Editorial»
The loya jirga in Brussels
DEC 23 - When I left Afghanistan earlier this month, it was one of those mild winter days in Central Asia before the real cold comes down from the mountains to stab the lungs. Delegates from all over the country were beginning to arrive in Kabul for their “loya jirga,” an elected gathering of the clans, which would be tasked with ratifying a draft of a new constitution designed to unite a country notoriously divided between ethnic, linguistic and tribal groups that have, in the past, made constant war on each other.
Nothing could be culturally more distant from that dusty Afghan capital, with its still shattered streets and muddy lanes, than sleek and gleaming Brussels, with its overflowing chocolate shops, teeming caf鳬 and Mercedes-choked avenues.
Yet when I left Brussels, in a typically dreary north European drizzle, traffic barriers were being put in place and delegates were pouring into town for a different but essentially similar loya jirga.
Representatives from the ethnically and linguistically divided tribes of Europe, which in previous centuries have made war on each other, were coming to ratify their own draft constitution in an attempt to build an “ever closer union.”
The delegates may have been dressed in bespoke suits and costumes of the haute couture, rather than turbans and burkas, but their mission was essentially the same: to codify how power will be divided between rival tribes.
Whereas Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtuns, and other smaller tribes are still debating in Afghanistan, the European loya jirga ended abruptly in failure. It is said that although the Europeans could have agreed on most issues raised in the draft, the summit wrecked on the rocks of the essential question: how to share power in a new union. And while the Afghans must decide how much authority to give their president, the Europeans failed to achieve a five-year elected presidency and so must continue with the confusing and inefficient rotating presidency.
The two holdouts on the draft constitution, Spain and Poland, believed that the new arrangement put them at a disadvantage when it came to the voting process, and on that note the summit ended. When Belgium’s foreign minister, Louis Michel, castigated them for putting their own narrow national interests above the common interest of all Europe, he sounded much like what Pashtuns are most likely saying about Tajiks in Kabul this week.
There were even echoes of Afghanistan’s warlord problem to be heard in Brussels. Afghanistan has to worry about separate armies not completely under the control of the center, while in Brussels, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for so long the heart of Europe’s defense, now has to worry about plans for a separate European army, free from NATO’s control, that the Germans, French and Belgians have been pushing. The British role seems to be to go along, but water it down enough to thwart France’s dream of a truly independent and rival force.
The role of Islam is enshrined in the Afghan draft constitution, but Christianity does not play a central role in the European draft, much to the distress of Pope John Paul II. Europe lives in a post-Christian era, while the heart of any agreement in Afghanistan is going to take the dominant faith into consideration. The American states grappled with all these issues when they struggled to create “a more perfect union” in the 18th century. Pennsylvania originally opted for a unicameral legislature, the only qualification for membership being that legislators be male and Christian.Posted on: 2003-12-24 05:16
Headlines
Advertisements
