For renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama, the Taliban, in Afghanistan or Pakistan, are bogeymen.
“One must understand that the political motives of the Taliban [in Afghanistan] focus on the exit of Nato forces from Pashtun areas. They don’t have a larger agenda and they don’t want to branch out in other parts of the world,” says Fukuyama, a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University, in an interview with The Express Tribune.
He believes their brethren across the Durand Line in Pakistan are equally non-expansionist.
“The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is an ethnically based group. It is not plausible they would destabilise the state or extend their influence over non-Pashtun areas,” Fukuyama adds.
He believes there is an ‘alliance’ between the TTP, the Haqqanis and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), but that the nexus is far from apocalyptic.
“These groups don’t like a revolution and instead are content to target and kill people to put pressure on the state,” he says.
For Pakistan, Fukuyama believes the “problem lies elsewhere” – a failed decentralisation experiment.
“The decentralisation of provinces has worked fairly well. That situation could worsen if centre-province relations deteriorate. That could then get out of control,” he adds.
India and ISI
What about the threat from the eastern neighbour, India?
Fukuyama doesn’t say whether that is an actual threat or not, but insists “that senior military officials are more worried about India than the stability of their own country. They know what they are doing.”
The country’s premier intelligence agency is not awry, either, he says.
“The interpretation that the ISI does not read the situation in its own interest is wrong. [Senior military officials] do not completely control the various militant outfits but keeping them as assets is useful. This will continue,” he adds.
Decentralised Afghanistan
On the endgame in Afghanistan, Fukuyama says a constitution that gives the president too much power can be seen as an ‘obstacle,’ because “the de-facto situation [in Afghanistan] is that the system is very decentralised.”
“A political settlement post-withdrawal will have to take into account what the people decide. We need to see whether the Pashtun will have the government. But I don’t see the Taliban marching to Kabul,” Fukuyama says.
“The problem is whether the south can dominate or will it be a decentralised settlement on the basis of ethnic lines. If it is an ethnic settlement many of the groups have to be included,” he adds.
Foreign intervention
Fukuyama says the biggest obstacle to a central government working in Kabul would be Afghanistan’s meddling neighbours.
“For [a central government in Kabul] to work, there has to be international agreement which is complicated given that the US, Russia, India, Pakistan and Iran see the potential threats of their rivals,” he says.
“We have to take into account how the external parties bless this agreement and how the interested parties keep their hands off under some understanding,” he adds.
As for the United States’ presence, Fukuyama says “the country remains a powerful player in the equation,” and that “it is not leaving Afghanistan.”
“They can continue to accomplish what they want with the help of special forces and drones. They should have done this in 2010 but due to domestic political reasons this proved to be tough,” he adds.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2012.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713853507-0/MalalaHilary-(2)1713853507-0-270x192.webp)
Well I am surprised by some of the critical comments here. What Fukuyama is saying is nothing new. Many have said before that it is India and not Taleban, that worries the Pakistani military establishment. Also, it has been said for ages now that the pushtoon Taliban never had an expansionist agenda beyond Afghanistan. It was simply because they lacked and still lack the capacity to do so. Al-Qaeda did provide them some impetus to have an international role but otherwise they are unlikely to be able to control (and govern over a period of time) any territory beyond Afghanistan. And even there, it was not their abilities but rather the vacuum created with the withdrawl of the communists (and capitalists- US and Pak, alike) and the infighting of mujahadeen that enabled them to take over Kabul. As for Pakistan, yes he is right that a strong federalist structure has created such governance nightmares that it is in now. It is a pity that after so many years of so-called independence, Pakistani bureaucracy is pretty much a shadow of the old colonial masters, a country where still there are "tribal areas" and where almost half of the physical landmass of the country- Baluchistan that is, a no-go area for the state itself- where it even doesn't have a regular police force, what a shame! Here's a government website for quick ref:
http://www.balochistanpolice.gov.pk/cba.php
so now liberal brigade attacking Mr FukuYama because he dont agree with their interpretation of taliban .. and war of terror ..
I think Fukuyama is a political scholar and his observations need to be understood in context. He is essentially referring to populist potential of TTP. Taliban can be thugs / robbers / murderers / lunatic reactionaries but not revolutionaries. This is because they can’t think of any other way to extract compliance other than force, which reduces their viability as a political force in the long run. If it was not for Al-Qaeda, they would have already splintered into too many groups with limited resources. But, it goes without saying that they will continue to be used as a tactical tool by Al-Qaeda in the region.
if NATO/ISAF could not contain Talibans now after surge, how would US control Talibans after 2014.when their attacks will be concentrated against specific bases. Remember Afghan army is pro Taliban.
Fukuyama comments are mostly meant for American public not to get unduly perturbed by Taleban threat and vote for Obama. However his analysis on both Talebans threat perception restricted to their respective countries does not appear to be sound since both would most likely increase their influence into neighboring countries after coming to power. His suggestion to de-centralise provinces in Afghanistan on ethnic basis would only result in continuous fighting in the whole country. What is most surprising is his remarks on Pak army's external and internal threat perception which is quite off the mark. He is only right in one of his assessment that international agreement may not be reached easily in Afghanistan due to varied stakes and interests of its neighbors as well as the USA.
Fukayama would not recognize a Taliban even he hit him in the face. So, ET, stop going to he wrong people just because they have the right credentials. he has no expertise on the region.
It is the 3rd artical in which ET have used the same DP for taliban....are you out of new ones?
And was'nt this Fukuyama also predict the end of history 20 years ago? Higher they rise, the silly their political theories are!
It cannot be denied that that Russian Caucus separatists not only consider themselves comrades to the Taliban, but training, propaganda, and more are flowing both ways.
There is a similar situation in the Xinjiang of China, which, although limited now, has a long and open border with Pakistan, and that gives China many sleepless nights.
True, it's now extremely unlikely that there will be successful attacks on the U.S. or even Europe. Both are now extremely tired of the war in Afghanistan and eager to leave, even if that means that the Taliban takes over.
Russia and China are more worried about what a Taliban takeover would mean and therefore are investing heavily in Afghanistan and trying to get whatever foothold they can, if/when things implode.
India is worried too, but it's border with Pakistan is much smaller and more defensible, and is pretty much already iron.