Current Projects
Need for new Afghan policy
Owing to chequered relations with Afghanistan, Pakistan could never develop a comprehensive Afghan policy. A common perception ran through all governments from 1947 to 1979 that erratic relations could be managed. Firstly, Afghanistan was not considered strong enough to pose any serious threat to Pakistan. Secondly, Indian influence in Kabul was not as lethal as today. Thirdly, Pakistan had the US backing during the Cold War era. Pakistan’s responses to crisis in the relationship, in general, remained casual and reactive, mostly preserving legitimacy of the Durand Line. The Soviet intervention in 1979 awakened the government in Islamabad to realize its folly. Pakistan saw the “buffer” disappearing and a super power assuming the status of a “near neighbor”. Potential challenges were grave. All apprehensions of the “cold bear” reaching warm waters of the Indian Ocean started looking real. It was feared that India under the Indo- Soviet Treaty of 1971 might stir up trouble at the western border to weaken Pakistan watch at its Eastern frontier. This entirely new situation warranted a rethink and resetting of the half-baked Afghan policy to exploit Pakistan’s strategic locational advantage. Large cache of literature exists to explain how and why Pakistan chose to become a front state and an ally of the US against the Soviets. And how in following years till now Afghanistan bled and those who basked in defeating Communists suffered. Their woeful bloody torment never abated, though the Geneva Accord was signed on April 14, 1988. During this turbulent time Pakistan made use of intelligence information, technical assistance, training facilities offered, high tech surveillance equipment received and information exchanged with key allies including US, China, Saudi Arabia, UK etc. to evolve a little more consistent Afghan policy. The salient feature of this embryonic policy, nevertheless, corresponded to Pakistan’s need for stable friendly relations with the government in...
Why has Afghanistan fallen into the abyss?
October 7, this year, marked 15 years of US invasion of Afghanistan and its - still ongoing - war on terror post 9/11 attacks. With little, or no, progress over the years, the situation on ground in Afghanistan remains bleak in terms of security and economy. And with the international media losing its interest in the country and its situation, Afghanistan has fallen into an abyss of insecurity, uncertainty and, above all, chronic corruption. SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction), in its recently published report on ‘Corruption in Conflict: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan’, draws important lessons from the US expenditure and its failures in Afghanistan since 2001. According to this report, unlike common perception, corruption is not only confined to Afghan ruling elite and institutions, but is widespread among the US and European contractors as well. It was further revealed by SIGAR that the corruption was primarily fuelled by influx of billions of US dollars whose oversight was not only faulty, but also dubious. Even after acknowledging - year in year out – that corruption was the biggest problem haunting Afghanistan, political and security goals set by the White House and US military always took the front, with corruption put on the back burner. Since 2001, Afghanistan has constantly remained between the 165th and 180th ranks on global index of corruption. The report further notes that “there is a general consensus that Afghan corruption has swelled to unprecedented levels since Zahir Shah’s overthrow in 1973—and especially after the Taliban regime’s rollback in 2001.” Source: SIGAR, Report 2016. It is a letdown that with such widespread corruption, directly affecting progress in Afghanistan, the US administration opted to ignore the grave nature of the situation. As one senior US official notes: “In a conflict environment, oversight is difficult, but our systems of accountability are also poor. So when you push large...
Blaming Pakistan Not to Solve Afghanistan’s Problems
Yet again Mr Ashraf Ghani, the erstwhile Afghan President, blamed Pakistan for his government’s sinking fortunes. Taking advantage of Indian support at the Heart of Asia conference in Amritsar, he declined Pakistan’s pledged US$500 million for development projects and then added that Afghanistan had suffered the highest number of casualties last year. He apparently blamed Pakistan for the military losses his army has been suffering this year also. To be exact, Mr Ashraf Ghani is ignoring the ground realities.According to one US think-tank’s recent report, the Afghan forces are “incapable of rolling back gains made by a resurgent Taliban over the past several months” without a larger US military presence in the country. Additionally, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, in its quarterly report to the US Congress, stated: “Of the 407 districts within the 34 provinces, 258 districts were under government control (88 districts) or influence (170), 33 districts (in 16 provinces) were under insurgent control (8) or influence (25), and 116 districts were ‘contested.” The report was released on October 30, 2016. Meanwhile, the US Forces-Afghanistan, or USFOR-A, said this year that the Afghan government controls or influences 68.5% of the population (22 million) and controls 61.3% of Afghanistan’s territory (350,000 square kilometers), and the Taliban controls or influences 8.1% (2.8 million) and controls 8.7% of the ground (66,000 square kilometers). The remaining 28.5% of the population (7.3 million) and 22.7% of the land (183,000 square kilometers) is contested. The bad news for Mr Ghani is that several experts, including American analysts, believe that the USFOR-A’s report is rather optimistic; they think the Taliban control more areas in Afghanistan than were disclosed. Ghani’s allegations do not take account of the fact that the US officials have admitted that 5,500 Afghan security forces died in just 2015 and that was far more...
Ties Between Russia and The Taliban Worry Afghan, U.S. Officials
Afghan and American officials are increasingly worried that any deepening of ties between Russia and Taliban militants fighting to topple the government in Kabul could complicate an already precarious security situation. Russian officials have denied they provide aid to the insurgents, who are contesting large swathes of territory and inflicting heavy casualties, and say their limited contacts are aimed at bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. Leaders in Kabul say Russian support for the Afghan Taliban appears to be mostly political so far. But a series of recent meetings they say has taken place in Moscow and Tajikistan has made Afghan intelligence and defence officials nervous about more direct support including weapons or funding. A senior Afghan security official called Russian support for the Taliban a "dangerous new trend", an analysis echoed by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson. He told reporters at a briefing in Washington last week that Russia had joined Iran and Pakistan as countries with a "malign influence" in Afghanistan, and said Moscow was lending legitimacy to the Taliban. Russia's ambassador to Kabul, Alexander Mantytskiy, told reporters on Thursday that his government's contacts with the insurgent group were aimed at ensuring the safety of Russian citizens and encouraging peace talks. "We do not have intensive contacts with the Taliban," he said through an interpreter, adding that Russia favored a negotiated peace in Afghanistan which could only happen by cultivating contacts with all players, including the Taliban. Mantytskiy expressed annoyance at persistant accusations of Russian collaboration with the Taliban, saying the statements by American and Afghan officials were an effort to distract attention from the worsening conflict. "They are trying to put the blame for their failures on our shoulders," he told Reuters. ANOTHER "GREAT GAME"? Afghanistan has long been the scene of international intrigue and...
Pak-Afghan Region Has Highest Concentration of Terrorists: US
The Pak-Afghan region has the highest concentration of terrorist groups in the world, warns Gen John W. Nicholson, the commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan. In an annual assessment of US military operations in Afghanistan this year, the general also took credit for rescuing former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s son from a militant hideout in Afghanistan earlier this year and for killing the perpetrator of the Dec 16, 2014 terrorist attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar. At a recent news briefing at the Pentagon, Gen Nicholson said that there were 98 US-designated terrorist groups around the world and 20 of them were in the Pak-Afghan region. “This represents the highest concentration of terrorist groups anywhere in the world,” he added. Thirteen of these 20 groups were based in Afghanistan and seven in Pakistan. Gen Nicholson said that the groups operating in this region often “mix and converge”, which made them even more dangerous. “For example, Islamic State of Khorasan today is formed of members of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and even some former members of the Afghan Taliban,” he said. Throughout the year, US counter-terrorism (CT) forces focused on these groups, conducting over 350 operations against Al Qaeda and the militant Islamic State group in 2016 and dozens more against other groups. In these operations, US forces killed or captured nearly 50 leaders of AQIS (Al Qaeda Indian Subcontinent) leaders. Additionally, about 200 other members of Al Qaeda and the Al Qaeda Islamic State groups were killed or captured as well. “Our CT forces rescued the son of the former Pakistani prime minister Gilani in a raid against Al Qaeda in eastern Afghanistan… and killed five emirs of these 20 terrorist groups,” he said. “We killed Hamidullah, the emir of the Islamic Jihad Union, and Omar Khalifa, who is the Tariq Gidar Group emir.” The Tariq Gidar Group carried out the attack on the Army Public School,...
Education A ‘Beacon of Hope’ In Afghanistan
Education in Afghanistan has historically mirrored the ups and downs of the socio-political upheavals in the country. However, the Afghan people’s demand for quality education, their efforts to ensure greater access, and their belief in education as a transformative force has been unwavering, and is especially true today. In 2015, over 9.2 million students (39 percent female) attended schools, with local school shuras (community-led decision-making bodies) playing a key role in driving this nine-fold increase since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Despite today’s deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, schools continue to serve as beacons of hope for Afghan people. In The Asia Foundation’s just-released 2016 Survey of Afghan People, newly opened schools for girls rank fourth in a list of 10 reasons why Afghan people think that their country is moving in the right direction. This reflects the public conviction that education positively changes the trajectory of children’s lives, expands their opportunities, and has the potential to enable them to find jobs and integrate into mainstream society in the future. Among the many benefits of education is the opportunity it affords for economic advancement. This is particularly relevant now as Afghanistan’s economy is further challenged. One of the top reasons people are pessimistic in Afghanistan is due to unemployment. Educationally marginalized Afghans tend to be further economically disadvantaged, as the survey results suggest. A positive correlation (stronger for Afghan women compared to men) exists between the respondent’s education and income level. Among Afghans who report having some level of formal schooling, 56.6 percent say they earn an income, compared to 35.2 percent of Afghans who stated they never attended formal school. Among Afghan women who report some level of formal education, 16.6 percent are employed, compared to those with no formal education of which 6.1 percent were employed. Similarly,...
62 Banned Groups Active In Sindh, Says Official Report
An official report authored by the Sindh home ministry has identified 62 banned religious or sectarian organisations active in the province, including the re-emergence of 35 such groups, it emerged on Wednesday. “We have identified 62 banned religious / sectarian organisations and have requested the Ministry of Interior (MoI) for more information [about them],” said the report that was shared with the apex committee in a recent meeting. It said the investigation revealed that 35 groups, which had gone into hibernation after being slapped with the ban by the federal government, had re-emerged. Most of those groups [12], said the report, re-emerged in Benazirabad, the native district of the co-chairman of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party. Besides, six of them resurfaced in Sukkur, five in Mirpurkhas, three each in Hyderabad and Korangi, and two each in Karachi West, Sujawal and Tando Mohammad Khan. Officials said the government had included 602 persons in the IVth Schedule of the banned organisations in Sindh. According to anti-terrorism law, the federal government may list a person “as a proscribed person in the Fourth Schedule on an ex-parte basis”, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that, such person is concerned in terrorism [category A]; an activist, office-bearer or an associate of an organisation kept under observation or banned [category B]; and in any way concerned or suspected to be concerned with such organisation or affiliated with any group or organisation suspected to be involved in terrorism or sectarianism or acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, any person or organisation proscribed under the ATC Act [category C]. Most of such individuals [221] belonged to the banned Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), of whom 154 have been put under category A. The remaining persons belonging to other organisations are as under: Khudam-ul-Islam [four], Harkat-ul-Mujahideen [19], Mohajir Qaumi Movement-Haqiqi [three], Pakistan Sunni Tehrik [10],...
Human Rights Under Threat
DAY after tomorrow, the people of Pakistan will join the rest of humankind in celebrating Human Rights Day. The government too will indulge in ritualistic rhetoric. An honest approach should persuade it to do some soul-searching, for human rights in Pakistan face serious threats today. Of late, the most fundamental human right — the right to life, liberty and security of life — has come under increased strain. Several incidents have exposed as sheer obduracy the government’s rejection of a moratorium on executions until the abolition of death penalty can be rationally discussed. The other day, the Supreme Court acquitted a man who had spent 11 years in jail. He was sentenced to death in December 2005 by a sessions court on the charge of killing a villager. The high court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court rejected the evidence that the trial court had relied upon. Some days earlier, the same court acquitted a man who had spent two decades in prison for a murder in 1992. More heart-wrenching was the story of two brothers who were acquitted of the murder charge levelled against them in 2002, after they had been hanged in October 2015. Of late, the right to life, liberty and security of life has come under increased strain. The last mentioned case strengthened the argument for abolition of death penalty on the ground of its being irreversible. It also created serious doubts about the level of efficiency of an administration that hangs two men while their appeal is pending. Were those guilty of this crime — which amounts to murder by negligence if not murder in the name of law — called to account, and have any steps been taken to avoid a recurrence? The argument for action on both counts is irrefutable. All three cases throw light on a perennial theme — the law’s delays. While attempts have been made to expedite murder trials, especially through the creation of anti-terrorism courts, little seems to have been done to reduce the time murder...
Indo-Pak CBM blues
One has noted with some trepidation that many people who matter across the globe — and that includes the UN Secretary General, have resumed the erstwhile chorus of advising Pakistan and India to settle their issues through bilateral dialogue. There is a definite aura of deja vu about it! This calls for a pause for a bit of introspection. The recent incidents across the LOC and the Indian establishment’s somewhat irrational reaction on other fronts have underlined once again the futility of a dialogue based on CBMs (confidence building measures) as against one aimed at the settlement betimes of the contentious issues between the two countries. We, as a nation, appeared to be afflicted with the debilitating disease that may be called, for want of a better appellation, CBMitis? Our relations with our neighbour appear to be stuck in a groove. And yet we are goaded to do more of the same. What is hard to understand is why the world insists that we immerse ourselves headlong in the sea of CBMs. Is not our cup already overflowing with them as it is? It came to pass that we got so enamoured with this quest that at one stage in the past we went to the extent of advocating the cause of CBMs in the UN General Assembly. Our philosophy appeared to be: what is good for the goose should be equally good for the gander. It would perhaps be a wee bit impolite to butt in and point out to the powers that be that CBMs are at best the means to an end and should never be confused with the end itself. Over-obsession with CBMs could very well result in making the overall picture murky and obscure. It would be in the fitness of things to pause and take stock before we are totally engulfed by the make-believe syndrome. While on the subject of CBMs between India and Pakistan, one may well be within one’s rights to pose the question as to what happened to the (once) much-vaunted back-channel diplomacy? In the words of a screaming headline in a newspaper some summers back, it (back-channel...
Challenges for a Big Venture
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is not an ordinary run-of-the-mill project; it involves massive economic activity. Its impact is already being felt in Pakistan, albeit not in the way it was expected. Though the Afghan corridor, which can link the CPEC, remains unavailable due to instability, the government continues to sell the project as a game-changer for the region. This commercial project was offered formally in May 2013 to Pakistan. The diktat of China’s own priorities and needs was the prime mover behind the offer. One must realise that corridor diplomacy connects China with 60 countries, setting up potential trade with a further 4.4 billion people and boosting China’s GDP by 25 percent. The CPEC is one of the six corridors envisaged under the One Belt, One Road project (OBOR) at a cost of $900 billion. The proposed corridors are the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC), New Eurasian Land Bridge (NELB), China-Central and West Asia Economic Corridor (CCWAEC), China-Indo-China Peninsula Economic Corridor (CICPEC), CPEC and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIMEC). Except for the CPEC, all other corridors have so far remained non-controversial. But that does not mean that they are faring better than the CPEC. Opposition from India and US was expected. India reiterated the objection it had raised in the 1960s when China and Pakistan finalised their borders and consequently built the Karakoram Highway on territory claimed by both India and Pakistan. Another reason for the Indian opposition could be the Modi government’s known policy to deny any opportunity to Pakistan to consolidate its economy. The US is worried that the CPEC would facilitate stationing of the Chinese navy in the Indian Ocean. It supports India’s position that India alone has primacy right in the Indian Ocean. This fits well in with its global agenda to prop up India to counter the rising power of China. The US and its allies deny that they want to curtail...
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.