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...
Bookmarks