Pakistan Senate's Foreign Relations Committee Discusses Afghanistan Issues

Afghanistan: missing links in the war on terror
By Imtiaz Alam

The writer is editor current affairs, The News, and editor South Asian Journal

Senator Syed Mushahid Hussain, being a former journalist, continues to make news while presiding over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This time, he dared to invite some of the top reporters and critics of the post-Taliban Afghan policy to present their assessment before the committee. Coincidently, all the invitees said pretty much the same thing: that there is a serious lacunae in our Afghan policy to the detriment of our national interests as well as the Afghan people -- not to mention the war on terrorism. Except for one, all proposed similar remedies that are, however, not in conformity with what we are trying to do as a damage control exercise.

The Senate hearing against the backdrop of President Karzai's otherwise un-diplomatic outbursts against Pakistan assumed added value. The most vociferous critique of our current Afghan policy was made by well-known journalist Ahmed Rashid. He questioned the basic assumptions of this policy while unsparingly exposing the ways a kind of "sanctuary" is being provided to the Taliban in our tribal areas. Mr Rashid and the other speakers underlined the same points – though they have different approaches -- in elaborating how to bring peace to Afghanistan. Broadly, they summed up the situation on the following lines: a) that our policy is based on a pro-Pakhtun bias assuming that Pakhtuns are in an absolute majority in Afghanistan, which they contested they are not despite being the largest ethnic group. The fact of the matter is that there is no reliable recent census on the ethnic composition of the country and the Karzai government is dominated by Pakhtuns.

b) That Pakistan is detested by most Afghans, including the Pakhtuns, who attribute all their present misfortunes to Pakistan and are quite agitated over what they perceive to be an anti-Afghanistan policy of Pakistan. c) That the Afghans believe that Pakistan is bent upon keeping Afghanistan unstable so that it can keep it as its area of influence. d) That, according to Mr Rashid, not denied by others, some elements in Pakistan's security establishment, both retried and in-service, are still harbouring the Taliban and most of the Taliban leadership (Mullah Omar was not mentioned) has been provided with a kind of "sanctuary" in our tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. e) Indeed, the campaign against Al Qaeda was unsparing and tough, but not so much against the Taliban. f) They were of the unanimous view that the Taliban are again emerging as a force to be reckoned with in the southern provinces or the Pakhtun belt of Afghanistan. But Rahimullah Yusufzai, another well-known journalist, dispelled the notion that the Taliban in any way subscribe to the themes or imagery of Pakhtun nationalism, although 95 per cent of them are Pakhtun and their leadership is mostly from Kandahar. He emphasised that they claim and believe that they are an Islamic movement.

g) They took serious exception to the way the war against terrorism is being fought in Afghanistan and the failure of NATO and ISAF to commit more troops in the South, and warned that the next round of insurgency will be bloodier due to a failure of the international community in providing any relief whatsoever to the war-torn people. h) They agreed that the Karzai government's writ is confined to Kabul and it is thoroughly corrupt. While former ambassador Rustam Shah Mohmand pinpointed foreign occupation as the principal cause behind the insurgency and instability in Afghanistan, Mr Rashid disagreed saying it was sanctioned by the UN and as agreed by Mr Mohmand the whole international community is behind the Karzai government. Although this is entirely wrong to equate the illegal occupation of Iraq with the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, the foreign forces engaged in combat in Afghanistan are being seen by many Afghans as alien occupiers. i) Almost all of them were of the opinion that, in the last analysis, there cannot be a military solution to what is essentially a political problem and ways will have to be found to isolate the terrorists and bring the moderate Taliban into the mainstream. j) All of them recommended a focus on the people's wellbeing, instead of backing this one or that one, and keep away from nursing any notion to dominate Afghanistan. k) They recommended a visible developmental approach for the welfare of the people, instead of being seen in the power-struggle, and reach out to all ethnic groups, rather than keeping a Pakhtun alone approach. l) Mr Rashid also warned that all NATO and ambassadors of NATO countries have been blaming Pakistan for their failures and you cannot bluff everybody all the time.

There is no second opinion that President Pervez Musharraf took the right decision to ditch adamant Taliban and change a flawed and much criticised Afghan policy under the compulsion of 9/11 that changed the world. There is also no doubt that Pakistan fully joined and followed the international consensus on Afghanistan and contributed and sacrificed more than any other country in the war against terrorism in and around Afghanistan. It is also beyond doubt that Mr Karzai, as a refugee, was our guest for decades and Pakistan fully supported him in his election to the presidency. Yet, Mr Karzai and everybody else are blaming Pakistan for not doing enough. What would be considered enough for Pakistan to do? And what is not enough is what the Karzai government and the Nato forces are not able to do? Pakistan is being asked for too much. However, what it should take serious care of is that whatever it is doing should not be doubted and it should be made sure that no section of its establishment is in any way providing any kind of support to the Taliban.

What is being ignored is that: a) while fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Pakistan is on the verge of losing its tribal areas to a variety of radical elements most of whom are being confused with the real Taliban--a Taliban victory. b) The level of resistance put up by the Taliban demanded additional Nato forces in the South which have not come--two more victories for Taliban. c) That the Karzai and Musharraf governments are quarrelling--is a victory for Taliban. d) That the war against terrorism is being seen as occupation--another victory for Taliban. e) That the US and its allies are stuck in the illegal occupation of Iraq--was and is a big trophy for the Taliban. f) That the Karzai and his allied forces failed to deliver some solitude to the Afghans--goes to the credit of the Taliban. All this asks for the re-evaluation of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan's role in it.

Indeed, Pakistan must keep off from replaying the old time Mujahideen games in which we lost everybody and were left with no friends despite doing so much for them in their hour of trial. Above all, we must take out the other half of our erstwhile Afghan policy, which perhaps we are still keeping alive, that Afghanistan can provide us with a "strategic depth". It has, rather, turned out to be strategic ditch and we should get out of it. At best, we must gradually clear our tribal areas of all kinds of extremists and avoid alienating tribes or pushing them into the lap of the Taliban. If the North Waziristan model is of any worth it must prove that the extremists have not been provided with a "sanctuary" and that any political deal that is to be struck with tribes must ensure peace and supremacy of tribal chieftains over extremists and the gradual reinforcement of the state writ. What is most important to realise is that Pakistan cannot afford an unstable Afghanistan, nor an Afghanistan ruled by extremists bent upon exporting their kind of barbaric Islam. We must also not forget that if the Nato forces leave tomorrow without reconstructing the country, what will the repercussions be for Pakistan. And what Pakistan and India must realise is that they avoid playing any proxy war in Afghanistan whose fire can burn the both. Better keep out and let the international community sort out the mess.

Email: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com