Pakistan: Now or Never?

Seeking Saudi cooperation on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is making the first visit to Saudi Arabia by an Indian leader since 1982, seeking to build economic ties and to enlist the kingdom’s help in improving regional security. While much of the focus is likely to be on securing oil supplies for India’s growing economy, the visit is also part of the complex manoeuvres by regional players jostling for position on Afghanistan and beyond.

Singh told Saudi journalists ahead of the visit that he would discuss with Saudi King Abdullah how to promote greater stability and security in the region.  “Both King Abdullah and I reject the notion that any cause justifies wanton violence against innocent people. We are strong allies against the scourge of extremism and terrorism that affects global peace and security,” he said.

Junior Foreign Minister Shashi Tharoor also said India could seek Saudi support in persuading Pakistan to act against Pakistan-based Islamist militant groups — later adding however this did not mean looking for Saudi mediation (anathema to India which sees no room for third party involvement in its relationship with Pakistan).

“Saudi Arabia of course has a long and close relationship with Pakistan but that makes Saudi Arabia all the more a valuable interlocutor for us,” he said. ”When we tell them about our experience, Saudi Arabia listens as somebody who is not anyway an enemy of Pakistan but rather as a friend of Pakistan, and therefore I am sure listens with sympathy and concern to a matter of this nature.”

Sunni Saudi Arabia has close ties with Pakistan, seeing it in part as a bulwark against Shiite Iran, its main rival. Analysts say it shares Pakistan’s concerns about Indian and Iranian influence in Afghanistan. It has also been cited as potential mediator with the Taliban. While it has shown little enthusiasm right now to act as a mediator, it is expected to play a powerful role in negotiating any eventual political settlement in Afghanistan.

India, meanwhile, invested heavily in Afghanistan after the fall of the Pakistan-backed Taliban in 2001, and built close ties with the government of President Hamid Karzai. It has been caught on the back foot by talk of reconciliation with the Taliban, which it fears could give Pakistan an opportunity to reassert its old influence over Afghanistan as well as bolstering its position as Washington’s indispensable ally in the region.

Some analysts have argued that India should counter this by building its own relationships with both Saudi Arabia and Iran — C. Raja Mohan made this point as early as May last year. Any improvement in the relationship between India and Saudi Arabia, including a deepening economic inter-dependency, could therefore be significant.

Pakistan, India and the Kabul attack

As discussed in my last post, the place to watch for developments on relations between India and Pakistan right now is more likely to be Kabul than Kashmir. That may have been graphically illustrated when Taliban fighters attacked Kabul on Friday, killing 16 people, including up to nine Indians.

It is too early to say whether the attack specifically targetted Indian interests or whether it was aimed at foreigners more generally. But India has blamed earlier attacks on its interests in Afghanistan on Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency – its embassy in Kabul has been bombed twice.

“These are the handiwork of those who are desperate to undermine the friendship between India and Afghanistan, and do not wish to see a strong, democratic and pluralistic Afghanistan,” an Indian Foreign Ministry statement said after Friday’s attack.

India invested heavily in Afghanistan after the fall of the Pakistan-backed Taliban in 2001 and has built close ties with the government of President Hamid Karzai.  Islamabad accuses it of using its large presence there (it has four consulates along with its Kabul embassy) to channel money and weapons to militants seeking to destabilise Pakistan — a charge New Delhi denies.

So one question to ask is whether the Kabul attack was an extension of an undeclared proxy war between the two countries in Afghanistan. And if so, what does it mean for their fresh attempt at dialogue begun with a meeting of  their foreign secretaries on Thursday? In such a decentralised insurgency, the Kabul attack was unlikely to be timed specifically to follow those talks but it could sour the mood further. 

And although the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, Thomas Ruttig at the Afghanistan Analysts Network asks where this would leave the statement made by Taliban leader Mullah Omar that his movement did not represent a threat to any other country. “Does that not apply to India?” he writes. “Or has this attack been carried out by other elements: Pakistani Taleban, the Haqqani network or those linked to groups like Lashkar-e Taiba or al-Qaeda that has declared ‘Hindu’ India a target, too?”

In the meantime, U.S. media appear to be stepping up calls on Washington to do more to try to nudge India and Pakistan back into peace talks, judging by these editorials in The Christian Science Monitor and The New York Times. “The administration knows how important it is for India and Pakistan to lower tensions,” said The New York Times. “At India’s insistence, it has decided to take a low profile role, nudging the two sides discreetly back to the table. It should nudge harder.”

Pakistan, India send in their professional diplomats to break the stalemate

The foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan, meeting in New Delhi to end a diplomatic freeze which followed the November 2008 attack on Mumbai, did what they were expected to do — laid out all the issues which divide the two countries and agreed to “keep in touch”.

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, India’s top diplomat, focused on what India calls “cross-border terrorism”. India also handed three new dossiers of evidence to the Pakistani delegation, including one on Hafez Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group, who New Delhi accuses of masterminding the Mumbai attack. Pakistan had said it did not have enough evidence to prosecute Saeed.

Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir said both countries were victims of terrorism but that dialogue should not be held hostage to a single person or single incident. In a news conference after the talks he stressed the need to reach a settlement on Kashmir, to resolve territorial disputes over the Siachen and Sir Creek regions and to improve cooperation over the sharing of Himalayan river waters.

He also raised India’s role in Afghanistan, saying it was using its presence there to provide money and funding to militants to destabilise Pakistan. India denies this.

But despite their widely different views on what should be on the agenda, there was little suggestion of rancour during the talks, which Bashir described as a genuine attempt to bridge differences. Both Rao and Bashir are seasoned diplomats with long experience of the many ups and downs of the relationship between India and Pakistan.

The next step to watch is whether Rao now travels to Islamabad for a further round of talks.  No dates were announced. The prime ministers of the two countries will also have a chance to meet at a regional summit in Bhutan in April.

Progress will be slow. India and Pakistan have yet to agree even on what format their talks should take. India is believed to have some doubts about the usefulness of the composite dialogue – a formal structured process meant to cover all areas of contention — and broken off by New Delhi after the Mumbai attack.  Bashir appealed against discarding the composite dialogue,  which been the foundation for many years of negotiations, complaining that if this were relegated, there would be no starting point for future discussions.

Towards a regional settlement in Afghanistan (Redux squared)

Regular readers of this blog will know we have been talking for a long time about finding a regional solution to Afghanistan. The argument — much touted during President Barack Obama’s election campaign — was that you could stabilise the country if you persuaded the many regional players with a stake in Afghanistan — including Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia and China — to cooperate rather than compete in finding a political settlement to what was effectively an unwinnable war.

The argument looked at best utopian, at worst a description of the delicate balance of power in the early 20th century that was meant to keep the peace but in reality led to the outbreak of World War One.  It is now resurfacing again as public opinion in western countries — including in staunch U.S. ally Britain – turns against the long war in Afghanistan.

As discussed in this analysis, we are now seeing some fresh signs of regional cooperation. The foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan hold talks on Thursday to try to break a diplomatic freeze which followed the 2008 attack on Mumbai. And Pakistan and Iran may have cooperated on the arrest of Jundollah leader Abdolmalek Rigi.

The utopian argument may finally about to have its day. That said, none of this is following a U.S. script. So we could also  see — as happened before 1914 — the best efforts at balancing out every nation’s interests turning out for the worst.

(File photo: Children in Arghandab, Afghanistan)

India and Pakistan: finding the right forum for dialogue

“Peace,” said Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw ”is not only better than war, but infinitely more arduous.”  Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao begins that arduous process on Thursday when she meets her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir to try to break a diplomatic freeze that followed the November 2008 attack on Mumbai.

 Rao, speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said she hoped to “build, in a graduated manner, better communication and a serious and responsive dialogue to address issues of concern between our two countries”.

In her speech, she insisted Pakistan must act to dismantle Pakistani-based militant groups blamed for attacks in India and Indian Kashmir. “The greatest threat to peace and stability in our region emanates from the shelter terrorists find in the border of Afghanistan-Pakistan and in Pakistan itself,” she said. ”Terror groups … continue to recruit, train and plot attacks from safe havens across our borders.”

In answer to a question about whether Kashmir would figure in her discussions, as sought by Pakistan, she acknowledged this was a subject that must be discussed bilaterally. India’s concerns about terrorism would find “essential focus”, she said  — with emphasis on the word essential — but that “obviously we would like to keep the door to dialogue open”.

The problem, as discussed  in this story, is how to structure the dialogue.  With India’s Pakistan policy decided in the prime minister’s office, the foreign secretaries can do little more than provide a supporting role in preparing the groundwork for another meeting between the two countries’ leaders, possibly on the fringes of the SAARC summit due in Bhutan in April (see pdf of the invitation from Bhutan)

Like his predecessor Atal Behari Vajpayee, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wants peace with Pakistan. He is likely to move cautiously after being criticised by his own party for giving too much ground in talks last July with Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of a non-aligned summit in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt.

And while many people believe that real progress will require bold steps by the two countries’ political leadership, they are a long way from the kind of summit talks which might make a breakthrough possible. A summit between Musharraf and Vajpayee in Agra in 2001 ended in disaster after the Pakistani leader tried to strike a deal directly with the Indian prime minister in an attempt to leapfrog the time-consuming preparations of their bureaucracies.  Neither country is seen as being particularly keen to repeat the experience.

Lashkar-e-Taiba founder says sees room for Pakistan-India talks

The idea of holding talks to resolve the many competing interests across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India – which has most recently focused on whether the Afghan Taliban can be brought to the negotiating table – appears to be catching on.

Now Hafiz Saeed, the founder of the banned Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group blamed for the Nov. 2008 attacks on Mumbai, says in an interview with Al Jazeera that he sees room for Pakistan to hold talks with India over disputed Kashmir.

“”We’ve never said ‘no’ to a dialogue. To say that we don’t believe in dialogue is propaganda,” he said in a rare interview. “We’ve always talked about a dialogue but the problem is it should be productive and obtain results. India has never been sincere in talks and only holds talks when it is in her interests.  If she wants to restore confidence in the talks, she must accept Kashmir as a core dispute.”

Saeed, who runs the Jamaat-ud-Dawa humanitarian wing of the Laskhar-e-Taiba, has been accused by India of masterminding the attacks on Mumbai — an accusation he denies. He is also seen as close to the Pakistan Army, so for him to come out now and talk about talks carries some resonance.

The foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan are due to hold talks on Feb. 25 to try to end the diplomatic freeze which followed the Mumbai attacks. Although no quick progress is expected, especially after last weekend’s bombing in the Indian city of Pune, it’s hard to escape the impression that the long stalemate  over Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is lifting.

In any case, it’s very unusual to see a top Afghan Taliban commander arrested in Pakistan in the same week that one of the leaders of the Pakistan-based fight against Indian rule in Kashmir gives an interview about talks.   Coincidence or otherwise, there seems to be an acceleration in regional diplomacy.

(File photo of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani)

Pakistan’s arrest of Mullah Baradar: tactics or strategy?

The arrest of Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in Karachi leaves big unanswered questions about why Pakistan chose to act now against a man credited with giving operational coherence to Afghan Taliban (or Quetta Shura Taliban) operations in Afghanistan.

The answers to those questions depend very much on the assumptions you start out with about what Pakistan is trying to achieve in Afghanistan. But for the sake of of argument, let’s take three  of them — that it is pushing the Taliban to sever ties with al Qaeda and enter negotiations on a political settlement; that it wants a stable Afghanistan, and that it is aiming to keep it free of Indian and Iranian influence.

TALKS

Mullah Baradar’s arrest would signal to other Taliban leaders, including the reclusive Mullah Muhammad Omar, that Pakistan is willing to flex its muscles to convince them to adopt a “reasonable” position in any negotiations, turn convincingly against al Qaeda, and ensure Pakistan’s interests are safeguarded in any attempt at a political settlement.

But this would be a high-risk gamble.  The warning implicit in Mullah Baradar’s arrest could just as  easily persuade other Taliban leaders that it is too risky to rise above the surface enough to engage in talks, and they might be better off lying low and waiting out U.S.-led troops until they begin to leave. 

It also removes from the scene a man who some argue could otherwise have been used as a go-between in any talks (see Thomas Ruttig at the Afghan Analysts Network for an interesting take on Mullah Baradar’s past links with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.) 

A STABLE AFGHANISTAN

Musharraf in London

Perhaps the most striking thing about a speech given by former president Pervez Musharraf in London on Monday was how many people turned out to hear him. There were two overflow rooms for those who wanted to hear his words relayed over closed-circuit television. I can’t think of many former rulers who can pack a crowd like that — although this was also a measure of the intense interest in London in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Musharraf now lives in comparative obscurity in the Edgware Road area of London — a street full of Middle Eastern restaurants where waiters look at you strangely if you try to order beer, and where men sit outside on the pavement smoking shishas even in the middle of winter.  Yet he still talks as articulately as he used to with no hint of the self-pity, or criticism, of Pakistan’s existing rulers. He still cracks a joke with confidence, and at the end raises his hand in a military salute to a clapping audience ( a rather more polite response than he might receive if he returned home).

Some of his main points:

* The West made a mistake in failing to recognise the importance of the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan when it overthrew the Taliban in 2001, and in not giving them proper representation in the government. “The Pashtun are totally alienated and therefore for the past eight years they have been pushed towards the Taliban.” But the notion of ”moderate Taliban” made no sense since the distinction was between Taliban and Pashtun. “All Taliban are Pashtun, but not all Pashtun are Taliban.”

* The West was in danger of making another big mistake by talking of drawing down troops in 2011 instead of promising to stay as long as it takes. “We are showing a lack of resolve and a lack of commitment … when we are talking of running away and going after two years.”

 ”We must win. Failure, quitting, is not an option,” he said. “In Afghanistan, we have to defeat al Qaeda, we have to dominate the Taliban and we have to install a legitimate government in Afghanistan.”

Pune bombing unlikely to derail India-Pakistan talks

This weekend’s bombing which killed nine people in the Indian city of Pune — the first major attack since the 2008 assault on Mumbai — is unlikely to derail plans for the foreign secretaries, or top diplomats, of India and Pakistan to hold talks on Feb. 25.

The Hindu newspaper — which is well-informed about the thinking in the prime minister’s office where India’s policy towards Pakistan is decided — says there will be no rethinking about the planned talks. 

“India has no intention of allowing terrorists to dictate the scope and schedule of diplomatic interaction with Pakistan and will not let Saturday’s bombing of a bakery in Pune derail the February 25 meeting of foreign secretaries, highly placed sources told The Hindu,” it says. “With investigations into the attack still under way, officials said on Sunday there would be no ‘knee-jerk reaction’. India knows the situation is complex, they added.”

Indian officials have been circumspect about who was behind the bombing. Early candidates are the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) accused of masterminding the Mumbai assault (for a factbox on the group see here) and the Indian Mujahideen, an indigenous group with close ties to both the LeT and the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).

According to The Hindu’s Islamabad correspondent, the Jamaat ud-Dawa, the humanitarian wing of the LeT, had specifically mentioned Pune as a target during rallies across Pakistan on Feb. 5 to mark the annual “Kashmir Solidarity Day”.  Media reports also suggest that American David Headley — whose arrest last year in Chicago on terrorism charges led to renewed fears of LeT attacks on India — had visited Pune on reconnaissance missions.

That said, the bombing appeared to have been a relatively simple operation — a bomb left in a bag in a cafe – and in contrast to the sophistication of the Mumbai assault, could easily have been carried out by local operatives without outside help.

But the grim reality — and this is hard to write without thinking about the very real victims of the Pune bombing — is that it does not change the overall picture of the India-Pakistan relationship.

from India Insight:

India’s ‘amnesty’ to Pakistan-based Kashmiri rebels

The Indian government has for the first time offered amnesty to hundreds of Kashmiris who had crossed over to the Pakistani part of Kashmir and are now willing to surrender and return home.

Thousands of Kashmiris have slipped into Pakistan-administered Kashmir for arms training since an anti-India insurgency broke out twenty years ago.

Hundreds have returned and joined Muslim rebel groups, many died on a rugged military control line while sneaking into the Indian side and many more are still living in different parts of Pakistan or Pakistani Kashmir.

Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram has said anyone willing to give up militancy and return is welcome home.

The amnesty for those who want to return home could be a major confidence-building measure in a bid to soothe anger in Kashmir, where recent civilian deaths, blamed on security forces, have fuelled anti-India sentiment.

BBC says there is no guarantee that the government of Pakistan would co-operate in any scheme to repatriate the Kashmiri militants.

But India may take up the amnesty issue with Pakistan at foreign secretary-level talks.