Current Projects

Hekmatyar’s Homecoming

Is this a time for jubilation, apprehension or assorted thoughts? It depends on how you look at it. Whatever the case, it is surely going to be a topsy-turvy ride. There’s finally something to cheer for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. He, at last, seems to have the last laugh. He’s been envisioning negotiations with the insurgent outfits in Afghanistan for long and the time may finally have come. Last week, the UN Security Council lifted the sanctions against Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of Hizb-e-Islami Afghanistan (HIA). The political astuteness and level of perspicacity that the Afghan government is going to display will determine the future outcome. Will these latest turn of events be the precursor for change in Afghanistan? Can this move serve as a curtain-raiser for a peaceful bilateral relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Will the militants be allowed to come into the national foray? And will it be prudent enough to do so, anyway? Any attempt to dig deep and discover what transpired in the past might not help in providing answers to these questions. It is time to delve into what lies in the future. First, there might be no backing off this time around. Hekmatyar’s decision to reach an agreement with Kabul may serve as a vestibule of peace deals in the region. The HIA chief and the former prime minister has always been an influential figure and, of late, has burnished his credentials as a peacemaker. The discord between Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah continues to hog the limelight. At this stage, it remains to be seen how both the stalwarts of the Afghan government will work this one out. However, there is also a downside to the recent brouhaha: if the government fails to implement the agreement in its entirety, the backlash could be as severe as it can get. As a result, the divisions within the central government in Afghanistan on the peace deal can alter the security apparatus drastically. The ramifications could therefore be devastating. Second,...

Expanded Afghan Talks – a Positive Move

The Russian government will shortly be hosting six-nation talks on Afghanistan. The participants will include Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and India. According to Russian Foreign Minister, high-level participation from these countries has already been confirmed. Given the existing rivalries and divergent policies of these six nations regarding instability in Afghanistan, the development has assumed exceptional significance. Would the outcome go beyond reiterating pious hopes, tired clichés and nice diplomatic rhetoric? There are hardly any tangible reasons to anticipate regional consensus essential to sustain Afghan national reconciliation process. China, Russia and Pakistan have been claiming to promote Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process. But their conflicting practices and methods have so far led to nullifying efforts to secure peace and stability in Afghanistan. Obviously, Russia and China are the primary movers for the expanded talks. Moscow is concerned about rise of ISIS and apprehends an imminent threat from around 2000 ISIS Russian veterans fleeing from Syria. It has increased its contact with Taliban as the latter could neutralize ISIS. At the same time, it supports the Afghan government’s reconciliation process but wants the Afghan government to accept Taliban as political force. China is a major regional power, which has high stakes in the success of the proposed Moscow talks. Chinese are concerned about ISIS and its growing influence on Chinese Uighurs fighting against NATO forces and Afghan government. They fear that trained and motivated Uighurs may return to Xinjiang, fuelling new traction in the existing instability there. If Pakistan is the invisible pusher for the meeting, its interest is understandable. After Afghanistan, Pakistan is the direct major affecttee of the Afghan imbroglio. Its priority is to regain the lost trust and confidence of both Taliban and the Afghan government. Technically the...

'No End in Sight' – Does Trump Silence on Afghanistan Indicate Extension of War?

The United Nations mission in Afghanistan said that last week US airstrikes killed at least 18 civilians, most of them women children, days after the US commander there called for thousands of additional troops. The US airstrikes came amid a widening battle between US-backed Afghan soldiers and the Taliban in Helmand province, the area that suffered the most civilian casualties in the country in 2016. In an interview with Radio Sputnik Ben Norton, a journalist for AlterNet's GrayZone Project, pointed out that the tragic events are by no means a single example of disregard for Afghan civilian lives by the US. Norton recalled October 2015 when US-led NATO forces bombed a hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders, killing dozens of medical staff members and patients. The analyst stressed that since 2012, the US mission in Afghanistan has documented a gradual increase in civilian casualties. "Of course, since 2001 when the war began there have been frequent civilian casualties. The point is, in the past four or five years they have actually increased each year" He said during the broadcast. "In 2016, 6000 civilians were injured and more than 2500 were killed." The war in Afghanistan surpassed the Vietnam war and became the longest official war in the US history. According to Norton, the worst part about it is that it has not actually liberated the country from the Taliban but rather let the movement's influence grow. "The irony is, the Taliban were incredibly unpopular in 2001 when the US war began, and since then, in some places their popularity has actually increased, and this is what war does." He said. Despite multiple pledges by the former US president Barack Obama that he would end the war by 2014, he ended up expanding it, with thousands being killed on annual basis, and "there does not appear to be end in sight", according to Norton. "Last October we entered the 16th year and there's almost no discussion of it." Norton said. "It was not mentioned at all...

‘No End in Sight’ – Does Trump Silence on Afghanistan Indicate Extension of War?

The United Nations mission in Afghanistan said that last week US airstrikes killed at least 18 civilians, most of them women children, days after the US commander there called for thousands of additional troops. The US airstrikes came amid a widening battle between US-backed Afghan soldiers and the Taliban in Helmand province, the area that suffered the most civilian casualties in the country in 2016. In an interview with Radio Sputnik Ben Norton, a journalist for AlterNet's GrayZone Project, pointed out that the tragic events are by no means a single example of disregard for Afghan civilian lives by the US. Norton recalled October 2015 when US-led NATO forces bombed a hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders, killing dozens of medical staff members and patients. The analyst stressed that since 2012, the US mission in Afghanistan has documented a gradual increase in civilian casualties. "Of course, since 2001 when the war began there have been frequent civilian casualties. The point is, in the past four or five years they have actually increased each year" He said during the broadcast. "In 2016, 6000 civilians were injured and more than 2500 were killed." The war in Afghanistan surpassed the Vietnam war and became the longest official war in the US history. According to Norton, the worst part about it is that it has not actually liberated the country from the Taliban but rather let the movement's influence grow. "The irony is, the Taliban were incredibly unpopular in 2001 when the US war began, and since then, in some places their popularity has actually increased, and this is what war does." He said. Despite multiple pledges by the former US president Barack Obama that he would end the war by 2014, he ended up expanding it, with thousands being killed on annual basis, and "there does not appear to be end in sight", according to Norton. "Last October we entered the 16th year and there's almost no discussion of it." Norton said. "It was not mentioned at all...

Sabawoon Showcase – February 14, 2016

Regional Review of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) The latest episode of Da Simay Jaaj (regional review) discussed several public issues from KP and FATA regions such as the problems faced by local government representatives, communication and infrastructural development, and issuance of identity cards in different parts of KP. The show also contained reports on: Resignation of district nazim Kohat due to conflict among political parties and its impacts on the performance of local government. Problems faced by people of Kurram Agency because of the absence of National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) office. The issue of banning 3G service on cellphones throughout FATA over the last few months. Commencement of a television course in Journalism and Mass Communication department of Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, and the prospects for students to peruse their careers in television journalism. Negative impacts of two-year old ban on marble industry in Mohmand Agency by political administration. Callers Response: Four live callers participated in the program. They talked about issues of their respective areas and urged the local government representatives and political administration to address them accordingly. About Sabawoon Sabawoon airs in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). It is designed to highlight the local issues and promote the fundamental governance values, such as democracy, rule of law, women’s rights, and equal citizenry. The show airs Monday through Thursday every week under four themes on FM-101.5 Peshawar and Dera Ismail Khan 711 KHZ from 3:20 PM to 4:00 PM. On Monday, Jarga Maraka covers current affairs and important regional issues with an input from government and other senior officials. On Tuesday, Da Simay Jaaj gives an overview of the top stories from KP and FATA regions. Jwandai Jazbey airs on Wednesday and deals with issues of relevance to, and...

Aberrations and Terrorism

Nearly 70 years into existence, Pakistan remains stymied with various aberrations such as Fata, the judicial interventions in social affairs of the citizens, and the state’s indirect support — both political and financial to organisations that are directly or otherwise complicit in promoting and practising terror or extremism. Fata is one of those abnormalities that the military establishment and the civilian ruling elites had until recently exploited for narrowly-defined national security and political objectives. The overwhelming desire that we could discern through a national advocacy campaign — both on print and electronic media — in recent years weighed in support of Fata’s integration with the mainland. That is why all of us have been looking forward to the implementation of the draft reforms that the Sartaj Aziz committee had come up with. Fortunately, most of the stakeholders embraced the proposals as the first big step towards Fata’s integration, largely into the K-P province. But some politicians including Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Mehmood Achakzai appear to have played as spoilers. Despite the massive public and political support, these two have continued to drag their feet and openly resisting certain proposals. Ironic indeed, that both enjoy the fruits of parliamentary democracy with their near and dear ones enjoying prestigious positions within the government and parliament, while they object to a framework which promises to finally treat people in Fata as equal citizens. This court order stands out as a blatant violation of the Article 8 of the constitution (Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void). It also flouts the Articles 14 (Inviolability of dignity of man, etc), Article 20 (Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions) subject to law, public order and morality. The same article says that (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b) every...

Sabawoon Showcase – February 13, 2017

Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) Reforms Bill and its Merger with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) The latest episode of Jarga Maraka (debate and council) discussed the FATA reforms bill, merger of FATA with KP and the way forward for an independent province of FATA. Other points of discussion included the implementation of Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) and its negative impact on the people of FATA, grand Jirga of locals for reforms in FATA, stance of different political parties to mainstream FATA, referendum for FATA, merits and demerits of FATA as an independent province, peace and economic stability, available resources and its utilization, and prevailing conditions of education in the region. Mr. Iqbal Afridi, member of Executive Committee of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Mufti Ijaz, General Secretary Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F) FATA, were the in-studio guests while Mr. Shahab Uddin Khan, member of the National Assembly from Bajour Agency, shared his views through live call. Mr. Afridi said: “FATA should be merged with KP because there is no possibility of FATA becoming independent. Each agency is lying far away from the others. In such case, it is not possible to establish a central point wherefrom all agencies can be handled.” Mr. Ijaz said: “We should give FATA the status of an independent province so that its people have control over their own resources.” A radio report shared details of FATA grand alliance meeting that was held few days back in Islamabad. Five live callers participated in the show. They urged upon the federal government and legislators to streamline FATA and get rid of the draconian law of FCR. About Sabawoon Sabawoon airs in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). It is designed to highlight the local issues and promote the fundamental governance values, such as democracy, rule of law, women’s rights, and equal citizenry. The show airs Monday through Thursday every week under four themes on FM-101.5...

Top U.S. General: ISIS is Losing Ground in Afghanistan

The Islamic State group in Afghanistan has lost considerable turf in the war-torn nation over the last year. The terrorist organization has fallen from a height of controlling 11 districts in Nangarhar province to just a few, according to Gen. John Nicholson, the U.S. commander overseeing operations in Afghanistan. Operating primarily out of southern Nangarhar province, ISIS’ primary goal has been the creation of a caliphate in Afghanistan, with Jalalabad as its capital. “This was their aspiration, but they failed to achieve it.” Nicholson told lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Since authorities were granted to begin striking ISIS targets, the U.S. has conducted several major operations alongside Afghan forces, according to Nicholson. Those operations have had success pushing ISIS into only a small handful of districts and reducing their “geographic space,” he said. “We believe we've reduced their total end strength to less than 1,000 remaining in Afghanistan,” said Capt. William Salvin, a spokesman for the train, advise, assist mission in Afghanistan. However, ISIS is still a potent force with the ability to launch deadly suicide attacks in Kabul, Nicholson told senators. “They have attacked Shia targets, primarily. They attacked at a peaceful demonstration, they've attacked at Shia mosques, they've attacked on Shia religious holidays,” Nicholson explained. Further complicating efforts to combat Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan is the sudden involvement of Russia in the Afghan conflict. Claiming to support the Taliban as a counter to ISIS expansion in the region, Nicholson sees a more nefarious objective from the Kremlin. “I think it's to undermine the United States and NATO," Nicholson said when asked by Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., about Russian intentions in the region. “This narrative that they promote is that the Taliban are fighting Islamic State and the Afghan government is not as fighting Islamic State and that therefore there could be spillover of...

The New Battle for Afghanistan

Despite questions about the ongoing war in Afghanistan, President Trump has so far chosen silence over substance. But perhaps it doesn’t matter, as an illuminating exchange that took place before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week all but guaranteed what his policy will be. Trump’s approach to Afghanistan will no doubt involve more American troops, more aggressive activity on the ground, and a less definite schedule for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces. In other words, don’t expect a big shakeup of the status quo. Perhaps the most notable change is that the military won’t try to have it both ways, keeping soldiers in the country while telegraphing meaningless “timetables” for an exit. This appears to be the result of letting those in uniform—or in the case of new Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the recently retired—make the tough calls. Mattis oversaw Afghanistan from 2010 to 2013 as the leader of U.S. Central Command, and he has already signaled he will not waver on the American commitment. The new homeland-security secretary, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commanded forces in Iraq and also lost his son, a Marine who died while serving his third tour in Afghanistan; he, too, obviously feels there is unfinished business there. As for Congress, most members fall into one of two mindsets—unflinching resolve to increase the U.S. footprint, or resignation that there is no other way. And the president? While at first blush it might look like Trump only has the bandwidth for his oft-stated goal of “eradicating radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth,” his generals—with the help of the most hawkish senators on Capitol Hill—are making sure that Afghanistan is considered part of that fight. So it did not escape notice when Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, packaged the mission as an urgent priority that ultimately Trump would have to embrace. Speaking to senators last week, Nicholson said staying in...

The New Battle for Afghanistan

Despite questions about the ongoing war in Afghanistan, President Trump has so far chosen silence over substance. But perhaps it doesn’t matter, as an illuminating exchange that took place before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week all but guaranteed what his policy will be. Trump’s approach to Afghanistan will no doubt involve more American troops, more aggressive activity on the ground, and a less definite schedule for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces. In other words, don’t expect a big shakeup of the status quo. Perhaps the most notable change is that the military won’t try to have it both ways, keeping soldiers in the country while telegraphing meaningless “timetables” for an exit. This appears to be the result of letting those in uniform—or in the case of new Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the recently retired—make the tough calls. Mattis oversaw Afghanistan from 2010 to 2013 as the leader of U.S. Central Command, and he has already signaled he will not waver on the American commitment. The new homeland-security secretary, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commanded forces in Iraq and also lost his son, a Marine who died while serving his third tour in Afghanistan; he, too, obviously feels there is unfinished business there. As for Congress, most members fall into one of two mindsets—unflinching resolve to increase the U.S. footprint, or resignation that there is no other way. And the president? While at first blush it might look like Trump only has the bandwidth for his oft-stated goal of “eradicating radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth,” his generals—with the help of the most hawkish senators on Capitol Hill—are making sure that Afghanistan is considered part of that fight. So it did not escape notice when Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, packaged the mission as an urgent priority that ultimately Trump would have to embrace. Speaking to senators last week, Nicholson said staying in...