America’s generals have now been stuck in Afghanistan for 15 years. Unlike Alexander, they blame their failure not on the divisive realities of Afghanistan but on exogenous factors: alleged support to the Afghan Taliban from Pakistan and, more recently, from Russia and Iran. Alexander ultimately pacified Afghanistan by marrying the daughter of the insurgent leader and recruiting him to his cause. Today too — though a marriage between America and the Afghan Taliban is unlikely — ending the Afghan insurgency requires a bold political solution.
The Moscow consultations, or a UN process, should promote a viable peace plan for Afghanistan.
America’s military presence in Afghanistan serves to prop up the regime it has installed in Kabul and provide a base to coerce Afghanistan’s neighbours and conduct drone strikes and special operations à la Abbottabad if and when needed. It also curtails the influence of Russia and China in this strategically located country.
Pakistan’s Zarb-i-Azb operation destroyed the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Haqqani infrastructure in North Waziristan and forced all the groups there to relocate to Afghanistan’s ungoverned areas. The Pakistan Army has gone to great lengths to show American generals and politicians that the Haqqanis do not have ‘safe havens’ in Pakistan. Pakistan’s new ambassador in Washington has declared that the Haqqanis are not Pakistan’s “friends” or “proxies”. But neither are the Haqqanis attacking Pakistan, unlike TTP which is now based in Afghanistan and reportedly enjoys the support of Afghan and Indian intelligence. Pakistan’s priority remains to eliminate TTP and IS.
Despite Pakistan’s desire to establish a constructive relationship with the Trump administration, it appears that the US establishment remains stuck in the Obama-era paradigm of viewing Pakistan through the Afghan (and Indian) prism. The new US national security adviser’s recent statement in Kabul regarding Pakistani ‘safe havens’ caused considerable consternation in Pakistan. H.R. McMaster’s meetings in Islamabad and Rawalpindi were ‘testy’ by all accounts. His ‘talking points’ were probably prepared in the White House by Lisa Curtis, who co-chaired (with Hussain Haqqani) a recent think tank report calling for the US to declare Pakistan a “state sponsor of terrorism” unless it ended alleged support to terrorist groups like the Haqqanis, the Laskhkar-i-Taiba and the Jaish-i-Mohammad.
However, today, Pakistan is less susceptible to US pressure than in the past. For one thing, the US ‘incentives’ to the Pakistani military — Coalition Support Funds and foreign military support funds — have been suspended and are unlikely to be revived even if Pakistan accepts the US demands. Second, pressure on Pakistan could prove counterproductive if its current cooperation with the US on Afghanistan and counterterrorism is terminated. Third, the Trump administration has revived tensions with Iran and will find it difficult to confront both Iran and Pakistan at the same time. It is also preoccupied with the North Korean crisis and multiple domestic scandals and squabbles.
Most importantly, Russia and China have come to accept Pakistan’s view that the Afghan Taliban’s objectives are limited to their country and the insurgency can be ended only through negotiations. There is also an emerging realisation that the Afghan Taliban are potential allies in fighting IS (which is linked to TTP and Jamaatul Ahrar).Moscow has initiated consultations to build a regional consensus on Afghanistan and counterterrorism on the basis of these assumptions.
It is essential that these consultations lead to the formulation of the parameters of a political settlement in Afghanistan. The farce of an ‘Afghan-led, Afghan-owned’ process must be discarded. The peace terms proposed by the US and Kabul: ‘reconciliation’ by the Afghan Taliban with Kabul and acceptance of the US-formulated Afghan constitution, without promising the total withdrawal of foreign forces, are obviously unacceptable to the Taliban. On the other hand, the Taliban too have displayed little flexibility, refusing direct talks with Kabul until all foreign forces have left Afghanistan.
The Moscow consultations, or a UN process, should step in to promote a viable peace plan for Afghanistan. This could include: mutual cessation of hostilities; a recognition of the ‘control’ of specific areas of Afghanistan by Kabul or the Taliban; a plan for cooperative action by Kabul and the Taliban and Afghanistan’s neighbours to combat IS and other terrorist groups; commitment to formulate a new or revised constitution which provides for power-sharing between Kabul, the Taliban and other Afghan ‘stakeholders’, and an agreement on a timetable for the staged withdrawal of foreign forces in tandem with the implementation of agreed political milestones.
Even if the US is initially unwilling to participate in formulating such a peace plan, other parties should commence the process through available forums and mechanisms. Eventually, once it becomes clear that a military solution is unavailable, the US will see the merit of joining a peace process.
A negotiated peace can open the way for the economic transformation of Afghanistan and the entire region through trade, investment and economic integration, including under China’s One Belt, One Road initiative and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
BY MUNIR AKRAM, a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
15 January 2017
25 March 2015
04 March 2014
30 April 2017
31 October 2011
17 October 2011
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
انسانیت ، علم ، اسلام ،معاشرہ ، برداشت ، سلامتیسلام فورم نیٹ ورک Peace Forum Network
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines, Videos, Social Mediaبلاگز، ویب سائٹس،سوشل میڈیا، میگزین، ویڈیوز,کتب
Join Millions of visitors: لاکھوں وزٹرز میں شامل ہوں