Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
On India-Pakistan thaw and the changing Afghan dynamics
There is a time and a place for everything and back in the days of the Obama election campaign the idea that progress on the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan could help turn around the flagging military campaign in Afghanistan looked plausible. The argument, much touted by Washington think-tankers, was that Pakistan would not turn against Afghan Taliban militants on its western border as long as it believed it might need to use them to counter India’s growing influence in Afghanistan, and as long as it felt the need to keep the bulk of its army on its eastern border with India.
Even in the middle of last year, when Pakistan and India made an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to revive peace talks which had been frozen since the attack on Mumbai at the end of 2008, the possibility of a “grand bargain” from Kashmir to Kabul still carried some resonance.
But time has moved on, so it is a little bit strange to see these arguments resurfacing now after India proposed to resume talks with Pakistan. (See Newsweek’s “Kashmir is the key to peace in Afghanistan” or the op-ed by David Ignatius in the Washington Post)
As I wrote in this analysis, a thaw in relations between India and Pakistan would be too little, too late to achieve results in time for Washington’s 2011 deadline for drawing down troops in Afghanistan. Real progress on Kashmir would require them to get back to a roadmap for peace sketched out between India and Pakistan in 2007 under former president Pervez Musharraf. But Pakistan, whose vulnerability to attacks by Islamist militants has been demonstrated in a spate of gun and bomb attacks over the past year, probably no longer has the political space to offer the kind of concessions Musharraf made to get there without risking a backlash at home. And while the roadmap provided a framework for further negotiations on Kashmir, a lot of ground had yet to be covered to translate that into a real agreement; even if indeed it would ever have worked.
On Afghanistan: a quick round-up of views from around the world
Following up on my post earlier this week on fighting over a settlement in Afghanistan, here is a quick round-up of reaction on how this new phase in the Afghan war is being perceived, according to the editorials and op-ed pages from some of the countries with a stake in the region. Please add more in the comments if you think there are important articles which have been overlooked:
Pakistan:
In this guest column for the BBC, Ahmed Rashid writes that the only way to end the war in Afghanistan is to talk to the Taliban.
Ayesha Siddiqa at Dawn worries about the risk of renewed regional rivalries, especially between Pakistan and India, if the United States pulls out too quickly.
“It is within us” By Kamran Shafi
“How can Afghanistan become friendly towards Pakistan when there is continuing ambivalence in wholeheartedly targeting the Taliban leadership, both Afghan and Pakistani, which as we well know are closely allied? How possibly can Afghanistan call Pakistan a friend when senior Pakistani army officers refer to these people, its enemies, as ‘assets’?
“On another tack, how can the ultimate leaders of groups that also attack innocent Pakistanis in Peshawar and Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi be the strategic assets of our brass hats?
“How can Afghanistan consider Pakistan a friend when the Quetta shura of the Afghan Taliban which has now been outed by no less a personage than the minister of defence, is not even touched let alone degraded to an extent that it will cease being a threat to Afghanistan? When its leaders openly defy government authority and do as they will in Balochistan, extending their murderous tentacles into Iran too?
“Unless, of course, it is still the case that our great strategists feel that the Taliban, both the Pakistan and Afghan variety, are the only ones who can ensure a peaceful, stable and friendly Afghanistan. If so, they have very bad memories, for they do not have to look very far back into Afghanistan’s sorry history to see how badly this, for want of a better word, scheme, failed so very miserably the last time around, with the Afghan people facing untold tribulations at the hands of a backward and medieval regime.
“How possibly can the Afghans see Pakistan as a friend when they see that their tormentors and the Pakistani security establishment are still friends? No sirs, no, Afghanistan will never consider Pakistan a friend unless those who have made mindless statements about the Taliban being assets retract those statements in totality and without reservation. And far more than that take stringent action against all of the terrorists without exception.”
In Afghanistan: fighting over the terms of a settlement
At last week’s London conference, two of the great truisms of warfare punched their way to the surface. The first is that wars are fought as much on the home front as on the battlefield. With public support for the war in Afghanistan ebbing away, the United States and its allies in NATO have shifted from seeking outright victory to looking for an exit strategy that will allow them to start bringing home their troops next year. Rather as the British did after their two failed invasions of Afghanistan in the 19th century, they are sending in reinforcements in a display of military might which they hope will secure better terms in an eventual settlement.
The other truism is that if you can’t win outright victory on the battlefield, then you have to negotiate with your enemies. President Hamid Karzai set the ball rolling by announcing he would hold a peace council to which, according to an Afghan government spokesman, the Taliban leadership would be invited. Karzai has made such suggestions before, and it is by no means clear the Taliban leadership will send representatives. What was different this time, however, was the context. Karzai’s suggestion no longer met with the same resistance from war-weary governments, who stressed that it was up to the Afghans themselves to lead the process of reconciliation. He also coupled his call for a peace council with an appeal to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to bring peace to Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia is a trusted interlocutor between the Afghan government and the Taliban leadership; Pakistan is the only country which still has some measure of leverage over them. Thus Karzai’s call for a loya jirga, though not dramatic in itself, became emblematic of a broader shift towards seeking a political settlement to end the war.
What happens now is so complicated and so delicate, that no one can predict the outcome. Just as western governments have little clear idea about who might buy into a political settlement and on what terms, nor do the insurgents themselves. Contacts with various insurgent groups are expected to follow many different tracks, so that everyone — on all sides — is going to be watching what everyone else does to try to maximise their advantage.
The warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose men play a powerful role in the insurgency in eastern Afghanistan, has shown some signs of flexibility, according to the Wall Street Journal. In a video leaked to the WSJ, he said that “we have no agreement with the Taliban – not for fighting the war, and not for the peace.”
@Umair,
Umair, you do not understand western European mentality. You keep thumping your chest about Pak Army sacrifices, well to the western mindset, that this is just a part of the progress to achieving the goal. You have no reason speaking out here about sacrifices until militancy is gone from the region, then feel free to gloat about sacrifices and such. In the mean time, feel free to turn in Talibans, keep your eyes and ears open to those bearded guys who call themselves muslims, they rove the streets of Pindi and Islamabad, you never which one, and when may try to harm your countrymen. This is the creation of your army forefathers. Please be more productive and invite all forms destruction backwardness, like the Afghan Taliban, TET, JUD and all Kashmiri militants.
The world will not rest until ALL of Pakistan is rid of anti-civilization and anti-human elements, that includes all strategic depth toys your army guys you have as unofficial limbs of the army, trying night and day to wreak havoc on Afghans and Indians.
On Taliban/AQ ties and the Afghanistan exit strategy
Vahid Brown at the CTC Sentinel has a new article (pdf document) out arguing that the relationship between Taliban leader Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden before 9/11 was considerably more fractious than it was made out to be. The main source of argument was between the Taliban’s Afghan nationalist agenda and bin Laden’s view of global jihad, and in particular his determination to attack the United States, he says.
Based on an account by an insider, he challenges the assumption that bin Laden personally swore an oath of allegiance to Mullah Omar. The account by Egyptian jihadist Mustafa Hamid, better known as Abul-Walid al-Masri, was first published in jihadist forums in 2007 but gained little attention outside specialist websites.
Given the groundswell of talk this week about the possibility of an eventual peace deal with the Taliban it is worth reading closely in the light of the debate about whether they can be prised away from al Qaeda (bin Laden’s son says in this interview with Reuters that there is little love lost between the Taliban and OBL).
Brown notes that Abul-Walid is a Taliban loyalist and his claims should be treated with caution. However the apparent endorsement of his views by the Taliban would suggest that whether or not his account of a Taliban/al Qaeda rift is accurate, they cast light on how the Taliban chooses to project itself today.
@@ Can India withstand a nuclear strike even though it would retain a second strike status”
-Umair
Umair: This is the precise reason the world knows Pakistan for—-the “irresponsible nuclear power” whose citizens take out nuclear sword so often and whose scientists mingled with terrorists and whose agencies proliferated the nuclear weapons like no body’s business. Why I do not see Indians threatening Pakistan with nuclear weapon?
Perhaps you do not know the answer to your own question: “Are you aware of the destructive nature of nuclear weapons?” It’s about time you find the answer to it. A dirty bomb is good enough and you are discussing these nukes.
U.S. policy confusion on Pakistan and India
What is the U.S. policy towards Pakistan and India, and in particular over how to deal with their rivalry over Afghanistan which complicates U.S. efforts to bring stability there? I’ve been trying to find an answer for weeks now amid a raft of contradictory signals and statements coming from different U.S. officials.
First we had the leaked report by General Stanley McChrystal in September suggesting the issue should be handled with caution given Pakistani sensitivities about a big rise in India’s presence in Afghanistan following the fall of the Pakistani-backed Taliban in 2001.
“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment,” it said. “In addition the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”
Then we had a series of reports, most recently here, suggesting Washington might welcome a bigger role for India in Afghanistan – precisely the kind of development that would exacerbate tensions with Pakistan given the current sour mood between New Delhi and Islamabad.
The biggest problem with any supposed attempts for a dialog between India and Pakistan by anyone (India, Pakistan, Kashmiri leaders, US) is that Pakistani military / ISI is not held accountable. It is Pakistani military / ISI that is in (most) control in Pakistan, and it gains tremendously from keeping animosity with India alive. I hope all parties involved get this (which they likely do), and more importantly, start acting upon it. Shying away from engaging in talks or curtailing the power of the Pakistani military / ISI will not get anyone anywhere on Indo-Pak peace, no matter what the intentions are.
Pakistan: ditching “strategic depth”
Kamran Shafi has a column up at Dawn mocking Pakistan’s old strategy of seeking “strategic depth” - the idea that in the event of war with India its military would be able to operate from Afghanistan to offset its disadvantage as a small country compared to its much bigger neighbour:
“Let us presume that the Indians are foolish enough to get distracted from educating their people, some of whom go to some of the best centres of learning in the world. Let us assume that they are idiotic enough to opt for war instead of industrialising themselves and meeting their economic growth targets which are among the highest in the world. Let us imagine that they are cretinous enough to go to war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan and effectively put an immediate and complete end to their multi-million dollar tourism industry. Let us suppose that they lose all sense, all reason, and actually attack Pakistan and cut our country into half.
“Will our army pack its bags and escape into Afghanistan? How will it disengage itself from the fighting? What route will it use, through which mountain passes? Will the Peshawar Corps gun its tanks and troop carriers and trucks and towed artillery and head into the Khyber Pass, and on to Jalalabad? Will the Karachi and Quetta Corps do likewise through the Bolan and Khojak passes? And what happens to the Lahore and Sialkot and Multan and Gujranwala and Bahawalpur and other garrisons? What about the air force? Far more than anything else, what about the by now 180 million people of the country? What ‘strategic depth’ do our Rommels and Guderians talk about, please? What poppycock is this?
“More importantly, how can Afghanistan be our ‘strategic depth’ when most Afghans hate our guts, not only the northerners, but even those who call themselves Pakhtuns?”
Nuclear weapons were used once in history and no country can ever use them again. Possession of these weapons does not give a country any extra edge over others globally. All it accomplishes is in-house support for the leadership of that particular country.
Pakistan cannot be talking about exercising the nuclear option at the drop of a hat. Even if Pakistan were ever so foolish to use such a weapon, it would become an instant pariah on the international scene. No country least of all Pakistan which is so dependent on international aid can survive the fallout, UN sanctions of 1998 is a case in point. Pakistani media and its leadership need to be more responsible and less jingoistic.
The use of militant Islam as a means of low intensity aggression against any nation is not acceptable in the post 9/11 world. Pakistan therefore needs to see the writing on the wall, and dismantle these institutions which it has supported so far, to further its influence in the South Asian region. State support for religious militancy is fraught with pit-falls, as interests of a nation state are much broader than the strict and narrow ideology of a religious group or sect. It does not take much provocation for these groups to turn on the benefactor itself, Pakistan is experiencing it today!
Pakistan has to build trust in its neighborhood. It cannot continue being a local bully, teetering on the edge, using threats and nuclear coercion as the new instrument of foreign policy.
Brzezinski on U.S.-India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China
The Real News had an interview last week with former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski who talks about how U.S. policy is playing out across Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and China. The second part of the interview covers his support for the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, but here is what he has to say about Pakistan and the regional dynamics:
“We are in Afghanistan because we have been there for 8 years, now getting out is easy to say, but by now if we get out, quickly, the question arises, what follows? Is there going to be again a very sort of militant regime in Afghanistan which might tolerate al Qaeda’s presence and beyond that is now a new issue, namely the conflict in Afghanistan has come to be connected with the conflict in Pakistan. Pakistan is an important country of 170 million people which has nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons, and delivery systems, delivery systems to the entire region around so we have to think much more responsibly on how to deal with this problem … ”
“We have to find a way of helping Pakistan cope with its problem in Pakistan but also help us cope with our problem in Afghanistan and that raises an extraordinarily complicated question, namely how do we give the Pakistanis the reassurance they want that if we leave Afghanistan there is not a regime in Afghanistan other than the Taliban which is more friendly to India than to Pakistan.”
Asked about whether the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the region was based on an alliance between the United States and India:
While Afghanistan is surely important, with regard to Pakistan’s stability, the most important relationship in South Asia is between India and China. However, China does not have the means to project power directly into South Asia (one word: Himalayas) Thus, to balance Indian power China has its alliance with Pakistan. Indian troubles with China are in response to the perceived weakness of China’s ally in the region, Pakistan. I don’t think anyone will disagree that current trends make Pakistan look very weak, almost to the point of collapse. China will continue with an aggressive stance against India as a deterrent from any ambitions they may have in Pakistan. This is summed up well here: http://www.philosoguy.com/111/india-and- china-and-pakistan/
Pakistan seen drifting away from the west
Pakistan is likely to drift further away from the west in the years ahead as pressure from Islamist groups and anti-Americanism undermine the traditional moorings of the secular pro-western elite, according to a report just released by the Legatum Institute.
The report rules out the possibility of a Taliban takeover or of Pakistan becoming a failed state, predicting it is most likely to ”muddle through” with the army continuing to play a powerful role behind the scenes in setting foreign and security policy. “Rather than an Islamist takeover, you should look at a subtle power shift from a secular pro-Western society to an Islamist anti-American one,” said Jonathan Paris, the author of the report.
I recommend reading the full report, which examines the outlook for Pakistan in a one to three-year time horizon on a range of issues from the economy to security to relations with the United States, India and China. It also lays out factors to watch in the tremendously complex interplay of influences which will determine the direction for Pakistan in the coming years. You can read the full report here (pdf).
Pakistan has been down the Islamist road before, particularly during the Zia years. And public opinion turned against the hardline Islamist practices of the Taliban when they occupied the Swat valley last year. But while people may be willing to argue against the Taliban, it is less clear that society as a whole will resist the creeping Islamisation wrought by Islamist political parties and militant organisations, particularly in Punjab province, unless the state can deliver economic growth along with a reliable and speedy legal system.
Americans have decorated Pakistan as a “country of interest”.
View from US: ‘Country of interest’ By Anjum Niaz
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/colu mnists/19-anjum-niaz-country-of-interest -010-hh-04
“God forbid if you came under the American radar as a ‘person of interest!’ While you won’t be dragged off to jail, you’d certainly have the CIA and FBI watch your every move. One slip and you could be in prison. And God forbid if the Americans declared your country a “country of interest”.
“Well, it has finally happened. Pakistan, as of last week has been accorded the ignominious title. And all because of just this terrorist from Nigeria called Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.”
“Citizens of 14 nations, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, coming to America will be “subjected indefinitely to the intense screening at airports worldwide,” reports the New York Times.
It’s only folks flying out of these 14 countries who should expect intensive interrogation. Cubans, Iranians, Sudanese and Syrians are considered as coming from “state sponsors of terrorism,” while Afghans, Algerians, Lebanese, Libyans, Iraqi, Nigerians, Pakistani, Saudi Arabians, Somalians and Yemenis have been branded as citizens belonging to a ‘country of interest.’
“So what will happen to Pakistanis coming to the US? They will be for the first time “patted down automatically before boarding any flight to the US,” says the Times. I don’t think we should take this personally. No one wants a suicide bomber sitting next to you in the plane even if he were a Pakistani.”
Pakistan: in defence of drones
Dawn columnist Irfan Husain has drawn attention to a fairly revolutionary article by Pakistani academic Farhat Taj in defence of drone attacks in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
By way of introduction, start with what Husain writes in his column:
“Many of us in the punditry profession are guilty of making generalisations about what is happening in the tribal areas without having visited them in recent times. Thus, when we hear about the anger and outrage supposedly sweeping though the people of Fata over the frequent drone attacks, we tend to accept this as the gospel truth,” he writes.
“This myth was recently exploded by Farhat Taj in her article ‘Drone attacks: challenging some fabrications’, published recently in a national daily. Dr Taj is an academic at the University of Oslo, but more importantly, she comes from the region and has a degree of access to tribal Pakhtuns that is rare.”
@See item on ACLU seeking more transparency on drone strikes:
http://washingtonindependent.com/73876/a clu-wants-to-know-the-legal-basis-for-ci a-drone-strikes
Posted by Myra.MacDonald
—So ACLU Wants to Know the Legal Basis for CIA Drone Strikes. They can check that with PA/ISI who will know that very well and perhaps ACLU should file a similar request to Taliban, A-Q and other similar philanthropist organizations which the CIA is targeting.
Kashmir gunbattle underscores India-Pakistan tensions
A nearly 24-hour gunbattle this week between militants and Indian security forces in the centre of Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, is a powerful reminder of the tensions in the region at the heart of enmity between India and Pakistan. Two people were killed along with the two militants - one of whom was described by police as a Pakistani - in the biggest attack in Srinagar in two years. Hundreds of people, who had become accustomed to relative calm after years of separatist violence, had to be rescued from nearby buildings.
The attack itself might or might not turn out to be an isolated incident. But what is troubling is that it took place within the context of a deterioration in relations between India and Pakistan.
After plummeting following the attack on Mumbai in November 2008, relations improved enough between India and Pakistan for their leaders to hold two rounds of talks on the sidelines of international meetings last year. As recently as July, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised to keep the lines of communication open with Pakistan. Since then the atmosphere has soured considerably, in part because of information which followed the arrest in Chicago of American David Headley which suggested the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group blamed for Mumbai might be planning new attacks in India.
Not only are the two countries not talking, but they appear to be on a collision course over both Afghanistan and Kashmir.
Myra:
In search of peace By Kuldip Nayar
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/colu mnists/16-kuldip-nayar-in-search-of-peac e-510-hs-10
“It was a welcome coincidence that both Bangladesh and Pakistan figured in the recent discussions in New Delhi. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed was on her first official visit after a landslide electoral victory last year. Top Pakistan lawyers, academicians and human rights activists sat in the capital with their counterparts to find ‘A Road to Peace’.”
“Sheikh Hasina will not allow Bangladesh’s soil to be used by anti-India groups. When Dhaka handed over to Delhi ULFA (United Liberation Front of Asom) leaders, the insurgents from Assam, it was the beginning of a new chapter.
“In fact, during the talks between Manmohan Singh and Sheikh Hasina, when the latter assured the Indian prime minister that no terrorists would be allowed to function from her country the entire scenario changed. She had a long list of demands.
“But even before she could name the first, Manmohan Singh reportedly said that she did not have to ask for anything. India would go to any extent to meet Bangladesh’s needs.
“The proposed $600m credit to Dhaka was doubled. India gave an undertaking that it would not take any step regarding the Tipaimukh hydroelectric project without the consent of Bangladesh, which is a controversial issue. Nor did New Delhi ask for any transit facility which again is a sensitive issue in Dhaka.
“The resolve to eliminate terrorism is what the region wants, from Kabul to Dhaka. Islamabad would like New Delhi to join the operation but India is in no mood to listen to Pakistani’s argument for the resumption of a composite dialogue.”
“”Islamabad has not yet understood how the system works in New Delhi. Otherwise, it would not have overreacted to the statement made by Indian army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor that India may have to prepare for war against China and Pakistan. However irresponsible the statement, it does not pose any threat to Pakistan.
The systems in the two countries are different. Gen Kapoor or the army has no say in India’s political affairs. He is due to retire after serving his tenure. The government will soon be naming his successor. Making a mountain out of a molehill gives the impression that Pakistan is trying to score a point, however weak.”"
-
Search
Follow Pakistan: Now or Never?
Alamsha Khan: “True Indo-Pak peace is possible only when RSS-BJP-BD-Deoband-JUD-LeT-Kashmiri seperatists hold a peace meeting.”
This is not fair. You forgot to mention the Shiv Sena. You also forgot the Indian Mujahideen, and SIMI. Please improve your general knowledge by reading reliable newspapers like Pak Tribune in order to post accurate information.
India has started a new peace process with Pakistan. As a friendly gesture, we’d like to give you Bal Thackeray, Uddhav Thakkarey and other Thakkareys as gift. You can offer them to the LeT for target practice. Please let us know when we can ship them. They’d feel at home in a country like Pakistan where people are very spirited in expressing their hatred for others. We also have some leaders like Mayawati, Advani, Narendra Modi, Mulayam Yadav, Lallu Yadav and many others that Pakistan can take and offer Nisha-e-Pakistan awards. Did I forget anyone else? Before you make your offer, thanks, but we do not want your Zardaris and Sharifs. We have plenty already at home. Since Pakistan specializes in scrap picking and recycling, it would help us if you could take our garbage. Thanks in advance.