Peace in Afghanistan
However, Najib ullah’s government backed by Russia did not fall immediately after Russian exit. It took three years for this to happen. ““I feel a certain sense of personal responsibility,” [Gates"> testified before the House Armed Services Committee in December 2007.
“I was deputy director of CIA and then deputy national security advisor during the period when the Soviets did withdraw from Afghanistan, and the United States essentially turned its back on Afghanistan,” Gates said. “And five years later came the first attack on the World Trade Center. And so, you know, one of the lessons that I think we have is that if we abandon these countries, once we are in there and engaged, there is a very real possibility that we will pay a higher price in the end.” (Extract from ‘The Atlantic’, Dec 17, 2009)
Post Russian exit Pakistan was adrift, without US support to face the negative fallout of the aftermath of the war. Then came 9/11. September 11, 2001 when reportedly, more than 3000 died in attacks on the Trade Centre. Everyone has their favorite story and why it happened. “In his influential 2005 book Dying to Win, political scientist Robert Pape examined a series of modern suicide campaigns and concluded that they are driven not by religious zeal but by foreign occupations (see review by Peter Nolan and Patrick Belton). Pape pointed out that the secular Tamil Tigers have engaged in one of the most protracted and bloody campaigns of suicide terrorism of the modern era. Pape’s theory might explain why 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as there was a substantial US presence in the Saudi kingdom around that time, but it does not explain the other four hijackers, who were Lebanese, Egyptian and Emirati, none of those countries were occupied by the US.” (The Prospect, September 2006)
Present position in Afghanistan
After 16 years of boots on ground, it is a fact that the American led initiative in Afghanistan has failed. Major sectors of Afghanistan are controlled by the Taliban. “The overall security situation has deteriorated over the past few years, as the Taliban have been able to influence and, to some extent, control ever larger parts of the country.” (UNGA, 10 August 2017, p. 4) Increased number of armed forces to combat the Taliban by Trump has turned out to be a failed strategy. The numbers in any case were too punitive to make a difference. In fact Trump’s military strategy of more troops, counter terror operations and use of ‘quick-fire air strike missiles’ has all back fired with more attacks by Taliban.
The efforts over years by US forces, has led to greater fragmentation of Afghanistan state. There seems to be a contradiction within the objective of bringing peace to Afghanistan. This is a combination of flawed policies by the US as well as the conflicting interests of the stake holders.
Many elements in the given landscape are what may be deemed as ‘consistent’ whereas others are variable. Yet both must balance each other to achieve the desired goal.
Stakeholders in Afghanistan
In 2013 China launched the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) a project that aims to build physical infrastructures across roughly 65 countries including Africa, Asia and Europe. Pledging $900 billion in the project, China is poised to pump in $150 billion in these projects every year. The project includes ports, bridges, railways, and a sea route aimed to link the Mediterranean and East Africa with the Chinese southern coast. The initiative has two levels: one is called the ‘21st Century Maritime Silk Road’ (the road) whereas the other is ‘Silk Road Economic Belt’ (the belt). The latter is a number of overland corridors that aimed at connecting China with Europe through the Middle East as well as via Central Asia. The project is a huge outreach by China to the world, seeking international markets for export of goods and technology to boost their economy at the same time offering benefits to linking nations as well.
The ambitious posture of China raises the fundamental question as to whether China or the United States will ultimately determine the rules for trade and investment. Economics drives politics.
George W. Bush had supported the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) and Obama had given final touches to the plan to lay out rules for doing trade and investing in the Asia-Pacific region. Unfortunately, Trump pulled out of TPP on his very first day in office. By staying in TPP, the US would have been in a position to help countries wanting to be a part of BRI while minimizing economic risks. Another advantage the US lost is the leverage to offer good terms of trade with the US market to countries where China is the main exporter. It can no longer offer a competitive investment plan to nations as opposed to BRI or TPP.
In a speech Tillerson stated that “the Indo-Pacific – including the entire Indian Ocean, the Western Pacific, and the nations that surround them – will be the most consequential part of the globe in the 21st century” and that “the greatest challenge to a stable, rules-based Indo-Pacific is a China that has taken to reworking the international system to its own benefit.” (Oct 21, 2017). If China cannot make this project a success, BRI will suffer a severe setback.
It is not in US interest to see a China challenging US world leadership.
Afghanistan today is messed up because of overlapping foreign polices of many nations. US not being the only one.
Pakistan is a major stakeholder in Afghanistan. Sharing a porous border with Afghanistan, Pakistan has most to lose and win in a scenario of turmoil and peace respectively in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s territory has been the main route used to supply goods to NATO forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has also been accused by Afghanistan and US officials of supplying goods to Haqqani network by the same route. An accusation refuted by Pakistan. According to a report of Rand Corporation, “Pakistan has long considered India to be an aggressive state that poses a fundamental threat to its territorial integrity.Pakistan’s goals in Afghanistan are mainly India-centric and focus primarily on undermining Delhi’s influence in Afghanistan while promoting its own. Islamabad thus seeks to maximize Taliban influence in a weak Kabul government, maintain “strategic depth” against an Indian invasion, and facilitate training and operations by Pakistani-backed extremist groups. However, these are not Pakistan’s only concerns. Other important priorities include marginalizing historical Afghan claims on Pakistani territory and (just as India desires) developing trade with the CARs.”
However, the perception of Pakistan being the villain between a relationship born out of blood and hate with India in 1947 is not exactly true. It downplays the Indian interests and negative policy against Pakistan. Pakistan has valid reasons for the fear.
India has made her moves intelligently and like an excellent chess player has positioned herself in a strategically strong position in anticipation of changing geopolitical situation and regional interests by other players. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan lie in the north of Afghanistan, Iran to the West, Pakistan to the South-East and China to the remote East. A narrow stretch of Afghan territory separates Tajikistan from Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The importance of this region for India’s security is huge. Tajikistan is in Central Asia, a gas-rich region in which India has developed growing interests. Tajikstan also happens to be extremely anti-Taliban. India, in order to gain strategic depth, focused on the Ayni Air Base, also called as ‘Gissar Air Base’ located 10km west of the capital of Tajikistan-Dushanbe. In the post 1979 era of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it had served as the key air base for Soviet military air transportation of its troops to Afghanistan. It fell into disuse and neglect later. Between years 2002-2010, India invested approximately $70 million in renovations, installing state-of-the-art air defense navigational facilities. The runway was further extended. This access offers immediate strategic depth in the region to India.
The second place of Indian foothold is the Farkhor Air Base; a military air base located near the town of Farkhor in Tajikistan, 130 kilometers south east of the capital Dushanbe. In 1996-97, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) started negotiations with Tajikistan to use the Farkhor Airbase to transport high-altitude military supplies to the Afghan Northern Alliance, service their helicopters and gather intelligence. At that time, India operated a military hospital in the Farkhor region. Since Pakistan does not allow India overland access to Afghanistan, India has had to channel its goods to Afghanistan through Farkhor. The IAF airlifts supplies to Ayni, which are then transported to Farkhor and onward to Afghanistan by road. More important, aircrafts taking off from Farkhor could be over the Pakistani skies within minutes.
Rand Corporation report notes, “A related fear among some Indian thinkers is that once U.S. troops withdraw, Islamabad will move to dominate Afghanistan’s political landscape, which will enable Pakistan to use the country as a safe haven and training ground for anti-Indian extremists. As the editorial page of the Indian newspaper Mint observed, Once Islamabad is assured of a friendly government in Kabul, it will unleash all the terrorists at its disposal on India. This will only mean more trouble in Jammu and Kashmir, and it will embolden terrorist groups to attack our cities with greater frequency.”
Pakistan has greater relevance in Afghanistan than India has. Therefore, the observation by Washington Post that Trump’s singling out India to do more in Afghanistan can easily backfire is correct. “India does not have the strategic tools — or the geography — to alter the strategic course of Afghanistan.” (Washington Post August 24, 2017)
Russia, in spite of suffering a defeat in Afghanistan fears a regional instability in the region. Though no report has supported accusations of Russia arming Taliban in Afghanistan, Russia’s interest lies in bringing about a political settlement between Taliban and the government of Kabul. Russia has been making efforts to develop relationship with Taliban aimed at gaining clout to achieve a negotiated settlement. The conference held in Moscow to agree upon a settlement between US, Kabul and the Taliban in November 2018 was a step to achieve this end. , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasized upon the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) in Afghanistan, saying that it has relied on foreign sponsors in a bid to “turn Afghanistan into a springboard for its expansion in Central Asia”. (Al Jazeera 9th Nov. 2018)
China is another stakeholder in Afghanistan. Increased involvement of India will lead to spiking of tension in the region. China’s aid to Afghanistan had gone up since the launch of OBOR. The aid to Afghanistan has been roughly $240 million from 2001 to 2013 alone. “China’s ambitious project of regional connectivity through Central Asia is conditioned on sustained stability in Afghanistan.” (Carnegie May 17, 2017)
Pakistan’s sustained security is important for China with CPEC being a showcase project of BRI.
Iran is reported by to have used Taliban against the American forces in Afghanistan by supporting them with training, weapons and money reports New York Times. The adage, enemy of my enemy is a friend fits well here. U.S and Iran however have a history of cooperating against the Taliban in Afghanistan. One reason is the fear of flooding of refugees. The other of increasing narcotics trade. Tehran is also working with India on Chahbahar port to counter Pakistan’s Gawadar. Afghanistan has a population with 20% being Shias over which Iran holds influence. Trump’s imposing sanctions on Tehran was not a smart move given this backdrop.
The Mid East Institute reports, “Since the 2001 US military intervention in Afghanistan, Tehran has provided measured support to Taliban groups to achieve several key objectives: to accelerate the withdrawal of US troops from its eastern border; to use its ties with the Taliban for its geopolitical agenda in South and Central Asia as well as in the Middle East; to pressure the Afghan government for political concessions; and lately to establish a buffer zone in western Afghanistan against a potential threat of Islamic State. While the IRGC may see the Taliban’s growing influence in western Afghanistan serving Tehran’s interest, the growing instability in western Afghanistan will have adverse consequences for Iran’s security in the long term.” (March 14, 2018)
Can there be peace in Afghanistan?
Many questions need address to achieve a negotiated political settlement with military options failing.
Withdrawal of foreign powers itself is no grantee for peace. Brookings Instituteraises a fundamental question: “As scholars such as George Washington University’s Joanna Spear have shown, disarmament is often not essential for ending internal conflicts. But the approach begs the question of how to handle possible demobilization of larger and more powerful groups of resistance fighters—something that is generally critical to resolution of such wars. The answer has to involve a combination of registering, regulating and monitoring the forces. But it must also feature a fairly rapid effort to demobilize them. Some fighters can be allowed to join the Afghan army or police, though the bulk of them should be dispersed to other locations in the country to reduce the latent threat they might pose.” The fact overlooked here is that Taliban is dealing from a position of strength and cannot be ordered to do as told.
A settlement with representatives by stakeholders taking onboard the Taliban should be a starter. Forming a Committee to help coordinate peace in Afghanistan with the Taliban post withdrawal of forces can work only if there is honesty of purpose and long term commitment by stakeholders to get Afghanistan back on her feet. Convincing Taliban the benefit of this strategy is a key.
“Two conditions are necessary for any agenda: ending the fighting and rebuilding the state, if only incrementally. Peace and governance would reinforce one another, creating space for other goals like rooting out terrorists or halting the exodus of refugees.” (New York Times: August 24, 2017)
