|
|
Washington works the Af-Pak-India
triangle
By Zahid U Kramet
LAHORE - The United States' Af-Pak special envoy, Richard
Holbrooke, and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been
running from pillar to post between Afghanistan, Pakistan and
India to end the "war on terror" and bring some sort of
stability to the South Asian region.
Until now they have not made much progress. The war persists. A
troop surge in Afghanistan was seen as the solution. And,
acceding to the requests of his counter-insurgency expert,
General David Petraeus, and his commander in Afghanistan,
General Stanley McChrystal, President Barack Obama sanctioned an
additional 30,000 US troops to ramp up the approximately
100,000-strong coalition force already present in Afghanistan.
Obama's December 1, 2009, address at the West Point Military
Academy charted a new course when he remarked, "These additional
American and international troops will allow us to accelerate
handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to
begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in 2011 ...
America has no interest in fighting an endless war in
Afghanistan." In his State of the Union address this week, Obama
reiterated his commitment to having US troops begin to leave
Afghanistan in July 2011.
Reinforced at frequent intervals subsequently was that Pakistan
held the key to bringing the conflict to an end. But a trust
deficit existed. Pakistan felt it had sufficient influence over
the Afghan Taliban to pursue peace talks. The US persisted with
"no quarter" to any of the Taliban.
Pakistan's perspective was that the al-Qaeda-aligned Pakistani
Taliban led by Hakimullah Mahsud in South Waziristan needed to
be tackled first. The US insisted the Afghan Taliban's
Sirajuddin Haqqani network, which allegedly had a fallback
position in North Waziristan, must be targeted simultaneously.
Pakistan asked to use armed drones on selected targets. The US
opted to operate them unilaterally, indifferent to the political
consequences of the collateral damage with which Pakistan would
have to contend. From the Pakistani viewpoint, the cruelest cut
of all came when Holbrooke announced during a visit to New Delhi
that India's role was crucial to ensure regional peace, while
Pakistan held India responsible for the restiveness in its
western province of Balochistan.
What rankled even more was when Indian intelligence chief
Lieutenant General R K Loomba was surreptitiously allowed by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization to visit the Afghan National
Army (ANA) headquarters in Kabul. This conveyed the impression
to Pakistan that the US could be looking at India to oversee ANA
operations against the Taliban on the withdrawal of the
international forces from the country beginning in July 2011.
A paper published by the US think-tank Council on Foreign
Relations titled "Terrorism and Indo-Pakistani escalation"
further aggravated the situation when it warned of more
"Mumbai-style" attacks emanating from Pakistan which would
warrant India's imminent retaliation. (This was a reference to
the attack by militants on the Indian city of Mumbai in November
2008 in which more than 150 people were killed.)
After an exchange of fire on the Pakistan-India border shortly
thereafter, Shireen M Mazari, the editor of the English-language
daily The Nation, found these signals ominous. In a front-page
report titled "A two-front threat emerging for Pakistan", she
wrote, "A nightmare security scenario for Pakistan seems to be
emerging - that of a two-front military conflict ... after
meetings between Indian officials and America's Holbrooke and
Gates ... we are seeing unprovoked military firing." The
implication was obvious.
Pakistan's immediate reaction was that it could not provide any
guarantees against more Mumbai-type attacks, with Pakistan's
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani reportedly saying to Gates,
"Pakistan is itself facing Mumbai-like attacks almost every
other day and when we cannot protect our own citizens how can we
guarantee there wouldn't be any more terrorist hits in India?"
Gates is then said to have upped the ante with the caution that
unlike the Mumbai attack, India would not show restraint if
attacked again. The same day, Pakistan's Inter-Service Public
Relations chief Major General Ather Abbas conveyed a message to
the visiting US dignitary that the Pakistan army was looking to
consolidate its gains rather than opening new fronts in its
tribal areas.
But the hard-pressed Pakistan security apparatus had moved on to
counter the rampant Taliban in another way. A week earlier, on
Saturday January 16, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran inked a
regional pact to confront the Afghan insurgency trilaterally and
rejected a British proposal to include countries which were not
contiguous to Afghanistan, but agreed to include all those that
were, namely Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and China.
The Islamabad meeting and the trilateral summit that followed in
Istanbul were a prelude to the grand London conference on
Afghanistan that began on Thursday. The gala event has drawn 60
countries and has essentially been contrived to deliver the
message that the world stands united against al-Qaeda, but ready
to accede to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's reintegration
proposal for the Taliban.
America had finally accepted the need for this some days
earlier, with Holbrooke reported to have said, "We are ready to
support it." He did not divulge how exactly this was to come
about. What Holbrooke did say, however, was, "There are a lot of
people out there fighting who have no ideological commitment to
the principles, values or political movement led by Mullah
Omar."
Mullah Omar is an al-Qaeda ideologue and he would have to be won
over for the war in Afghanistan to be brought to an end. The
onus of responsibility for this will inevitably fall on the
International Security Assistance Force-propelled ANA forces in
Afghanistan, and the Pakistan army on its side of the border.
But reining in Mullah Omar is not outside the realm of reality.
It begins and ends with the exit of foreign forces from
Afghanistan. And that is already on the anvil.
Obama has played his cards cleverly with his surge and
withdrawal strategy in Afghanistan. He has been helped by
near-unanimous support for financial assistance to rescue
Afghanistan at the London conference. On the implementation of
its objectives, the Western coalition will not be seen to have
won the war, but much less the "arch-villains". Al-Qaeda,
however, is another matter.
Osama bin Laden's latest audio relay, if authentic, first and
foremost referred to the plight of the Palestinians. The
Palestinians are Arab. The Arabs are Muslim for much the larger
part. Obama would need to be seen addressing the Israeli
settlements issue and the two-state prescription in earnest if
he is to make a mark in the Muslim world.
In a recent interview, Obama stressed that a second term in
office was not his primary objective. Being acknowledged for his
achievements during his first term was of far greater
significance. Breaking the deadlock in Afghanistan would be one
such achievement. But if the ultimate aim is to break al-Qaeda's
back, it would require resolving the Palestine issue - and that
may call for a New York conference.
Zahid U Kramet, a Lahore-based political analyst specializing in
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, is the founder of the research
and analysis website the Asia Despatch. |
|
Home |
Editorial |
News |
J&K Profile |
Infrastructure |
Confidence Building Measures |
World Perspective |
Militancy |
Pok / Northern Areas |
Columnist |
Tourism |
Culture |
Pilgrimage |
About us |
Contact Us
All Content Copyright © 2009
Peacekashmir.com. All
rights reserved. |
|
|