The U.N. and Afghanistan

By K. Santhanam

SERIOUS CONSIDERATION is needed to involve the U.N. more deeply in Afghanistan. In particular, there is a need for immediate placement of Afghanistan under the Trusteeship Council for shaping its future, nursing it back to health and restoring it to its people after stabilisation. The spill-over effects from developments in Afghanistan are orders of magnitude higher than those witnessed, say, during civil disorder and violence in Cambodia or East Timor when the world acted through a U.N. Transitional Administration or Authority. The present situation needs a more structured response - with the structure invested also with the authority to deal with global effects of ``failed or failing states'' as well.

The recent statement by the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, that ``we are not in the business of nation-building'' appears to reveal some avoidable insensitivity to regional and international concerns over the need for collective efforts in re-construction of Afghanistan after the visit of ``retribution''. The Secretary- General, Mr. Kofi Annan's statement on October 1 in New York indicates a willingness, if not readiness, for pursuit of a more active U.N. role; it is to be heartily welcomed to ensure a proper future for the Afghan people in the years ahead.

Granted the frailties of the U.N. and the longish period for re- construction, the fact remains that true international legitimacy vests with the U.N. The question is whether we can afford not to use it. Regional groupings or initiatives by individual states - however well-intentioned they may be - would lack this type of legitimacy and the administrative experience demanded for the task.

The idea of using the Trusteeship Council to handle situations arising from ``failed or failing states'' has been around for some time in the general context of U.N. reforms. For instance, Brian Urquhart and Erskine Childers (Uppsala, Dag Hammarskjoeld Foundation, 1990) have talked of ``transforming the Trusteeship Council into the U.N. Council on Diversity, Representation and Governance - a body responsible for addressing the unresolved legacies of former empires, the aspirations of cultural and ethnic groups within existing states and the growing phenomenon of democratisation''. Peter Lyon (Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London) in his article entitled ``The Rise and Fall and Possible Revival of International Trusteeship'' (Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, March 1993) has argued that ``obituaries on the demise of the Trusteeship Council may be premature''; and, has commended its future relevance. More recently, the idea was also discussed at the ``Conference on Failed States and Global Governance'' (Florence, April 10- 14, 2001) where some felt that trusteeship could be a sustainable practice if states and their people regard themselves as part of an international system with shared and common goals.

Leaving Afghanistan to the mercy of power masters or their brokers, while forgetting its recent history, would be unwise. The space vacated by these operators should be occupied by the U.N. to improve the welfare of the Afghan people and advance the common goals of ``responsible nationhood'' using the experience and expertise of the Trusteeship Council.

Is there some ``abridgement'' of national sovereignty of the Westphalian category in placing Afghanistan under the Trusteeship Council? Partially, yes. But the terms of reference would specify how long the Council could administer the territory, along with a road-map for return to civil order and reasonable governance. And, the Council's work would, of course, be supervised both by the General Assembly and the Security Council.

The financial implications of undertaking the process may not be daunting; an additionality could be contributed by the international community as well as international financial institutions to kick-start the process for the first two years. And, thereafter, with reasonable governance under the U.N. and a nominal levy on goods entering or leaving, Afghanistan may well see the economy get on its feet. It would be quite essential to get all, if not most, Islamic countries on board, not just for acceptability but for economic reasons as well.

It is possible that the U.N. presence under International Trusteeship provisions could facilitate construction and maintenance of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian Republics running through its territory. Revenue flows from this pipeline could also contribute to Afghanistan's social and economic development. The Trusteeship Council could give the type of investment protection and supply security needed in international commerce which no Government in the foreseeable future could reasonably provide.

What could be the desirable type of a future Government in Afghanistan and what should be its policies? It is reasonable to assume that the unanimous answer, both within Afghanistan and outside, would be a secure Afghanistan, at peace with itself and its neighbours, with a slew of policies and practices including: a) a `reasonably representative' Government based on its historical experiences while blending into the 21st century; b) a well-planned and implemented programme for the country's social and economic development with support from the U.N. and the international community; and, c) willing adherence to norms of international conduct.

This is just an indicative, not exhaustive, unprioritised list. The final shape of this Government and its policies would essentially be chosen by the people of Afghanistan. And, the role of the Council would be to assist the people in establishing this type of governance.

The people of Afghanistan would, in all likelihood, prefer a multi-group, participative, democratic variant of a pluralistic regime which would respect tribal affiliations in a loose, federal structure promoting responsible, non-medieval nationhood. The past hostility between tribes need not be assumed as a permanent feature if the Trusteeship Council, is empowered to enable troubled transition in the nascent stages of ``nation building'' and its march towards responsible/responsive self- governance.

The Trusteeship Council has done precisely this type of work since 1945. And, now, with the last territory of Palau in the Pacific Ocean returned to its people (1994), it has been ``successful'' in completing its charter of duties and responsibilities. The Council is without a job today.

Cobbling together of an international consensus for the ``war against global terrorism'' (regardless of variations in definition and interpretation of terrorism itself) is one matter; It is desirable, it is good. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. The realisation of an international consensus on re-building Afghanistan as a reasonably modern state has not yet been openly addressed by this ``politico-military coalition''.

This needs to be addressed, in parallel, with the military effort. In this context, the basic concepts of International Trusteeship which have been around since 1945 are worthy of re- consideration and implementation, mutatis mutandi, for the re- building of Afghanistan, the welfare of its people and for protection of the legitimate interests of its neighbours and the world at large.

So, what is the proposal? It is: immediately secure support of all members of the U.N., in particular the current 15 in the Security Council, for placing Afghanistan temporarily the Trusteeship Council; pass a Security Council Resolution. The Special Administrator for Afghanistan designated by the U.N. Secretary-General under the Trusteeship Council should immediately hold an international round table meeting with all Afghan parties concerned and states bordering Afghanistan, on shaping its social, economic and political agenda as part of the process of ``re- building''. In parallel, the Secretariat associated with the above officer should work with international financial institutions and other potential sources of funding for the process; and realise the initial budget for the first two years of the process.

(The writer is Director, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : A new wave in Bangladesh?
Next     : Panchayat raj in Karnataka - II