Afghanistan Homeward Bound at Last

By EDWARD W. DESMOND

United Nations Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar declared the occasion a "major stride in the effort to bring peace to Afghanistan," but his audience looked less than convinced. As diplomats from Pakistan, Afghanistan, the U.S. and the Soviet Union gathered in Geneva's Palais des Nations last week to sign an accord that secured the withdrawal of the 115,000 Soviet troops from Afghanistan beginning May 15, serious questions remained about a pact that had been under negotiation for the past six years.

The most problematic section called for a ban on "encouraging or supporting rebellious activities" -- wording that was clearly aimed at stopping the flow of U.S. weaponry through Pakistan to the mujahedin, the Afghan resistance forces. That provision has been a source of contention between the superpowers for many weeks. The Soviets refused to cut off their arms supplies to President Najibullah, the leader Moscow installed in Kabul in 1986. Washington insisted on "symmetry," the right to arm the mujahedin as long as Moscow helped Kabul, and two weeks ago Moscow grudgingly agreed.

After the signing, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz gave Perez de Cuellar a statement saying that Washington reserves the right to "provide military assistance to parties in Afghanistan." It added that "should the Soviet Union exercise restraint in providing military assistance to parties in Afghanistan, the U.S. similarly will exercise restraint." Since Moscow seems determined to support its Afghan ally at least for a while, the decision all but guaranteed continued warfare in a struggle that has taken more than a million lives since the Soviet invasion of December 1979.

Though the Geneva accord will fall short of bringing immediate peace to Afghanistan, the signing was a remarkable turning point in the struggle. Much as the U.S. did in South Viet Nam, Moscow has decided to retire from a conflict it cannot win. An estimated 30,000 Soviet troops have died in the eight-year conflict (compared with nearly 50,000 U.S. troops in Viet Nam). The mujahedin denounced the accord last week, largely because they were not invited to participate, but they are nonetheless gleeful over the Soviet retreat. Said Nabi Mohammadi, the leader of Harakat, one of the main resistance groups: "Small Afghanistan has triumphed over the wild Soviet bear."

The bear obviously disagrees. At a meeting with U.S. businessmen in Moscow, a pleased Mikhail Gorbachev said the agreement and the general relaxation of international tensions offer a "window of hope." He added, "The possibilities of finding solutions to the complicated issues engendered in the years of the cold war have become more apparent." President Reagan also applauded the agreement, and praised the "valiant struggle of the Afghan people to rid their country of foreign occupation." The two leaders will meet in Moscow on May 29, two weeks after the Soviet troop pullout is scheduled to begin, to discuss a 50% reduction in strategic nuclear weapons.

Yet no matter how congenial the superpowers may sound, their respective allies will remain at war. The widespread assumption that outside aid would continue despite the treaty was underscored last week when a series of huge explosions at a Pakistani arms dump, believed to hold supplies for the mujahedin, rocked the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Authorities put the number of killed at 94 and injured at more than 1,000.

Pakistan is investigating the blasts, but President Mohammed Zia ul-Haq believes the destruction was caused by a "very effective act of sabotage" committed by "somebody not in line with us." Considering that KHAD, the KGB- run Afghan intelligence agency, is being held responsible for several major bombings in Pakistan this year alone, Zia appeared to be pointing the finger at Kabul.

The Geneva agreement calls for the Soviets to remove their forces from Afghanistan within nine months, 50% of them in the first three months. It does < not provide for a cease-fire, nor does it arrange for the establishment of an interim government in Kabul acceptable to both the Communists and the mujahedin. Zia dismissed the suggestion that the accord meant Pakistan, which negotiated on behalf of the mujahedin, and the U.S. could no longer aid the rebels. "If Pakistan continues to support the mujahedin, then the fallout will be in the form of some arm-twisting and some border bombings and some other things," he said. "Pakistan is prepared to pay such a price until the Afghans have won their objective of changing the regime in Kabul. Pakistan will face the music."

Though recent U.S. intelligence estimates gave the Kabul regime six months to survive, Pentagon officials predicted last week that Najibullah could hold out in heavily fortified Kabul at least through the year, possibly longer. Most experts, however, feel that his fall is inevitable. Says a Western diplomat in Islamabad: "I'm certain that Najib will either be relaxing in the sunshine on the Black Sea coast or he will be dead. He has no other choices."

Still, when the time for withdrawal comes, the Soviets are expected to wage war fiercely, both to weaken the resistance and to cover their retreat. If Soviet generals have studied the bloody history of British involvement in Afghanistan, they no doubt know about the retreat in 1842 of a 15,000-man British force from Kabul toward the Khyber Pass. Only one man escaped the merciless Afghan ambushes. Even after the main Soviet forces withdraw, Moscow will do its best to shore up Najibullah with continued military assistance. Says Zia: "I see trouble and turmoil ahead."

With reporting by Ricardo Chavira with Shultz, and Ross H. Munro/Islamabad