First of all, I'll start with "spot the error" in my last dispatch. I did not state that the coup against Shah took place in 1963, but i did type in the obvious error that 1933-1963 constituted the first 20 years of the reign as opposed to 30.

That aside, on with what looks to be the summary (unless something substantial is added to the discussion).

Here is a link to the Cullather article Mr. Argue mentioned:

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi

I'll put aside my surprize that he would have submitted an article promoting US Imperialist and Anglocentric standpoints and deal with the issue at hand, the charge of ethnic cleansing.

As stated earlier, the first 30 years of Shah's reign the king was a figurehead, matters of state were left to the Prime Ministers. The first two, Muhammad Hashim and Shah Mahmud were his uncles, the last (Daoud) was his cousin. If you are talking about the era that Zahir Shah ruled the country, you are talking about the period of 1963 (beginning with Daoud's resignation) to 1973 (Daoud's coup).1

Everything that Cullather takes exception to occured before 1963. Although he doesn't mention it by name, the irrigation project being referred to is most likely the Helmand Valley Project, with which the american corporation Morrison-Knudsen became involved in 1945.2

I spent a lot of time checking other sources, given Cullather's lack of referencing his sources, but could find nothing to collaborate his claims that the project had served as an ethnic cleansing/relocation program as well (this despite the fact of the projects date in history). Sources such as the one referenced above mention a project of settling nomads into the region, but even with that "After several years of continued effort and enormous subsidies, a large number of nomads left the valley because, after many years of hard work, they could not make a living due to the poor quality of the soil which was not taken into account in the initial survey of the project."2 So much for Cullather's "use (of) these new settlers as a death squad"

Mentioning Daoud's obsession with the Pashtunistan issue was in no way intended to be a commentary in favor of the borders of Afghanistan, which of course are the result of Anglo and Tzarist Imperialism. Merely it was to illustrate that he was obsessed with the issue to the detriment of just about all other policy in the end, and showed little concern with the plight of non Pashtuns in the country.

As for documented ethnic cleansing, look back to the PDPA, even before the Soviet invasion. "Those targeted included.. members of various ethnic groups, particularly the Hazaras." 3 After the Soviet invasion of course it was an out and out bloodbath, carpet bombs make no distinction at all over who they murder.

In conclusion, is Zahir Shah an ideal figure? No. Given the mess that is Afghanistan, might he be a necessary figure to get things headed towards democracy (because of his popularity which, let's face it, is only because everything that followed was so much worse)? Perhaps so. This has always been RAWA's position, they are not a monarchist organization.4

For secular democracy (we could use one here as well).

1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reigns_of_Nadir_Shah_and_Zahir_Shah

2
www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/Foreign%20Affairs/us-afghan/helmand_0.htm

3
www.hrw.org/reports/1991/afghanistan/2AFGHAN.htm

4
rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/points.html