news details |
|
|
| The Af-Pak strategy | | | SALMAN HAIDAR
A new composite entity has emerged in our neighbourhood, something termed ‘Af-Pak’. The term is coined in Washington and reflects the US belief that problems in the two countries so yoked together are intimately linked and require being treated as a single unit. It points equally to growing US concern about the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Finding a suitable policy for this area is among the first of the challenges taken up by Mr. Obama: a Special Envoy has been appointed, the redoubtable Mr Richard Holbrooke, and a comprehensive policy review has been swiftly concluded. The President himself announced the conclusions and outlined the approach now to be adopted by his Administration.
In his policy statement, Mr Obama acknowledged that things had gone wrong since the early days more than seven years ago when US forces descended on Afghanistan and swept away the Taliban, to great public acclaim. But the task of wiping them out was left incomplete and they were able to slip across to Pakistan where they have regrouped and once again threaten the state. This time, it is not only Kabul that is in their sights but also Islamabad.
Bolder terrorists
The terrorists in Pakistan have become bolder and even in the few days since Mr Obama made his policy speech they have mounted a series of strikes against mosques, elite city sections, a police training academy, and elsewhere, inflicting many casualties. As it absorbs these shocks, the Pakistani state continues to experience deep political uncertainty and it is feared that the present struggle for supremacy among embattled leaders could have longer term implications for stability and democracy. Hence a prime US objective is to reinforce Pakistan with political and economic support, so that it can remain the effective pivot of its regional strategy. To serve this end, US assistance for the army and for economic development is to be increased substantially. The warning is issued, however, that there will be no ‘blank cheque’, so the money will have to be used for the purposes for which it is intended, and there will be strict accountability. Pakistan has been adept in the past at reducing US oversight of aid to a minimum, and it remains to be seen whether something different will be possible this time.
To distinguish himself further from his predecessor, the US leader has adopted a comprehensive approach to the problem of terrorism in the Af-Pak region. It is not military means alone that receive emphasis in his policy presentation: indeed, he had nothing to say about the ‘War on Terror’ that so greatly preoccupied the previous Administration.
Raising living standards, increasing economic opportunities, especially in the border zone, and strengthening institutions are all included in the ‘stronger, smarter and comprehensive’ strategy now to be adopted. How to attain these objectives in the absence of a secure environment will be a big challenge, one that has not been met hitherto.
The Afghan reconstruction operation has become notorious for wasteful expenditure and poor monitoring of external funding. Much sterner accountability is now promised, for which special high-level posts are to be created in Washington.
In the region to which it is primarily addressed, the new US strategy has met with a guarded response. It involves much greater US activism and intrusiveness, which can have uncalculated implications. Already, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, US drone attacks have become very unpopular. President Karzai has sought to have a say in how and when these attacks should be carried out, as has the Pakistani leadership, both without avail. The strikes have embarrassed the two governments as they have to face the fierce public indignation they have induced. Greater military activity by the USA and its allies could magnify the problem.
On the other hand, the USA now promises succour that it alone can provide. Pakistan needs financial assistance at this difficult time and has officially welcomed the new US policy. However, the reservations of a whole tribe of Pakistani strategic analysts have been clearly expressed: they do not fully share the US vision for the Af-Pak region and call for a more autonomous role for their country.
The Pakistani army, for its part, continues to regard India as the main perceived source of danger to stave off which it has been developed and maintained. There can be no simple re-orientation in the opposite direction, for that would require setting aside doctrines and preparations that have been developed over generations. Moreover, there is much mistrust between Kabul and Islamabad which makes it difficult for them to work together, even if the USA pushes for it.
The Afghan authorities have tended to blame Pakistan for their security problems, claiming that Taliban militants treat cross-border areas in Pakistan as safe havens from which to mount attacks on Afghan targets. Suspicions are aired to the effect that official Pakistani agencies have provided clandestine support for such activities. These suspicions have recently been echoed at a very high level in Washington and do not augur well for inducing the required cooperation between the two countries.
India has not been directly drawn into the freshly enunciated Af-Pak strategy of the USA, being geographically at some remove. However, it cannot be aloof, for stepped up US activity will unavoidably affect it. New Delhi has always feared a revival of the US desire to develop a role for itself in Kashmir: past experience has left a very negative residue. Now Washington would like to see a resolution of Kashmir as part of the broader strategy of freeing Pakistan to throw its weight against the Taliban on its other flank. Certainly India would like to see the problem resolved and has tried hard to get there through backchannel talks with Pakistan, but there is no room for a third party in these talks.
Constructive diplomacy
As part of his new scheme of things, President Obama has undertaken to ‘pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan’. Where this leads will have to be seen. Nor is it obvious that the two countries will be able to make common cause on issues like terrorism that have created such cleavages in South Asia. India’s Prime Minister has made it clear that there is little scope for reviving dialogue between the two countries so long as Pakistan drags its feet on the investigation and follow-up measures against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. Not to be forgotten either is India’s wariness about modern weaponry for Pakistan’s military.
To add to it, there has been unwelcome talk, from New Delhi’s point of view, of acceptance of Pakistan’s nuclear status through measures shadowing the India-US nuclear deal.
Thus there is some way to go before all the parties are lined up with each other to coordinate their effort in the tribal border areas. It is a formidable diplomatic challenge for the region as a whole.
The writer is India’s former Foreign Secretary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
