Current Projects
Ghani’s Still Pakistan’s Best Bet
‘Afghanistan is more than the “graveyard of empires.”’ Maureen Dowd once said, ‘It’s the mother of vicious circles.’ While Ms Dowd fails to point out her country’s complicity in said circles, her words ring true: ever since the other Dowd — the Russians’ sacrificial lamb Daud Khan — Afghanistan has only seen war. Yet even by Afghan standards, Ashraf Ghani just can’t catch a break. The presidency has long been the most thankless job in the world, but today’s odds are without end. With those in mind, perhaps, did Mr Ghani lambast Pakistan at the Heart of Asia Conference. Islamabad would do better, he said, to spend our development aid on fighting terror instead. And though Pakistan’s pundits were quick to whale back at an ‘ingrate’ and ‘incompetent’, it may be best to breathe. Before we bash the man, let’s take a trip in his shoes. To start with, the Taliban are in ascent everywhere, having snatched up around 40 percent of the country, more territory than at any other time in the war. Much of the Pakistani Taliban too — squashed by Zarb-e-Azb back home — are regrouping as ISIS, and turning on Kabul. Then there’s all the rest of them: around a fifth of the world’s terror orgs have lain down roots in Afghanistan, says the US’s General Nicholson (another ironic source). Speaking of the Americans, the US is mentally making for the door. Before he backtracked, then went back on the backtracking, Donald Trump summed it up thus: ‘(…) it’s a mess. It’s a mess. And at this point, you probably have to (stay) because that thing will collapse about two seconds after they leave.’ Yes, ‘that thing’ again: in its grand tradition of taking Afghanistan apart and leaving, Mr. Trump echoes another Republican hero, George H W Bush. With the Kremlin gone (but Kabul ablaze), Mr. Bush reportedly asked his cabinet, ‘Is “that thing” still going on?’ As we ready ourselves for more of that thing, we get to everything else: the Afghan National Army’s attrition rate is among the highest in the...
Afghanistan Will Be the Trump Administration’s First Foreign Policy Crisis
Many hotspots and geopolitical adversaries are constantly in the news and likely at the forefront of the foreign policy issues President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is focused on. Yet the issue that is most likely to be the first real foreign policy crisis of the Trump administration is the one that received no discussion at all during the presidential debates – Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? The longest war in U.S. history? Where the United States, its allies in NATO, and several partner nations still have in excess of 13,000 troops on the ground? Where the United States last year spent approximately $3.6 billion on security force assistance alone? Where the United States has been dropping ever-larger numbers of bombs since President Obama gave U.S. forces more expansive authorities to achieve so-called “strategic effects?” As was the case when Barack Obama took office in 2009, Afghanistan is again the “forgotten war,” taking the backseat to a war in Iraq. And just as President Obama inherited a war trending in the wrong direction, so too will President Trump. Today, Afghanistan’s economy is in decline, with its gross domestic product (GDP) having decreased each of the past three years. The country’s government is in a state of routine chaos, with the parliament having just dismissed seven government ministers and the first vice president having just publically beaten and kidnapped a political rival. The security situation is no better. The commander of U.S. Central Command recently cited district control statisticsthat suggest 60 percent of Afghanistan’s population live in districts under the government’s control or influence, while about 10 percent live in districts under insurgent control (the rest of the population lives in areas that are contested). Yet these categorizations have been called into question – and anyway, they miss the point of the Taliban-led insurgency’s strategy and operational design, which is to first capture sparsely...
Youth Alone Can Sway the Hope
In the past 35-year-old war, the largest victims who were killed, maimed or traumatized in Afghanistan are mostly young people. Yet, the Afghanistan’s population remains the world’s youngest and fastest growing. Half of them are under eighteen. The Afghan Central Statistics Organization in 2014 disclosed that almost 47 percent of the country’s 27.1 million people were under fifteen and 37 percent between fifteen and thirty-nine. Combined, 84 percent were under forty. The ubiquitous violence of the past and present scar their memories. But to insist that they do not understand the political causes of the war and thus are unable to break free of prejudices is not reflective of the reality discernible at least among university going students in Kabul and Mizar-e- Sharif. The instability spiral in Afghanistan has failed to undermine their resilience to rebuild their war-ravaged country. In fact, the Afghan universities are preparing the youth to be a political factor in new Afghanistan. Youths are seen holding responsible positions in government as well as parliament. The pace of change is slow but there is no slackening of efforts despite the shrinking labor market for almost 400,000 new job seekers each year. Since 2008, Afghanistan’s nation-wide literacy rate has increased by 5%; since 2005, the youth literacy rate has increased by more than 16%. According to the Afghan Central Statistics Organization, public university enrollment has increased from 7,800 in 2001 to 174,425 in 2015, 21% of which are women, and demand for higher education continues to grow. The Afghan civil society has, of late, started engaging these educated young people as part of their consultation with government, religious leaders, international community to effectively contribute to the decision making processes and promote solidarity and unity between people from different communities to national level. Some such initiatives even go beyond local politics, out-reaching neighboring...
Indian Jingoism
The Indo-Pak relationship touched a new low with the inflammatory and accusatory statements by the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. In its frustration over the futility of its efforts to “isolate” Pakistan, the Modi administration stooped to new levels by deviations from the diplomatic protocols to embarrass the Pakistani delegation led by Sartaj Aziz. Probably much more frustrating for both India and Afghanistan was the expression of support for Pakistan by the Iranian, Chinese and Russian delegates. This reminds one of a line from an epic play by great German philosopher and poet Friedrich Schiller. “He can humiliate me but cannot bend me,” says the orphaned princess of the rough treatment she gets from the new king. Will the Indian belittling attitude force Pakistan into submission? Some geo-political facts point to the contrary. Following its failure to use Russia and China against Pakistan during the BRICS summit at Goa a few weeks ago, the Russian envoy Zamir Kabulov punctured the Indian narrative on terrorism even at the Heart of Asia conference on December 4 at Amritsar. The Heart of Asia conference should not be used by India and Pakistan for scoring points. All the major players to extend all possible support to Afghanistan in its transition, Kabulov said. “India has close cooperation with the US, does Moscow complain? Then why complain about much lower level of cooperation with Pakistan,” he asked when referred to the Russia-Pakistan military exercise. Equally disturbing perhaps was the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s offer to help diffuse Pakistan India tensions. “If Iran can be of any help to any of them, we stand ready because these two neighbours are extremely important to us,” Zareef underscored. To the utter Indo-Afghan dismay the Chinese delegates called Pakistan as “inseparable for the peace efforts in Afghanistan.” It was this synchronisation of approach that resulted in a unanimous declaration,...
Kabul, Taliban Likely to Restart Peace Talks
Diplomatic efforts are under way amidst strong indications of imminent start of peace negotiations between Kabul and the Afghan Taliban, The Express Tribune has learnt. Acting US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Laura Miller has also arrived in Islamabad and diplomatic sources are linking her visit to the move. Miller met Afghan Ambassador to Pakistan Omar Zakhilwal and “discussed various issues,” the ambassador said on his official Twitter account. The US Ambassador in Islamabad David Hale and Military Deputy to the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Major General Judd H Lyons were also present in the meeting. The US delegation arrived in Islamabad days after they met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul and discussed the situation in the region, Afghanistan and Pakistan ties and Miller’s work in this regard, Ghani’s office said. The US envoy is visiting Pakistan at a time when a senior Taliban representative in Qatar political office told The Express Tribune in a recent interview that the Taliban leaders are “involved in internal discussions” to chalk out a strategy for possible political negotiations. The diplomatic efforts have been intensified weeks after the Taliban political representatives wrapped up a visit to Pakistan in October. Pakistan and Taliban had confirmed the visit but avoided giving any details. Some sources said Pakistan had “encouraged the Taliban negotiators to join the peace talks” like Hizb-e-Islami, which struck a peace deal with the Kabul administration in late September. Adviser to the PM on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz reiterated Pakistan’s support for the Hizb-Afghan govt agreement in his address at the Heart of Asia conference in Amritsar on Sunday. The Amritsar Declaration also “commended the government of Afghanistan in successfully pursuing peace talks with Hizb-e-Islami Gulbuddin Hekmatyar resulting in the signature of a peace agreement that sets a good precedent for future peace talks...
Pak-Afghan Ties
AFGHAN President Ashraf Ghani has become a harsh critic of Pakistan — harsh to the point of outdoing Indian hawks and, seemingly, undermining his own country’s interests. At the Heart of Asia conference in Amritsar, where the theme was cooperation against security threats, Mr Ghani’s rhetoric was aggressive, almost as if Kabul desired a rupture in Pak-Afghan ties. This is not the right attitude and it is hoped that better sense will prevail. Certainly, there is some history here. When Mr Ghani assumed office more than two years ago, he made it a priority to reach out to Pakistan through some bold verbal statements and diplomatic gestures towards Islamabad and Rawalpindi; it indicated that resetting ties with Pakistan were a core part of his agenda. The outreach was received warmly by both the political government and the military leadership here, but Mr Ghani soon became impatient with what was perceived in Afghanistan as Pakistan’s slow pace in addressing his country’s concerns. Yet, Pakistan, too, has had genuine concerns vis-à-vis Afghanistan. As Mr Ghani and the National Unity Government he heads became increasingly hawkish on Pakistan, they deliberately steered closer to India — a growing closeness that the security establishment here saw as one of the reasons behind the renewed security troubles in Balochistan. Moreover, with counter-insurgency operations in North Waziristan and other parts of Fata nearing their final stages, the problem of sanctuaries for anti-Pakistan militants in Afghanistan, particularly in the eastern region, has become a thorny issue. The combination of Afghan and Pakistani grievances against one another has led to a relationship that is now in a shockingly poor state. Still, there are compelling reasons for both sides to move the bilateral relationship back towards cooperation, and Mr Ghani surely knows this, even if he prefers to give voice to a one-sided interpretation of events at the moment. There are at least three areas in which...
Old Challenge, New Approach
AMRITSAR reconfirmed Pakistan remains a target of joint criticism by India and Afghanistan. Much of domestic and international opinion by and large concurs with such criticism. Such is the failure of our Afghanistan and India policies. They cannot and will not be redressed by those who can only construct self-serving narratives. Control of our Afghanistan and India policies remain with those who are neither authorised nor qualified for the task. The situation is similar for much of our domestic security and political policies, Our India policy impacts our Afghanistan policy. This is not to say Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy should run through Delhi. But to a great extent it does because our short-sighted and incompetent policymakers effectively insist that it does — with consistently negative results. Consistent with Einstein’s definition of lunacy, our adherence to such an India-focused Afghanistan policy is endlessly pursued in the hope that, somehow some day, it will produce positive results! We remain obstinately India-centric in the conduct of our Afghanistan policy, which has always alienated Afghanistan. It wilfully ignores the sensibilities and self-image of our Afghan brethren. Moreover, history testifies that any policy towards Afghanistan that provokes Afghan resistance is doomed to failure. While Afghanistan cannot be treated as an aspect of our India policy, the state of our relations with India does impact on the range of options we can avail of to improve our relations with Afghanistan. This is because any significant and sustained improvement in our relations with India may (a) incline us to re-evaluate our dysfunctional strategies towards Afghanistan and (b) reduce India’s incentive to use its influence with Afghanistan as an option against Pakistan. For Pakistan to be simultaneously locked in a zero-sum relationship with two of its most immediate neighbours is pure folly. Pakistan can never be stable in such a situation. India is, of course, the...
Can Afghanistan Choose Between India And Pakistan?
An overwhelming focus on South Asia’s terrorism problem has been a key highlight during the 6th session of the Heart of Asia ministerial conference which is taking place in Amritsar, India. Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani and the Indian Prime minister, Narendra Modi’s joint inauguration of the conference was, by and large, meant to send a message to Islamabad that both countries are united against the latter’s alleged policy of using non-state actors as means of foreign policy. In an apparent reference to Pakistan, Modi said that voices of support for Afghanistan’s peace should be “backed by resolute action not just against forces of terrorism but also against those who support shelter, train and finance them.” Moreover, it was another attempt on New Dehli’s part to enlist maximum diplomatic cooperation to carry on the newly adopted policy of isolating Pakistan regionally and globally. Modi’s new drive to expose Pakistan’s alleged policy of supporting terrorist groups in the region began with the cancellation of the SAARC summit last month in Islamabad where New Dehli’s assertive diplomacy made sure that the key regional states having similar grievances against Pakistan were not participating in the summit. Afghanistan’s President, Ashraf Ghani has been quick to jump on the Modi’s bandwagon aimed at lambasting Pakistan wherever opportunity arises. President Ghani, at the beginning of his presidency attempted to enroll Islamabad’s support in order to bring the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table. The attempt, however, has proven a nonstarter with Kabul, which blames Pakistan for not following up on its commitments in this regard. While the Heart of Asia forum saw Afghanistan’s president showering appreciation on New Dehli’s recent financial and military assistance, he scoffed at Islamabad’s pledged assistance for similar purposes by stressing that Pakistan should use the money to contain terrorism inside its territories which poses an immediate threat his...
Turkey to Join Pakistan, China, Russia Superpower Bloc?
Turkey has just fueled speculations about a possible superpower rectangle between Turkey, Pakistan, China and Russia. While indications that the Pakistan-China-Russia superpower triangle is becoming a reality keep piling up, other nations are expressing their interest in joining the new bloc, which could become a game-changer for Asia and the world as a whole. Just days after his visit to Pakistan in mid-November, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan suggested that his country should pursue joining a bloc dominated by China and Russia. Erdogan said his country doesn’t need to be fixated on joining the European Union and should join forces with China, Russia and Pakistan instead. Although Turkey has had decades-long hopes of joining the EU, apparently there’s an alternative for Ankara if the EU keeps stalling talks about Turkey’s membership. Turkey wants to be part of Pakistan-China-Russia triangle If Turkey–which has just held talks with Pakistan about strengthening their economic and military ties–joins the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), it would be a clear indication that Pakistan, China and Russia are gaining a new-old friend on their team. If Turkey gives up its efforts to join the EU, we could see the rise of the Pakistan-China-Russia-Turkey rectangle, an even more powerful alternative to the Pak-China-Rus triangle. In fact, Erdogan said he had already discussed the idea of his country joining the SCO, which is dominated by China, Russia and Central Asian nations, with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Erdogan’s comment that Turkey doesn’t need to join the EU “at all costs” is a breakthrough development in Turkey-EU relations, which have reached their lowest in the aftermath of the failed anti-government coup on July 15. Is the SCO the new EU after the U.K.’s Brexit? The EU is currently reeling from the loss of the United Kingdom, which voted in favor of leaving the European bloc this past summer. Turkey’s...
China at The Centre of The World Order
A world disillusioned by the rise of Donald Trump in the US and his strong preference for extreme rightist views will no doubt look for other leaders in the global system. Would China be prepared to play that role? In a bi-polar world which is what it is today, international affairs turn into a zero-sum game in which loss by one power turns into gain for the other. This is the way things seem to be moving at the time of the beginning of the Trump era. Beijing is entering the space created by the likely withdrawal of the US from a leadership role in international trade. With the US under Trump not inclined to use its considerable economic and military leverage to stay involved in world affairs, Beijing sees an opportunity. This was articulated by the end-November visit to Beijing by Antonio Guterres, the incoming UN Secretary General. During the visit, the Chinese President Xi Jinping praised the UN, using the language not heard in Beijing with reference to the way it views the world body. The president called the UN “the most universal, representative and authoritative intergovernmental organisation.” China’s leaders focused in particular on some of the UN initiatives. During the election campaign, Trump had called global warming a hoax advanced by China to deindustrialise the US. He had promised to tear into shreds the Paris Agreement once he took office. According to the New York Times’ Jane Perlez, “China’s campaign to enhance its role at the UN dates from September 2015, when Mr. Xi made his first visit to the annual General Assembly meeting in New York. There he pledged that China would establish a permanent force of 8,000 troops and donate $1 billion to a United Nations’ ‘peace and development fund.’ Of the five permanent members of the Security Council, China has deployed the most troops in peacekeeping operations, including to conflict zones like South Sudan where two Chinese soldiers were killed on a mission in July.” While China is making a serious play...
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.