Viewpoint: For the sake of peace in Afghanistan

Thursday, 04 February 2010 11:37

ARTICLE : In an unusual press briefing he held on Monday, Chief of the Army Staff General Parvez Kayani laid out Pakistan s conditions for ending the Afghan war. More to the point, he spelt out Pakistan s long-term strategic concerns, both valid and invalid, for stability in the region. First, let s examine the unsound part.

It was the self-contradictory assertion that we want a strategic depth in Afghanistan but do not want to control it and that, a peaceful and friendly Afghanistan can provide Pakistan a strategic depth. The harebrained strategic depth plan was first thought up by our strategic thinkers in the 90s, which led to the birth and rise of the Taliban.

It is based on the idea that in order to offset the disadvantage that Pakistan has vis-à-vis India due to its narrow width, we should have a fallback position in Afghanistan to store our military assets and supplies to fight back in the event of an Indian attack.

It is hard to imagine how any country can use another for military purposes without establishing control over it - something no nation, least of all the Afghans, likes. Besides, a peaceful and friendly Afghanistan would be willing to provide us with strategic depth only at the risk of getting sucked into a Pakistan-India conflict.

Then there is also the fact that the Afghan people comprise various ethnic communities, including Tajiks and Uzbeks, who are inimical to Pakistan and friendly with India from where they received moral as well as material support in the factional fighting during and before the Taliban take-over of Kabul. In the event of a conflict, they can be expected to intervene on behalf of their friend.

A wiser and practical policy, therefore, would be to rely on our own strength to prepare for any untoward eventuality. However, Pakistan has genuine concerns about India s role in Afghanistan, rightly insisting that only the country s immediate neighbours should have a say in the exit strategy the US and its allies are in the process of evolving.

Since it shares physical space with the Pushtoon tribes as well as old ties with the leaders of prominent Taliban factions, Pakistan is uniquely positioned to make the strategy work. Which is why it has managed to keep India out of last month s international meetings on Afghanistan.

Significantly, India was missing from the first regional meeting, hosted by Turkey ahead of the London Conference, and attended by, aside from the Presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, officials from Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and China. India was also excluded from the London Conference, where representatives from more than 60 countries discussed plans to stabilise Afghanistan.

Some of our political analysts, though, have been supporting India s demand for inclusion in the international deliberations concerning Afghanistan s future. They rest their argument on two points, one that India has had longstanding relations with Afghanistan; and the other that it has made investments worth $1.5 billion in infrastructure development projects in the country and, hence, it deserves to be part of any talks about the country s future. Both are based on bogus reasoning.

Indeed, India and Afghanistan enjoyed close relations in the past, first in the pre-Partition days as the two countries had a common border, and later during the reign of King Zahir Shah when both nations belonged to the pro-Soviet camp. History has since move on to radically change the two realities.

As regards the investment argument, it smacks of interventionist thinking. It amounts to saying if a country gives economic aid to another, especially to an occupied country like Afghanistan, which is not free to make its decisions for itself, the giver also has the right to influence its decision making to its advantage.

India, of course, spent the money not out of an altruistic motive but to promote its own strategic and economic objectives in the region. Pakistan has a pivotal position in the current situation because of history and location, due to which it got caught up in this war against the will of its people. It has paid a horrendous cost in military as well as civilian lives, and economic losses worth more than $35 billion.

As General Kayani pointed out, at present more than 140,000 troops are engaged in fighting militants in the north-west and deployments along the Afghan border. So far 2,273 Pakistan Army officers and soldiers have been killed in the fighting - a casualty figure much higher than that of all the US and Nato forces put together.

Needless to say, none of Afghanistan s neighbours has suffered on account of this war more than Pakistan has. Besides, what happens in Afghanistan, affect us, too, whether we welcome it or not. Hence, it is only fair for us to expect that any new government in Kabul is not hostile towards this country.

That requires a special role for it in evolving strategy for Afghanistan s peace and stability. An important step in that direction would be for Pakistan to train 140,000 strong Afghan National Army (ANA), which is to assume security responsibilities following the foreign forces exit. General Kayani rightly observed at his press briefing that If we get more involved with the ANA there s more interaction and better understanding.

We need to strongly confront the challenge that comes from India s desire, supported by some of its Western friends, to train the ANA. It would create linkages India could use to pressure Pakistan from its western border as well, which is bound to trigger a fresh round of instability in Afghanistan. That is the last thing the Afghan people need.

For over thirty years, they have been facing unspeakable suffering as a consequence of big and small powers proxy wars as well as invasion and occupation. No one has kept a count of the casualty figures, but it is not difficult to guess that the number runs into hundreds of thousands. It is about time the Afghan people are left alone.

Their self-appointed well wishers must step back, allowing them to sort out their problems among themselves. It is important to shape an environment, which is conducive to peace in that war devastated country. Instead of positioning themselves to gain influence and promote their respective regional agendas, Afghanistan neighbours, those contiguous to it and the ones in its near-neighbourhood, like India, must come to an agreement to help create a neutral Afghanistan. That will also ensure regional harmony, benefiting all competitors.