Riaz Mohammed Khan’s book “Afghanistan and Pakistan” adds to the
already numerous books available on the shelves on the linked
Afghanistan-Pakistan situation. The Taliban-takeover of Afghanistan, the
9/11 terror attack that provoked US military intervention leading to
Taliban’s ouster from power, US failure to consoildate its success
because of the distraction of the Iraq war, the resurgence of the
Taliban and Pakistan’s collusion in this, have all been analysed by
diverse authors from different perspectives. So when a new book appears
it has to offer more than a pastiche of facts, views and analyses that
the reader is already familiar with.
The author, who was Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary from 2005 to 2008,
offers an insider’s perspective on the subject. His book is not a work
of scholarship based on “rigorous or extensive” research, as the author
avows in the introduction. He offers, as he says, a “broad-brush
treatment of events”, weaving “personal experiences, perspectives, and
evaluation into the larger narrative”, derived from his various
assignments in the Pakistani Foreign Office.
A former Pakistani diplomat who has officially handled Afghanistan
related issues, analysed them on file and in internal discussions, and
contributed in some measure to policy making, can be expected to adhere
largely to the standard Pakistani view that we know. While this
undercurrent in not absent from the book, the sobriety with which the
author expounds his views and the penetrating reflections he makes on
many aspects of Pakistani thinking and policies is striking.
The first part of the book covers the post-Soviet withdrawal phase of
the Afghanistan conflict from 1989 to 1995, the advent of the Taliban
from 1996 to 2001, the developments in Afghanistan post-9/11, with the
interests and concerns of the external powers examined in a separate
chapter. The second part deals with the Pakistan context of the Afghan
situation, with focus on the grave challenge of religious militancy and
extremism that the country faces. The intellectual crisis and weak
governance in Pakistan is examined with great acuity in chapter 6 of the
book. The book ends with the author’s “Conclusions” that pinpoint the
mistakes made and opportunities missed by western powers in dealing with
the developments in Afghanistan at critical moments. This section
assesses the exit strategy, the prospects of stabilizing Aghanistan, the
reconciliation and reconstruction agenda and the challenge of
rebuilding of the Afghan National Army. The December 10 review of the US
counter-insurgency strategy is examined, recommendations are made for
an Afghnistan-Pakistan modus vivendi, the conundrum of US-Pakistan
relations is looked at, with a glance at the expectations of Pakistan
whose dearth of political and intellectual leadership is highlighted.
The author does not believe that Pakistan bears the major
responsibility for the mess in Afghanistan, though he does expose the
disruptive aspects of its policies and actions. The Pakistan Army and
the ISI, he acknowledges, have supported the Afghan insurgents at the
highest levels, and at the middle levels have admired their piety and
intransigence. He rejects, however, the idea that the ISI created the
Taliban, arguing that they were a phenomenon waiting to happen after 10
years of Soviet occupation and 5 years of internecine conflict, with
President Zia’s islamization policies, the mushrooming of madrassahs and
muslim charities from the Gulf under the influence of Wahhabi and
Deobandi ideology acting as catalysts. He concedes that in the 1990s the
Pakistanis did believe that the Taliban offered the best hope for
stabilization as they drew strength from ethnic Pashtuns straddling the
border, and that once settled in power they would become more moderate.
Hence, Pakistan favoured engaging the Taliban before and after 9/11, but
the international community isolated them in the 1990s because of their
human rights record, treatment of women, the bombing of the US
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania embassies and the Al Qaida connection,
pushing the Taliban therefore towards greater dependence on foreign
elements.
After 9/11 Pakistan’s earlier policy of supporting the Taliban was of
course in shambles, with the Northern Alliance in Kabul and Al Qaida
and Taliban elements moving into FATA. President Musharraf pressed the
US not to allow a government in Kabul unfriendly to Pakistan and pleaded
for the inclusion of some moderate Taliban elements in it, but the Bonn
Agreement excluded the Taliban and all hardline Mujaheddin groups,
which, for the author, was a mistake.
The author argues that Pakistan is not responsible for the post 9/11
resurgence of the Taliban. They had been routed but not destroyed. Later
developments, according to the author, including America’s war on Iraq
which strengthened the Al Qaida and deflected US attention away from
Afghanistan, lack of economic support for Afghanistan after Bonn and the
meagre results of the Tokyo Donors Conference that only helped to
foster the opium economy, the ineffectiveness of aid programmes, poor
governance, the absence of government at local levels, the neglect of
agriculture as a result, the non-Pashtun character of the Afghan
National Army, the perception that the Taliban were fighting for Pashtun
rights, the overweening US and UN presence that hurt President Karzai’s
image and no accretion to his authority after the 2004 Presidential
election, all contributed to the steady resurgence of the Taliban.
Afghanistan holds Pakistan responsible for this development as the
insurgents operate from Pakistani territory. Pakistan, however, believes
it is a victim of the unsettled situation in Afghanistan. The author
refutes the widely made charge that because Pakistan views the Taliban
as a long term asset for recovering political influence in Kabul, it is
reluctant to act against the group. Pakistan, in his view, can be blamed
for half-hearted cooperation but not such calculation. He sees the
conflict as fundamentally an Afghan issue. However, with US
counter-insurgency efforts failing to produce wanted results, Pakistan
has come under greater pressure, with the drone attacks exacerbating
US-Pakistan tensions. Lack of trust now marks the military relations
between the two countries, with a growing disconnect between the US and
Pakistan perceptions and approaches at the operational level.
The author makes the familiar argument that Pakistan does not target
the Afghan Taliban as they do not fight Pakistani troops or carry on
acts of violence within the country, that Pakistan’s primary concern is
the Pakistani Taliban and that apart from Pakistani empathy with the
Taliban, Pakistan has limited capacity to interdict and control them.
According to him, Pakistan has been soft on the Haqqanis and Mullah
Nazir with a view to squeezing Baitullah Masud. However, even as suicide
bombings in Pakistan are rising, the US asks Pakistan to do more. The
author denies any double dealing by Pakistan; even pro-US elements in
Pakistan, according to him, are disappointed that the US does not see
the complexity of the problem facing Pakistan. The general feeling in
Pakistan is that the war on terror is not that of Pakistan and that
Pakistan is being used as hired help. The author tries to persuade but
fails to convince.
Looking ahead at prospects of stability in Afghanistan, the author
sees the US military presence in Afghanistan a problem as well as a
solution. The Afghan population is tired of violence and conflict. If
the US forces begin withdrawing and other improvements on the ground
occur, the rationale for fighting would weaken. Hearts and minds cannot
be won by intensification of military efforts. But then, until the
Afghan National Security Forces(ANSF) are built, the militancy cannot be
pacified.
The chapter on the role of external powers provides some useful
insights into the thinking of China and Iran as shared with the
Pakistanis. The author sees the rivalry between India, Iran and Pakistan
as a source of problems. While recognizing that Pakistan and
Afghanistan cannot be detached because of intense informal linkages
between the two countries, he sees Pakistan’s posture of treating
Aghanistan as its backyard as being deeply offensive to the Afghans. He
is scornful of the concept of strategic depth that has animated the
thinking of the Pakistani military towards Afghanistan and finds
Pakistani pleas for a friendly government in Kabul politically
unwarranted as Afghanistan has never posed a conventional military
threat to Pakistan.
Backing the Taliban is no longer a viable option for Pakistan today,
he says, as that would give the Pakistani Taliban more strength. The
author realistically notes that the Taliban had earlier risen to power
in Afghanistan because of unique developments, but today opposition to
them is strong, Afghanistan is not the war torn country of the mid-1990s
and the non-Pashtuns are not willing to accept Taliban rule. Pakistan
can at best exert local influence in a fragmented Afghanistan.
It is difficult to believe that, as the author claims, Pakistan will
not pursue factional politics in Afghanistan to balance Indian
influence. General Musharraf, who no doubt reflects sentiments
prevailing in the Pakistani military, still proclaims at all forums that
India is in close alliance with the erstwhile Northern Alliance groups
and that the Afghan intelligence cooperates with R&AW in Pakistani
frontier areas and Balochistan. The author is even less persuasive when
he argues that in Pakistan’s soft environment(!) contacts between the
Afghan Taliban and retired military officials do exist but the latter
are not acting in accordance with official policy. According to him, a
stable Afghanistan would require a balance between different groups and
not domination by any particular one.
India’s interest in Afghanistan is not presented by the author with
the usual Pakistani distortions. He sees India maintaining good
relations with the Northern Alliance and building goodwill among the
Pashtuns. He believes, rightly, that some understanding between India
and Pakistan could have a positive impact on Afghanistan, recalling that
in 2006 India had approached Pakistan to help Afghanistan settle down
but Pakistan took it as a bid to raise the transit issue and did not
respond.
For Iran the Taliban are, the author recognizes, a challenge because
of their salafist ideology The Iranians recall the killing of their
personnel by Pakistani anti-shia elements amongst the Taliban. Iran has
concern about US support for Iranian dissident groups. They haven’t
made Pak-US military co-operation an issue in Pakistan-Iran bilateral
relations. The author considers the Iranian policy pragmatic and
circumspect.
The author is critical of Saudi Arabia’s role in financing madrassahs
in Pakistan and Afghanistan with salafist ideology and making no effort
to reverse this policy. The Russians cannot overlook the fact that the
Taliban were the only government to recognize Chechenya. The author has
detected no concern in Russia about US bases in Afghanistan. China has
expressed no adverse reaction to US military intervention in Afghanistan
either. However, beyond curbing terrorism and religious extremism,
China would not want a consolidation of US presence in Afghanistan.
China has shown no anxiety in bilateral discussions with Pakistan about
Nato presence in Afghanistan or its use of Pakistani faciities. In the
author’s view tension between US and Pakistan is a liability for China,
but he does not explain why.
The chapter on Pakistan in the book is possibly the most revealing as
the author is clinical in dissecting Pakistan’s shortcomings and
failings. An Indian observer making similar assessment of the state of
affairs in Pakistan would have been accused of a deep anti Pakistan
bias. The author confirms all the negative Indian perceptions of
Pakistan. For him, the challenge in Pakistan is a combination of
religious motivation, madrassah education, Afghanistan and Kashmir
related rhetoric and official patronage for religious militancy. The
Pakistani sunni groups have participated in Taliban campaigns. The LeT
has been involved in the Kashmir insurgency, but while the group has
avoided violence in Pakistan it has fostered an environment of
intolerance in Pakistan.
In the 90s sectarian violence was seen as a bane, but jihadi groups
despite their sectarian affiliations were cossetted by the military,
while the Nawaz Sharif government, whose supporters in the business
community who believe in Islamization, saw jihadi groups with
equanimity. Benazir Bhutto did not take on the religious constituency,
Musharraf was cautious not to touch the army’s sensitivities on Kashmir
and ruffle orthodoxy.
There is ambiguity in Pakistan towards the threat of religious
extremism, he notes. A lot of ground has been ceded to conservative
islamic thinking and to religious parties. Musharraf’s concept of
enlightened moderation was simplistic. He failed to achieve madrassah
and mosque reforms and the banning militant sectarian groups. The
attempt to revise the blasphemy laws created some anxiety amongst the
ranks, which points to the spread of extremist thinking in the lower
echelons of the military.
Pakistan shows a strong trans-national impulse rooted in the Ummah,
with jihadi groups showing no respect for national boundaries,
including in Afghanistan says the author. The Tableeghi Jamat has
created a dense religious emvironment. The influence of the jamaat e
islami, religious vigilantism, politicisation of education has stifled
culture. Zia ul Haque policy of islamisation and the Saudi inspired
salafist thinking has taken root.
The author is candid about the backing the jihadi groups have
received from the Pakistani military with a view to compelling india to
negotiate on Kashmir. The Pakistani military has believed that the
liberation struggle in Kashmir could be successfully supported. The ISI
was deeply involved with Kashmir groups. Pakistan is in permanent
confrontation with India. Mistrust of india, he says ominously, is part
of Pakistan army’s institutional culture which can be softened but not
changed.
The ideas of security, religiosity and patriotism suit the military.
There is aggressive patriotism at retired mid level military and
civilian official level. Jihad, piety and faith is the motto of army,
The ranks of the armed forces are not immune to extremism. Hawkish views
on security and foreign relations assosciated with ISI are quite common
in the Foreign offfice and the civilan establishment because of many
bouts of military rule in Pakistan.
The author confirms the many syndromes his country suffers from.
Pakistan has a beseiged mentality, with conspiracy theories rampant. It
externalizes blame, blaming India and the US for supporting the Taliban,
even Mahsud, as well as suicide bombings. Pakistan resorts to denial
with facility, saying the Kashmir struggle is indigenous, denying the
presence of Mullah Omar or the Al Qaida in Pakistan. There is a streak
of anti- modernity in popular thinking, an antipathy towards secularism,
modernization and liberalism, a tendency to condone the Al Qaida and
Taliban’s excesses as a consequence of the US presence in Afghanistan.
The author’s conclusions cover the past and the future. Many of his
recommendations for the future are eminently sensible, even if his
analysis of the past can be questioned in parts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.