Current Projects
Beyond Perceptions
The euphoria is swelling in our military circles that Pakistan has finally reached a point in its diplomacy where it has started weaning away the Russian Federation from its strategic partner India. On the face value, the swell seems justified but not to the extent that Pakistan would replace India ever for Russia. The Russia- Pakistan interdependence is imbalanced and marginal, nowhere nearing the partnership witnessed between India and Russia. At best, recent warm up can be deemed as necessary adjustments to advance respective national interest. The volatile developments in the region will continue to ensure that such adjustments should dominate their relations. How far Russia moves from its cold war ally inversely depends how far India deepens its ties with US in areas where Russia directly feels threatened or isolated globally. That stage has not come yet. The first positive readjustment came when in 2014 Russia agreed to sell arms to Pakistan including four Russian-made Mi-35M attack helicopters to be delivered in 2017 to Pakistan’s military. Then, in September 2016, the Russian Federation ignored the Indian protests and held its first joint military exercise (Friendship -2016) in September - October 2016 at the Special Forces Training Centre (Cherat in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa). Not only, Russia ignored the Indian protests, it decided to hold the Second joint exercise in 2017. In 2016, the Russian Kalashnikov Concern participated in the trials for a main new assault rifle for Pakistan’s infantry. These developments caused speculations of possible deals regarding Su-35 and Su-37 aircrafts, and even air-defence systems. Media reported Russian investment ($2 billion) for the proposed natural gas pipeline agreement with Islamabad. In early December, Russia came to Pakistan’s rescue at the Heart of Asia Conference when the Indian Prime Minister and the Afghan President used very offensive language against Pakistan. Russian special envoy to Afghanistan Mr. Zamir...
Afghanistan and The New World Order
As Donald Trump takes oath as the 45th President of the US, history seems to be going full circle in one part of the world. The enemies of yesteryear are cosying up to one another and allies of yesterday are embracing estrangement, if not outright hostility over Afghanistan. The display of shifting sands was witnessed in Moscow on December 27, 2016, where Chinese and Pakistani officials huddled with their Russian hosts. The mooting point was Afghanistan, whose government was not invited. A joint statement, issued after the dialogue, expressed support for talks with the Afghan Taliban and concern over the spread of the Islamic State (IS). The Moscow huddle added one new element to the complicated Afghan chessboard — a reassertive Russia in Afghanistan. Russia admitted its outreach to Taliban last December, and who welcomed the Moscow talks. Three reasons are being ascribed to its new Afghan strategy — to maintain stability in Afghanistan, check proliferation of drug trafficking and to defeat the IS. Taliban consider the IS as a rival and have been fighting it. Russians seem to be following a familiar game plan — change the dynamics of a conflict in its favour through muscular diplomacy and hard military power. It deployed this strategy in Syria and in Crimea before that. It is embracing disenchanted global and regional players — Iran and Turkey in Syria, and China and Pakistan over Afghanistan. Moscow is also reaching out to Iran to join its initiative on Afghanistan, while Afghans, following their public displeasure, are also likely to be invited to the next meeting. Russia is expecting to become a dominant player in the Afghan conflict just like in Syria. In Syria, Moscow’s involvement transformed President Bashar al-Assad government’s shrinking writ over the areas under opposition control into new military gains in cities like Aleppo. It tamed the Western and Arab-backed opposition to a compromise ceasefire on the one hand and the West’s military support to...
Sabawoon Showcase: Performance of the Right to Information (RTI) Commission in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP)
January 16, 2017, Peshawar: The latest episode of Sabawoon[i], flagship radio program of Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), focused on the performance of the KP’s RTI Act and its Commission. The central discussion points included the need for the RTI Act and Commission to ensure timely delivery of public services in KP, improvement of governance and accountability mechanism through the Act and review of important sections of the Act. Moreover, the program highlighted the lack of awareness about the Act and Commission’s role and the extension of the Act to Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) of Pakistan. The program was aired under the theme of Jarga Marrakka (debate and council) on Monday. Mr. Azmat Hanif Orakzai, Chief Commissioner RTI Commission KP Peshawar, and Mr. Aziz Buneri, a Peshawar based journalist, were the studio guests. A radio report shared statistics about the performance of KP’s RTI Commission. Five callers took live part in the program. They urged government to extend the RTI Act to both FATA and PATA. Mr. Orakzai said: “In addition to its own efforts, RTI Commission has full time liaison with other departments to help public and make the commission work more effectively.” Sabawoon airs Monday through Thursday on FM-101.5 Peshawar & DI Khan 711 KHZ from 3:20 PM to 4:00 PM. [i] Sabawoon is a flagship radio program by CRSS in the KP/FATA region, designed to highlight local issues, and promote fundamental global values such as women’s rights, rule of law, equal citizenry, democracy, governance and accountability. It airs four times a week, under four themes. On Monday, Jarga Marrakka covers current affairs and issues, coupled with government and other senior officials. On Tuesday, Da Semi Jaaj gives a holistic regional overview of the most important stories across the length and breadth of KP/FATA. On Wednesday, Jwandai Jazbey covers issues most important to youth, students...
How to Win in Afghanistan
Fifteen years, thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars later, the United States has failed to meet most of its key objectives in Afghanistan. Mission failed. Now what? Our current approach, if allowed to continue, guarantees a chaotic future for Afghanistan and an open door for radical Islamists in Central Asia. Such a state of affairs would herald a major strategic defeat for the United States. Islamists ultimately seek to seize control in both Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and then expand into Central Asia. A debacle in Afghanistan means we may face another global conflict. Turkey has morphed into an Islamic state, and the Gulf states are financing radical Sunni terror groups meant to encircle and contain the mullahs in Iran—including extremists in Afghanistan. Will the Islamists achieve their objectives? No, and we do not want to find out. They need to be defeated now, while the situation is still manageable. An alternative strategy can avert a strategic catastrophe later. Our incompetent efforts at Afghan nation building rest on three shaky pillars that need to be rethought: Highly centralized political decisionmaking. Pashtun control of the overly powerful central government, the national police and the Afghan National Army. Excessive deference to Pakistan’s interests and policies in Afghanistan and the region. This flawed scheme has its roots in the key events of modern Afghan history: the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (in response to the 9/11 attacks) and the subsequent December 2001 Bonn Agreement to reconstitute the Afghan state structure following the war. With the defeat of the Taliban, the United States and the UN imposed Afghanistan’s first president Hamid Karzai—a Pashtun—on the Afghan people against their will. Later, during a December 2002 constitutional convention in Kabul, the United States and the “international community” forced Afghans to accept centralized governance despite much internal resistance. After Karzai’s departure from the...
In Afghanistan, Trump Will Inherit a Costly Stalemate And Few Solutions
For President Obama, the war in Afghanistan has been a matter of profound ambivalence — a strategic necessity and an unmistakable burden. He has talked about the United States’ interest in preventing the country from ever becoming a sanctuary for global terrorists. Just as often, he has spoken of ending the war and the limits of American military power, money, patience and time. Nearly eight years after Obama began his presidency with a long and contentious Afghanistan strategy review, he is leaving behind for President-elect Donald Trump a war that reflects his divided outlook. By most measures, the conflict is a stalemate. Afghan troops are fighting hard, but “the casualty rate is much higher than we would have hoped,” a senior defense official recently told reporters. Taliban forces are taking territory from the U.S.-backed government, but have not been able to seize and hold any major cities or towns. “Clearly the situation is getting worse, but not to the extent that you see the Taliban winning or the Afghan government is clearly failing,” said Andrew Wilder, a vice president and Afghanistan expert at the United States Institute of Peace. The United States’ longest and most expensive war — with the largest U.S. troop presence in a combat zone — was mostly absent from the presidential campaign. On the rare occasions Trump has spoken about Afghanistan, he has sounded as conflicted as his predecessor. Trump has said the fight against extremist groups is his foreign policy priority. But he also has said that he wants to get the United States out of the nation-building business. “I would stay in Afghanistan,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Channel this year. “I hate doing it. I hate doing it so much. But again, you have nuclear weapons in Pakistan, so I would do it.” Not long after his election, Trump and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani discussed the U.S. military’s counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan, the Taliban’s cross-border havens in Pakistan,...
Analysis: Iran’s Game Plan in Afghanistan
Since the nuclear agreement between Iran and 5+1 countries was signed in July 2015 and the economic sanctions were eased, Iran has become even more aggressive in pursuing its radical and hegemonic policies in the region. Its military advances in Syria, the ascendance of the pro-Hezbollah candidate to Presidency in Lebanon and the military dominance of its proxy militias in Iraq that form the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) have further emboldened Iran. As a result, it has increased its support to Yemeni rebels and radical Shiite groups in Bahrain. Simultaneously, the neighboring Afghanistan has emerged as Iran’s next target to expand its influence and shape its future. In order to implement its long-term strategy in Afghanistan, Iran has increased its military support to Taliban and at the same time, counts on its own militia proxy, the Fatemiyoun Division which is made up of Afghan Shiites which was founded by Revolutionary Guards in 2013 to fight in Syria. This battle-experienced force is estimated to have more than 15,000 members and could potentially be used as an important tool to secure Iranian influence in Afghanistan. Iran and Taliban Iranian support to Taliban became more apparent in May 2016 when the group’s top leader, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour was killed by US drone attack in Pakistan as he was returning from Iran. Jahan News, an Iranian outlet close to the Revolutionary Guards, confirmed that he had stayed in Iran for two months prior to his death and had meetings with Iranian officials. In May 2015, an Iranian news websites tied to the Revolutionary Guards reported that a Taliban delegation visited Iran and several editorials have been published in governmental press to justify Iran’s support to Taliban. On December 12, 2016, Iran’s ambassador to Kabul, Mohammad Reza Behrami, told Tasnim News that “Iran maintains contacts with the Taliban for control and intelligence purposes”. According to a report published by Wall Street Journal on June 11,...
Afghanistan: Returnee Crisis Situation (January 12, 2017)
Highlights - In 2016, almost 620,000 undocumented returnees (249,832) and registered refugees (370,102) returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan. The overwhelming majority – 93% (577,454) – returned since July. - In the last month, no registered refugees have returned following the winter pause in UNHCR’s repatriation programme. Undocumented returns have also slowed, with 2,243 arriving between 1 and 10 January. - CHF partners NCRO and Relief International commenced cash distributions for food and shelter to 4,763 undocumented returnees in Behsud, Jalalabad and Sorkhrod districts on 27 December 2016 following extensive coordination to avoid de-duplication with other partners. Cash for winter assistance provided by AfghanAid to 1,847 undocumented returnees started on 5 January 2017, along with post distribution monitoring supported by members of the OCHA Humanitarian Financing Unit. -Reports of two groups of mixed returnee families settling in camp-like situations in Gamberi (500) and Khairokahil (300) districts in Laghman province are being followed up by partners with an inter-agency assessment planned for 15 January. To date, provincial authorities in Laghman have prevented the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those settled in Khairokhail, while only mobile health services, emergency latrines and water trucking (the latter of which stopped on 15 December) has been provided to those in Gamberi. Initial visits to both sites indicates that returnees are living in makeshift shelter and in need of winterisation support. - Following a sudden surge in pediatric admissions to Nangarhar Regional Hospital in early January – 197 children were admitted within 24 hours – the Department of Public Health (DoPH) has called for urgent additional support in the form of beds, equipment, personnel and medical supplies. While temporary measures have been put in place to ease overcrowding, including the allocation of a portion of the casualty ward to accommodate an extra 30-40...
A US Report Says Afghanistan Forces Still Aren’t Ready To Secure The Nation Alone
A U.S. report published last week suggests Afghan forces are still not capable of securing the country by itself, which puts it at risk of once again becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups. The report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR) lists high-risk areas for the nation, including corruption, limited capabilities of security forces and a lack of sustainability. A U.S. report published last week suggests Afghan forces are still not capable of securing the country by itself, which puts it at risk of once again becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups. The report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR) lists high-risk areas for the nation, including corruption, limited capabilities of security forces and a lack of sustainability. "Reconstructing Afghanistan has been the largest expenditure to rebuild a single country in our nation's history." As of August 2016, 63.4 percent of Afghan districts were under government control, a drop from 72 percent as of fall 2015. The report claims corruption continues to weaken the nation's military and the government's ability to generate popular support against insurgent groups. "A lack of emphasis on planning and developing related strategies means the U.S. military and civilian agencies are at risk of working at cross purposes, spending money on nonessential endeavors, or failing to coordinate efforts in Afghanistan," the report claimed. It also pointed to the still-thriving narcotics industry in Afghanistan. Many terrorist groups are funded by the opium trade. Despite $8.5 billion in counternarcotics efforts, the U.S. has not been able to curb that trade. See full report here. Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are not necessarily supported by CRSS.
A US Report Says Afghanistan Forces Still Aren't Ready To Secure The Nation Alone
A U.S. report published last week suggests Afghan forces are still not capable of securing the country by itself, which puts it at risk of once again becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups. The report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR) lists high-risk areas for the nation, including corruption, limited capabilities of security forces and a lack of sustainability. A U.S. report published last week suggests Afghan forces are still not capable of securing the country by itself, which puts it at risk of once again becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups. The report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR) lists high-risk areas for the nation, including corruption, limited capabilities of security forces and a lack of sustainability. "Reconstructing Afghanistan has been the largest expenditure to rebuild a single country in our nation's history." As of August 2016, 63.4 percent of Afghan districts were under government control, a drop from 72 percent as of fall 2015. The report claims corruption continues to weaken the nation's military and the government's ability to generate popular support against insurgent groups. "A lack of emphasis on planning and developing related strategies means the U.S. military and civilian agencies are at risk of working at cross purposes, spending money on nonessential endeavors, or failing to coordinate efforts in Afghanistan," the report claimed. It also pointed to the still-thriving narcotics industry in Afghanistan. Many terrorist groups are funded by the opium trade. Despite $8.5 billion in counternarcotics efforts, the U.S. has not been able to curb that trade. See full report here. Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are not necessarily supported by CRSS.
The Dilemma Surrounding Afghanistan
The three deadly attacks in Afghanistan on January 11 took the lives of nearly 70 people including five diplomats of the United Arab Emirates at a time when there was a traditional lull in the fighting in winter. But the attacks on the parliament staff in capital Kabul and Helmand, which were claimed by the Taliban and the officials blamed the Taliban for the third in Kandahar, could be seen as Taliban’s tactics to penetrate into highly secured areas and to expose the fragile security. The attacks could also be seen as an attempt by them to mount pressure on the Afghan government and the international community just ahead of the inauguration of Donald Trump who will face the Afghan crisis as one of his foreign policy challenges. Donald Trump will have several options: either to maintain the status quo, send more troops or to reduce the current level of nearly 9,000 American troops, who are part of about 15,000 foreign troops. President Obama, who has left the Afghan problem for Trump, had admitted last month that foreign troops could not eliminate the Taliban. The attacks shattered Afghanistan and the regions soon after senior Chinese, Pakistani and Russian diplomats gathered in Moscow to offer support for the reconciliation between Kabul and the Taliban, besides showing concerns at the emerging threat of the IS from the Afghan soil. The rippling effects of the December 27 trilateral consultation continue to unravel the government and policymakers in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan President’s Deputy Spokesman, Dawa Khan Menapal, told the American Mashaal Radio after the Moscow meeting that Kabul will not accept any decision without its input and advised the countries to deal with the Afghan government tactfully. He was refereeing to the joint statement issued at the conclusion of the meeting in which Russia and China confirmed their “flexible approach to delisting Afghan individuals from the UN sanctions lists as their contribution to the efforts aimed at launching...
TOP STORIES
TESTIMONIALS
“
I am also a member of National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting. Recently, we held a meeting with the Director General of Radio Pakistan and we told them to initiate such local programs (like Constituency Hour) in regional languages to educate and inform people. Even Indian Radio can be heard in FATA which is being used for propaganda purposes and must be closed. Therefore, we should launch some standard and quality programs like CRSS that will change the taste of the listeners.