Rabbani’s Assassination Sharpens Afghanistan Contradictions

Burhan al-Din Rabbani’s assassination late Tuesday was a further signal that things are going very badly in Afghanistan. Rabbani is a former president of Afghanistan (1992-1996) who, however, was impossible to work with and was therefore sidelined after the overthrow of the Taliban (whom he fought) in 2001. He was recently brought back by President Hamid Karzai, however, to head a peace commission trying to reach out for talks to the Taliban and other insurgent forces fighting the Karzai government. Rabbani, because of his Muslim fundamentalist credentials, was plausible for the job, though the Northern Alliance he represented had resisted any peace with the Taliban. Radicals opposed to the negotiations therefore wanted him eliminated.

Last week, Rabbani was in Iran for a conference aimed at interpreting the Arab Spring as an Islamic awakening, which was addressed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. While there, Rabbani reaffirmed the close ties of Kabul with Tehran (a position often taken by Tajik Sunnis and Hazara Shiites, but most often rejected by Pashtun Sunni hard liners such as the Taliban, who are closer to Pakistan).

Rabbani opposed the US and NATO presence in Afghanistan and blamed it for the country’s turmoil. Russia Today has video:

The assassination comes on the heels of an impudent attack on embassy row in Kabul last week, allegedly by the Haqqani Network based in North Waziristan, Pakistan. The US appears to have intelligence fingering the latter and has reacted angrily, saying that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence is actively allied with the Haqqanis and is using them to gain influence in southern Afghanistan.

The US now says Pakistan must move against the Haqqani Network, and that if Islamabad won’t do it, then Washington will attack unilaterally. This threat has produced outrage in Pakistan and further worsened relations between the US and Pakistan, which are fragile in the wake of the discovery of Usamah Bin Laden near a major military complex in Abottabad, Pakistan.

If the Haqqani Network turned out to be behind this assassination, as some analysts are suggesting, the US itch to act unilaterally would be reinforced. Rabbani’s attempt to negotiate with the Taliban was one of the few plausible end games for the Karzai government and for the US in Afghanistan. Those who want a Taliban victory (or a joint ISI/ Haqqani victory) in Afghanistan rather than a big tent settlement would have been threatened by Rabbani’s peace talks.

Rabbani was iconic of the turn of Afghanistan toward Muslim politics from the 1960s forward. From a Dari Persian-speaking (i.e. Tajik) background, Rabbani became the leader of the Jami’at-i Islami, the Afghanistan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. He studied in Egypt and translated Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical who inspired al-Qaeda, into Persian. Rabbani’s group fought the Communist government of Afghanistan 1978-1992, as part of the Mujahidin, whom Ronald Reagan termed “freedom fighters” and the equivalent of America’s founding fathers.

At the end of this period the Mujahidin took Kabul and Rabbani became president of a factious state that deteriorated into warlord rule. Rabbani worked out a deal with his rival Gulbadin Hikmatyar (a vicious far-right fundamentalist) whereby the latter would be vice president. The two fell out, however, and the forces of the president and those of the vice president fought each other so fiercely in Kabul in 1995 that they destroyed much of their own capital and killed some 17,000 people. It was one of modern Afghanistan’s major low points, and it paved the way for the Taliban to come to power, since Afghans were sick of the faction-fighting of the warlords.

It is ironic that the Taliban, who could not kill him when he was part of the Northern Alliance opposing their conquest of the northeast of the country in 1996-2001, have finally taken him out when he was attempting to play a very different role, of peace broker. After all, in Afghanistan warlords are a dime a dozen. But someone trying to make peace and reduce polarization– that is very dangerous to would-be revolutionaries who instead want to sharpen contradictions.

7 Responses

  1. Thanks for the context, Juan. I have read other accounts which were not satisfactory.

  2. Speaking of Iran, does anyone know who paid the $1 million for the release of the 2 hikers that went free today? Not many families could post that kind of bail, and it would be a mistake for the government to pay money for hostages (unless they really were spies…)

    As far as the Afghan story I really can’t think of much to add. This is the way things seem to get done over there, and if someone is willing to die in order kill others they have a very good chance of succeeding. Coalition losses have gone up every year since 2004.

    • I heard it was Oman, I think they were thought to have paid the girls ransom when she was released. Oman may not used their own money, they might have just been the conduit. Oman has “cordial” relations with Iran.

    • Remember that Reagan paid for the release of hostages in Lebanon, after promising Thatcher he would never do such a thing – they weren’t spies.

      Reagan gave Iran a belated reward for the release of the Iran Embassy staff (who were spies, albeit not very proficient) via the Iran-Contra deal.

      The US government would probably pay for their release to get the issue off the table. They have got other things in region to worry about, without the distraction of a couple of jerks who decided it would be a good idea to go hiking in that area.

    • Oman paid the ransom, er, bail, probably acting as the middleman. If the three weren’t actually spies, they were certainly idiots.

      The role of peacemaker is a tough one. A lot of people, Afghans as well as American, stand to lose a lot of profits if peace breaks out.

  3. I’m struck by the similarities between this assassination and that of Ahmad Shah Massoud, a close associate of Rabbani. In a recent news item commemorating the 10th anniversary of Massoud’s assassination, it was suggested that the bomb used wasn’t concealed in the TV camera as has been assumed, but in the interviewer’s turban.

    Is it valid to think of these different groups in Pakistan & Afghanistan i.e. AQ, Pak Taliban, Haqqani Network, LeT, LeJ, Afghan Taliban, Hezb-e Islami etc, as distinct autonomous entities. Might it not be better to think them as battalions of the same “Jihadi Army”.

    It doesn’t matter whether this assassination was ordered by Mullah Omar, Haqqani, Hekmatyer or al-Zawahiri; perhaps it doesn’t matter at all. Like it or not the Taliban are going to return and they’ll end up fighting, with Pak assistance, the Tajiks, Uzbeks; the latter lead by Doston, Rabbini’s successor, Ismael Khan etc, in what will the 2nd post Soviet invasion Afghan Civil War.

  4. Years ago, after having noticed a referee was killed just after a Central American inter country soccer match (killed by citizens of the losing country), I reflected on this; considering this killing to be related to the constantly in crisis Central American political system. And at one point I realized the following: authentic democracy is not possible until almost all the citizens are willing to lose; regardless what game is played including the game of politics.

    I follow this with the position that people exist in various levels of maturity; the lowest level being tribal: not a geographic tribe, but a philosophical tribe; where people are incapable of allowing individuality, and vigorous fight any person who doesn’t toe the tribal line.

    That to me is what we have in Afghanistan. And until the Afghan people themselves realize the unworkability of this nonsense, which they will only realize if left to their own devices (no occupying forces, no foreign intervention) for a number of years, they will continue to remain tribal.

    The US has to totally get out; grow up and realize its desire to have major influence in the Central Asia situation is an academic hallucination (which I believe is at the base of our “need” to remain there). Until that occurs, we will continue to see horrors such as this latest assassination.

Comments are closed.