Shortly after the U.S.-led air strikes on Afghanistan began, Mohammad Sarwar, the sole Muslim member of Britain's Parliament, told the BBC that backing the Northern Alliance was a horrible mistake.
'It is the Northern Alliance who brought Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan in 1996 from Sudan,' Sarwar said. 'And it was the Northern Alliance who closed all the cinemas in Afghanistan and stopped girls going to school. We are making the same mistake again by trying to replace one extremist with another.'
The Northern Alliance is the now-common euphemism for the National Islamic United Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, or United Front, which is the militant arm of Afghanistan's internationally recognized government, the Islamic State of Afghanistan.
The Northern Alliance is a motley collection of warlords currently including at least five anti-Taliban militant groups totalling close to 10,000 soldiers. Since the Taliban came to power it has received military aid to varying degrees from Iran, Russia, Uzbekistan and others.
From 1992-96, the Northern Alliance formally controlled Afghanistan. During that time, however, the nation was plagued by violent clashes between the various segments of the alliance.
ISA rule was so traumatic that Patricia Grossman wrote in a Washington Post editorial, 'I was told time and again that the only thing people there feared more than the Taliban was that the warlords of the Northern Alliance might return to power.'
In order to deflect such fears, the United States is supporting a gathering of tribal elders and other leaders led by an 86-year-old former Afghan king, Muhammad Zahir Shah, to determine the fate of post-Taliban Afghanistan.
The fact remains that the Northern Alliance is being viewed not only as a partner in a post-Taliban governing coalition, but as an important means to the anti-terrorism end, despite the humanitarian atrocities committed both during its reign and in the civil war that has followed.
A small sampling of Human Rights Watch's reports speak for themselves:
'In the years before the Taliban took control of most of Afghanistan, these parties had divided much of the country among themselves while battling for control of Kabul. In 1994 alone, an estimated 25,000 were killed in Kabul, most of them civilians killed in rocket and artillery attacks. One-third of the city was reduced to rubble and much of the remainder sustained serious damage. There was virtually no rule of law in any of the areas under the factions' control. In Kabul, Jamiat-i Islami, Ittihad and Hizb-I, Wahdat forces all engaged in rape, summary executions, arbitrary arrest, torture and 'disappearances.' In Bamiyan, Hizb-i Wahdat commanders routinely tortured detainees for extortion purposes.
'Late May 1997: Some 3,000 captured Taliban soldiers were summarily executed in and around Mazar-i Sharif by Junbish forces ... some of the Taliban troops were taken to the desert and shot, while others were thrown down wells and then blown up with grenades.
'Late 1999-early 2000: Internally displaced persons who fled from villages in and around Sangcharak district recounted summary executions, burning of houses and widespread looting during the four months that the area was held by the United Front. Several of the executions were reportedly carried out in front of members of the victims' families. Those targeted in the attacks were largely ethnic Pashtuns and, in some cases, Tajiks.'
We have made this mistake before. A group with such a record should not be supported, even as a means to an end. To clearly demonstrate this point, I again turn the floor to Human Rights Watch:
'...should its political fortunes turn with United States or other external support, their past record of abuse and impunity gives no reason to believe that abusive commanders will feel discouraged from committing further abuses. Human Rights Watch is particularly concerned that United Front factions may seek retaliation against the Taliban, and ethnic Pashtuns generally...
'The provision of unqualified material and political assistance under such circumstances ... would serve to embolden these commanders. Such support may feed rather than break the lethal cycle of impunity that has brought so much suffering to the people of Afghanistan. It is for this reason that the United States, Russia, Iran and any other states providing assistance to the Afghan opposition must take responsibility for how this assistance is used. Their failure to do so would entail a degree of complicity in any abuses that may be committed, and they should therefore be held accountable for these abuses.'
