Afghanistan: handle with care

The Pak-US relationship has seen many ups and downs over the years, but not to the extent that was witnessed after the 2011 Salala incident. Although efforts have been made since then to repair the damaged relationship, yet something unfortunate always seems to strike and derail the process. Needless to say, drone strikes by the US on Pakistani soil have become a permanent source of strain in an already-fragile link.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who was scheduled to arrive in Islamabad on Sunday, July 29, postponed his visit – yet again. He, however, is expected to reach Pakistan late night on July 31st. This will be his first visit since the present government took oath of office. Apart from discussing bilateral relations, it is expected he will also focus on other important issues relating to the 2014 withdrawal of US-led forces from Afghanistan.
Kerry visit will come at an important time in Pakistan where the political setup has been changed, with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at the helm of affairs and his handpicked man elected to replace President Asif Ali Zardari in two months. The timing of his visit becomes even more important when looked at in the backdrop of the recent visits to Kabul by Sartaj Aziz, adviser to the prime minister on national security and foreign affairs, where he briefed President Karzai on the role that PM Nawaz intends to play in helping resolve the problem in Afghanistan.
This speaks volume of how the prime minister looks at the problems in Afghanistan which have badly affected the internal security of Pakistan. It may not be a total shift from the present policy towards Afghanistan but is certainly indicative of some positive change in the days ahead.
John Kerry’s visit will raise expectations of many that the two countries will agree on a way to closely cooperate towards finding a solution to the Afghanistan issue. While only time will tell how far he will succeed in addressing this and other core issues like the US drone attacks in Fata and the safe havens of militants there, it is still certainly an uphill task.
What the US wants is for Pakistan to remove safe havens from its territory to deny militants (the Taliban) space from where they can launch attacks inside Afghanistan. At the same time it wants the Taliban to join the government in Kabul and accept the existing constitution to avoid civil war after the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.
While it all sounds well and easy to manage, practically it is a rather difficult task. Therefore, the choice that the US will have for ensuring continuity of the setup that it installed in Afghanistan in 2001 is twofold: one, to leave residuary power. For this it is trying to conclude an agreement with President Karzai – which seems a distant reality. Two, consider following the ‘zero option’ by taking all its forces out by December 2014.
The US’ following the zero option does not translate into compromising on what it wanted to achieve in Afghanistan or mean that it will put at stake its strategic interests in the region. As proclaimed by the superpower, it has already achieved its objectives in Afghanistan ie removal of the Taliban from the government and elimination of Al-Qaeda from the country. So if President Karzai somehow cannot conclude the strategic agreement to give immunity to US troops from Afghan laws, the US can easily opt for leaving that country like the Soviets did in late 1980s. The problem that such an exit will create, in the absence of a common dispensation to maintain law and order in the country, is for the Afghans and their immediate neighbours to worry about – certainly not the United States.
When it comes to Pakistan, it can safely be said that the country will agree to all that the US wants, including removal of safe havens from its territory provided doing so guarantees protection of its interest in the region. Islamabad seems to be seriously concerned about the growing Indian influence in Afghanistan, particularly in the areas close to the border with Pakistan. We can hardly afford to have trouble on our western border when our eastern front is already in trouble and needs constant vigil. Till then, to safeguard its interests, Pakistan will continue playing the game of hide-and-seek with the US – of which it is a front-line ally in the war on terror.
As for Iran, the country is currently in the middle of playing a rather clever and calculated game. It is killing two birds with one stone, helping one enemy (the Taliban) fight the other (the US) inside Afghanistan. At the same time it is maintaining cordial relations with the government in Kabul where its favourites are in power today. Iran, thus, has the opportunity to use the government to strengthen its position in Afghanistan in case the foreign forces decide to leave. In that case Iran will have its friends in Afghanistan well positioned to defend themselves – needing little or no help from Tehran. In the reverse scenario – one in which the Taliban have an easy run over in case of the ‘zero option’ – Iran will benefit from its relations with them by avoiding a repeat of the 1998 war-like situation with them when they killed Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif while engaged in battle with the Northern Alliance.
Now let us look at the other two players inside Afghanistan – President Karzai and the Taliban. President Karzai would like to continue in his present position, despite all odds. He would like the Taliban to join his government as junior partners, with minor amendments to the constitution if so be the demand. The Taliban, on the other hand, would like the Karzai government to pack up and leave since it was installed by invaders. In the worst scenario even if they (Taliban) have to share power with some forces in the present government the representation of that has to be kept to the bare minimum.
What the US wants, what Pakistan wishes, what Iran plans or what President Karzai and the Taliban desire are merely wild dreams – not likely to come true any time soon. What they should all in fact focus on is the formation of a political dispensation that is acceptable to the Afghans and which can rule the country once foreign troops leave in 2014. To avoid letting the country slip into total chaos, the Afghans have to agree on some kind of an arrangement for governance of their country. They have to accept each other and start living in peace. They need to remember that it is they who are the owners of Afghanistan and only they – and no one else – can bring peace to the war-ravaged country.
The Afghan issue will not be solved by Kerry, nor will any other country ever conquer and pacify Afghanistan. It's better to live in peace with a neighbour whose history is replete with wars and fighting. It will thus be in the interest of all outside forces to stay away from interfering in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. It is also best to ensure that the world’s best-known warriors are your friends than your adversaries.
The writer is a former ambassador. Email: waziruk@hotmail.com