Abstract
Afghanistan, a crossroads of the civilizations has been a victim of global conspiracies since centuries. In the recent history, the Soviet invasion from 1979-1989, and resultant US covert campaign to disintegrate the former, for the attainment of its strategic objective has deeply influenced the social, political and economic sphere of Afghanistan and its neighbouring Pakistan. Soviet withdrawal in 1989, followed by US hasty departure, encouraged the factional fighting and civil war like situation in the country. The situation gave way to an extremist’s Government of Taliban. The Taliban rule has been ruthless, thus, could neither attain public acceptance domestically nor could win the recognition of international community. The undesired US invasion in Afghanistan, following the incident of 9/11, further destabilized the country. Despite US military invasion and campaigning to haunt the Taliban, the super power could not subdue the opposition groups in Afghanistan. After a decade of US invasion, Taliban has gone more strong and effective, thus emerged as a challenge both for Afghan administration and for International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Contrary to its claims, United States has failed to gain success against Taliban and other militants. Envisioning a troubled future, the desperate super power has finally decided to reconcile with Taliban either to have an honourable exit, or else for a peaceful co-existence. The process of political engagement of Taliban has started few years back; however, it could gain currency only after the negotiations between the US representatives and Taliban in their newly established contact point in Doha, Qatar in the beginning of 2012. At home, the negotiation between Taliban and United States has frustrated President Karazai, who subsequently, invited Taliban for a direct talk. The war-torn people of Afghanistan need stability and peace in whatever form. However, for a durable peace and long-term stability in Afghanistan, an indigenous Afghan led peace process, taking on board all stakeholders in Afghanistan, supported by regional actors and United States would be extremely essential. The paper aimed at pursuing the same very theme.
Introduction
Located on the Iranian Plateau in the Southwest Asia, Afghanistan is a landlocked country enveloped by the Hindu Kush Mountains and Pamir. Its total area is 652,000 square kilometres.i It has common land borders of 5,529 kilometresii with six neighbouring countries: Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and China. It shares major portion of its border; 2430 km with Pakistan, whereas having geographical contiguity with China with only 67 km border. Out of its arable land, only one-third is being irrigated, that makes about 12% of cultivable land. Its total population is 30 million.iii The major ethnic groups are; Pashtun,; 42 percent (practically over 50 percent of total population) ; Tajik; 27 percent; Uzbek; 9 percent and Hazara 9 percent; Aimak, 4 percent, Turkmen 3 percent, Baloch 2 percent and others 4 percentiv. With 28.1 percent literacy rate, 68 percent people of Afghanistan are of less than 25 years of age.v The country has undergone a prolonged period of internal instability, foreign invasions, civil wars, and factional fighting. US invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and still holding on there in the garb of so-called global war on terror. The present situation in Afghanistan is indistinct, highly tense, complex, and fluid where uncertainty and chaos prevail all around. The extremely poor security situation, which is deteriorating day by day, and the localised effects of Taliban, tribal leaders and warlords are much more pronounced than the central government, which has desolately failed in establishing its writ in most of the country.
Poor governance, and absence of any worthwhile progress, mars the credibility of President Hamid Karazi’s Government. Besides, the charges of corruption and sponsoring of drug trade; further declined the local’s acceptance for the incumbent Government in the Kabul. The US is the main player in the Afghan affairs with its deep involvement in the country’s affairs over the last one decade. The super power has not been able to defeat the power of Taliban; in it’s over a decade military campaign. Failure to achieve any worthwhile success, the super power has decided to engage into a dialogue process with Taliban. There has been covert engagement between US officials and Taliban representatives for a positive break through in the negotiations since 2010. With the opening of Taliban office, indeed a Taliban’s ambassadorial house in Doha, Qatar, there has been increase in the interaction in the first two months of 2012. Although, achieving complete victory by the US and NATO forces seems to be impossible, the political engagement and redressing the Afghan’s grievances by integrating all groups and factions for bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan would be an apt way forward.
On its part, United States has a feeling that, it may not enjoy the support of its European allies, if it opts for a long-term engagement in Afghanistan. During the past one decade of joint military campaign, there have been disagreements among the troops contributing countries on issues like their employment, role, and level of contribution and participation. Even the Dutch Government collapsed over the issue of sending more troops to Afghanistan in February 2010.vi Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was dragged into the court of lawvii for sending the British troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. There is angst among the people of Germany and France against their governments for a prolonged engagement on a non-beneficial military campaign on account of personnel’s casualties as well as the financial drain without any hope of reimbursement.
Afghan Predicaments: Regional and Global Interest Groups
Regional Countries, Russia, and India
The regional countries, including all the six neighbours of Afghanistan, have their own concerns, commitments and apprehensions about present turmoil and presence of extra regional forces in that country. Each country would like to secure its own interest with regard to Afghanistan. India, geographically non-contiguous to Afghanistan is massively involved in Afghan affairs. In the garb of Afghan reconstruction, some of its activities are becoming security hazards for the state and society of Pakistan besides future generation of Afghanistan. Militants along Pak-Afghan border, especially in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and sub-nationalists in Balochistan, are said to have links with the spying agencies of the global actors involved in Afghanistan.viii
China fears that militancy and instability in Afghanistan is fuelling volatility in its semi-autonomous region; Xinjiang.ix China desires stable Afghanistan on three accounts: firstly, it would lead towards the pulling out of ISAF from its neighbourhood. Secondly, a peaceful and stable Afghanistan would give stability in the Chinese areas, bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thirdly, because of its geographical proximity, China will be able to make economic investment in Afghanistan; which would be beneficial for Afghan economic development and China too.x Away from economic aspects, Russia and Central Asian Republics (CARs) see NATO and US as a threat for their future. Russia feels that presence of extra regional forces in its neighbourhood is a hurdle in its resurgence and serious threat to its former republics.xi However, peace, stability and a united Afghanistan is the wish of the Russia as well as CARs.
US; the Main Player
Following its agenda of global domination, Iraq became the first victim in 1991. This military invasion gave US an excuse to secure its long term interests in the Middle East by stationing its forces there and extracting huge Arab wealth either in the form of cash or through let out of regional hydrocarbon resourcesxii as a cost of war for defeating Saddam’s Baathist Iraq. This US act provided mental and physical freedom to the fearsome Arab monarchs. Thereafter, 9/11 provided U.S with an open warrant to invade anywhere in the world under the garb of so-called global war on terror. To begin with, it invaded Afghanistan, to crush its former Jihadists allies turned into terrorists, including people like, Osama Bin Laden. The war in Afghanistan had killed thousands of the people mostly innocents ever since October 7, 2001.xiii US Navy SEALs could only kill OBL on May 2, 2011, during a raid in Abbotabad, Pakistan. After this, U.S and NATO should not have any excuse to stay in Afghanistan or in the region. Despite announcing a drawdown plan of 2014, it seems unlikely that, U.S will permanently leave Afghanistan.xivxv
Perceived US Objective
Long terms stay in Afghanistan and domination of Central Asia are all corollaries to US multipurpose strategies in the region.xvi It is widely believed that while based in Afghanistan with few bases in Central Asia, United States has multiple purposes to put into practice.xvii In the views of various writers and analysts, the long terms agenda include; containment of China through a multi prong approaches,xviii planned to be implemented through its allies in East Asia; Japan and South Korea, having a sizable number of its own military forces there. U.S is getting closer to ASEAN being part of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC).xix It has recently concluded a nuclear deal with Vietnamxx and is about to secure military bases in Philippinexxi. In South Asia, however, U.S natural ally India is being prepared as a counter weight to US peer competitor, China.
In the global politics, U.S is highly conscious of the resurgent Russia and would go all out to contest this power-balancing phobia. Some of the Russian actions like attack on Georgia in 2008, test firing of long-range intercontinental ballistic missile and a consistent and strong opposition of US missile defence shield in the countries of Eastern Europe are tangible factors in Russian resurgence, which really bothers United States.xxii Russia consider that recent political crisis in Moscow is an attempt to block Putin’s re-election as President, since he dynamically pursues restoration of Russia’s former position of a super power.
Both Russia and China desire that U.S should leave the region as early as possible. They even have made use of the SCO’s forum more than once to pressurize the US for pulling out. Apart from these, domination, if not possession of the hydrocarbon rich Central Asian and Caspian regions have always been an American dream. U.S desires its companies to explore and further sell-out these resources elsewhere in the world market while denying their access to Russia, China or any third country in the region. Iran, shares borders with Afghanistan and Central Asia. U.S desires neutralization of its role in the regional politics as well as bludgeoning of its nuclear programme.xxiii After UN economic sanctions of 2011, U.S and its allies together with Israel, are finding an excuse to attack Iran, at least to neutralize its nuclear programme.
US and Energy Politics
Pipeline politics is yet another area of interest for the U.S, where it desires that neither Russian nor Iranian soil be made use of for the future pipelines from CARs and Caspian regions to Europe, or elsewhere in the world. U.S prefers using the route from the Central Asia to Turkey and then on to Europe, as in the case of Baku-Tbilisi and Ceyhan Pipeline. This crude oil pipeline is 1768 kilometers long passing through Azerbaijan (Baku) – Georgia (Tbilisi) and Turkish port (Ceyhan) to Europe through Mediterranean Sea.xxiv For rest of the region, especially India, U.S desires a pipeline from the Central Asia to India through Afghanistan and Pakistan. This bypassing strategy is clashing with Russian and Iranian interests in the region.
Regarding Afghanistan, “Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it. Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks in turn, are likely to result in mission failure”.xxv This indeed was the crux of the assessment report of General Stanley MacChrystal the former commander of ISAF in Afghanistan in 2009. At that time, he predicted failure of U.S led war in Afghanistan if political reconciliation and integration of Taliban is not ensured.xxvi He perhaps was the only military commander who gave a down-to-earth assessment that the ISAF totally lack the understanding of the Afghan culture and society. While accusing Pakistan for the Taliban support,xxvii MacChrystal declared the conventional modus operandi of dealing with the Afghan imbroglio through coalition forces under U.S as the part of problem, rather a way out.
With respect to the U.S agenda of global domination through intervention, Professor Hafeez Malik, of the Villanova University USA, writes, that US has a worldwide record of interventions, during as well as after end of cold war. The prominent overt intervention are; in Latin America and Caribbean, East Asia, the Middle East, Southern Europe and Afghanistan. U.S has indeed become an imperial power at the international level. In the post cold war, scenario US foreign policy in South Asia is driven by its long-term collaboration with India, with the aim to enabling it to act as a counter weight to China. However, U.S foreign policy specifies for Pakistan, to fight an elongated war against the so-called Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Pak-Afghan Correlation
Impact of Afghan Instability on Pakistan
Because of instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan has suffered the most. Indeed, it shares the longest border with Afghanistan and has a huge Pakhtun population in FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhaw, which makes the largest ethnic group in Southern and the Western parts of Afghanistan all along highly porous Pak-Afghan border. In the past, these Pakhtun have been occupying the dominant government seats in the country’s political and military hierarchy for centuries and this is perhaps for the first time in the Afghan history that the Pakhtuns have been forced out of power of their country.
Moreover, the factors like presence of about 2.5 million Afghan refugeesxxviii in Pakistan, the narcotics trade, huge parallel economy due to Afghan Transit Trade and rising Talibanization, have their telling effects on the security, economy, and society of Pakistan. Pakistan wished a peaceful Afghanistan with its sway in the hands of its own lawful people. The people of Pakistan are grieved over the daily massacre of innocent Afghans at the hands of coalition forces. The repeated aerial raids and a number of ground operations could kill only few insurgent Taliban. The ultimate sufferer is the innocent Afghan population. The military action, “Operation Mushtarak”xxix in Marjah area of Helmand Province in the mid February 2010, could not put the Taliban’s heads down; however, it killed hundreds of innocent civilians. The town consists of 80,000 local populace,xxx met serious casualties, and disruption in their routine lives. Moreover, the recent desecration of Holy Quran and urinating on the bodies of Afghan Taliban are unprecedented in human history and Pakistan has concern over these acts.
Afghan Future as visualized by Pakistan
“We cannot wish for Afghanistan anything that we don’t wish for Pakistan,”xxxi this is the principle stand of Pakistan for Afghanistan. Since Pakistanis desire peace, stability, and economic prosperity for their country, therefore, they ought to wish similar comforts for their brethrens of Afghanistan. Furthermore, three decades of war, factional fighting, and the internal instability in Afghanistan has brought us to the conclusion that, stability and peace in Pakistan is directly related to these factors in Afghanistan. The current state of instability in Pakistan is indeed an outcome of the Afghan situation started in 1979. In the post Soviet Afghanistan, this Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan was reprehensively considered as an attempt of holding on to it permanently, whereas, Pakistan had neither the plan nor aspirations to grasp the soil of a sovereign country.
The idea of having the strategic depthxxxii by Pakistan has been wrongly projected. Rather a physical occupation or controlling Afghanistan, Pakistan wanted an assurance for the maintenance of peace along the Pak-Afghan borders, in the event of any misadventure by our eastern neighbour. In fact, successive Afghan Governments have been doing that like the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars. Even President Karazai has assured Pakistan for a guaranteed Afghan support in the event of any such misadventure. In the current Pak-Afghan relationship, Indian factor is more significant. During the Taliban era in Afghanistan, India along with some other regional countries have been constantly supporting the ethnic minorities; collectively named them as the Northern Alliance. They were given economic and even military support by India and virtually forced division among Afghan society. Despite an ethnic Pashtun President, Northern Alliance is the true beneficiary of US invasion in Afghanistan. The current intake into the Afghan National Army (ANA), Afghan National Police (ANP) and most of the bureaucracy is mostly from the minority group of Northern Alliance, with an insignificant strength of the majority Pashtun population. Indian Army has been undertaking the training of ANA, ANP and Afghan intelligence agency since last few years.
Pakistan feels that Indian trained ANA and ANP will be on the warpath to all its neighbours, particularly Muslim countries. Apart from its geographically contagious neighbours, these Indian trained troops will be in conflict with basic Muslim cultural and social values of Afghanistan itself. Besides, promoting internal clashes, these troops will maintain the current state of volatility, distrust, and enmity with Pakistan for a foreseeable future. Indeed India and Afghanistan are two different countries, with different values, culture, and different future requirements. Therefore, the Indian trained ANA would further destabilize the region as a whole. This state of affairs would neither suits US nor to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Pakistan has been offering Afghan Government for the assistance in the training of ANA and ANP. Indeed, this step would greatly reduce the current instability and hostilities along the Pak-Afghan border by promoting harmony among the security forces of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact, both countries share common terrain and borders to defend. Moreover, they have the similar cultural and historical values and backdrops and ideological harmony. This is only possible once there are common trainers having corresponding training parameters.
Afghan Led Political Reconciliation
It is still uncertain as to what would be the formal response of the Taliban to the call of President Hamid Karazai for a direct talk and political reconciliation. Nevertheless, upon a request from President Karazai, Pakistan has also formally appealed all Afghan groups and factions including Taliban to be part of the intra-Afghan negotiation process. On February 24, 2012, Pakistani Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani while appealing to Afghan factions said, “I would like to appeal to the Taliban leadership as well as to all other Afghan groups, including Hizb-i-Islami, to participate in an intra-Afghan process for national reconciliation and peace.”xxxiii
As a mark of genuineness, Pakistani Premier further elaborated by saying that, “It is our sincere hope that the Taliban leadership, Hizb-i-Islami and all other Afghan political leaders will respond positively to my appeal and agree to enter into direct negotiations in the framework of an intra-Afghan process for reconciliation and peace in Afghanistan.”xxxiv Earlier, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly announced that his Government is ready to accommodate Taliban and other factions and invited this strong opposition group for a political reconciliation through dialogue process. He categorically said that, “In order to realise the objectives of the peace process, I invite the leadership of the Taliban to engage in direct talks with the Afghan government.”xxxv President Karazai has made a detail trip to Pakistan in mid February 2012 and requested Pakistani authorities for a dedicated support. He said, “I hereby request our brotherly government of Pakistan to support and facilitate our direct negotiation efforts as part of the peace process.”xxxvi
While promising to provide all out assistance to Afghan Government, Pakistan is determine not to play a lead role in this reconciliation and desires that it should be, “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-driven.”xxxvii Pakistani Foreign Minister firmly highlighted this aspect in her address with the scholars of British think tank, Chatham House on February 23, 2012. She emphasized, “But we will not lead. We cannot lead … We will only follow what our Afghan brothers and sisters decide is the course of action they will adopt.”xxxviii This indeed is a great commitment by Pakistan, a neighbour, which suffered equally during these long years of foreign invasions and factional fighting in Afghanistan.
A Surge in the Reconciliation
The immediate enthusiasm in the Afghan administration for the reconciliation process came only after it was learnt that, US authorities are covertly engaged in a negotiations with some of the Taliban representatives. This process became more overt once Taliban opened an office in Doha, Qatar in the beginning of January 2012, and US officials including Mr Grossman; President Obama’s special envoy on Pakistan and Afghanistan had a meeting with Taliban. President Karazai and his administration felt as if they have been isolated in the process of negotiations with Taliban. Moreover, some of Taliban publically refused to talk to Karazai administration and preferred talking directly to United States.
However, while tracing the background of these US-Taliban talks, the fact is that Obama administration was of the opinion that, solution of Afghan war is not in the military option. It has to be resolved outside the battleground. However, he resisted by strong Pentagon to take such a step. Sequel to proclamation of first indicator given by President Obama on December 2, 2009, regarding a likely US exit plan, starting from July 2011, there have been lot of speculations within American circles and world over about a tussle between White House and Pentagon. In the following days, General Stanley MacCrystal became a prey to this internal clash. Indeed, General Mac Crystal has the strong urge for the negotiations with the Taliban for a durable peace in Afghanistan. In an interview with the Financial Times on January 25, 2010, the former commander of the ISAF said that; “the Taliban can contribute and help in the future to run the country.”xxxix He further said that, “a soldier Vcaoura he had been enough fighting and there is a need to find a political solution.”xl Indeed, as a military commander, he new the real situation on the ground, which finally Pentagon is now conceding in 2012.
Nevertheless, Obama’s outline exit plan, gave way to ‘London Conference on Afghanistan’ held on January 28, 2010′ jointly hosted by British Government, UN and Afghanistan provided more political space to accommodate the Taliban in Afghan future setup. The primary objective of the conference was to transfer the security responsibilities of Afghanistan to its own security forces from the ISAF and to entice the warring factions; the Taliban, to end the violence. The agreed strategy was “Instead of demonising the Taliban, we now contemplate the possibility that some of them could become part of the solution, an Afghanistan run by the Afghans themselves.”xli A reintegration fund was established to allure the Taliban to give up militancy and join peace process. As per the former British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, the primary objective of the fund was to, “provide an economic alternative to those who have none other than participation in the insurgency.”xlii
In a way, London Conference gave President Karazai a formal approval of international community to start reconciliation process with Taliban and other warring factions in Afghanistan.xliii United States however, remained sceptical of the reconciliation and its outcome for them. The main consideration remained with the US policy makers was, ‘if at all Taliban are to be reintegrated into the main stream, including Afghan Government functionaries, then what did US get by ousting them in 2001 and waging a prolonged war thereafter, spending trillions of dollars’?xliv Therefore, despite giving a tacit approval to Karazai Administration for the talks with Taliban, U.S itself continued its military offensives and night raids against Taliban’s strong holds including a major attack conducted jointly by NATO and Afghan Army in Marjahxlv area in February 2010, which could not met success. Probably, all this was aimed to put Taliban on defensive, thus compelling them to negotiate from the position of weakness. To the bad luck of US, this strategy did not work and in its subsequent approach, US had to rethink it.
Supporting Elements
Since testing of the military muscles by ISAF against Taliban met repeated failure, therefore, at the concluding session of the G-20 Summit, held at Toronto, Canada, President Obama once again gave a tacit approval of the reconciliation process. He emphasized on the political solution to the conflict in Afghanistan by declaring Pakistan’s Afghan settlement efforts as “useful”.xlvi President Obama said that, “conversations between the Afghan government and the Pakistani government, building trust between those two governments, are a useful step”.xlvii He even gave implicit approval for the inclusion of Taliban in the process of reconciliation. Indeed, Pakistan has long been emphasizing on the reconciliation of all Afghan groups including the Taliban for the establishment of a broad based government in its neighbourhood. Indeed, Pakistan has long been emphasizing political reconciliation as the only way forward for a durable peace in that country.
Envisioning a military success as impracticable, former ISAF Commander, General David Petraeus; now Director of CIA, also supported the reconciliation process. He even agreed to “Pakistani involvement in some form of reconciliation agreement, I think that is essential”.xlviii He had in his mind that Afghanistan and Pakistan after all are going to be neighbours. And helping them develop a constructive relationship would be an important contribution”.xlix Over the period, the reconciliation process has gained more support from almost all stakeholders as well as the international community. The United Kingdom has also supported the reconciliation process. The British Foreign Minister, Mr William Hague has visited Pakistan and appreciated the role played by Pakistan in curbing the scourge of terrorism. He too emphasised on the reconciliation process in Afghanistan. British Army Chief during a statement fully backed the process. There is a growing realization among the coalition that, Afghan issue has to be resolved through political negotiations, as the decade long war could not resolve it.
Intricacies in the Reconciliation
On its part, US officials have been engaged in secret talks with Taliban since 2010. However, with the opening of formal Taliban office in Doha, Qatar, and confirmation by Taliban representatives as being part of this negotiation, President Karazai felt uncomfortable as being isolated and even in the first instance recalled Afghan Ambassador from Qatar. In retribution, he had a meeting with the head of Hizb-i-Islami, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and carried out detailed talks with this powerful faction of Afghanistan, operating against ISAF along the northeast of the country. President Karazai declared the meeting as productive and said that, “We are hopeful that these negotiations continue and for the sake of peace, we reach productive results.” As a damage control strategy, Marc Grossman, had a meeting with President Karazai in Kabul and assured Afghan Government that, “The United States stands ready to assist in any way we can an Afghan-led reconciliation process to find a peaceful end to this conflict.” Earlier Afghan President has even warned that, “The Afghan nation is the owner of the peace process and any peace talks. No other country or organization has the right to deprive the Afghan nation to this right. Afghanistan is not a place for foreigners to do their political experiments or a laboratory that every few years they test a new political system.”
Whereas, the President Karazai has his suspicions over the direct Taliban-US negotiations, he was much more sceptical about the venue of these talks, which should have been Kabul or maximum Saudi Arabia or Turkey. Karazai has a feeling that, while negotiating with Taliban in Qatar, US is isolating him and that, US would enjoy more influence over the Taliban leadership then, it could have been a place of Karazai’s choice. On his part, while meeting with Hikmityar, Karazai sent a strong signal to US that, Taliban is just one faction, though strongest, fighting US invasion in Afghanistan, but there are many others, in touch with him or his Government’s functionaries. Tomorrow he may talk to Haqqanis even, thus US should have taken him into confidence.
Domestically, dominating power-sharing group; Northern Alliance would not like any negotiations with Taliban either by United State or by Karazai. In the opinion of Mr. Fazel Sacharaki, the spokesperson of the National Coalition of Afghanistan (NCA), a political opponent of Karazai Government, “Karzai has been sidelined in peace talks with the Taliban because they don’t trust the government.” Not only Taliban, but indeed, U.S and its NATO allies also do not trust Karazai, who over the years has proved to be a self-centred person and assumed to be the one who never looked for the betterment of the Afghan people. Whereas, President Karazai says that, “We talk to the Taliban every day. We were talking to them just a few days ago. The peace process, which envisions the return of all Afghans… including the Taliban, to peaceful lives in their country, is the surest way to peace and stability in Afghanistan.”
Sustainability of Afghan Peace Process
As an intimate Afghan neighbour, Pakistan feels that, United States itself is in direct talks with Taliban and even Haqqanis, but has incorrectly been accusing Pakistan for its linkages with them. This move has been to keep a continuous pressure on Pakistan for its gains in Afghanistan and coerce it, so that, it does not contradict US ordains. In a recent statement, the former Taliban Minister, Maulvi Arsala Rahmani, now a member of the High Peace Council of Afghanistan has said that, Taliban have decided to soften up their stance for a peace in Afghanistan. Today, they are ready to make comprises on some of the aspects which one could never thought of earlier. Indeed, the shift in the Taliban strategy has transformed them from “being a non-state to a state actor.” On its part, United States is also negotiating with Taliban considering them as a legal entity and has changed its previous stance of not reconciling with Taliban.
While looking for a political reconciliation in Afghanistan, United States will have to bring an end to its military operation and night raids, killing hundreds of innocents Afghans. US humiliation of Afghan people has reached to a level where its soldiers have been found urinating on the dead bodies, indeed unprecedented and that too in this highly civilized world of 21st century. More recently, American soldiers have burnt Holy Quran and other Islamic literature inside Afghanistan. These are very serious offences, US civilized soldiers are committing in their occupied areas. However, this seems less of compromising policies and more of punishing one.
Negotiations, either President Karazai or US led, Taliban, consider these as their success, and they have rightly announced this as such on January 16, 2012. Only after this declaration of success, Taliban officially expressed interest in negotiations with Washington. The reality is that, after a decade’s of military engagement; White House and Pentagon have reached to the conclusions that they are loosing in Afghanistan and situation is just like Vietnam. Although, such a realization was there once the late Richard Holbrooke tried to start the negotiations, but resisted by Pentagon.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, then security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, has described in his book entitled, “Strategic Vision” that, United States is facing serious challenges to its very survival if it fails to take some immediate measures. He has pointed out many grey areas facing US, mainly owing to the wrong policies of Pentagon and White House hawks. Mr Brzezinski finds, “alarming similarities between America today and the Soviet Union just before its fall, including a gridlocked governmental system incapable of enacting serious policy revisions, a backbreaking military budget and a failing decade-long attempt to conquer Afghanistan.” Thus, rather acting as a colonial power, US needs to be a balancing factor in the global politics.
Mr Brzezinski also feels that, US must become a “responsible partner to the rising and increasingly assertive East.” US role should be as a “balancer and conciliator” among Asian nations. Envisioning all the symptoms of a dying empire, US policy makers perhaps finally decided to talk to Taliban as a way out from this never-ending and convoluted conflict in Afghanistan.
For a peace and stability in Afghanistan, US-Taliban negotiation is a welcoming step. However, the peace process would remain fragile unless it has the backing of all groups and warring factions of Afghanistan, besides other stakeholders; the immediate neighbours, which remained associated with the conflict for over thirty years now.
Embedded Threats from Transition to Transformation
The final Communiqué of the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan held on December 5, 2011, supported the US plan to remain engage in Afghanistan beyond 2014. The Bonn Communiqué says, that both sides “solemnly dedicated themselves to deepening and broadening their historic partnership from Transition to the Transformation Decade of 2015-2024.” In November- 2010, the Lisbon Summit, attended by forty-eight members’ coalition agreed for a troop’s drawdown by December 2014. In its statement, it was said that, “The Alliance approved to end its combat mission in Afghanistan and hand over full sovereignty and security responsibility to Afghan forces.”
Pentagon had a reservation to this deadline, as expressed by its representative immediately after the Lisbon Summit. Then Coalition commander in Afghanistan, General David H. Patreaus (now CIA Director), opposed a faster troop drawdown, rather intends fighting a “Long War”. Regarding the Obama’s policy of pulling out of troops commencing from July 2011, Petreaus said, “I support the policy of the President. As the President has stated that, July 2011 is the point at which we will begin a transition phase, in which the Afghan government will take more and more responsibility for its own security. As the President has also indicated, July 2011 is not a date when we will be rapidly withdrawing our forces and switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.”l Later, the General followed the Pentagon’s line, as he and President Obama had differences on some aspects of pullout plan.li
In mid December-2011, during his visit of Afghanistan US Defense Secretary, Leon E. Panetta said in a press conference along with President Hamid Karazai that, it is a reality that, US has not completely won and there is need to complete its mission. He however, claimed that, ISAF and Afghan forces “have been able to seize the momentum from the Taliban militancy and establish security in critical areas, such as the Taliban’s heartland in the south. We are moving towards a stronger Afghanistan that can govern and secure itself for the future.”lii The ground realities are indeed, contrary to Mr Panetta’s statement. The insurgency has rather increased. During 2011, even heavily secured areas like Kabul were not free from Taliban attacks. The areas that have been handed over to Afghan National Army (ANA) are now very vulnerable to militants’ attacks. Thus, as believed by most of security analysts, Panetta’s assessment is nothing more than a mere encouragement for ISAF and may be Afghan Kabul regime. Otherwise, being a former spying head, Panetta knows the reality on Afghan horizon. Defence Secretary however, accepted that, “Ultimately we can’t win the war in Afghanistan without being able to win in our relationship with Pakistan as well.”liii
The Bonn Conference also fixed ambitious agenda for the future of Afghanistan once it laid down a criterion that, after transformation “In 2024 Afghanistan should not be a country in need of donors but also a donor country.” It is felt that, presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan for an indefinite period would make it heavily dependent on others. It would require another two to three decades for restoring a self-dependency among the Afghans with such an approach. Despite this, the question arise, whether U.S really desire to leave Afghanistan.
Defence secretary has recently revealed that US may wind up from Afghanistan even a year before the schedule laid down in Lisbon Summit. This new statement of Panetta has created yet another ambiguity about US future plans in Afghanistan and the region. Furthermore, would it be possible for the Karazai led Kabul Administration to sustain without US. The capacity of Afghan Government and ANA to sustain against the militant’s pressure is quite evident from some of the incidents occurred during 2011.
These events took place while there is a huge presence of ISAF troops. Then how ANA or ANP could compete their opposites who still hold most of the Afghan territory. It is felt that, this interdependence has compelled Karazai to request the participants of Bonn Confrence-2011 that, “Together we have spent blood and treasure in fighting terrorism. Your continued solidarity, your commitment and support will be crucial so that we can consolidate our gains and continue to address the challenges that remain.” Had US been pursuing its basic objective of invading Afghanistan then it “should have used the death of Osama bin Laden in May as an excuse to immediately pull troops out of Afghanistan.” Nevertheless, perhaps, it was not the real objective.
For the US, the real objectives are more global and strategic in nature. Indeed, these are more important than Afghan peace and stability. In fact, an unstable Afghanistan is instrumental to all those. If there were stability in that country, then US would have no excuse to stay there, thus would miss its real objectives to counter the challenges, facing it. US challenges are indeed, a threat to its global status of being the sole super power in the coming decades. Therefore, U.S is here in the region to take timely counter measures against those strategic threats. In fact, these extensions through either Lisbon Summit or now Bonn Conference until 2024 are for the persuasion of those real objectives.
On one hand, it is facing the economic might of rising China, whereas on the other, there is a resurgent Russia. Otherwise, U.S is in a state of cold war with either of these since last almost one decade. It is countering Chinese economic investments and expansions worldwide by destabilizing those countries and regions where China has made investment in the recent past. Its promised strategic and regional security architecture for East European countries and East Asian countries are aimed against both these countries, to whom it considers a real threat and challenge. Countering Iranian nuclear programme, possession of regional hydrocarbons and denuclearization of Pakistan are other strategic objectives of United States in the region.
Rational Evaluation and Way Forward
Imprecision in US Policies
There exists an element of ambiguity, whether United States would make a long-term stay in Afghanistan or has finally decided to leave this troubled land. Since December 2009, this super power has changed many standpoints about its future strategy in Afghanistan. Starting from July 2011, some of the US troops have already left Afghanistan, indeed, honouring the wishes of White House. The Lisbon Summit of November-2010 gave the timetable of 2014 for the drawdown of NATO forces from Afghanistan. In the International Conference on Afghanistan held in Bonn, Germany on December 5, 2011, the NATO allies decided yet another phase of their engagement in Afghanistan from 2015 to 2024, a ten years period, named as ‘transition to transformation’.
This was a clear indication that this trans-Atlantic alliance would maintain its presence in Afghanistan in some form even after 2014. This indeed was the reinforcement of the US stance, which had not fully agreed with rest of NATO members for a complete drawdown by December 2014 during Lisbon Summit. While debates on the Bonn Summit were still continuing, Mr Leon Panetta, US Defense Secretary, gave an indication that, “United States could wrap up combat operations in Afghanistan by the end of 2013.” This statement from the Pentagon’s head sounds a new orientation in US future Afghan strategy. The parallel developments include US negotiations with Taliban, which indeed are the principal US adversary and the main opposition group in Afghanistan, fighting against US occupation ever since 2001. This obscurity leaves the security and political analysts in conjecture about the true motives of United States and its future line of action in Afghanistan.
The statement of Defence Secretary, Panetta can be viewed in two contexts. First, it is a pacifying effort to give more space for the political engagement of Taliban through negotiations. US view the strategy would bring for it, the much needed stability in Afghanistan, would substantially reduce its military losses (including personnel casualties) and ultimately pave way for its honourable exit from this marshy Afghan soil. Indeed, Taliban’s willingness for talk to US and decision to soften up their fundamental stance that they could only negotiate with US once foreign forces leave Afghan soil, might have prompted change of hearts at Pentagon.
This in fact is a fortification of the Obama’s long awaited wish list too, which was not getting Pentagon’s endorsement earlier. It was one of the election promises, President Obama made in 2008 elections. During election campaigning, Obama promised his people to reduce the US overseas military engagement and would cut the military expenditures, aiming to reduce the strain on over all budget, thus, paving way for the economic progress in United States. It is worth mentioning that, on more than one occasions, Pentagon did not agree to Obama’s policy of reducing the military engagement in Afghanistan and earlier in Iraq too. Unlike Bush Presidency, on many occasions, White House and Pentagon have been on loggerheads and resultantly the former has to backtrack.
Secondly, another group of analysts believe that, this is yet another move of the incumbent guards of the White House to bring a success for President Obama in the forthcoming elections, to run his second term for another four years in the White House. The strategy indeed is a green light, for the US people that the earlier promises have either been fulfilled or in the process of their completion. The classical realists however feel that to them it looks like that economic condition of United States’ would not be able to sustain overseas wars like Afghanistan for a longer duration.
Perhaps, President Obama and his colleagues have been able to sell this reality to Pentagon and CIA. The realist’s school of thought also feels that, it is about time that, United States should extricate itself from such pitched battles before Afghanistan proves another Vietnam for United States. Else, the economic meltdown of US coupled with around $700 billion military budget, forming 43 percent of the global military expenditures, may force this super power to meet the fate of former Soviet Union. Incidentally, the battleground is the same, the Afghan soil, historically known as the ‘graveyard of empires’.
Safety of Afghan Masses and Respecting its Traditions
Military offensives, resulting into killing of innocent Afghans, humiliation of Afghan dead bodies and desecrating of Holy Quran in an Islamic Republic cannot go side by side with a reconciliation process. Some of the recent acts of ISAF are really a set back to the reconciliation process. Through these acts US indeed is adding difficulties for it and increasing its enemies too. Through these acts, particularly after the desecration of the Holy Quran, there have been wide spread demonstrations throughout in Afghanistan, killing dozens of Afghan protestors, besides two NATO soldiers. Before Afghan public sentiments transformed into an Afghan National Resistance Movement, United States must bring a change in the attitudes of its troops deployed in that country.
As tangible measures, night raids and military offensive must be stopped forthwith. There must be restoration of respect for the Afghan masses and their traditions. Apology from President Obama and ISAF Commander in Afghanistan over the desecration of Holy Quran may not be enough. Those responsible for this act must be publically punished and the conspiracy must be investigated for the satisfaction of Afghan people. Else, it would be considered as if US desires instability in Afghanistan and this negotiation with Taliban is another strategy for creating acceptability for its stay there.
A Transparent Future Course of Action
For a stable Afghanistan, US must bring clarity in its approach and attitude towards Afghan future. In the first instance, this super power must have a precision whether to support or otherwise, the reconciliation process among the various groups in Afghanistan. If U.S and its NATO partners want peace and stability in Afghanistan, they must encourage an Afghan led political reconciliation process, rather itself engaging with few Taliban, thousands of miles away from Afghan soil. An indigenous Afghan led political reconciliation process taking on board all Afghan factions including Taliban would ensure durable peace in Afghanistan. In the subsequent process other stakeholders like; U.S, Pakistan and geographically contiguous regional countries, should be consulted too. However, the entire process should be Afghan owned with Afghan people at its lead role without discriminating any group or faction.
Sticking to Drawdown Plan
Surely, an immediate switching off the lights and moving out in haste from this war torn and internally unstable country is not the solution of Afghan imbroglio. However, the agreed drawdown schedule of December 2014 must be followed strictly by ISAF. Before moving out as per this agreed timetable, US need to ensure all actions necessary for the internal and external stability of Afghanistan. This includes integration of all Afghan factions into a national Government as per their share in power at Kabul, according to their population ration. There should be no physical involvement of US and NATO forces during the so-called decade of ‘transition to transformation’. Afghans must be allowed to stand on their own feet, rather then foreign crutches anymore.
Curtailing Foreign Involvement
As a result of Afghan reconciliations, in the post US era, Afghans should be the master of their destiny. No other country thereafter should be allowed to play politics in the domestic affairs of Afghanistan. Until now, India has a dominant role in Afghanistan, especially in the garb of reconstruction and many other financial assistance schemes. It is quite likely that, in the post US Afghanistan, India would play its old game of fuelling the infighting between Pashtuns and Northern Alliance. All extra regional countries including India should be asked to give way to indigenous Afghan stakeholders, by packing off from that country. US has otherwise realised that, Indian presence in Afghanistan is a source of tension for its neighbour, Pakistan. In case of Indian presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan will have its apprehensions about its security; therefore, Afghan soil will become a centre of proxy wars between Indian and Pakistan.
Recognition for the Pakistani Sufferance
US authorities and Afghans acknowledge that Pakistan has made very significant contributions towards Afghan. Besides, accusations, General Petraeus at times acknowledged Pakistani role during entire campaign and said, “Pakistan is in a tough fight. One of its fights, by the way, is to keep our lines of communication open.”liv Indeed, Afghanistan and Pakistan are part of same society; hence, in the Afghan endgame, Pakistani contributions should not be relegated to accommodate the interests of others. Pakistan’s solemn effort is to establish peace and stability followed by economic prosperity in Afghanistan. “Pakistan cannot wish anything for Afghanistan, which it does not wish for itself.” Indeed, the roots of the current internal instability in Pakistan can be traced to the prolonged instability in Afghanistan. Once Afghanistan stabilises, Pakistan would be stabilized automatically.
Supremacy of Afghan National Interests
It is interesting to note that all the players involved in the affairs of Afghanistan claim that they are working to bring peace and stability in that country, nevertheless, they all keep their own interests well above the interests of Afghan people. Foreign actors on divergent axis further enhance the complexity of the situation when the national interests of these countries collide with each other and that is where Afghan people suffer the most due to mistrust, broken promises, and ill coordinated and disjointed efforts. However, it needs to be re-evaluated, whether increase in the level of troops, followed by military operations, and imposition of democratic norms, alien to Afghan people having contradiction from age-old tribal system and western type economic reforms had brought any change in the lives of Afghan masses.
Conclusion
In its primitive history, Europe has undergone a series of wars for centuries. However, the “Thirty years war” from 1618-1648 has of unique significance. This bloody war forced the European wisdom to reconcile. They sat together and found a way-out from the continued infightings. Their reconciliation brought them to a treaty, which in the history known as the “Treaty of Westphalia”. Historically Afghanistan has been a region of great turbulence, where wars and infightings have been the order of the day. Like thirty years war of Europe, this great civilizational country, has faced a mix of foreign invasions and infightings for more than thirty years now, in its recent history.
The days, months and years may be different, but the sufferings are similar to ‘European Thirty Years’. Today, after 364 years of Westphalia, the world is more civilized and aware, thus why cannot we find another treaty specific to this nation state, which externally can guarantee Afghanistan its sovereignty and internally, ensure peace and stability. Why the war wagers of the same cannot civilize Europe, ensure sovereignty of this country, end their occupation to let Afghan exercise their wish, and will. Apart from their safety and security Afghans want that their traditional and religious values and Afghan customs and culture to be respected by all. After all, why they should be deprived of their basic rights, enunciated in the UN Charter of this highly civilized world?
In summary, conflicts and war is no more the solution of the issue. It is only through the reconciliation and reintegration of the Taliban and other Afghan factions into the mainstream would provide a long lasting solution to the issue. ISAF could not win over the Taliban and other militants, therefore, political solution rather military action deems significant for a durable peace in Afghanistan. On their part NATO and U.S can no more afford sending coffins of their soldiers back home. In fact the Taliban insurgency and infighting neither suits Afghan Government nor to the ISAF. Pakistan, visualizes a peaceful, stable, and economically affluent Afghanistan. It also wishes the Afghanistan freed from the foreign interferences and forays with an ethnically cohesive society. The wish for a stable Afghanistan is the collective voice of 180 million people of Pakistan. They can no more see their Afghan Brethren in a state of melancholy.
Endnotes
1. iBarry Turner,ed, The Statesman’s Yearbook-2011, The Politics, Cultures and Economies of the World, 147th Edition, Palgrave Macmillan England-February 2011.
2. Ibid.
3. The World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency, can be accessed at; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html
4. Ibid.
5. National Joint Youth Programme, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Annual Report -2008. Can be accessed at; http://www.undp.org.af/whoweare/undpinafghanistan/Projects/dcse/prj_youth.htm
6. Dutch Government Collapses over Afghan Mission, Daily Dawn, February 20, 2010.
7. War Crime Case against Tony Blair Now Rock-solid, The First Post, December 14, 2009.Can be accessed at; http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57361,news-comment,news-politics,war-crime-case-against-tony-blair-is-now-rock-solid
8. How can Pakistan Stop Indian Terror against it, The Dawn, April 22, 2010.
9. Andrew Small, China’s Cautions on Afghanistan-Pakistan, The Washington Quarterly, July 2010.
10. Ibid.
11. M K Bhadrakumar, Russia Stops US on Road to Afghanistan, Asia Times, January 27, 2009.
12. Paul D’Amato, U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil, International Socialist Review Issue 15, December 2000-January 2001. http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml
13. Rahul Bedi, The Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before the 9/11 Attacks, BBC – American government told other governments about Afghan invasion in July 2001. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html?q=preplanned.html.
14. Steve Coll, Ghost Wars; the Secret History of CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, the Penguin Press, New York-2004.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Mark E. Manyin, Michael John Garcia, Wayne M. Morrison, U.S. Accession to ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), Congressional Research Service, May 5, 2009.
19. Saurav Jha, Why a US-Vietnam Nuclear Deal? The Diplomat, September 15, 2010.
20. Manuel Mogato, U.S. Military Seeks more Access in Philippines, not bases, Reuter, February 2012. Reuters, February 9, 2012, 9:20 pm.
21. William J. Lahneman, Military Intervention: Cases in Context in Twenty-First Century, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, USA(Lanham)-2004
22. Ibid.
23. Eric Watkins, BTC pipeline throughput increasing in 2011, Oil and Gas Journal, Jun 4, 2010.
24. COMISAF’s Initial Assessment, General Stanley Mac Crystal, August 30, 2009.
25. General Calls for More U.S. Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure, the New York Times, September 20, 2009.
26. Ibid.
27. Tens of thousands of Afghan refugees go back home with UN support, UN News Centre, June 21, 2010.
28. Riz Khan, “Operation Mushtarak”, Aljazeera.net, February 18, 2010.
29. Ibid.
30. Imtiaz Gul, A New Understanding for the U.S. and Pakistan? Foreign Policy Magazine, February 10, 2010.
31. Ibid.
32. Baqir Sajjad Syed, PM urges Afghan Taliban, other groups to join peace process Dawn, February 25, 2012.
33. Ibid.
34. Karzai invites Taliban leaders for direct talks, The News International, February 22, 2012.
35. Ibid.
36. Estelle Shirbon and Alison Williams, Pakistan vows to support not lead Afghan peace drive, Reuters, February 22, 2012.
37. Ibid.
38. Financial Times, January 25, 2010.
39. Ibid.
40. Paul Reynolds, Aims of London Conference on Afghanistan, BBC News, January 28, 2010.
41. iIbid.
42. Selig S. Harrison, A Smart Pashtun Play; Why Washington Should Back Karazai, Newsweek, July 12, 2010.
43. Paul Pillar, The Great Debate: Is Afghanistan the Right War, The National Interest, Mar/Apr 2010:
44. Operation Marjah, Foreign Policy, February 17, 2010. Can be accessed at; http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/17/operation_marjah.
45. Pakistan’s Afghan settlement efforts ‘useful’, The News International, Jun 29, 2010.
46. Ibid.
47. On General Petraeus’ Confirmation, CDI Centre for Defense Information, July 6, 2010. http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4617&from_page=../index.cfm
48. Ibid.
49. Petraeus stresses Pak role in Afghan reconciliation, the News International, June 30, 2010.
