Current Projects
Trump Can End America’s Longest War
Afghanistan is America's longest war, and since successfully completing the original mission, arguably its most pointless. After a decade and half, this conflict has taken more than 2,300 American lives, killed unknown tens of thousands of Afghan civilians, cost trillions in borrowed money that future generations will be forced to repay and left us only with a question about what we're now trying to accomplish. As of this year, the Taliban holds more ground in Afghanistan than at any point since the war began in 2001. We are risking lives and paying hand over fist to walk in strategic circles. As a new Congress convenes and White House administration begins, ending this costly, reckless and clearly ineffective entanglement should be high on President-elect Donald Trump's list of priorities. From a perspective of practical politics, this would be much easier for Trump to accomplish than may be immediately obvious. After all, second only to the mess in Libya, Afghanistan is "President Obama's war." Trump surrogate Katrina Pierson was rightly criticized when she claimed Obama invaded Afghanistan, but the president-elect would do well to recall the point Pierson so poorly attempted to make: The outgoing president owned Afghanistan in a way he never embraced Iraq. Early on, Obama labeled the war in Iraq a "distraction" from "the right battlefield" in Afghanistan, a war he said "has to be won." Faulty timelines aside, that connection means Trump will have the political leeway to extract the United States from the ongoing morass in Afghanistan that he might not have with America's many other ongoing interventions. Trump campaigned on anti-establishment fervor, and that repudiation of the Washington status quo facilitates his closure of the most status quo war of all. The new president can pull the plug on this increasingly aimless project without expending much political capital, and he should do exactly that. A timely exit is made necessary by the sheer futility and...
Trump Can End America's Longest War
Afghanistan is America's longest war, and since successfully completing the original mission, arguably its most pointless. After a decade and half, this conflict has taken more than 2,300 American lives, killed unknown tens of thousands of Afghan civilians, cost trillions in borrowed money that future generations will be forced to repay and left us only with a question about what we're now trying to accomplish. As of this year, the Taliban holds more ground in Afghanistan than at any point since the war began in 2001. We are risking lives and paying hand over fist to walk in strategic circles. As a new Congress convenes and White House administration begins, ending this costly, reckless and clearly ineffective entanglement should be high on President-elect Donald Trump's list of priorities. From a perspective of practical politics, this would be much easier for Trump to accomplish than may be immediately obvious. After all, second only to the mess in Libya, Afghanistan is "President Obama's war." Trump surrogate Katrina Pierson was rightly criticized when she claimed Obama invaded Afghanistan, but the president-elect would do well to recall the point Pierson so poorly attempted to make: The outgoing president owned Afghanistan in a way he never embraced Iraq. Early on, Obama labeled the war in Iraq a "distraction" from "the right battlefield" in Afghanistan, a war he said "has to be won." Faulty timelines aside, that connection means Trump will have the political leeway to extract the United States from the ongoing morass in Afghanistan that he might not have with America's many other ongoing interventions. Trump campaigned on anti-establishment fervor, and that repudiation of the Washington status quo facilitates his closure of the most status quo war of all. The new president can pull the plug on this increasingly aimless project without expending much political capital, and he should do exactly that. A timely exit is made necessary by the sheer futility and...
No Exception for India
India’s hopes of becoming the newest member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) have, finally, been quashed after the end of the inconclusive meeting in Vienna. By denying India’s membership bid to the NSG, nuclear supplier countries have sent a strong message that they will not bow down to American bullying and make an exception in the case of India. In fact, the majority of the members supported China’s original position and agreed to work on identifying the criteria for non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). India has repeatedly blamed China for blocking its ambitions but the truth is that many other countries also do not want to open the door to Indian membership in the NSG because it would seriously undermine the group’s ability to ensure that the Indian government respects its non-proliferation commitments. India’s reckless build-up of nuclear stockpiles is not only a challenge to the existing global nuclear non-proliferation regimes but also a cause of concern for many neighbouring countries. India already has 5.7 tonnes of military plutonium and continues to produce more fissile materials. Although largely ignored by the international group, India’s flagrant disregard of global non-proliferation goals must be discouraged on all diplomatic fronts. The major concern on the part of Pakistan’s nuclear establishment is that if India becomes a member of the NSG, it would permanently block Pakistani membership in the future as all decisions in the NSG are taken by consensus. There is evidence to support this concern because of New Delhi’s reluctance to agree to any “criteria-based” approach for new entrants. It is commonly agreed by most experts that deviation from a criteria-based approach is more likely to erode the credibility of the NSG. The NSG’s original aim was to supplement the NPT, which permits peaceful use of nuclear energy but also prevents nuclear technology from being used for military purposes. Yet, in light of major...
Dialogue Not Brinkmanship
India’s unprovoked and sustained firing on the Line of Control (LoC) and the working boundary is a part of its overall strategy to keep Pakistan’s military under pressure. It is meant to deflect attention from the situation in Kashmir, which is literary on a boiling point ever since the assassination of Burhan Wani. And the protests with each passing day seem to be getting bigger and angrier. It is only obvious that as repression by police and security forces increases it aggravates resentment and further fuels the movement. But India’s response so far continues to be the same. It is unwilling to engage in dialogue with the Hurryiet leaders or with the younger generation leadership that is in the forefront of this movement. It is relying on the premise that sustaining protests at this high tempo for too long may not be feasible but has it factored in that the anguish and distrust against Indian hegemony could get internalised and emerge in more violent forms. Absence of strong and unifying leadership does place the Kashmiri struggle on an unknown trajectory. The rejection of the old leadership by the younger generation shows the level of frustration among them against the Hurryiet and other Kashmiri leaders. Apart from the attraction of India’s expanding market, strategic imperatives and especially the US policy to contain China have brought India and US in a strong partnership. It has also given India the confidence to take a hard position against Pakistan. With the election of Donald Trump, PM Modi would feel even more emboldened toward Pakistan as the two leaders seem to share similar views on dealing with militant groups especially the Haqqani network, Taliban and LeT. Their attitude towards Muslims in general is equally belligerent. Trump during the election campaign was all praise for Modi, whereas he has generally made unkind remarks about Pakistan. Both US and India feel very uneasy by the broad based and deep relationship of Pakistan with China. India has...
Carnage in Ghor: Was Islamic State The Perpetrator Or Was It Falsely Accused?
The Islamic State, holed up in a few districts in eastern Afghanistan, has suddenly popped up in a faraway western province, Ghor – at least according to provincial officials. They blamed IS for the massacre in October 2016 of more than 30 civilians. Digging deeper into the incident, AAN’s Borhan Osman found that the IS claim was false: The gang responsible were criminals and had historical links to both the Taleban and parts of the central government, but was not part of IS. A closer look at the incident reveals a far stranger, but no less worrying tale than was reported. “IS is gaining support and challenging the Taliban in Afghanistan,” the BBC reported on 26 October 2016, citing Ghor governor Naser Khazeh and adding that “Analysts say the IS militants in Ghor are former Taliban fighters.” The BBC was not the only media outlet who repeated the local officials’ version of events without cross-checking. Officials had said a group of Islamic State (IS or Daesh) militants had rounded up about 30 civilians who were collecting firewood near the provincial capital Feroz Koh (recently re-named from Chaghcharan) and killed them in revenge, after one of the group’s commanders had been killed by local pro-government forces. Yet, there is no credible evidence of an actual IS presence in Ghor or of links between IS and the particular group that killed the villagers. Indeed, the actual loyalties of the murderers are too complicated to be directly tied to any single entity. The murders do, however, tie in to long-standing tribal grievances and have links to central government politics. To understand who the group behind the Ghor massacre was, one needs to look into what exactly happened, as well as, more broadly, the context into which the group emerged and why officials labelled them as ‘Daesh’. What happened? On the afternoon of 25 October 2016, as local residents told AAN, a group of about two dozen armed men from Murghab Valley, to the north of Feroz Koh, sneaked into the...
Changes Coming for Afghan Peace Council
Afghanistan’s High Peace Council (HPC), the body tasked with forging reconciliation with the Taleban, says it is putting recommendations made at an IWPR conference earlier this year into practice. At public debates recently held across Afghanistan, HPC representatives said that they were taking steps to implement proposals such as increasing female representation in peace talks. The head of the HPC secretariat in Paktiya, Hamidullah Husanyar, confirmed that the council was reaching out to other stakeholders to consider the conference’s proposals. “We are making a new strategy for the Peace Council and are in touch with civil society organisations and the relevant people regarding their suggestions,” he said. In Herat, Yama Amini, the head of the local HPC secretariat, added, “After IWPR’s conference regarding the national peace and reconciliation process in Kabul, High Peace Council officials started working on a new plan so that women would have more opportunities to increase their presence in High Peace Council and provincial offices.” He added, “Now the role of women has significantly risen in the High Peace Council and they are carrying out their task well.” Government officials, religious leaders, civil society activists and journalists from across Afghanistan were among the 70 people who had gathered in May for IWPR’s three-day Kabul event. Working committees used data and feedback from a two-year IWPR initiative - Afghan Reconciliation: Promoting Peace and Building Trust by Engaging Civil Society - to help formulate proposals. One innovative recommendation was the inclusion of a course devoted to peace in the educational curricula of schools and universities. In Herat, Amini confirmed that the ministry of education and the HPC were currently working on this addition to the curriculum. Farhad Jelani, the spokesman of Herat’s governor, agreed. “After IWPR ran many programmes regarding reconciliation in our society, provincial officials have tried their...
Is Judgment Day Coming For Us Troops In Afghanistan?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has, since its creation in 2003, been the subject of much criticism. The axe that its critics grind the most is that, despite being set up as a permanent court to end impunity for atrocities globally, it seems to be focusing its efforts solely on the African continent. Critics decry bias and racism, and argue that insufficient attention has been paid to the war crimes that have been committed by the US. After all, it seems unfair that the global superpower should be immune from global justice. But might all of that be about to change? There are reasons to think so. In a report published by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office this week, entitled ‘Report on Preliminary Examination Activities’, the Court seemed to suggest that US servicemen and women could for the first time be investigated for violations of the laws of war. The following excerpt from the report hints at this: “Members of US armed forces appear to have subjected at least 61 detained persons to torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity on the territory of Afghanistan between 1 May 2003 and 31 December 2014” Even more boldly, the report states: “[T]he Office has determined that there is a reasonable basis to believe that, at a minimum, the following crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction have occurred: c. War crimes of torture and related ill-treatment, by US military forces deployed to Afghanistan” In effect, the Prosecutor has argued outright that war crimes were committed by US forces and that the ICC is in a position to investigate and perhaps even prosecute them on that basis. If true, this could be huge. Recognition of the US’s culpability for atrocities committed in Afghanistan, issued by the world’s authority on international crimes, would act as the strongest rebuke to date, sending out a powerful message to survivors everywhere that war crimes, no matter who commits them, are unacceptable. This opens up opportunities for survivors and...
Horrific Cases of Women Abuse In Afghanistan
The three-decades-long civil war in Afghanistan caused chronic poverty, unemployment, destruction, and mass migration. The US and NATO invasion in 2001 further added to the pain of civilians who then became a victim of drone attacks, Taliban, IS, and local warlords atrocities. All these misadventures have caused starvation and diseases, which forced poor Afghan parents to sell their daughters for bread, fuel, debt settlement, and other necessities. The irony is that this trade continues even under the nose of the Unity Government, while sexual abuse of young girls in safe houses, police stations, prisons and private jails of foreign forces, as well as that of war criminals in districts and provinces, has now become a national shame. Private security companies, government officials, IS commanders, and even Taliban are also involved in episodes of child sex. Women continue to be tortured, sold, killed and even mutilated for honour by their husbands and terrorist organisations that include Taliban and the IS in all cities and towns of Afghanistan. Human trafficking is another challenge that has grown with the civil war as Afghan parliamentarians, war criminals and government officials, and terrorist organisations still retrieve huge money from this business. During the last eight months, Afghan women experienced several horrific episodes of abuse and violence but the authorities have always supported criminals instead of protecting young girls. Last month, a government official in northern Afghanistan admitted that a man had strangled his wife after she had given birth to a girl. She was dragged outside her room and brutally killed. In 2016, the international community had ranked Afghanistan as the most dangerous country for women. In a 15-page report, Human Rights Watch had highlighted the health and economic consequences of marriage for those under 18 years and violence against young girls. Recently, police arrested two men in northern Afghanistan for...
Afghanistan Slides to the Brink of Ethnic Warfare
Afghanistan now finds itself falling toward bloody civil chaos – not because of ethnic rivalries, but because of bad governance and a lack of economic progress that could become a flashpoint for ethnic warfare. The international community has been generous in trying to help Afghans save themselves, but donor nations should not pour more money and troops into a system that is decaying and unsalvageable. Instead, they should leverage their “kindness” to push President Ashraf Ghani into a radical decentralization of power, giving more autonomy to the provinces. Since its inception almost three centuries ago, Afghanistan has been trapped in a vortex. It vacillates from despotism to short-lived “tranquility,” then slides back into anarchy. Intermittent periods of peace can be attributed to foreign financial aid. Long-lasting, stable institutions have never materialized and probably never will, due to huge rifts along ethnic, religious, social and geographic lines. The Afghan problem did not start with the emergence of the Taliban or the U.S. invasion; it can be traced to two major, historic events that date back centuries. First, in 1499, Portuguese explorer Vasco de Gama discovered a sea route to India, which meant the region now known as Afghanistan – once a connecting point between central Asia and the west – lost its commercial importance. The second event came in 1893, when British India annexed a large portion of Afghanistan known as Pashtunistan into India with the Durand Line Treaty. That left the country land-locked. Ever since, Afghanistan has been unable to become stable and prosperous. Instead, it served as a graveyard for a succession of governmental experiments: monarchy, republic, communism, Islamism and now a western-built democracy. All failed. As a gateway to India, this area has been invaded by such powers as the Greeks, Persians, Arabs and Mughals who sought to conquer India. Many got bogged down and stayed. Zahiruddin Babur, who founded the...
The Curious Case Of Sharbat Gula – The Green Eyed Afghan Girl
Pakistan recently faced a PR nightmare when Sharbat Gula – the once famous National Geographic Afghan girl – was deported to her native Afghanistan. Gula was accused of forgery, living in Pakistan using fake identity, and thus was not only detained, but was later sent back to Afghanistan. Gula first gained international prominence in 1984 as an Afghan refugee girl, after Steve McCurry's photograph of her – with striking and unique green eyes, was published on the cover of National Geographic. Her portrait, as National Geographic claims, became a symbol for refugees all over the world. She then resurfaced in 2014, but accusations of forging her identity documents sent her back into hiding. This incident too turned international media attention on Pakistan, and yet again, for all the wrong reasons. The western media cried foul over the apparent “injustice” with Sharbat Gula and her family, yet there was rarely a mention of the illegitimacy” of Gula’s stay in Pakistan. What the western media also ignored was that most Afghan refugees returning home are facing financial and residential struggles. Whereas, Gula not only visited the Presidential Palace and had a one on one meeting with President Ashraf Ghani, but was also fortunate to receive a furnished apartment from the Afghan government. Even though this seemed more like a PR exercise by Kabul, none of the media outlets questioned Ghani and his government over the adverse circumstances faced by the rest of the refugees. Afghan media’s reaction to this story was nothing short of displaying Pakistan in poor light internationally, without acknowledging that hundreds of thousands of Afghan families are not only legally based in Pakistan, but also earn their livelihoods. Soon after Gula landed in Afghanistan, the narrative among the general Afghan population and the Afghan media was that of “Gula treated with disgrace in Pakistan”. Yet, many Afghans were unaware that both the provincial government of Khyber...
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.