Karzai on Afghan endgame
By design, Washington doesn’t have any coherent dialogue strategy, much less a proper peace plan for Afghanistan.
The writer is former foreign secretary of Pakistan
Whatever his motives, lately Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been behaving like a true Afghan. Amidst highly public tensions with the US over negotiating a long-term security deal for the coming years, he is standing firm on his refusal to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) before the April 2014 Afghan presidential election. As dilatory tactics, he wants “assurances” from Washington “to end raids and drone attacks on Afghan homes and help facilitate Afghan peace”.
For Washington, the BSA is critical to keeping some of its forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014 for what it claims will amount to “training of Afghan forces and counter-terrorism operations”. With Karzai refusing to budge from his stand, the US government is reportedly exploring other options to seal the deal. Secretary of State John Kerry is reported to have said at a recent Nato meeting in Brussels that if Karzai remains adamant, the agreement could be signed by any other high-ranking government official, dropping hints that the US is not ruling out the possibility of dumping Karzai and roping in some US loyalist as his replacement for the remaining period of his tenure.
In a sharp reaction to this threat, Karzai’s spokesperson in Kabul made it clear that the issue was not who will sign the deal; the issue is that the “aspirations and demands of the Afghan people must be honoured and accepted by the US government”. As long as these demands are not met, he said, “President Karzai will not authorise any member of his government to sign the deal”. Surely, part of Karzai’s attitude comes from the umbrage he has taken at the way the Americans have been treating him in recent years. Standing in a cul de sac, he is perhaps, seeking to correct his image in history. It’s never too late. His recent outbursts against Washington must be seen in this perspective.
In a recent interview to the French newspaper Le Monde, when asked “Do you think the US is behaving like a colonial power”, President Karzai said: “Absolutely. They threaten us ‘we will no longer pay your salaries; we will drive you into a civil war’. These are threats,” Karzai said. “If you want to be our partner, we must be friends. Respect Afghan homes, don’t kill their children and be a partner. We want respect for our commitment to the safety of Afghan lives and to peace in Afghanistan.”
He could not be more blunt: “If the Americans and Nato are here with their resources, hopefully properly spent, not wasted or looted, arriving from one door, going through the other, if our homes are respected, if their presence brings peace, we welcome it but if their presence here is at a price to Afghan homes, their security and dignity, and if their presence means continued war, bombs and killings, it’s not worth it; we would rather be peaceful than having a few rich and the others dying, no thanks.”
He also spoke about the Afghan pride, reminded the world that “the Afghans don’t bow down; in the past, they have defeated colonial powers. They are an honourable people and will accept only a respectful relationship.” He is not wrong. More importantly, what Karzai had to say about the US war on terror should be an eye-opener for Pakistani rulers. He said he had been arguing for the past eight years that “the war on terror can’t be fought and must not be fought in Afghan villages, in Afghan homes. If there is a war on terror, it has to be taken to the terrorist sanctuaries, where they are trained and nurtured.” Obviously, he was alluding to Pakistan where no one seems to have a narrative to counter Karzai’s claim.
Another ‘revelation’ that Karzai made has shockingly bared some of the inner layers of the Afghan endgame. He said the US is not making “a visible and genuine effort” to help with the peace process and that “certain forces in the West” were only trying to “ethnicise the conflict to weaken Afghanistan”. He claimed he has evidence to show that the Americans deliberately misrepresented matters by disseminating the canard that the Afghan Taliban are opposed to talks with Karzai, whereas he does have direct dealings with the Taliban.
What he implied was that the so-called Taliban statement in Qatar in this regard was drafted by the Americans. According to him, it was an American ploy to have Qatar as the venue of the peace talks and “Qatar is no longer an option for us”. He insisted that he has been in contact with the Taliban and that they are ready to negotiate “officially” with the Afghan High Peace Council (HPC).
Karzai’s fiery Le Monde tirade provoked an equally blunt question by The New York Times: “What is going on with President Hamid Karzai? The world’s only superpower, leading a coalition of some 50 nations, is willing to stay on in his country after a war that has already lasted a dozen years and cost the US more than $600 billion and more than 2,000 fatalities — and yet, the Afghan president keeps throwing up roadblocks.”
But didn’t Karzai already preempt this question in his Le Monde interview by speaking about a future Afghanistan without the Americans: “We will not cease to be a nation if US’s “zero option” (aid cut-off) were to happen. It will be harsher for us but we will continue to be a nation and a state.” This dictum equally applies to Pakistan, the other ill-fated country that chose to be a US ally and has been paying a heavy price in terms of human and material losses, both as a partner and target in the US-led war on terror.
While both are being asked to do more, there remain many imponderables in the very nature of America’s stipulated end-state in Afghanistan. Obviously, Washington has its own priorities as part of its China-driven Central Asia-focused great game. As Karzai now confirms, by design, it doesn’t have any coherent dialogue strategy, much less a proper peace plan for Afghanistan. It is only looking for a ‘strategic stalemate’ in which it can withdraw by December 2014 but not entirely. Those familiar with Afghan history know what it means for a continued foreign military presence on its soil beyond 2014, no matter under what arrangement or nomenclature.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 21st, 2013.
For Washington, the BSA is critical to keeping some of its forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014 for what it claims will amount to “training of Afghan forces and counter-terrorism operations”. With Karzai refusing to budge from his stand, the US government is reportedly exploring other options to seal the deal. Secretary of State John Kerry is reported to have said at a recent Nato meeting in Brussels that if Karzai remains adamant, the agreement could be signed by any other high-ranking government official, dropping hints that the US is not ruling out the possibility of dumping Karzai and roping in some US loyalist as his replacement for the remaining period of his tenure.
In a sharp reaction to this threat, Karzai’s spokesperson in Kabul made it clear that the issue was not who will sign the deal; the issue is that the “aspirations and demands of the Afghan people must be honoured and accepted by the US government”. As long as these demands are not met, he said, “President Karzai will not authorise any member of his government to sign the deal”. Surely, part of Karzai’s attitude comes from the umbrage he has taken at the way the Americans have been treating him in recent years. Standing in a cul de sac, he is perhaps, seeking to correct his image in history. It’s never too late. His recent outbursts against Washington must be seen in this perspective.
In a recent interview to the French newspaper Le Monde, when asked “Do you think the US is behaving like a colonial power”, President Karzai said: “Absolutely. They threaten us ‘we will no longer pay your salaries; we will drive you into a civil war’. These are threats,” Karzai said. “If you want to be our partner, we must be friends. Respect Afghan homes, don’t kill their children and be a partner. We want respect for our commitment to the safety of Afghan lives and to peace in Afghanistan.”
He could not be more blunt: “If the Americans and Nato are here with their resources, hopefully properly spent, not wasted or looted, arriving from one door, going through the other, if our homes are respected, if their presence brings peace, we welcome it but if their presence here is at a price to Afghan homes, their security and dignity, and if their presence means continued war, bombs and killings, it’s not worth it; we would rather be peaceful than having a few rich and the others dying, no thanks.”
He also spoke about the Afghan pride, reminded the world that “the Afghans don’t bow down; in the past, they have defeated colonial powers. They are an honourable people and will accept only a respectful relationship.” He is not wrong. More importantly, what Karzai had to say about the US war on terror should be an eye-opener for Pakistani rulers. He said he had been arguing for the past eight years that “the war on terror can’t be fought and must not be fought in Afghan villages, in Afghan homes. If there is a war on terror, it has to be taken to the terrorist sanctuaries, where they are trained and nurtured.” Obviously, he was alluding to Pakistan where no one seems to have a narrative to counter Karzai’s claim.
Another ‘revelation’ that Karzai made has shockingly bared some of the inner layers of the Afghan endgame. He said the US is not making “a visible and genuine effort” to help with the peace process and that “certain forces in the West” were only trying to “ethnicise the conflict to weaken Afghanistan”. He claimed he has evidence to show that the Americans deliberately misrepresented matters by disseminating the canard that the Afghan Taliban are opposed to talks with Karzai, whereas he does have direct dealings with the Taliban.
What he implied was that the so-called Taliban statement in Qatar in this regard was drafted by the Americans. According to him, it was an American ploy to have Qatar as the venue of the peace talks and “Qatar is no longer an option for us”. He insisted that he has been in contact with the Taliban and that they are ready to negotiate “officially” with the Afghan High Peace Council (HPC).
Karzai’s fiery Le Monde tirade provoked an equally blunt question by The New York Times: “What is going on with President Hamid Karzai? The world’s only superpower, leading a coalition of some 50 nations, is willing to stay on in his country after a war that has already lasted a dozen years and cost the US more than $600 billion and more than 2,000 fatalities — and yet, the Afghan president keeps throwing up roadblocks.”
But didn’t Karzai already preempt this question in his Le Monde interview by speaking about a future Afghanistan without the Americans: “We will not cease to be a nation if US’s “zero option” (aid cut-off) were to happen. It will be harsher for us but we will continue to be a nation and a state.” This dictum equally applies to Pakistan, the other ill-fated country that chose to be a US ally and has been paying a heavy price in terms of human and material losses, both as a partner and target in the US-led war on terror.
While both are being asked to do more, there remain many imponderables in the very nature of America’s stipulated end-state in Afghanistan. Obviously, Washington has its own priorities as part of its China-driven Central Asia-focused great game. As Karzai now confirms, by design, it doesn’t have any coherent dialogue strategy, much less a proper peace plan for Afghanistan. It is only looking for a ‘strategic stalemate’ in which it can withdraw by December 2014 but not entirely. Those familiar with Afghan history know what it means for a continued foreign military presence on its soil beyond 2014, no matter under what arrangement or nomenclature.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 21st, 2013.