[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22639-22640]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     VISIONS FOR A NEW AFGHANISTAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, last Friday I led a bipartisan delegation to 
Europe that met with the exiled King of Afghanistan in Rome, and I want 
to say up front one of the most common questions we had was, is United 
States policy tilted towards the King, or is it tilted towards the 
Northern Alliance? And one thing we continually made clear and we need 
to continually make clear is that many of us here in Congress supported 
the Northern Alliance and wanted additional funding to go to them, and 
many of us in Congress support the exiled King. We support both, and we 
believe there should be a coalition government.
  In fact, today's papers, in The New York Times, Washington Post, Los 
Angeles Times, all are running stories suggesting that the Northern 
Alliance is suddenly wanting to go it alone, now that after months of 
not moving or actually retreating, were able to advance with American 
bombs, all of a sudden they want to go exclusive. Our policy needs to 
be balanced.
  I would like to share a few comments of our exchange with the King 
and then some thoughts on the direction of where we may head. Clearly, 
the King is 87. He is of strong mind and will, but he has been in exile 
for years. His role would be more of a coordinator and peacemaker, not 
necessarily a dominant leader. After all, he is 87, not 57. His heart 
hurts for his people and country. He expressed sorrow because of the 
terrorism that brought the bombing. He stated that that bombing was a 
necessary evil. He stressed the need for meetings with the Northern 
Alliance as soon as possible. We pushed him hard in part on that point, 
and clearly they need to get to those meetings. Unfortunately, one of 
the dangers here is if one group gets in a dominant position, 
particularly if they are in the minority population, a dominant 
governing position over the others, we will not have peace in 
Afghanistan; we will descend into further chaos.
  We stressed Afghan solutions. But that does not mean just warlords 
who

[[Page 22640]]

could not have advanced without our bombs; it means a real coalition. 
Our goal is to hunt down terrorists and to bring them to justice and to 
hold those who harbor terrorists accountable; but our goal is not to be 
nation-building beyond a point. We want an Afghan solution, but if they 
want our long-term support, they need to have a balanced solution.
  We also aggressively oppose the distribution of heroin and the 
violation of human rights, which some of our so-called new-found 
friends have done as well, not just the Taliban. Financial assistance 
and trade policies of the United States are impacted by a government's 
abuse of human rights and death peddling through drug dealing and drug 
trafficking of heroin.
  There is an Afghan solution that meets these goals, but it needs to 
include the people of the north as well as the majority Pashtuns of the 
south. Americans today only see an Afghanistan that is riven by tribal 
factions, funded by heroin, chaos and constant war, terrorists and 
terrorist sympathizers. But the former King has shown that a different 
Afghan did exist, a coalition government, a move from monarchy to 
democracy, rights for women, and an economy not dependent upon heroin. 
It can happen in Afghanistan, and it did for many years.
  In that sense, the country is currently missing all of this for many 
years, and the exiled king would give them a vision of hope. It is not 
a question of his returning as a King, but as a symbol of a functional 
Afghanistan which many people in the United States and the world do not 
see. As our delegation told him, if we do not see, if the Afghan that 
he represented that did not harbor terrorists, that respected human 
rights and, in fact, does not distribute heroin, then the American 
people will help rebuild their economic devastation that the Taliban 
has caused. But we are not going to help rebuild if, in fact, it is 
replaced with another government. It does not mean that an enemy of an 
enemy is just that, an enemy of an enemy is a temporary ally, but to be 
a friend, where they get the financial assistance, the trade and help 
in rebuilding their country, we want to see a decent government.
  Afghanistan has been subject to being a political football for 
centuries, particularly between Russia and England, but all the way 
back to Timur-i-Leng, for centuries and centuries. The book 
``Tournament of Champions,'' a book about this battle for Central Asia, 
reads, in many ways, like the current New York Times: ``Back and forth 
through the passes, through the mountain hideouts, hiding out in the 
snow, fighting mountain wars, tribal factions dominated by the 
bordering nations.''
  What we do see in the reign of the former King is a move to 
democracy, that it can be different. A country torn by war with tribal 
and religious differences that was poor before being wrecked by the 
Taliban is not suddenly going to be paradise on Earth. Romanticism by 
Americans is not in order.
  But we do know that it can be a better Afghanistan. We do know that 
if there is a coalition government that respects the rights of the 
Afghan people, that does not deal in heroin, that is committed to 
rebuilding their economy, that is oriented towards peace, not harboring 
terrorists, it can be different. But if it does not, it not only will 
not be a paradise, it will continue to be close to an earthly version 
of hell.

                          ____________________