Part 2          

Calls for Democratic Reforms in Eswatini puts King Mswati III Under Pressure

As the situation in Eswatini continues to deteriorate, questions are being asked about whether Africa’s last absolute monarchy could transition into a constitutional democracy that would see its king lose his iron grip on power.

Growing pressure on the Eswatini government and its violent reaction to protests calling for democratic reform, driven by young urbanites, suggests that the journey to dethroning the king would require international mediation.

The United Nations and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have already been forced into action as the number of deaths, hospitalisations and imprisonments of civilians continues to rise in the country of just 1.7 million people.

Amnesty International says the Eswatini government’s reaction to dissent has been devastating, with more than 70 people, most of them university students, shot dead, allegedly by security forces; soldiers and police stand accused of firing live ammunition at protesters. Close to 200 people have been hospitalised.

The death in May of a University of Eswatini student, Thabani Nkomonye, allegedly at the hands of police officers, triggered the protests that have engulfed the country. Students led by the Swaziland National Union of Students (SNUS), alongside other young people, protested and demanded justice for the 25-year-old law student in what later became known as the #JusticeForThabani movement. Trade unions, political parties and other civil society organisations have since joined in.

Nkomonye has become a symbol of resistance against police brutality and activists have invoked his name in their calls for democracy, using his image on posters and banners during their protests.

Several Members of Parliament have taken advantage of the situation to demand something that has been a long coming: a constitutional change that would see citizens allowed to elect a Prime Minister of their choice. Currently the Prime Minister is appointed by the country’s powerful monarch, King Mswati III. Activists are also insisting that the ban on political parties be lifted.

Political analyst and academic Mancoba Mabuza, who is based in the country’s capital Mbabane, contextualised the protests: “Young people delivered petitions to Members of Parliament in various constituency centres (Tinkhundla) and what started as a #JusticeForThabani movement escalated into a popular demand for the people to be allowed to elect a Prime Minister of their choice.

As the protests grew, he said, so did the violent crackdown on protesters.

Mabuza said: “The Eswatini Police Commissioner was quoted by the local media to have declared ‘war’ on protesters. The acting Prime Minister at the time, Themba Masuku, stepped in to ban the ongoing protest action and peaceful delivery of petitions in the various constituency centres all over the country. He said this had been ‘hijacked by people with an ulterior motive’ and that the people delivering petitions ‘were not adhering to Covid-19 precautionary measures’. 

Masuku’s statement was greeted with anger by youth and those opposed to the monarch.

“Many decried the fact that they were being stopped from exercising their rights to deliver petitions and make their complaints known in a peaceful manner. Now, everything started escalating into uncontrollable levels,” said Mabuza.

A journalist based in Eswatini, Sambulo Dlamini, described the scenes on 25 June during one protest.

“Police were also beaten up and the protesters also beaten up by police in what became a war between the police and citizens. The situation got worse by 28 June and the protesters took to the country's industrial hub and burnt down trucks, shops, destroyed bank ATMs, among other things. The situation was out of control,” he said.

The popular demand at this point was for the King to assume a ceremonial role and be outside of politics. More recently, pro-democracy movement activists have demanded that the government release arrested MPs and all political prisoners, allow the safe return of those in exile, unban political parties, allow for a transitional government and a new constitution – and, ultimately, work towards a multi-party dispensation in which political parties will participate in a democratic election.

An overwhelming majority of MPs are backing this call for change and democratic reforms. This adds a new layer to recent protests: parliament itself has become a site of struggle.

Following the night protests of 28 June, the Eswatini army stepped in because the government increasingly believed that police were failing to control the situation. Protesters, meanwhile, turned to social media to spread the news of their struggle. Social media platforms continue to be used as vehicles to register complaints and bring international awareness to the civil unrest.

News that police and soldiers were firing live rounds of ammunition on protesters and had imprisoned over 400 people in addition to the rising death toll was widely shared on social media, as was the fact that school kids were being caught up in the crackdown. Bloody images of protesters are circulating, too.

The state again responded with violence during recent protests by public transport and public sector unions, comprising nurses, teachers and other civil servants. Teargas was allegedly fired inside buses; unarmed civilians in Mbabane and surrounds were beaten up and shot at.

“The country is now a military state as soldiers and police patrol the townships in Manzini and Mbabane and have been unleashing violence,” said Mabuza.

The state’s brutality has prompted an international outcry led by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. In October he issued a statement expressing his concern about the ongoing developments in Eswatini, particularly the recent deployment of armed security forces at various schools, reports of excessive use of force in response to student demonstrations and the indefinite closure of schools.

“This adversely affects children and young people. The Secretary-General reiterates the importance of enabling the people of Eswatini to exercise their civil and political rights peacefully. He urges the Government to ensure that security forces act in conformity with relevant international human rights standards, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,” reads Guterres’ statement.

The popular uprising is emboldened and has scored some important victories, such as the recent march to the UN offices in Eswatini and another to the US Embassy, where an estimated to 20 000 were in attendance - a huge number by Swazi standards. 

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in his capacity as chair of the SADC's politics organ, has also sent envoys from South Africa, Namibia and Botswana to visit Eswatini. The group met the king, the prime minister, civil society organisations, trade unions and others following heavy criticism that SADC has been too slow to act.

Still, Ramaphosa remains hopeful of a peaceful resolution; he announced after these consultations that King Mswati III had accepted the need for a national dialogue. 

"King Mswati III has accepted the need for national dialogue...I appeal for calm, restraint, the respect for the rule of law and human rights on all sides to enable the process to commence," said Ramaphosa.

This is a major climb down by Africa’s last absolute monarch, who has in the past defied calls for reform, and even labelled pro-democracy activists as “drunkards and dagga smokers”.

Wandile Dludlu, secretary-general of the opposition People's United Democratic Movement (Pudemo), like Mabuza, does not seem to place much faith in the SADC process.

“Let the people continue the noble fight for a free and democratic new country," Dludlu recently told Reuters.

This reluctance to trust SADC is driven by the regional bloc’s past “quiet diplomacy” in dealing with the Eswatini stalemate.

“The SADC team (Organ Troika) sent by Botswana President Mokgweetsi Masisi in his capacity as Troika Chair at the time, came after the June shooting and there was hope that they were going to meet the government and civil society players, but the exercise did not yield any positive result. The nation has now lost hope in SADC, and they see the organisation as being protective of King Mswati and the government. It is back again at the moment led by President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Envoy Jeff Radebe, and it remains to be seen if something different will happen this time around,” said Mabuza.

Sabelo Dlamini, the Eswatini government spokesperson, is on record saying government remains open to dialogue.  “Government will continue to avail the necessary information to the organisation (UN) and all relevant stakeholders about the current civil unrest in the Kingdom,” he stated.

About the author

Phathisani Moyo is a communication strategist at International Trade Centre (ITC).  He has worked for a number of media organisation and served at various levels including as the news editor for The Star newspaper in South Africa. He holds a Honours degree in political science and administration from the University of Zimbabwe. 

Part 1

Eswatini: A History of Struggle

Background

Political movements calling for change have long existed in Eswatini. British colonisers left the country in 1968; limited self-governance had been permitted since 1963. At the dawn of independence, a constitution was put in place and political parties were allowed to operate. The party belonging to the then-king, Sobhuza II, won the 1967 and 1972 elections. The Ngwane National Liberatory Congress, with three seats, was the official opposition.

This led King Sobhuza II, father of the current monarch, to ban political parties in 1973. He assumed all legislative, judicial and executive powers through decree that year. He then introduced the tinkhundla system of governance in 1978. From that time, political parties existed covertly with not much impact; this was the status quo until 1983, when the Peoples United Democratic Movement (Pudemo) was formed. Pudemo has been a series of protests, built trade union movements and became a big player on what was then Swaziland’s political scene. Its leaders have been jailed, exiled and even killed over the years – but its call for the country’s freedom and democratisation hasn’t wavered.

In reality, this fight dates back to colonial and even pre-colonial days. The people have, for years, been involved in different forms of resistance against royal slavery, land dispossessions, denial of human rights and exploitation in their communities and workplaces. The real problem in Eswatini is an organised system of royal hegemony and monopoly on power founded on exploitative and parasitic forms of wealth accumulation. This system is known as tinkhundla, wherein all facets of society as organised by and in the narrow interests of the royal family.

Tinkhundla is a form of royal apartheid: it fosters discrimination based not on race, but on royal supremacy. It does this by creating bitter divisions between the royalty, who are first grade citizens with an unlimited sense of entitlement, and the rest of the people, who are mere subjects or fourth grade citizens and perpetual beggars in their own country.

In this sense, it is a royal dream for the ruling elite and a national nightmare for the people. Tinkhundla is the system of organised royal rule and oppression which sustains itself through a series of structures, values and institutions developed and reproduced to entrench the power of the royal minority. In other words, it is a means to guarantee and perpetuate royal hegemony and control of power in all spheres of the society.

Looking to the future

Political analyst and academic Mancoba Mabuza holds the view that there is still a chance for King Mswati III to lead a peaceful transition into a constitutional multiparty democracy.

“Without a doubt, the call for democracy is enjoyed by an overwhelming majority of the people, but their organisations are not strong enough to lead the people to decisive victory at the moment, largely because the state is using military force to clamp down on the liberation forces – there seems to be no plan on the part of the liberation forces regarding how to seize power beyond the marches and protest activities which are violently stopped by the regime.

“However, the tinkhundla regime is no longer able to effectively govern the country as the people daily refuse to be governed the tinkhundla way. It is consistently facing a deepening crisis. The system has lost any semblance of legitimacy it once enjoyed as everything comes to the open about its real content and what it is made of. It is facing deep-seated cracks within itself as the ruling bloc itself is no longer enjoying the cohesion of its key social base and forces allied to it, particularly the traditional aristocracy and its key supporters.”

The respected political commentator said the system cannot destroy the democratic forces that are growing in strength, and it does not enjoy support at the moment.

“But the system is still in power because they now rely on force (military) which the liberation forces do not have. This is the stalemate I am talking about,” he said.

Mabuza believes that if King Mswati calls for calm and engages with the leaders of the liberation forces with a view to coming up with a peaceful solution - and demonstrates a willingness to lose some power by leading a process that allows multiparty democracy - he can keep some power as head of state through a constitutional monarchy.

“I hold the view that the democratic forces are prepared to negotiate and that compromises can be made.”

The other option is for the international community to force the king into having an imposed dialogue with the civil society; Eswatini heavily relies on foreign aid. This approach is only possible if the major players in the region or continent, and the rest of the world, intervene decisively: the king will have no choice but to heed their advice.

About the Author

Phathisani Moyo is a communication strategist at International Trade Centre (ITC).  He has worked for a number of media organisation and served at various levels including as the news editor for The Star newspaper in South Africa. He holds a Honours degree in political science and administration from the University of Zimbabwe. 

Many African Union (AU) member states remain furious that AU Commission chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat has unilaterally granted Israel observer status. Mahamat’s decision, announced in July 2021, has led some to accuse him of bringing “Israel through the back door into the AU”. Some countries have suggested that this move undermines AU procedures. Mahamat, in turn, argues that it’s within his rights as AU Commission chair to grant observer status to non-member states.

South Africa, Nigeria and Algeria have been the most vocal critics of the decision. Members of SADC announced their collective opposition in a letter addressed to Mahamat after the regional bloc’s August summit in Malawi.

Mahamat is planning to stand for Presidential elections in his home country, Chad, following the death of President Idris Derby in April 2021. It is believed that his controversial decision on Israel could be beneficial as he starts his campaign in earnest:  According to some observers, “Mahamat needs friends with deep pockets as he kicks starts his presidential campaign.” 

It is also highly unlikely that Mahamat made this decision without first discussing it with current AU Chairperson, President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Tshisekedi is a committed evangelical Christian and well-known supporter of Israel; in March 2020 he was granted the rare opportunity to speak at an AIPAC meeting. AIPAC is a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US. At the March 2020 event, Tshisekedi called Israel an inspiration and thanks US evangelicals for supporting Israel.

Here, too, money may be at play: the DRC needs help to save its economy from absolute collapse. Israel has provided monetary support to African countries as part of its foreign policy before. As New Africa Daily reported in July 2020: “The Congolese president has been pushing for greater diplomatic ties with Israel, motivated in part by his evangelical faith and desire to bring in Israeli investment and expertise to help modernize the country.” 

Israeli observer status at the AU will grant the country proximity to member states and allow it sneak previews of the body’s agenda. It will also have a chance to use its deep pocket diplomacy to win support from other African countries.  Israel, like many countries, seeks to access Africa for its natural resources; the DRC is especially attractive given the massive hydroelectric potential of its Congo River – estimates suggest the river could produce close to a third of the continent’s total hydroelectric power.

Importantly, Israel seeks support and votes from AU member states as it continues to be defeated and embarrassed at various multilateral platforms for its atrocities against the Palestinian people.

Another vehement supporter of Israel’s observer status in the AU is Morocco.  When Morocco joined AU In 2017, I argued: “In truth, Morocco remains isolated and is beginning to feel the strain of that isolation. Like many North African countries, Morocco has been circumspect and often opportunistic in its dealings with Sub-Saharan Africa; it generally preferred the Arab League over the AU. That fact notwithstanding, the importance and influence of the Arab League has dwindled, especially since the 2013 coup in Egypt.”

The article argued that Morocco was feeling isolated and missing a number of photo opportunities at many international investment summits involving Africans across the globe.  Moreover, I argued that Morocco was missing out on the bloc politicking that benefits many African countries. Moroccan officials said that AU membership would make it easier to deal with the Western Sahara issue inside the AU. Morocco intended to use its membership to promote its political agenda, mainly to lobby more members to renounce their recognition of the Western Sahara.

There was no talk of plans to push Israel’s agenda in the AU - but we later discovered this was one of the main objective all along.

Morocco has been successful in achieving two major objectives since joining the AU. First, on the issue of Western Sahara, it has regained a chance to formally lobby inside the AU against the autonomy and recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.  Second, it has upped efforts for the support of Israel’s observer status in the AU – bringing it into conflict with South Africa, which supports Morocco on the Western Sahara issue but is also a strong supporter of Palestine.

Morocco has clearly not been happy with South Africa’s domineering role at the AU and is committed to reduce the apparent South African hegemony.  At what cost?  There is likely to be division moving forward; differences on foreign policy and what is good for Africa are likely to become more pronounced. 

Amongst other matters, the AU was meant to present a unified African foreign policy position often representing and benefiting weaker African states. The block politics of the AU have assisted weaker African states, which would ordinarily not be able to articulate independent positions at multilateral platforms. AU has also succeeded in pushing for trade treaties that benefited Africa as a whole using block politicking. Recently, the block negotiation and coordination of COVID-19 vaccinations strategies and donations from Western countries have been enabled by the AU. Dismantling that enabling environment and unity will certainly have a negative impact on AU’s future sociopolitical and economic agendas. The advent of Israel and creeping in of its deep pocket politics facilitated by countries such as Morocco is likely to further polarise the AU. It can also be argued that

Morocco’s advent or return to AU politics will certainly serve a negative agenda towards Africa’s unity. Morocco’s return has been mainly to push its own agenda inside the AU against SADR at the detriment of the cohesion of the AU. The AU will never function the same moving forward at least as long as Mousa Faki Mahamat remains the chairperson of the AU Commission and as long as Morocco continues to serve its own narrow political agenda and that of Israel. 

 About the author

Thembisa Fakude holds Masters degree in Politics. He is a columnist with the Middle East Monitor in London. He is a research fellow at Al Sharq Forum in Istanbul, Turkey. He also serves on the board of Common Action Forum in Madrid, Spain. He serves on the board of Mail and Guardian publication in South Africa. He is the former Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera Media Network for Arabic and English Channels in Southern Africa.

Introduction

The United States’ (US) decision to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan will have far-reaching implications for the people of Afghanistan and  the region.  It is also likely to impact on the credibility and standing of the US in the world.  .  There has been high levels of corruption which many people in Afghanistan attribute to the apparent low moral within the country’s security forces. Many also believe it was the low moral within the security forces which led to the swift collapse of the government.  The collapse of the government in Afghanistan has raised concerns about the “success of the decade long democratic process” in that country.  This article will examine the history and formation of the Taliban, it will look at its past demise and expulsion from power.  It will interrogate the current developments and immediate challenges faced by the government.  It will conclude by suggesting steps that could produce political stability, at least in the short term, in Afghanistan.

Brief History of the Taliban  

The Taliban is one of those organisation that cannot be understood without closely looking at its history.  The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989.  When the occupation ended, there were high levels of crime and corruption in Afghanistan.  From 1989 to 2001 Afghanistan was engaged in a civil war between the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) and the Mujahedeen.  Mujahedeen received assistance from a number of countries including the US and Pakistan.  Most Mujahedeen were education in Pakistan.  Their main objective “was to provide peace and security to the local population, institute justice and to implement Sharia Islamic law in Afghanistan” and to bring back safety and security in Afghanistan.  The Mujahedeen adopted conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam and exercised unrestrained violence against other sectarian and ethnic groups.  They also vowed to fight all forms of foreign occupation in Afghanistan.  In 1994, a local cleric, Mullah Muhammad Omar together with his followers in Kandahar formed a group called the Taliban, meaning students in Pashtun language.  Subsequently, the majority of the Mujahedeen joined Taliban.  

In 1996 the Taliban captured Kabul and declared Afghanistan an Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.  They were in power from 1996 to 2001.  During that time, Afghanistan experienced “one its darkest chapters in history”. Their strict interpretation of Islam involved forbidding women from doing professional work, banning girls from going to school and forcing men to grow beard.  They also carried out severe punishments, including public beatings, hangings of civilians who violated their code of conduct. They also destroyed important historical symbols and heritage sites. Notwithstanding immense international pressure, the Taliban blew up two 1500-year-old massive Buddha statues carved into a mountains of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.  They argued at the time that the “statues were forms of idols, a practice prohibited by Islam”.  They also carried out political assassinations including that of Dr. Najibullah, a pro-Soviet Union political leader and former President of Afghanistan.  They were also involved in the assassination of the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmad Shah Masoud.  However what brought the Taliban to prominence globally was its hosting and protection of the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden.  Bin Laden, was killed by the US special forces in May 2011.  He was accused of planning and financing the terrorists attacks  which killed thousands of people in the US on September, 11, 2001.  After September 11, 2001 attacks, the US demanded that the Taliban surrender Bin Laden to face the consequences of his crimes, the Taliban refused.  On 07 October 2001, the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan, an event which in hindsight is regarded as one of the worse tragedies of our times..  

Current Developments 

The  US and the Taliban negotiated peace agreement in Doha, in February 2020.  The agreement has culminated into some  significant changed in Afghanistan.  The situation has been in a tail spin by virtue of actions of different actors.  At the beginning of July 2021, “the Taliban controlled 90 districts in comparison to 141 districts controlled by the government, while 167 remained uncontested”. The unwillingness of Ashraf Ghani’s government to enter into a meaningful dialogue with the Taliban paved a way for a zero-sum contest between Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the Taliban.  After assuming office, President Joe Biden, made it clear that he was going to remain committed to President Trump’s timeline to withdraw the US troops from Afghanistan.  The air power and other logistical support by the US granted Afghanistan’s forces a critical leverage over the Taliban and to an extent overestimated the ANSF’s ability in their fight against the Taliban. The government of Afghanistan therefore never felt compelled to engage the Taliban under an inclusive intra-Afghanistan dialogue.  Consequently, when it became clear that the advancing and confident Taliban was about to enter the gates of Kabul, it became difficult for the government to engage nor negotiate a peaceful transition.  “At the beginning of August, 2021, the momentum swung in Taliban’s favour, as the government lost control of two-thirds of Afghanistan’s territory”.  The fall of Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, led into a frenzy as many country representatives rushed to evacuate their personnel and citizens from the country.  Some embassies opted to shut down their offices fearing reprisal from the Taliban.  The Taliban has indicated that it will have an inclusive government.  It has also undertaken to grant general amnesty to all members of the former government and those who were “deemed enemies” during the war.  Notwithstanding those undertakings, aberrations from that course by the Taliban continue unabated. There are suggestions that the nature of the Taliban i.e. their decentralized structures, contributes to these aberrations.  Others blame elements of ill disciple amongst some of the foot soldiers of the Taliban.  

Challenges moving forward

The Taliban announced the cabinet early in September 2021 which consists  mainly of its members.  Meanwhile, the National Coordination Council (NCC) headed by former President Hamid Karzai and former Chief Executive Abdullah-Abdullah were negotiating with different leaders of the Taliban for an inclusive government.  These efforts are supported by Pakistan.  The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, has assured Pakistan’s facilitative role towards the Afghanistan peace process and has stressed the importance of an inclusive and representative government in Afghanistan.  

Although the current situation in Afghanistan is still very fluid and very hard to predict any specific outcomes.  There are still fears that more terrorist attacks from the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant – Khorasan (ISIL-K) are likely to continue.  ISIL-K is undoubtedly the major threat to peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region.  Notwithstanding, there are certain key steps that the Taliban must embark upon to ensure political stability at least in a short term in Afghanistan.  First, the Taliban must ensure that all political stakeholders; including ethnic and religious minorities, are part of the political and reconciliation process. The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, “proposed at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s Head of State meetings to reaching out to Pashtun and Taliban factions for the inclusive government. He has also asked his Tajik counterpart to do the same in wooing the Tajiks to reconcile their differences with the Taliban”.  Second, the Taliban must also work to integrate its forces with that of the ANDF including, the Northern Alliance.  The Northern Alliance has been fighting the Taliban and has vowed to resist the government of the Taliban.  Third, the Taliban has to ensure the promotion of basic human rights and liberties including and particularly those of women and girls. Fourth, out of 33 members of the cabinet, 14 are on the list of UN sanctions list.  The Taliban must ensure that members of “the Taliban 2.0” are removed from the UN sanctions list and that the organisation is declassified as the terrorist organisation.  Simply put, in order to attract investments into Afghanistan and establish new relationship with the international community, the Taliban must prove that it has reformed.  It will have to give assurances to the international community that it has severed all ties with the terrorists groups and will cease to host Al Qaeda.  Finally, the Taliban must ensure that it brings to line radical elements within its ranks particularly those who are still clinging to a strict version of Islam.  These are key considerations for the Taliban if it wants to succeed in governing and winnin support of all people of Afghanistan.  

About the author

Afeera Firdous is a Research Lead at Pakistan. Now, a digital media channel. She previously worked with Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS) as Associate Research Officer for three and a half years. She holds M.Phil. in Strategic Studies from National Defence University Islamabad. She has worked on various strategic and policy issues including counter extremism and counter terrorism, nuclear issue specifically in South Asian region, cyberspace, and information warfare. 

Within minutes after it was taken, the photo of US Major General Chris Donahue boarding a C-17 plane in Kabul went viral. The 20-year war had ended in a humiliating defeat and the retreat of the world's most powerful army. That image evoked memories of the summer of 1962 when the French army – then the fourth largest in the world – was brought to its knees and driven out of Algeria.

There were other images from Kabul airport of equal significance; they, however, did not make it onto the front pages of newspapers or television screens. Apart from Al Jazeera, none reported the pillage of the civilian airport by the departing US forces. Taliban officials estimated the damages to be around $23 million.

Even after their gratuitous trashing of the civilian airport, the US maintained its freeze of an estimated $9.5 billion belonging to the Afghan Central Bank. Yet it had the audacity to call for the swift and safe passage out of Afghanistan for its remaining citizens and those Afghan allies who worked for them.

The Americans, it seemed, had taken a page from the playbook of defeated settler colonials in Africa. When the Portuguese settler colonial regime was finally defeated in Mozambique in 1975 they took with them all the goods and capital they could. As for the property which they could not carry such as buildings and tractors, they destroyed them.  In Algeria, a similar picture emerged. During their departure, the French took hundreds of thousands of maps and historical documents from the colonial period (1830-1962) and others dating back to the Ottoman era (1518-1830). Today, the Algerian authorities are locked into a bitter diplomatic battle to retrieve the documents from France, which refuses to return them on the grounds that they are classified and subject to national defence secrets.

Apart from the historical documents, France is also refusing to return the skulls of resistance fighters who were killed and then beheaded during the war of independence. These apparent colonial trophies are now on display in the Homme Museum in Paris.

Like in Algeria, the defeat of the US in Afghanistan has left in its wake a mad rush to the exits of Afghan collaborators, professionals and people with technical and managerial skills. It remains to be seen how long their welcome will last in the West. Despite their initial pledges to receive all those seeking refuge, several European countries have begun to express concern over the numbers.

It must be recalled that it was only after intense international pressure did the government of Charles de Gaulle agree to resettle 40,000 Algerians who had fought alongside the French in the war of independence.

Regardless of the promises of integration and support, the multitudes fleeing Afghanistan will have to exercise patience before their individual hopes and expectations are realised. A lot will depend on personal ambition, drive and good fortune. In other words, they can either take charge of their own destinies or allow others to do so.

As for the Taliban, who have inherited a state apparatus that was broken and dysfunctional, they now have an opportunity to prove their detractors wrong. They can, with the right leadership and resolve, lift Afghanistan from the ashes of war and civil strife.

At the height of the Eurozone debt crisis in 2008 the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (derisively called PIGS) were worst hit. Astonishingly, thousands of Portuguese nationals turned to their former colonies, Mozambique and Angola, in search of a brighter future. In a stunning reversal of roles, Angola, after 400 years of colonisation, was buying everything from banks to real estate and telecommunications in Portugal.

Afghanistan, with its abundance of natural and human resources, can now chart a new course in its history.

Unsurprisingly, the era of US occupation failed to 'remake' Afghanistan. A January 2021 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction uncovered what the real priorities of the US in Afghanistan were. Of the $946 billion that was invested in the country, $816 billion, or 86 per cent, were allocated for military operations. The report further revealed that less than two per cent of the overall US spending actually reached the Afghan people in terms of infrastructure and development projects.

Surely, if the US and its allies had spent more on health care Afghanistan would not have been left with a life expectancy of 63 years, a maternal mortality rate of 638 per 100,000 births, and a child stunting rate of 38 per cent.

After two decades, the US fiasco in Afghanistan had become unsustainable, costing too much not just in terms of lives and money. In the same way that the defeat of France in Algeria diminished its status as a world power, so too the US defeat in Afghanistan has undermined its standing on the world stage. The era of attempting to 'remake other countries' through military intervention is over. Afghanistan has proven that it was always a delusion.

This article was first published in the Middle East Monitor website by Dr. Daud Abdullah

Dr. Daud Abdullah Daud Abdullah was born in St. David's Grenada where he received his early education. He obtained his first degree from the University of Guyana in 1981 and was awarded a scholarship to study Arabic language at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia. ^] In 1984 he joined the Univeristy of Khartoum, Sudan  to pursue postgraduate studies and was awarded his doctorate in 1989.  His last posting in Saudi Arabia was as editor and translator at the Abul Qasim Publishing House in Jeddah.