Afghan Taliban is supported by Pakistan, Pakistani Taliban was the unwanted outcome of decades of supporting extremists and terror groups by Pakistan's government and military establishment.^
Not really. How cud you say that. Pakistan can't even handle Taliban.
Just about everyone in the region seems to be supporting the Afghan Taliban today (Russia 'arming the Afghan Taliban', says US - BBC News, Iran arming Taliban, says top Afghan general | Arab News, https://ariananews.af/china-supporting-taliban-in-helmand/). Pakistan's support for militant groups in Afghanistan can be sourced back to the Soviet take over of the country. Up till then Pakistan had faced decades of Afghan hositlity without ever responding. As Gartenstein and Vassefi point out in this article:Afghan Taliban is supported by Pakistan, Pakistani Taliban was the unwanted outcome of decades of supporting extremists and terror groups by Pakistan's government and military establishment.
While a stable Afghanistan is not in Pakistan's interest. An average Afghans see Indus river as the southernmost border of their country and all democratically elected govt in Afghanistan had friendly relations with India and tensions with Pakistan.
Pashtuns in Pakistan are not interested in joining Afghanistan, as they are integrated as Pakistanis. That had been the case even before Pakistan was created. They liked being in India, British India I mean. They are not agitating to join Afghanistan. So whatever objective Afghanistan may have just won't work.Just about everyone in the region seems to be supporting the Afghan Taliban today (Russia 'arming the Afghan Taliban', says US - BBC News, Iran arming Taliban, says top Afghan general | Arab News, https://ariananews.af/china-supporting-taliban-in-helmand/). Pakistan's support for militant groups in Afghanistan can be sourced back to the Soviet take over of the country. Up till then Pakistan had faced decades of Afghan hositlity without ever responding. As Gartenstein and Vassefi point out in this article:
"Thus, Pakistan’s initial support for violent Islamist groups in Afghanistan was spurred directly by the Afghan government’s sponsorship of separatist groups in Pakistan under the Daoud regime, as well as aggressive Afghan actions that had preceded Daoud. "
On topic, this would be the norm if Afghanistan were partionned into various countries. Successor states would most likely engage in territory grabbing ultimately destabilizing the region even further.
OK.Well I wouldnt generalize Muslim countries into one group. This is a quarter of humanity we are talking about. Tribal affiliations are weak or non-existant in many Muslim majority countries such as Turkey, Iran or Uzbekistan. In many Muslim countries however such as Afghanistan tribal affiliations play a hugely important role even to the extent that Jirgas especially the loya ones are more important than what goes on in the national assembly in Kabul.
You can try drawing the borders in such a way that excludes as much Pashtuns as possible from Iran, though.What about the Aimaq and Farsiwan then. In a hypothetical scenario they could be integrated into Iran but large communities of Pashtuns live in the north west as well. This would be a Balochi style sunni insurgency v2.0 establishing in Iran.
Uzbekistan is doubly-landlocked and manages to do just fine, though. Also, so does Liechtenstein--though I'm sure that you'll dismiss it due to it being a micro-state.So it would be landlocked times 2. Hardly ideal for a new country to establish itself in especially when surrounded by groups and entities who arent pro-Hazara either.
Please keep in mind, though, that the Fall of France probably made all of these events possible. Basically, the Fall of France destroyed the European balance-of-power and thus allowed revanchist powers to temporarily redraw the map of Europe and to inflict a lot of harm as a result.It didnt really. Many of the territorial flashpoints eventually became part of World War II (Vienna Awards to Hungary, Hungary occupying Yugoslav territories, Croat fascist groups killing Serbs etc). Its just that these events became footnotes in the wider conflicts and genocides that were committed during WWII.
Wouldn't a better move for Afghanistan be to clean up its act and to encourage Pakistani Pashtuns who want to live under Afghan rule to move to Afghanistan, though?Perhaps but out of the box thinking really is not prevalent in that part of the world. For example Afghanistan claims around half of Pakistan's territory and irridentism is one of the biggest reasons why the country is an utter shambles today.
Two things:Many AfPak "experts" these days keep harping on about Pakistani aggression towards Afghanistan without understanding that for decades Afghan governments incited civilian strife and military raids into Pakistan in the hopes of turning the Pakistani Pashtun populace against Pakistan. The strategy failed on a grand level and when Pakistan responded in kind Afghanistan could not handle it, but the strategy is an example of the mindset and the kind of things that would happen if Afghanistan were divided into smaller countries.
That's why you need to have some sort of Great Power arbitration.The number of conflicts over ethnicity would mulitply with each ethnic group claiming territories far beyond its borders.
OK, but in a scenario where the Taliban is about to win in Afghanistan and Afghanistan ends up breaking up, wouldn't such Pashtun politicians be silenced pretty quickly?Just to give an example of how intense hatred can be, when a Tajik politician suggested that Afghanistan should settle its problems with Pakistan and recognize the border (which mind you every other country in the world recognizes as the international border including the US) politicians from the Pashtun ethnic group threatened to stone him live on national TV https://www.voanews.com/a/afghan-lawmakers-call-stoning-fellow-parliamentarian/3794262.html
Wasn't this partition reversed after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, though?Historically speaking, partitioning tends to exacerbate whatever issues that a nation is currently facing while creating additional issues that didn't exist previously.
The tensions created by Napoleon's partitioning of the Holy Roman Empire continue to cause problems to this day, 200 years later.
The break-up of the Soviet Union itself was relatively peaceful, though. Indeed, the main troubles occurred on the periphery--in Transnistria, in Nagorno-Karabakh, in Abkhazia, in South Ossetia, et cetera.These tensions survived multiple world wars (which they contributed to in their own way) and the fall of the Soviet Union to ultimately lead to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Serbia in the mid 1990s.
One issue with the partition of Palestine, though, is that most of the Jews there were recent immigrants. Thus, a Jewish-majority state in Palestine might have been more objectionable to Arabs than, say, a Christian-majority state in Mount Lebanon would have.More recently the partitioning of Palestine has been a continuing source of instability in the Middle East.
You know that I consider North Korea to be a completely artificial state which should be reunified with the South after the regime there will get overthrown (by its own people--not by foreign powers). Enough said.Similarly North Korea can be said to exist in it's current state of distress only because it was partitioned following World War 2.
Well, yeah, the partition of Vietnam was wholly artificial. Just like Koreans, Vietnamese are one people who--ideally--deserve to live in one country.The same can be said of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos along with the Indochina Wars which continued until 1991, these states struggled largely because they were partitioned in various ways, by various means and to various degrees by external actors in direct defiance of various popular mandates.
A lot might depend on whether a partition is "natural" (as in, based on ethnic, linguistic, or religious lines) or artificial, though.Of all these examples only South Korea and Israel can be said to have experienced any degree of "success" by the standards that the governments supported by the original partition both persist and remain allies of the nations that facilitated the partition.
I could challenge you with a counter-proposal, though. Specifically, in spite of being much more Balkanized than it was in the past, Europe today is also relatively stable. Indeed, other than the Balkans, Caucasus, and Donbass, Europe appears to have been pretty peaceful ever since 1945.These examples are far from the only ones available. They are simply the most accessible examples which both require little context and serve to support my position.
History tells us that partitioning generally not only fails in the short term but leads to significantly greater instability in the long term. Given these facts I would argue strongly against applying any partition-based exit strategy for Afghanistan.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|What historical factors led to the divergence of American and Canadian culture?||North American History|
|Macedonia on the verge of civil war?||Current Events|
|Geographic point where as many borders as possible converge||General History|
|Did Asian religions underpin social divergence from European societies?||Asian History|