Professor Abdul-Satar Sirat, Founding Chairman of Afghanistan's National Unity Movement.

1982, Mecca, Saudi Arabia : The Struggle Between Islam and Atheism in Afghanistan

Document:

Bonn Agreement Documents

On the same topic from other authors:

نظری بر جریانات فعلی افغانستان و موضوع حاکمیت ملی

A New Political Lexicon For Afghanistan

Upcoming Elections: Security, Fairness and Commitment

Regalian Functions

Berlin: Success or Failure

People Are Starving, Give Them a New Constitution

The Long Way for Peace in Afghanistan

In the late December 1979, during the days that the Red Army invaded and
later occupied Afghanistan, the National Security Advisor in the White
House at that time Mr. Bregensky told President Jimmy Carter: "It is a nice
opportunity for us to give the Soviet Union their Vietnam". (French Weekly
Observateur, January 1998).

This is the first time that Afghanistan has become strategically important
to the United States and is on the priority list of the foreign policies of
the United States. Our American and Western friends were so happy to see
the Red Army being defeated in Afghanistan and the Soviet Union being
collapsed. Then the West and the United States turned their back on
Afghanistan and did not have any visions about what should happen after the
Red Army left Afghanistan. Unfortunately, The Afghans who bravely fought
the Soviet Union to liberate their country could not handle their
post-Jihad affairs. The decade of Jihad in Afghanistan was a historic and
honorable period in the history of our country, however the decade after
Jihad was characterized by bloody and tragic events.

I asked an American friend in the early nineties: "Does the U.S. have a
specific policy in Afghanistan?" After thinking for a few seconds, he
replied, "If you find out, let me know. The cold war is over, we do not
have any interest in Afghanistan." I told him: "If you don't have any
interest in Afghanistan, your enemies will find a free and best place for
their anti-American activities."

When the Taliban regime and Islamic extremists took power in Afghanistan,
Mr. Bregensky was asked if he felt sorry for what he said, he said why he
should feel sorry. Is the freedom of Europe and end of the cold war equal
with the existence of some crazy Muslims. Is the collapse of the Soviet
Union is equal to the rise of Taliban?, he said.

I don't know if Mr. Bregensky has changed his views after the tragedy of
Sept. 11th, 2001 or not.

The Geography of Afghanistan has always shaped the history of the country.
The location of Afghanistan as a small Islamic country between two large
Islamic countries (Iran and Pakistan) and as a neighbor of the former
Soviet Union and being the cross road between the East and West caused
Afghanistan a lot of problems. This location could have brought great
privileges and benefits to Afghanistan.

Special political relations between the U.S. and Iran during the Shah's
rule affected the U.S. policy in Afghanistan. After the Islamic Revolution
in Iran, Pakistan's influence affected the U.S. policy in Afghanistan.
Therefore, the U.S. had no interest in Afghanistan before the Russian
invasion. The Sept 11th, 2001 tragedy brought Afghanistan to the headline
news. The West especially the United States focused their attention to
Afghanistan. Huge financial resources and political efforts were spent to
fight terrorism in Afghanistan and attempts to change the political and
military structures in Afghanistan were made under U.S. supervision.

It should be realized that an emergency situation can affect political and
military decisions but the sharp differences between the ideas of military
and political authorities and not realizing the social and national
realities of a war-torn country like Afghanistan can have dangerous
consequences.

Before Sept 11th, 2001 the relations between the United States and
Afghanistan were influenced by what Iran and later Pakistan thought should
be the best policy. After Sept 11th, the rule of Pakistan still continues
to influence U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Some Afghan-Americans became
politically involved to represent U.S. policies in Afghanistan and they
brought their friends and relatives to be involved with them. We don't
disagree with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. We wish to have friendly
and good relations with it. Neither do we have any disagreement with the
Afghan-Americans who are politically involved in Afghanistan. We believe
that the prestige and national interests of Afghanistan should be respected
along with the legitimate foreign interests. The rights and dignities of
Afghans should not be sacrificed for foreign and personal interests.

In the decade of the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan (1980s), the method
of the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan was the same method that they used
for their occupation of the small republics in the Soviet Union. That
method included separating and dividing a single nation into as many ethnic
groups as possible. This method in Afghanistan was strengthened and tribal
groups in Afghanistan were established. The Afghan nation was classified
into different ethnic groups. Incorrect expressions of nationalities
instead of ethnic branches were introduced.

The Bonn Conference (2001) established an interim administration for
Afghanistan after the collapse of the Taliban. Six months later the
Emergency Loyal Jerga established a two-year transitional government. In
each of these political events and during the past two years, ethnicity
became the main factor instead of professionalism and qualification.
Special Envoy of the U.N. Secretary General (Mr. Akhdhar Ibrahimi) is a
retired diplomat from Algeria and his knowledge and understanding of
Afghanistan might be equal to my knowledge and understanding of Algeria.

I will never allow myself to tell Algerians how to establish their
political systems and run their country, but Mr. Ibrahimi intervened in the
political life in Afghanistan and he supported ethnicity as the basis to
get any position in the political and administrative affairs in
Afghanistan. By doing that he endangered the national unity of Afghanistan.

Few days ago (December 2003) the Afghan Loya Jirga was held to discuss a
draft constitution of Afghanistan. During a period of three weeks, most of
the Loya Jirga's discussions were not about the constitution. Eventually,
the constitution was adopted. It's the first time in our history that
Afghans even after adopting the constitution, doubt that this constitution
can be implemented under the current circumstances. The people who drafted
the constitution indicated that this kind of constitution is necessary for
the present time and it can be changed later. Contradictory political
ideologies and contradictory foreign and domestic pressures affected
drafting and adopting the constitution.

The rule of Islam and democracy in the constitution came from two different
ideologies each of which is to prevent the danger of the other. It's
clearly understood that people promoting Islam were worried of democracy
and people promoting democracy were worried of the rule of Islam in the
constitution. They didn't pay attention to the common points between Islam
and democracy. A third side strongly wanted a powerful presidential system
because they might think of specific people and specific period. They were
not paying attention that if the wrong person gets such presidential
powers, what the consequences can be?

While drafting the constitution, I reviewed two major research documents
about restoring peace and drafting a constitution in Afghanistan. The first
document is from RAND titled "Democracy and Islam in the New Constitution
of Afghanistan." This document greatly focused that the rule of Islam
should be reduced in the constitution. Power should be given to people
based on consensus instead of the Islamic scholars. Principles of human
rights, rule of law, democracy, commitments to international treaties were
emphasized when the Islamic principles were mentioned.

Such insistence on the rule of democracy led local Islamic powers not to
use the word democracy and replace it with social justice. For the first
time, the official name of the country became the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. Demands from supporters of Islamic and democratic ideas were
emphasized and were introduced in the constitution by using the same
methods. The Afghan government wanted both sides to be satisfied so no one
can object its demands.

The second document is "Report of an Independent Task Force Co-Sponsored by
the Council of Foreign Relations and the Asia Society" (June 2003). This
task force consisted of more than sixty members none of them were Afghans
even as advisors. The title of this document is "Afghanistan: Are We Losing
the Peace? " This is an interesting title but the content of the document
supports entirely the government of Mr. Karzai and it looks as it is done
by the Afghan government. If Mr. Karzai wrote a report about his government
it can not be better than this report. Unfortunately, the influence of one
member of the task force on both documents was obvious and he was a U.N.
delegation member during the Bonn Conference in 2001. He advocated the
principle of using ethnicity instead of personal qualification in
Afghanistan's political administrative life. It would have been better if
the members of the task force were aware of the real social and national
realties of the Afghan nation.

The people of Afghanistan wish to have two basic human rights: security and
self-determination. These two objectives can be achieved only by the
following steps:

First: Providing the opportunity for the people of Afghanistan to chose
their political national system by their own free will.

Second: Peace and security throughout the country should be restored by the
disarmament of the illegal armed groups by the U.N. peace forces and a
national security force should be created by establishing a neutral and
professional Afghan military committee.

Third: Foreign interference from anywhere should stop by any possible
means.

Fourth: The international community should honor its legal and humanitarian
obligations to rebuild Afghanistan without any interference in the
political life in the country.

Prof. Dr. Abdul Sattar Sirat

01/13/2004