AfPak: an overview of Pakistan / Afghanistan

[jonSlack]

Some other stuff I did, and across this theme I came:

What about uniting Pakistan and Afghanistan?

You are talking states (Afghanistan and Pakistan) when you should be talking about nations (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Balochis...)

I do not think the fusing of Pakistan and Afghanistan is a good idea.

I also do not think that "westerners" should dictate any changes to political boundaries in that region or any other region in the developing world.

However, if there is consensus on both sides of the Afghanistan and Pakistan border for the creation of an independent Pashtunistan I think our best COA is to get out of the way, let it happen, and then begin a working relationship with the new state to include providing the assitance and advising we are currently offering in Afghanistan.

However, I do not know what the second and third order effects of this new state would with reference to the other major ethnic concentrations in the area. Would Pakistan and Afghanistan cease to exist as states? Would other ethnic groups like the Balochis get their own state? Would still others like the Uzbek and Tajik populations in Afghanistan choose to start their own state or would they opt to join Uzbekistan and Tajikistan? How would Iran, India, and the other states in the region the changes? For example, would Uzbekistan try to foricibly annex the Uzbek areas of Afghanistan?

Does the name you gave to this hypothetical new state, Durristan, imply that the state will be comprised solely of the Durrani Pashtuns? What of the Ghilzai and other tribes?

You might find the following paper interesting:

Artificial States by Alesina, Easterly, Matuszeski

Abstract: Artificial states are those in which political borders do not coincide with a division of nationalities desired by the people on the ground. We propose and compute for all countries in the world two new measures how artificial states are. One is based on measuring how borders split ethnic groups into two separate adjacent countries. The other one measures how straight land borders are, under the assumption the straight land borders are more likely to be artificial. We then show that these two measures seem to be highly correlated with several measures of political and economic success.

In reference to the paper though. It would appear the Durrani line is an exception to the findings of the paper because the Durrani line is not generally straight because it is drawn along moutains which have the same ethnic group residing on both sides.

[Distiller]

Note: It's Durranistan, the other name of the old Afghan Empire that incorporated today's Pakistan and existed from 17-something till the Brits showed up in the area. And it's Durand Line for what is on paper the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The name is of course open. Might well call it Bactrian Federation, even though I think old Bactria didn't include Baluchistan and also went far north of the Oxus.

Pashtunistan would be the end of Afghanistan (with Uzbeks and Tadjiks going north, Herat to Iran, and Baluchis going where?), and also make Afghanistan very slim up north. It would also lack access to the sea. Not a good option in any way.

[Bob's World]

While a "Durranistan" approach is arguably supperior to the current effort to somehow enforce a wedge of a border right through the heart of the Pashto populace who's support we are trying to garner, it has several drawbacks as well. Not the least of those being:
1. I don't hear any voices from either of the affected states calling for this; and
2. It would potentially create a Taliban-led nuclear state.

Both of those are, shall we say, "problematic."


The approach that I have been mentally juggling lately is not how do we exert some new control mechanism on a foreign populace to suit our needs, but rather how do we change our concept of what makes up a state and what exactly composes sovereignty instead. Many of the world's simmering conflicts are where an ethnic populace has been divided by borders drawn to suit colonial powers more than to facilitate effective local governance. The question to me is, how do we continue to honor and support the sovereignty of two states like Afghanistan and Pakistan, while at the sametime recognizing some lesser degree of sovereignty for a Pashto popualce that sits astride those two countries? Same applies for the Kurds and Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran; and muliple situations in Africa.

This is simply a matter of changing our perspective, and then facilitating / mediating some application. It's bold new ground, and perhaps isn't the right approach, but I have to believe a shift to less outside control to impose solutions that work for us, and more outside facilitation of solutions that work for the affected populaces is the best way to move forward. Realize this is easier said than done, but the longest journey begins with the first step...

[jmm99]

A discussion coming at the topic here from a different angle is here.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...0668#post60668

Plus, it's got pictures - highly intellectual, like Classics Illustrated.