[Nettime-bold] Re: Is it suitable to compare Bosnia with Afganistan?

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

Actually, I am surprised how in many aspects the case of former 
Yugoslavia is similar to the case of Afghanistan - despite the huge 
historic differences. They both belong to the realm of the unsolved 
misteries of the post-Ottoman world. They both enjoyed the relative 
stability and prosperity during the heyday of the cold war, due to 
their precious geopolitical position between the two blocs. And 
they both descended into chaos as that war came to an end. 
Yugoslavia had the advantage of being at a far more developed 
stage when that happened, and also being to close to the 'civilized 
world' to be overlooked, so the 'international community' intervened 
relatively quickly (and with more sense than the Soviet intervention 
in Afghanistan had) and put the brakes on ethnic cleansing, 
concentration camps, wanton destruction, killing, etc. The remote 
Afghanistan, on the other hand, was simply let to deteriorate to the 
stone ages. But the complexity of internal relations is just as 
intense as it was in former Yugoslavia: variety of ethnic groups 
(Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazars, Uzbeks), two strains of Islam (Shia and 
Suni) - only Afghanistan was always unitary state, never a 
federation, so the separatist ideas seem to be poorly developed or 
even thought about. The Afghan emigre groups sport even more 
striking similarity to the Balkan emigre groups, than the groups in 
the respective regions (after 20 years of apocaliptic suffering, 
Afghanistan, indeed, being a land of mostly illiterate people, is very 
different than anything we saw in former Yugoslavia). I read about 
meeting of Afghan exiles in New York city, saw the pictures - they 
instantly reminded me of many squabbling Croatian, or Bosnian or 
Serbian groups in Queens. With their grand ideas on how to run 
the country. And with their near complete divorcedness from the 
situation on the ground. There is also a long gone king in exile (like 
in the Serbian situation), which some believe would solve 
everything just like some deus ex machina. And there are women 
organizations like RAWA, which may remind some of Women in 
Black in Serbia - because they make the most sense, and nobody 
is paying attention to them.
ivo
http://balkansnet.org/globalization.html

Date sent:      	Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:48:57 +1100
Send reply to:  	International Justice Watch Discussion List
             	<JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From:           	geert lovink <geert@DESK.NL>
Subject:        	Is it suitable to compare Bosnia with Afganistan?
To:             	JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

(cross-posting of comments only permitted)

I am curious to know what other Justwatchers think of this 
journalistic
comparison business. A is not B but perhaps is could be similar 
somehow.
I don't find this type of discourse very useful. There are perhaps 
other
similarities such as the global media circus which is running from
conflict to conflict. Or the global NGO and charity business. I think
that historically, and politically speaking Bosnia and Afganistan are so
hugely different that it does not really make sense to take experiences
from one place to another in terms of diplomacy and peace keeping
strategies. Or is this cultural relativism? Are there already universal
recipies, and if so, who defines and approves them?
 
Geert
 
---
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000092997nov21.story
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000092997nov21.story>


--------------------
A Bosnian Blueprint for Afghanistan 
--------------------

By DAVID L. BOSCO
David L. Bosco, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School, worked in and
reported from Bosnia between 1996 and 1998

November 21 2001

With the collapse of the Taliban, a multinational force becomes a likely
guarantor of Afghanistan's immediate future. It is no small irony that
in this, the Bush administration may need to take lessons from the
Balkan peacekeeping missions it has viewed with skepticism.

Proposals for a multinational force abound. Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell has discussed the involvement of troops from Muslim states, and
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has signaled that U.S. troops will
not be peacekeepers. Some allied troops, however--including British,
French and German contingents--may participate.

Although these troops initially will focus on delivering humanitarian
aid, their mission could soon evolve into nation-building. Recent
history offers some useful case studies. The NATO-led mission to Bosnia,
in particular, has generated a wealth of experience on how to hold
together a war-torn and ethnically divided country. There can be no easy
analogies. Afghanistan is far poorer and anti-Western sentiment is much
stronger. NATO's 1995 deployment to Bosnia-Herzegovina followed months
of negotiations and preparation, while the nascent mission to
Afghanistan is a hurried effort to fill the post-Taliban vacuum. Some
lessons, however, are clear:

* Take military options off the table for the factions. In Bosnia, NATO
has the military capacity to prevent a return to fighting, and in more
than five years, none of the factions has challenged NATO militarily.
The specter of guerrilla warfare--a clear possibility in
Afghanistan--never materialized. Moreover, NATO forces in Bosnia
increasingly became adept at supporting the mission's political and
human rights goals. It is likely that the security environment in
post-conflict Afghanistan will be even more tenuous and the prolonged
presence of well-armed troops just as essential. A lightly armed
peacekeeping force could find itself in the middle of a renewed civil
war it had no power to stop.

* Remember the regional context. Real political progress became possible
in Bosnia when neighboring Serbia and Croatia changed regimes and
stopped encouraging the separatist tendencies of overlapping ethnic
groups. In Afghanistan, international diplomats may find that the
attitudes of Pakistan and Iran are almost as important as those of the
various factions within Afghanistan.

* Don't rush the vote. Nation-building requires elections, but timing
matters. In Bosnia, the U.S. made the mistake of pushing for elections
less than a year after fighting ended. The unsurprising result was
ratification of extremist control, and several indicted war criminals
were elected. A prolonged period of peace can be a vital tonic for a
population disposed to heed the call of ethnic or religious extremists
at the ballot box.

* Remember the political benefits of war crimes trials. While it is
likely that U.S. forces will "bring justice to the terrorists," an
international tribunal may form part of a postwar settlement. Recent
reports of massacres warrant investigation. While international trials
must remain independent of the political process, the political work
that these trials can achieve should not be forgotten. The tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia has become an important ally for diplomats in
postwar Bosnia. Often, the apprehension of those indicted has removed
extremists who were obstructing political reform.

* Be prepared for the long haul. The Balkans have shown that outsiders
have a limited capacity to reshape societies. It would be hubris to
assume that a multinational force can, in short order, manufacture a
legitimate, multiethnic government in Afghanistan. A lasting political
settlement may be very different from the one planners initially
envision, but sustained involvement will at least give the international
community a say.

The United States and its allies have pursued the war on terrorism with
determination. Soon, the question will become how aggressively they are
prepared to struggle for peace. 

 

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold