So, Pakistan is finally going to review its agreements with the United States and also push for a reconciliation process in and with Afghanistan regardless of Washington’s approach?
I am impressed. What 40,000 civilian and military lives could not achieve in over a decade, the sacrifice of 24 soldiers of the 7th Battalion of the Azad Kashmir Regiment — a terrific paltan I remember from its days in Sialkot, when my late father served in it — has managed.
Reports suggest the two-day-long envoys’ conference has agreed on a broad policy review and, as part of that, would “renegotiate two key agreements signed with the United States and its western allies nine years ago”. The agreements relate to allowing transit of supplies and extending logistics support to US-led Nato forces.
This newspaper has reported that the “recommendations include fresh agreements for Nato supplies and logistics support to the US, minimising the ‘CIA footprint’ in the country, seeking an honourable return of Afghan refugees and pursuing efforts to stabilise Afghanistan irrespective of Washington’s approach”.
As reported, all of this sounds good. These recommendations will now go before the parliamentary committee on national security, which has the remit to redraft the terms of any agreement with the US. So far so good, but the question is: will this reaction result in a sustainable proactive policy?
It is well to establish with the US what I have described elsewhere as a baseline. However, the policy review should be realistic rather than an expression of anger. Also, one of the most important aspects of this review must deal with Afghanistan and how Pakistan wants to deal with the situation in that country.
In that, the decision to effect reconciliation in and with Afghanistan, independent of what the US might or might not do, is good and indicates a proactive approach that relies more on political negotiations than firefighting. Pakistan needed such an approach. The policy, so far, has been driven by security concerns which, though understandable, have pushed the complex process of negotiations in the background.
One can have an easy benchmark to determine this point. How many official international conferences have been hosted by Pakistan that dealt with constitutional development and/or socio-economic issues in Afghanistan? Not one, thank you, even as Islamabad has constantly pushed for a central role in determining the future of Afghanistan.
Similarly, so far Pakistan has taken the position that it cannot do much until the Americans are clear about what they want and how. I was always sceptical of this position and events have proved that this approach did not make a good, proactive policy. The effort by Pakistan to pull in President Hamid Karzai and make him understand the importance of talking to the leaders of the insurgency was a smart move. But there was no real follow through on it. The arrest of Mullah Baradar and the refusal to release him even after Karzai publicly asked for his release, did nothing to improve trust. Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani’s murder by elements inimical to any negotiations has all but derailed the bilateral process.
That process must be revived. It is important, if Pakistan wants to play the role that it seeks, to become proactive and focus on Afghanistan’s concerns. As a facilitator of peace, Pakistan would need to level with Afghanistan. If Pakistan can help the Kabul government to start negotiating with the leaders of the insurgency and those talks enter an advanced stage, the United States will have to fall in line because this will also offer the US the best way out of the current impasse. To wait for the Americans to present a road map before Pakistan will do something, is to lose the initiative.
This will not be an easy process. The distrust between Islamabad and Kabul has increased. Kabul’s reaching out to New Delhi is no great help either. But one needs to weigh the pros and cons: is it more important to focus on Afghanistan and deal with that country directly or have a skewed approach towards it on the basis of its ‘strategic partnership’ with India? The former course seems to be a better option because it allows Pakistan to be proactive and innovative rather than getting bogged down in a zero-sum game, which sees it increasingly pitted against the Afghanistan-India combine.
In that scenario, the distrust between Pakistan and Afghanistan would continue to increase, with a proportional decrease in Pakistan’s ability to shape outcomes on the western side. The beneficiary of any such development will be India, which will not even have to incur any direct costs of making Pakistan less relevant to events in West Asia. Also, in such a scenario, Pakistan will run the risk of losing traction. That seems like an outcome opposed to the entire focus of Pakistan’s policy of playing the leading role.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 15th, 2011.
COMMENTS (15)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
“recommendations include fresh agreements for Nato supplies and logistics support to the US,
So what are we waiting for? Fresh Bids?
minimising the ‘CIA footprint’ in the country,
You mean even after outing the CIA station chief and Raymond Davis there are still many left?
seeking an honourable return of Afghan refugees
Let us roll out a red carpet from Quetta to Kabul. Is Persia willing to supply one?
and pursuing efforts to stabilise Afghanistan irrespective of Washington’s approach”.
Turbans and all?
All this assumes that the powers that be have decided that it is in Pakistan's best interest to have a stable, peaceful Afghanistan next door. However, if the game that they are playing is primarily about regaining its strategic depth backyard of a decade ago, then negotiations between the Afghan government and Taliban will not enable Pakistan to successfully achieve that goal.
Another challenge that Pakistan faces in order to be a succesful intermediary is, it first must rebuild trust with the Afghan government. Following Rabbani's assassination and sectarian attacks in Kabul/Mazar-i-Sharif among the most recent incidents, trust is in short-supply. To show good faith, Pakistan will have to make a significant concession to the Afghan government. This requires a level of maturity that thus far Pakistan's interlocutors have not exhibited.
Pakistan need not "wait for the Americans to present a road map": the US already has a road map. It involves killing the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership, defeating the Taliban and removing their power in populated areas, building a strong Afghan army, and assisting Afghanistan in creating a reliable, democratic government. We are well on the way to accomplishing this, as this coming year will confirm. Pakistan, rather, has waited for the Americans to withdraw and leave the field to the Taliban, and to that end it has assisted the Taliban and continues to give them shelter and support. If Pakistan does not alter this policy, its problems are likely to increase.
imho
The long term answer to Afghanistan has to be some sort of link with the West to ensure monies come in as Afghanistan can not support itself for the foreseeable future. Pakistan can offer little but came spoil the game - of course ! I am reminded of John Maynard Keynes saying the reparations from Germany ought not to exceed 6 billion Vs figures as high as 100 billion being sought because he argued it was in the interest of the receivers. This was an example of one who thought f a r. Pakistan ought to develop a long term economic policy and what it plans to trade with it's neighbors including Afghanistan & India. Today the pittance offered by Jihadi Tanzeems for kamakazi missions seems attractive to the poor with no other alternatives. Developing other economic options will help in Pakistan & Afghanistan. India's interest in trade with central Asia can be leveraged positively rather than throwing road blocks constantly. The New Silk route the US & India are pushing can & will have positive benefits for Af & Pak & therefore needs to be embraced.
@Amazed: You are not only "Amazed" but perplexed also because you have missed the point with a wide margine.
With phenomenal policies now we got so called Enemy-India on the east, Almost-Enemy Afghanistan on the west, Not so friendly Iran on the southwest and Arabian sea. So many friends we got in the immediate neighborhood
excellent as usual!
How can Pak-Afgan-U.S strategy be win-win for all when U.S was never ready to accept the Taliban condition of having a council of Islamic scholars, in pre-OBL period to decide his hand over?
Dear Ejaz, your post ignores uncle Sam. Suggestions such this carry the risk of isolationism, increased reliance on radical forces for domestic peace and heightened tension with neighbors who have deep concerns regarding Pakistan state policy of supporting and exporting extremism funded by certain foreign country that cannot be named at the risk of being censured. We deserve an independent foreign policy but that appears difficult when we are economically dependent.
there you have the argument for continuing the interference in Afghasnistan. India, India and more India.
Yes, sir, I read it and understood it: "7th Battalion of the Azad Kashmir Regiment — a terrific paltan I remember from its days in Sialkot, when my late father served in it — has managed."
There are reports in Afghan media that US is helping Taliban to open an office in Qatar. Karzai has meeting will all Jihadis to restart peace talks with Talibans. These are quite rapid developments. It is always a big "IF" how much influence Pakistan has on Taliban. If there was any then why Taliban need to have office in Qatar not Rawalpindi. Time is running out for Pakistan to loose this golden goose. It is in the best interest of Pakistan to follow on this free & valuable advice of the Mr. Ejaz haider.
The Afghan population and state despise Pakistan. Various Afghan insurgent groups have used Pakistan to fight in the country, these groups usually forget about Pakistan after coming to power. The idea that Pakistan can "influence" Afghanistan and bring peace to the country is laughable. One has only to look at 1989-2001 period to see what Pakistan can achieve.
sane as ever