Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
the illegal trade in drugs, arms, intellectual property, people, and money is booming. Like the war on terrorism, the fight to control these illicit markets pits governments against agile, stateless, and resourceful networks empowered by globalization. Governments will continue to lose these wars until they adopt new strategies to deal with a larger, unprecedented struggle that now shapes the world as much as confrontations between nation-states once did.

Consider another viewpoint, though a bit grim one. After the Cold War, all the funding was withdrawn from Afghanistan. The old elite was basically eradicated and new elite appeared - warlords, some of which trading with the US government. Ironically enough, this provides a certain amount of stability in the region. So, governments are probably not fighting the crime, but rather legalizing it (or in Afghanistan's case, the warlords are basically the government, the elites).

Also, Pakistan is quoted to be a Yugoslavia, but with a nuclear "taste". Pakistan is comprised of many ethnicities, each protecting their own kinsmen. Some critics claim that Pakistan exists only for the sake of the Pakistani army and no local tribe actually needs a Pakistani government or it's protection.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Mon Feb 27th, 2006 at 07:00:22 PM EST
The old elite was basically eradicated and new elite appeared...

I personally do not think that it is so easy to eradicate the old elite. I do not follow closely the situation in Pakistan, but if you look at the ex-communist regimes, there are implicit evidences that
the old structures still exercise an immense amount of political and economic power through their connections, resiliense to the new conditions, and never ending ambitions to stay involved in states' affairs. No one gives up so easily the bone...

I'm not ugly,but my beauty is a total creation.Hegel

by Chris on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 06:35:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are actually right. What I meant was that the old political line was abruptly discontinued by the recent events (recent meaning 10-20 years, but that's a rough estimation by all accounts).

FWIK, there is a current conflict between the old elite (situated in the country) and the new elite, basically warlords, operating from the cities. Indeed, who wants to give up political and economical power?

The Pashtun, a tribe found in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan are foreseen as the new power group in the region.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 09:44:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What you quoted was about Afghanistan - and there, indeed, the old elite was wiped out: I mean the Shah's elite and the pro-Soviet elite. But what you say about the difficulty of eradicating old elites in general, and 'post-communist' elites in particular, I think is right.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 09:52:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
warlords, some of which trading with the US government. Ironically enough, this provides a certain amount of stability in the region.

I wouldn't call that stability. After both the Soviets and the CIA pulled out, the warlords first conducted a terrible civil war. That civil war was kind of ended by the Taleban, which conquered most of their territories. Then the US let the warlords back - but they conduct their own fiefdoms, their soldiers are no better for the population than the Taleban (in fact, some Afghanis say, worse: by allowing free reign of common criminals), clash with each other ocassionally - and all the while the Taleban conducts a guerilla campaign, lately with Iraq as the model.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 09:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<laugh> I suppose I perceive the US warlord funding as a sort of a foreign economical investment. We can see what a free market economy can do to an economically and politically devastated country. I suppose we agree that current "government" is no better than the Taleban.

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 11:26:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would agree that the current government is "no good", but it is definitely better than the taliban. The latter are apparently targeting schools and teachers in an effort to eradicate girls' education and any trace of a modern curriculum.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 11:32:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, outside of the gaze of CNN and othere looking-for-propaganda Western media, the warlords kept up the same in most places outside Kabul anyway. Ismail Khan, the warlord recently removed by the central government, even introduced the same religious police. Not to mention the rape rampages of the warlords' soldiers.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 11:38:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When I say "the current government" I mean "the mayor of Kabul", of course.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 11:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series