Afghanistan and Pakistan: Fairy Tale of Two Upset Neighbors

Afghanistan and Pakistan, being immediate neighbors, share more than just a border. People on both sides share cultural similarities (Pashtunwali), language (Pashto), sports (cricket), food, and history. Very few neighbors on the planet can claim to share so much, yet, terror attacks constantly push both the nations away and undo years of formal and informal diplomatic efforts made towards confidence-building measures (CBMs).

Pakistan has remained home to millions of Afghan refugees escaping the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Even today, nearly 2 million documented and undocumented Afghans live in Pakistan, run their businesses, send their children to schools and universities, are married in Pakistani families, and, therefore, consider their host country home.

However, after the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001, the two countries have remained at odds in building mutually beneficial and trusted relations. Moreover, on the people-to-people level, in some sections, there still remains animosity and hatred towards each other. This can widely be noticed when, soon after a terror attack in either country, the social media “trolls” start propagating fake news and hate-filled content, calling out citizens of the other country. Where Pakistanis use various derogatory slurs for Afghan refugees, calling them terrorists and accusing them of “having a soft spot for Pakistan’s arch-nemesis India”, Afghans, on the other hand, pin nearly all terror attacks in their country on Pakistan; especially on the intelligence agencies and the military establishment.

Political leaders and the people of Afghanistan feel that they have failed to seek sufficient conviction from Pakistan to prove themselves as a reliable regional partner. They also feel that Islamabad has provided little incentive or support to the civilian Afghan governments in building credibility and overcoming security hurdles. In addition to that, there remains a widespread perception in Afghanistan that Islamabad did not take the Kabul government’s side in the US-Taliban peace talks.

Pakistan, on the other hand, feels that all governments in Kabul since 2001 have sought to scapegoat Islamabad for all security mishaps and attacks in Afghanistan. Moreover, after conducting dozens of major and minor military operations in the erstwhile FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) region, Pakistan also believes that it has “contained” much of the militant and terrorist activity on the border. Hence, in order to consolidate the gains from these operations, Pakistan has made substantial progress in fencing the Afghan border. However, Afghanistan’s reservations on the fencing and continued reluctance to accept a globally recognized border (The Durand Line), according to Islamabad, hints at the non-seriousness of governments in Kabul to discuss mutual security and development concerns. Therefore, the mistrust between both the neighbors has also resulted in a vicious cycle of blame game on both sides.

In terms of its security landscape, Afghanistan has continued facing lingering violence and conflict over the past 20 years. Both post-Taliban administrations in Afghanistan, the Hamid Karzai government (2001-2014) and the Ashraf Ghani government (2014-present), have remained unsuccessful in effectively tackling the fundamental challenge of insecurity in Afghanistan. Their inability in bringing peace to the country is also partly due to their failure in building a viable regional consensus; especially with Pakistan. Unilateral approaches and lack of cooperation have resulted in the pursuit of alienated and divergent foreign policy objectives in Kabul.

Afghans experience detriments of violence in towns and villages on a daily basis. The recent brutal siege of a maternity ward at a hospital in Kabul, in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and in the holy month of Ramadan, is a stark reminder that all Afghans, including children and women, are vulnerable targets to terror and violence. The country cannot resolve its security dilemmas on its own. It does and will require a brotherly hand from Pakistan to overcome this crisis effectively.

Pakistan, in recent years, has been largely successful in curtailing terrorism on its home soil. This means that Islamabad now has the military “know-how” to disrupt and contain terrorist groups. By lending these insights and knowledge to the Afghan security institutions, Islamabad can play an instrumental role in facilitating a peaceful resolution to ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan. Moreover, Afghanistan, for its part, should listen to Pakistan’s legitimate concerns and play its needed role towards contributing to regional peace and stability.

However, Islamabad also needs to shed its notorious “pro-Taliban regime” perception that it has gained among wider sections of the Afghan population. Afghans argue that if Pakistan is serious in establishing peace in the region, it should also support the cause of a “stable, free and democratic” Afghanistan. In this regard, many Afghans commonly ask,

“If Pakistan cannot accept a militant regime in its own backyard, and has fought against militant groups, why does it wish the same for us (in form of a Taliban regime)?”

The people of Afghanistan have suffered violence for far too long and perhaps no one understands how this feels better than the Pakistanis living next door. It is time for both the neighbors to jointly work towards breaking the siege of terror that has inflicted suffering on innocent people and continues to claim precious lives.

--

This article was also published by the Express Tribune in Pakistan in May 2020.

The Governance Question Post US-Taliban Deal in Afghanistan

The United States and the Taliban's negotiators are inching closer to reaching a peace deal in Afghanistan. The 8th round of talks in Doha, Qatar ended on Aug. 12, 2019, with both sides issuing positive tweets about the discussions. Rumors have it that the deal will help end the nearly 20 years old conflict between America and the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, there are a number of questions that the people of Afghanistan do not have answers to and which have significant consequences on any peace deal. Chief among them is the modality of a post-peace-deal governance system in Afghanistan.

The United States sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11 to respond to the terrible events that had happened in New York and DC in 2001. This also meant dismantling the Taliban regime that was ruling Afghanistan than under the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. In the Emirate, Mullah Omar was pronounced to be the ruler of all Muslims, Afghans in particular, by a council of fellow mullahs, or religious leaders, for an indefinite period of time. While Afghanistan’s capital is Kabul, Mullah Omar ruled from the historic Kandahar city located in the west of the country. In 2001, American bombers effectively eliminated the Taliban’s regime in Afghanistan in a short period of time. An American-led international coalition also hurried in Bonn to establish a new, democracy-based government system for Afghanistan. Many NATO member states sent troops to Afghanistan to defend the country’s fragile democracy.

Led by a president and two vice presidents, the highly centralized presidential government system was enshrined into the country's new constitution that was drafted in a historic Loya Jirga (or Grand Council) in 2003 and ratified by the then Afghan president, Hamid Karzai in early 2004. Under the system, President Karzai served for two consecutive 5-year terms in addition to being the transitional and interim president for two years and six months respectively.

In 2014, President Karzai transferred power to the current President, Ashraf Ghani. Ghani formed an American brokered coalition government named the National Unity Government of Afghanistan. NUG, formed after a troubled election, introduced an unconstitutional Chief Executive Officer (CEO) into the governance system who effectively controlled about 50% of the government. The governing period of the NUG ended on May 22, 2019, but it was extended until the election date of September 28, 2019, by Afghanistan’s Supreme Court.

The big question now that a peace deal is being brokered is about the governance system in Afghanistan after the peace deal. Will Afghanistan be ruled under a presidential government system as required by the Afghan constitution, or could there be a change to an Emirate as the Taliban prefers?

The constitution-required presidential system will require credible elections to be held in September 2019 that will give legitimacy to any new government formed thereafter. The Emirate does not require elections; a group of like-minded elites or power-holders will choose an Amir, or Chief, that will run as the de facto President for an indefinite period of time. The latter is a stark deviation from the existing Afghan constitution and the recent democratic development in Afghanistan.

President Ghani has made it clear that he wants the constitution to rule. In a recent speech as part of the Eid-ul-Adha message in Kabul on August 11, 2019, he outlined that elections were a priority for his government and then any peace deal. The Taliban, however, has an opposite view. For them, a peace deal with the American is a priority, not the Afghan elections. The formation of a new government or the modality of it is something they may 'discuss’ later with Afghan political groups. They refuse to talk to any representative government in Kabul.

The two opposing views present formidable questions on and for peace. How will Afghanistan be ruled after September 2019? Will there be elections? How will the Taliban be integrated into the governance system? And what happens to the constitution?

The next few months when the American-Taliban is working hard to reach a peace deal will also be crucial to find answers to these questions. It will be also critical how the United States and other members of the international community validate a post-deal governance system for Afghanistan. It remains unclear whether the international community will continue to support Afghanistan's constitutional governance system or will they push Afghans to ‘compromise’ on it to establish something different? Answers to these questions will have a lasting impact on the political dilemma and the viability of the peace settlement in Afghanistan.

The War in Syria – Why It Resembles the Afghan War of the 1980s?

From the looks of the lingering war in Syria, I could not help but to think that this war resembles the Afghan War of the 1980s-1990s.  And the current Western requirement for President Assad to go, no matter what, may have similar consequences as those Afghanistan faced later in the 1990s.  If possible, the World must pause and rethink an approach that differs from the status-quo.  They should work with Assad, than without him, in Syria if further crisis are to be avoided and peace is to come and maintained.  It would be almost impossible to have armed groups take over Damascus and expect them run a modern state, peacefully.  The experience in Afghanistan has proven that this may not happen.  Lessons from the Afghan War can be utilized for peace in Syria.

Leadership - Basharul Assad and Dr. Najibullah

As was Dr. Najibullah, the President of Afghanistan from 1987 to 1992, Basharul Assad is head of a powerful centralized government that owns and maintains a well managed army.  If Assad is gone, so would be the Army and the established political order in the country.  This will cause chaos for Syria and reestablishing that order or the Army may take more blood, time and dollars in the future. To expect the armed opposition groups will unite and agree on post Assad leadership is too simplistic and perhaps misleading.  Having no prior experience than using guns, the groups would find it hard to agree on a president, the defense minister, the foreign minister etc.  Resolving such a crisis would not only be exhausting but also dangerous and eventually turned into violent conflicts that would destroy of what is left of the war in Syria, Damascus in particular. 

Najibullah was President of Afghanistan and led a strong Afghan national army that for a decade had resisted the west backed liberalizing fighters in the 1980s.  However, as soon as Najibullah was ousted, the liberalizing fighting factions could not agree on leadership in Kabul; after a brief political power sharing agreement, they soon found each other not trust-able and a horrific civil war broke out.  The civil war, not the Soviet war, turned the country, particularly its capital Kabul to a war-zone.  Kabul had survived the decade of war fought in rural parts of the country.  The humanitarian and economic crisis caused by this civil war, after Najibullah removal, was more brutal, horrific and destructive then the entire war against the Soviets. 

The Vacuum – After Basharu Assad is Gone

After Basharul Assad is gone, a power and leadership vacuum will be created.   It would be hard, if not impossible, to fill effectively.  The different factions of the free Syrian fighting groups would want power, and more of it!  That will then create a chaotic situation that even the west would not understand and perhaps fail to resolve.  And that will then leave a big political vacuum that could be filled with non state actors.  The proponents to Assad-gone may not like that situation.

After Najibullah in Afghanistan, the warring factions failed to agree to a lasting political settlement; each wanting more power and this and that political offices.  That soon led to the horrific civil war which then gave rise to the Taliban filling the political vacuum and offering a much needed single governance order.  

What happens to Damascus?

Currently, Damascus has been remained protected from the turmoil and destruction in rest of Syria.  However, it is largely a peaceful city where run by the Assad government.  If Assad is gone and the gunmen are in and they get into the “turmoil” part, which is the most probable scenario, they will soon turn Damascus into a war-zone too.  And that would not be pretty for the million of humans-beings living there or for the humanitarian and migration crisis it would trigger.

Such a scenario happened in Kabul which largely survived the Soviet War, but the sooner the “liberalizing forces” entered Kabul; the violent power struggle broke out that made Kabul a war-zone showered with bullets and bombs.  The Darulaman Palace and its bullet ridden walls in the west of Kabul is an example to show what happened here.  And that was not the only issue.  Millions of Afghan civilians were forced to flee Kabul or live to the mercy of the gunmen for food and shelter.  Horrific stories of various crimes committed at the time can be read about or heard from Kabulians when you talk to them.

So, What to Do in Syria?

A simple solution is to work with Assad than without him. Although this may not look good for the western and their allies’ ego, but to avoid another, more serious and worse crisis in Syria, Damascus in particular, it is important to work with the existing establishment to end the conflict on terms that are good for the Syrian people and rest of the World, not without it.  Big lesson from Afghan War is that it is unhelpful, dangerous and chaotic to replace an experienced, albeit unliked leader, with gunmen that have no experience in governance. 

 

Afghanistan’s New Ambassador to Pakistan: Opportunity for Establishing Better Af-Pak Relations?

The National Unity Government of Afghanistan recently appointed a new ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The choice of President Ghani for this appointment is Dr. Hazrat-Omar Zakhilwal, Ex. Chief Economist and Ex. Minister of Finance.  In addition to being the Afghan Ambassador, Dr. Zakhilwal is titled to be the Afghan President’s special envoy in Pakistan.

Dr. Zakhilwal appointment for this important position says it outright that the new Afghan government values better economic and political ties with Pakistan.  To achieve this ambitious goal, Dr. Zakhilwal is better placed than any other Afghan politician.

Unlike other politicians in the previous Afghan administration, Zakhilwal has already established work-able relation with his Pakistani counterparts especially when he served as the Minister of Finance under Ex. President Karzai.  An example of the cooperation between the two countries has been Dr Zakhilwal's success in attracting cooperating response from Mr. Ishaq Dar, the Pakistani Minister for Treasury, to improve bilateral economic ties.  He succeeded in mobilizing the Pakistani government’s much needed political support for the important Central Asia-South Asia (CASA) 1300 Mega Watt electricity transmission project.  Under CASA, Afghanistan will receive a transit fee for the large amount of electricity transmitted to Pakistan for a transit fee.  This is a significant project that can promote regional integration and prosperity. 

Afghanistan’s President Ghani envisions precisely this sort of economic ties with Pakistan.  He believes that if the two countries are genuine in their relations, each can contribute significantly to the other’s economic development.  President Ghani would like to see a 100+ more CASAs between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  And for that to happen, Kabul needs a representative in Islamabad that can help create similar interest and thinking in Pakistan.  Dr. Zakhilwal, for his experience, is a good fit for this purpose.

Afghan Interest in Promoting Political Ties

President Ghani’s administration has also been trying to establish friendlier political relations with Pakistan.  Ever since coming to power in 2014, President Ghani sought support from Saudi Arabia and China, Pakistan’s geo-political allies and traveled directly to Pakistan to gather momentum for renewed trust and ties with Pakistan particularly in quelling the insurgency in Afghanistan. 

For a while the new efforts seemed working and hopes for better ties between the two countries were high.  However, due to the exposure of the surprising death of Mulla Omar, the Taliban Supreme Leader, and subsequent violence in Kabul, bilateral relations went sore and back to square one.  Since then, optimism for a different chapter in Af-Pak relations has seemed as distant as it did during the previous Afghan administration.  this is not in the interest of any of the two neighbors. 

Afghanistan has always expected Pakistan to value its relations with the democratically elected government in Kabul than other non-state groups, and to cooperatively support the war torn country’s reconstruction and development efforts.  Kabul feels this has not happened for a long time and despite numerous exhausting efforts from Kabul.

However, Dr. Zakhilwal’s appointment may be a turning point and an opportunity for generating a different response from Pakistan.  He has proven to already possess the required leadership, understanding of the context, and previous success in building trust with Pakistan.

Considering that years of instability, mistrust and violence in the Af-Pak region has had devastating geo-political and economic consequences for both the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the two countries should seize this renewed opportunity and utilize on it to establish the momentum for a more peaceful, integrated and successful Af-Pak region.  That in turn will contribute to prosperity and security in Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond.

Will this happen, however, remains a big question to be answered in Islamabad.

Dealing with Poverty is Another Priority for the New Govt. in Kabul

With President Ashraf Ghani’s government finally taking hold in Kabul, it also needs to focus on dealing with Afghanistan real socioeconomic problem: poverty.

Poverty has been a serious issue in Afghan society; a larger number of Afghans live either in poverty or are at risk of falling into poverty if there was a crisis. This is the case despite Afghanistan having ample natural resources. According to the World Bank, poverty rate in Afghanistan is at staggering 38 percent. This figure has remained unchanged since 2008 despite a large sum of development aid injected to its economy.

The crippling poverty has vicious impact on Afghanistan. It has been a leading contributor to violence, political instability and radicalization especially in the rural parts of the country where majority of the Afghan people live. In the rural areas, the Afghans especially the youth live in dismal poverty having minimum access to inadequate education or employment opportunities. Such circumstances flourish ripe conditions for poverty to prosper causing further grievances in Afghan society.

Poverty has ruled Afghan society for too long now and it continues to cause troubles due to the nonexistence of a strong political will both in the previous Afghan leadership and within the international development partners active in Afghanistan, non existences of a cohesive human development plan and an effective strategy to fight poverty or focus on effective and inclusive economic development.

Now that President Ashraf Ghani is in charge and has a wealth of both experience and education in poverty eradication and human development programs, his government should prioritize eradicating poverty and related serious underdevelopment problem in Afghanistan.

This is no easy task but it is possible if there is a sincere political will to eliminate corruption, boost human capital and capacity, attract investment, use international development aid more effectively, better utilize Afghanistan's natural resources, foster trade and create a conducive environment for the private sector development. All of these efforts can contribute to better public and private sectors that can provide jobs and in turn alleviate poverty in Afghanistan.

President Ghani’s unity government should have and implement that political will and enable Afghans to break from the vicious cycle of poverty & violence and instead live in prosperity. If President Ghani can do this, he would be remembered as the savior for a country that has been stuck in vicious poverty for too long now.

Charlie Hebdo Reveals Failure in Understanding Values

The armed attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris was an act of violence that does not have any justification in human’s civilization anymore.  Those carrying out the attack meant to infuse a vicious circle of hatred and divide, and may have succeeded in doing so.  However, as common citizens of this world we need to avoid pointing fingers and instead unite as the one human race against this vicious aim. 

Violence is not a response to such acts, especially if those targeted are innocent civilians.  If this happens, it perfectly serves intention of those that want to instill hatred.  A more responsible response would be to identify the cause of such incidents and unite together to confront it.   

The unfortunate incidents in Paris, however, outlined two important lessons that all need to learn:

First is for the liberal western world where freedom of speech and the press are hard earned values.  While every human-being has a right to express their views, this freedom, even in humor, should responsibly encourage respect, unity, understanding and trust among the entire public, not otherwise.  Freedom of speech could be more effective if it is address resolving social issues such grievance, inequality and discrimination. 

Second is for the Muslim world that constantly faces incidents of offensive media messages regarding their faith.  Such messages or drawings are usually produced by non-Muslims who have limited understanding of their Abrahamic religion.  The response to such messages or drawings cannot and must not be violence.  Islam does not allow that.  Instead the Muslim world should respond to such incidents with care, respect and tolerance.  

They could be much more effective if they start educating and show to the non-muslim world that their religion is peace and that it is the same as that of Prophet Abraham, who built the Kabba in Mecca.  And that Muslims recite five times in their prayers every day that “Oh God! bless us Muslims as you have blessed Abraham and his sons.”  Also, that it is our faith not to depict the prophet or God for it can lead to worship of human made idolatry, forbidden in Islam.

If all sides learn these lessons and put more effort into building their understanding of each others values, we may be able to unite against violence and live in a peaceful and just world, otherwise, even cartoons can incite violence, fear and divide.

Time is Ripe for a New Chapter in Af-Pak Relations

Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan’s new president has provided hope for peace and stability to the troubled nation.

Even in his first weeks in office, President Ghani, a former World Bank technocrat and professor in leading American Universities, has embarked on sweeping reforms from tackling corruption to resolving the issues of the prisoners in Kabul’s Puli Charkhi prison. Ghani seems serious and an ideal leader for a post-conflict country such as Afghanistan where people want swift actions from public leaders and are usually frustrated by lack of action.

President Ghani has yet to nominate his cabinet and governors of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. The general perception in Afghanistan is that together with his Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, he will nominate one soon, and it could be a more technocratic one than compared to his predecessor, Hamid Karzai. Ghani’s minister selection will be important for delivering on his campaign promises and furthering the tasks he has started in Afghanistan.

Among the many policy issues facing Ghani, a major one is how he tackles Afghanistan’s troubled relations with its eastern neighbor, Pakistan.

Afghanistan and Pakistan share a long border of nearly 2,600 kilometres (1,615 miles) named as the “Durand Line.” Pakistan recognizes this line as an “international border” crossing inherited from British India; Afghanistan, however, recognizes it only as a temporary boundary that was agreed to between British India and the Afghan Emir more than a century ago. Borer disputes have resulted in serious mistrust between Kabul and Islamabad, and both sides have failed to capitalize on the enormous economic benefits they can reap from establishing cordial relations.

Hamid Karzai, the outgoing Afghan president, labeled Pakistan as one of the key stakeholders to peace and stability in Afghanistan. However, he also outlined that his nearly 20 state visits to Pakistan and many efforts failed to result in any constructive outcome.

Now that there is new leadership in Kabul and that Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is keen on contributing to a more stable region, it might be the right time for both sides to turn pages and open a new chapter in Af-Pak relations.

Unlike the past, President Ghani should take lead and propose a more compromising approach that builds trust and enables Pakistan to see more benefits in Afghan stability. One thing that President Ghani should make sure to avoid is to break from the past where most of Afghanistan’s problems are blamed on Pakistan.

Instead, President Ghani’s government should opt for a policy that recognizes the need for mutual Af-Pak relations, defies issues of mistrust and promises good will for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This policy should also focus on promoting regional economic cooperation that in turn can foster mutual respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Pakistan’s leadership should also respect Afghan’s desire for stability and actively engage with Kabul on overcoming political and security challenges. Unlike the past, Pakistan’s strategic depth policy should seek closer economic ties with Afghanistan and understand that building better and more trustful relations with Afghanistan’s legitimate government in Kabul is better for Pakistan’s future stability.

If both Afghan and Pakistani leaders can make this shift in their foreign policies, the two Asian countries can benefit from significant economic and political relations, and collectively contribute to more prosperous societies in the region.

--
This article is also published at SGV at http://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/af-pak-relations-401/