|
|
|
150,000 People
|
Muhammad Zahir Shah - Once and future king? Muhammad Zahir Shah, who ruled Afghanistan until 1973, seems to the West like "an authentic Afghani leader" suited to ruling for a transitional period. But there are doubts about the elderly king's legitimacy and political capability in the Afghan arena By Nitzan Horowitz Three colors - the colors of the Afghani flag - enveloped Kabul way back in 1933: black, the color of mourning, symbolic of the era of invasions by enemies and colonial forces; red, the color of blood, which marks the sacrifice of the liberation and independence movement; and green, the color of hope, which expresses "peace and the flourishing of Islam." The occasion was rather bleak. A few hours earlier, King Nader Shah Muhammad had been killed by a shot from a pistol carried by a student at an award ceremony. The king's brother, Muhammad Aziz, had been assassinated five months earlier in Nazi Berlin. International plots thickened once again in the air of the mountain kingdom. The future looked more bleak than ever. All eyes were turned toward the royal heir, Muhammed
Zahir, the son of the late king. He was only 19, but had already helped his
father stabilize his regime and had served as a minister. At a hasty ceremony,
the young prince was crowned king. He took the title "Confident in God,
Follower of the Firm Religion of Islam." No one thought that this would
happen, but the coronation ushered in a period of 40 years that many Afghanis
call an era of "peace and quiet." But the years of Zahir Shah's reign
were not as tranquil as the devotees of nostalgia now describe them. Afghanistan
knew difficult days and great upheavals. But compared to the troubles that came
to the country after he was deposed, it is little wonder that many people have
pinned their hopes on him, seeing in him the only savior if and when the Taliban
regime is toppled in an American attack. During the years of his reign, the real power was in the hands of his uncles who ruled the country as prime ministers. With the outbreak of World War II and in its aftermath, the king steered Afghanistan along the path of neutrality. This was a wise choice: Foreign aid flowed into Kabul not only from Moscow, but also from Washington. Those who came after him did not follow in his footsteps. In retrospect, the king now says that the great decline of his country during the 1980s and the 1990s came about because Afghanistan became "a pawn in the game between the powers on the Asian continent, and the clear results can be seen today." But the bulk of his criticism is directed at Pakistan. Only in 1963 did the king fully grasp the reins of power. A year later he initiated reforms that led to the establishment of a parliament, to elections and to a relatively free press. Political parties were not legal, but the king did allow a certain amount of political activity. Members of the royal family were barred from holding public office and, in effect, a constitutional monarchy was established in Afghanistan. The king himself was then perceived by the power centers in his country as an indecisive ruler and court intrigues were relentless. Yet his reign brought to Afghanistan a long period of peace, during which time irrigation projects were developed and roads were paved. These years were the greatest period of growth in the country's history. The king was quite well-loved by the masses, but in the twilight of his regime, affections began to wane. At the end of the 1960s there were violent demonstrations against him. A terrible drought at the beginning of the 1970s exacted tens of thousands of victims. The Pashtun tribes in the border areas with Pakistan pressed for autonomy. Zahir Shah traveled abroad a great deal. During one of these trips, as he was enjoying the mud-baths at therapeutic springs near Naples, he was deposed. The coup was led by his cousin Muahmmad Daoud Khan, the son of Muhammad Aziz, who had been murdered in Berlin 40 years earlier. Daoud declared a republic and appointed himself its first president. The deposed king remained in Italy, this time as an exile. He settled into a modest four-bedroom villa and was effectively forgotten. No one, not even Zahir Shah himself, imagined that the day of the Afghani monarchy would come again. It came in the wake of the terror attacks in New York and Washington. The elderly king, who is 86, has become a object of
pilgrimage: Afghani opposition movements, opponents of the Taliban, journalists,
confidential advisors, secret agents and in particular senior American
representatives. They all flock to him to clarify their understandings of his
intentions and to make bold proposals to him. A symbolic figure The main source of encouragement is Washington. The
Americans have reached the conclusion that an "authentic Afghani
leader" is now needed; one who can pose a legitimate alternative to the
Taliban regime. After the killing of Ahmad Shah Masoud, the leader of the
Northern Alliance (the main force within Afghanistan that is opposed to the
Taliban) the former king remains the only figure who might be acceptable to both
"the people" and the international community. All this is premised on
the assumption that a power vacuum will appear in Kabul. The scenario put forward by the experts poses Zahir
Shah as a symbolic figure who will head "a transitional framework"
that will take the government of Afghanistan into its hands if the Taliban
regime is defeated because of its cooperation with Osama Bin Laden. However,
this scenario, if only from the king's point of view, is very problematic. Zahir
Shah is an old man. His health is good, but his ability to govern and maneuver
in the tangle of rivalries in his strife-torn country is in doubt. The extent to
which he is familiar with the new forces active in his country is also unclear.
He left Afghanistan 28 years ago and never returned. In a country where most of
the inhabitants are under the age of 15, not many people remember the period of
his rule. According to diplomatic reports from Rome, Zahir Shah is prepared to head a transitional government in Afghanistan, but as "head of state" and not as king. Would such a regime be legitimate? "As far as the international community is concerned, the legitimacy of a given government regime often depends on the extent of its success in governing the country effectively," says Dr. Eyal Gross, of Tel Aviv University, a specialist on international law. "Though in recent years there has been an evident desire to base international recognition on criteria of justice, democracy or self-determination, there have been many situations in which a regime came to power in an illegitimate and sometimes bloody way, but have nevertheless won sweeping international support." In this context, Gross notes the tension that exists
in international law between the aspiration to establish norms for recognizing a
regime, "so as not to be apologetic to power," and the practice and
reality on the ground that is based on effective governance and on international
interests. In Afghanistan, a strange situation prevails in this respect: The Taliban does in fact rule effectively in many areas of the country, but their regime is not recognized by the international community. In Afghanistan, the government that is recognized by the world is that of Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was deposed by the Taliban five years ago. In most of the Afghani embassies around the world, for example, sit representatives of the Rabbani government. However, in neighboring Pakistan, a friend of the current regime in Kabul, sits the ambassador of the Taliban. "If there are upheavals in the regime in Kabul
as a result of forthcoming developments, it may be assumed that the
international elements involved will try to present the new regime as legitimate
on the grounds of "representing the people" or "authentic
leadership," even though it is not clear whether such a government will be
established in a democratic way," says Dr. Gross. Judging from the trend
now prevailing in U.S. President George Bush's coalition, a new regime in Kabul,
under the auspices of the aged king, would be recognized in a very accelerated
process. It may assumed with certainty that such a regime would also be given
very significant aid. Against foreign intervention Until this happens, the king has already been issuing
political statements that indicate a clear direction. A delegation of members of
the U.S. Congress came to see him in Rome, and heard from him that he would
stand by the United States in the struggle against terror and that he would
support actions, led by the United States, to overthrow the Taliban. "Our
aim is to establish as quickly as possible a united Afghani state on a national
platform," he told the French media. The king aspires to convene
Afghanistan's traditional "national council" (the Loya Jirga) as soon
as possible. Sources in the office of the former king have said that senior
members in the Afghani forces that are opposed to the Taliban have agreed to set
up a council of war, consisting of commanders, tribal elders and former military
officers. The nature and standing of such a body is not clear. In
the field, too, the situation with respect to the king is not especially
promising. The Northern Alliance
has made it clear that any foreign help in bringing the king back to power will
lead to further disturbances. The rebel commanders have announced that although
Zahir Shah could be of help in finding a solution to Afghanistan's problems, he
will not be able to return to power under conditions dictated by the West. "If Zahir Shah comes back with the support of the West, his fate is predetermined," said Northern Alliance spokesman Sayid Najibollah Hashimi. "Any foreign intervention of this sort is unacceptable and unjustified." Statements by the Taliban about this matter are even more vehement. "The king is old and too weak," said Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar in a rare interview to an Iranian newspaper, "and anyway, there is no leadership vacuum in Afghanistan. Puppets who are forced on us by the West have no future. The king, of course, does not see himself as a puppet. He has been telling his American guests that his vision is of a two-year interim period of transition toward democracy, and that he hopes that foreign forces will not be present in Afghanistan over the longer term. Were he but able, he would return to his country at once. "The situation is tragic," he has said in the past few days. "With every moment that goes by, I feel my people's pain. I am praying fervently that God will save our country that has suffered for so long, and set it on the path of peace. As for me - I see only one role for myself: peacemaker. I am 86 and I must go home." |
If you had died in the attack of September 11, where would you have gone?The content of this web site is provided for informational purposes only. If you discover that any pieces posted to this site are inaccurate or copyrighted, please contact us immediately. Last modified: 10/05/05Site created by Daniel Bartsch |
