiliating, it was transformational after WWII. The seeds of WWII were sown in the punitive peace that followed WWI, giving rise to the phenomenon of radicalism, populism and nationalism in Germany, thus creating a political opening for the rise of the fascist dictator, Adolf Hitler. On the contrary, after WWII, Japan was occupied by the US, and Germany by Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union, and both Germany and Japan experienced nation building which re-made them in the image of their occupiers. Both democratised and both made huge strides in the fields of social and economic development. After the disintegration of the USSR, Germany stood out as a great power in the European Union. Thus, it is fair to say that the fortunes of a country coming out of a war are much dependent on how the world takes its responsibility and treats it.

It will be wishful thinking to imagine Afghanistan taking the same successful journey as post-WWII Germany and Japan. The experiment of their transformation worked because both countries had societies that respected authority, had an educated citizenry and a clear division between politics and religion — something that is clearly missing in the case of Afghanistan. But this does not absolve the US from fulfilling its responsibility towards Afghanistan.

The Pottery Barn rule is an American expression which refers to the policy of “you break it, you remake it”. This is popularly used by retail stores in the US who hold the customer responsible for any damage done to the merchandise on display. If Germany and Japan can be remade, then why not Afghanistan? The world, led by the US, broke it and now it must join hands to remake it.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 23^rd, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.