WORLD LEADERS SET OUT HOPES FOR GOVERNMENT TO REPLACE TALIBAN.
The US yesterday signaled that it expected a long-term involvement in Afghanistan, as the big powers began turning their attention to how the country should be run after the expected collapse of the Taliban rule, reports the Financial Times (p.1).
As air strikes continued for a fourth day, the debate over what should follow the fall of the Taliban intensified. China joined Russia in calling for a broad-based and ethnically diverse coalition government in Kabul, a break from Beijing's usual insistence on non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Britain meanwhile issued a strategy document-dubbed "the policy bible" by an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair-which includes replacing the Taliban and the eventual integration of Afghanistan with the international community.
The US has been reticent about making long-term commitments to Afghanistan, reflecting President George W. Bush's earlier comments that he did not think US troops should be involved in nation-building. But US Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC television, "I think it's important for all of us to recognize that in a post-Taliban Afghanistan, we will have important work to do-humanitarian work, economic development, helping the people of Afghanistan and putting in place some level of stability that has so far eluded Afghanistan in recent years."
Powell said the US was in touch with all the different factions that might be involved in a new government. It was working closely with the UN, which would have "a very, very important role."
While US-led military help is likely for the Northern Alliance, the main opposition group to the Taliban, many governments appear to agree that it would not form the ideal post-Taliban government, the story says. Blair said the alliance "couldn't alone form a government. That is our assessment. When they did try, it was pretty hopeless."
A British official said the UK favored a broad-based government including all ethnic groups and was receptive to an international effort to achieve that.
Meanwhile, Nikkei (Japan) reports that the Japanese government decided today to propose a UN-sponsored conference in Tokyo on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, once the current anti-terrorism campaign ends. Aimed at restoring peace among various ethnic groups in the country and between Afghanistan and other countries, the meeting has already obtained approval from major Islamic nations. Former Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Koumura won basic consent for the conference from Iranian President Mohammad Khatami when he visited Iran earlier this month, notes the story.
The move has been underway in consultation with the US since the strikes against terrorism were planned, government sources said, but Islamic nations are likely to be reluctant to allow the US and the UK to take the lead in the rehabilitation of Afghanistan once the conflict ends.
The proposed conference will be aimed at restoring peace in Afghanistan and selecting the head of a tentative post-Taliban government, says the story. Discussions will also cover a national election to select a new administration, demining programs, education for women, rebuilding infrastructure and extending financial aid, the sources said.
ISLAMIC NATIONS AVOID CRITICISM OF U.S. ACTION. The Islamic world's reaction to America's war on terrorism is finally taking shape, away from ideology toward pragmatism, the Wall Street Journal Europe (p.1) reports. The meeting in Doha, Qatar yesterday of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) ended with no direct condemnation of US air strikes on Afghanistan, and no threats of reaction if the US targets other Muslim countries.
"The conference strongly condemns the evil terrorist actions suffered by the US, which caused a huge loss of life among many nationalities and enormous destruction to the cities of New York and Washington," the final statement said. "These actions contradict the teachings of all Semitic religions.
The ministers at the conference also rejected any attempt to link Islam with terrorism, and urged the strengthening of dialogue between the Islamic world and the West "to arrive at mutual understanding between the two." While they warned the US against inflicting any undue loss of innocent civilian lives, the ministers welcomed statements by US President George W. Bush and western leaders condemning the harming of Arab or Muslim citizens.
The lack of criticism partly reflects hopes that playing along with Washington will help win rewards such as progress toward a Palestinian state and the lifting of sanctions on Arab states that have been on the US blacklist, says the WSJE. It also reflects a desire to calm tensions so that street protests in some countries don't get out of hand.
In Pakistan, military ruler Pervez Musharraf appeared to be getting some control over recent spontaneous rioting by people sympathetic to the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan, which has already won a variety of economic sweeteners from the US after Musharaff pledged support of military strikes, is hoping for a quick resolution.
Even Iran, whose religious leadership recently harshly accused America of having an expansionist agenda in attacking Afghanistan, is expressing its criticisms in practical terms. "Getting rid of the Taliban is fine, but it depends on the means used, and whether the means will get you there. That is the problem," Iran's deputy foreign minister, M. Javad Zarif, said yesterday. Iran wants the ethnic factions it backs in Afghanistan to have a role in a coalition government should the Taliban fall.
Islamist rhetoric remains a potent force in many countries, says the story, and the longer the air bombardments continue, and the more civilian casualties that result, the more likely anti-Americanism will rise, putting pressure on Muslim governments to oppose US policy. Still, religion is often a banner for secular domestic grievances, such as corruption. The most visibly violent reactions to American strikes are occurring in states that already had strong movements of opposition to the government: Indonesia, Pakistan and Palestine.
Palestinian officials, while enjoying the renewed attention their struggle with Israel is getting, were careful at the OIC meeting to disassociate themselves from suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and his associates, who criticized Israeli bombardment of Palestinian towns in a videotape aired on Sunday. "We don't want them to use our pains to justify their policies. Our cause is just, theirs is not," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Palestinian Authority's information minister. The Palestinian Authority put down an Islamist demonstration in support of bin Laden with force, killing two people on Tuesday.
WORLD BANK SAYS ATTACKS TO COST PAKISTAN $1 BLN. The World Bank said yesterday Pakistan's economy was likely to lose $1 billion due to events that have followed the September 11 attacks on the US, and that the figure could rise if military action in Afghanistan was prolonged, Reuters reports.
"Events following the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, DC, have dealt Pakistan a sharp economic blow, estimated to cost the country at least $1 billion," the statement said. "This figure could rise if the situation in Afghanistan is not resolved in the short term."
The Bank issued the statement following a meeting between World Bank President James Wolfensohn and Pakistan Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz on the country's economic reform program.
Aziz assured Wolfensohn of his country's commitment to stick to the reform program and of his intention to accelerate its implementation, the World Bank statement said. The Bank lent Pakistan $374 million in fiscal 2001, which ended September 30. While in Washington, Aziz is also set to meet officials from the IMF. He is hoping to make progress on a new IMF loan designed to reduce poverty. BBC Online also reports.
Refugees have been pouring over the border into Pakistan from Afghanistan, the base of US military strikes, notes the story. The Financial Times (p.2) reports meanwhile that the UN warned that the "fragile security" in the Pakistan border areas was posing a "serious obstacle" to the humanitarian effort. UN officials said they had withdrawn some international staff from the western border town of Quetta, scene of some of Pakistan's most violent protests after the air raids on Afghanistan, while even locally employed UN workers were prevented from approaching the border in the North West Frontier Province.
Given their inability to get to the border, UNHCR staff admitted they now had little idea whether there had been any build-up of refugees at the main border points, notes the story.
Meanwhile, the Washington Times (p. A24) writes in an editorial that violence will provide a security challenge for Pakistan, but compromise on support for the anti-terrorism effort could cause far greater challenges for the country, which is dependent on the international community for economic assistance. Washington has recently approved grants of $100 million and debt rescheduling of $379 million.