Articles/Columns By Shamshad Ahmad (former foreign secretary)

Muzzamil · #1 Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Pakistan’s Foreign Policy By Shamshad Ahmad

Conceptual Perspective
Generally speaking, foreign policy of a nation is the face that it wears to the outside world. But in essence, it is the sum-total of the norms that it observes as an independent state and of its national interests that it must protect and safeguard. It also represents a set of political, economic and strategic goals that a country seeks to pursue, bilaterally or multilaterally, in its relations with other countries of the world.

A nation's strength lies in its people and institutions. Its ability to develop and prosper is conditioned by the geographical environment in which it functions. The cliché that a person is the product of his or her environment is equally true of nations.

A glance at the map of our region will show that Pakistan lies at the confluence of some of the most important but volatile regions of the world, the poverty-stricken and tension-ridden South Asia, the conflict-afflicted West Asia, the resource-rich yet politically unstable Central Asia, the economically pulsating East Asia, the stormy and violent Middle East and then the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Our location thus gives Pakistan an unrivalled relevance as a factor of stability and harmony not only in our own region but also the regions beyond. Geography also placed on Pakistan the onerous responsibility of consistent vigilance and careful conduct of its relations not only with its immediate neighbours but also with the rest of the world, particularly the major powers and the Muslim world.

Free and democratic societies tend to be tolerant and peaceful while authoritarian and military regimes generate tensions both within and without and often represent a Spartan culture. These characteristics and geography of a country shape its attitudes, responses and policies towards its neighbours and to the rest of the world.

For any country, it is also important who its neighbours are, as their attitude, irrespective of their size or power, has a direct bearing on vital issues of its security, development and resource allocation.

Since its independence, Pakistan's foreign policy has been marked by a complex balancing process in the context of this region's turbulent political history, its religious heritage, its geostrategic importance, its untapped economic potential, and the gravity and vast array of its problems with their impact on the global security environment.

In the process, Pakistan has encountered unbroken series of challenges and experienced wars and territorial setbacks. It has lost half the country, and even today, it continues to live in a hostile neighbourhood. Above all, the post- 9/11 scenario has placed it on the global radar screen in a very negative image as “the breeding ground” of “religious extremism, violence and militancy.”

Our external relations since the very beginning of our independence have been marked by three major constants:
• Our quest for security and survival as an independent state.
• The legacy of our conflictual and adversarial relationship with India which in fact constituted the centre-point of our foreign policy.
• Our excessive reliance on the West for our economic, political and military survival; and
• Our total solidarity with the Muslim world, and unflinching support to Muslim causes.

Historical Perspective
Pakistan's post-indepen-dence political history has been replete with endemic crises and challenges that perhaps no other country in the world has experienced. It has gone through traumatic experiences, including costly wars and perennial tensions with India, loss of half the country, territorial setbacks, political breakdowns, military take-overs, economic stagnation, social malaise, societal chaos and disintegration, sectarianism, and a culture of violence and extremism.
What an unmatched tally of woes for a young nation, which from day one of its independence has lived with the phobia of an "external threat" to its survival. We have never had a tension-free environment. We fought costly wars and have suffered territorial setbacks. In the process, India did manage to change our geography. It dismembered Pakistan in 1971.

This brings us face to face with the stark reality of our geopolitical environment that has made Pakistan's relations with India the “centre-point” of our foreign policy. This equation, with all its ramifications, has had a fundamental impact on our domestic matters, on our security policy, on our international relations, and indeed, on the course of our entire post-independence history.

When we became independent in 1947, we were a house divided not against itself but by more than 1000 miles of hostile India's territory. The world itself was divided in two rival and mutually hostile blocs presenting our foreign policy with a difficult choice; either align with the free world represented at that time by Western democracies or accept subservience to the authoritarian and monolithic Communist system.
Pakistan's geo-strategic environment is such that since its creation, it has encountered unbroken series of challenges. Pakistan's strategic location was pivotal to the global dynamics of the Cold War era. The policy of containment was enacted on our soil and we were a major player in dismantling what the free world once called the “evil empire” of the former Soviet Union.

In that intensely bipolar world, we made a deliberate choice of opting for the global pole that we thought stood for freedom and democracy. We aligned ourselves with the so-called free world represented at that time by Western democracies.

In the early ‘50s, with growing concern about India's designs against our independence, we entered into a “mutual defence agreement” with the US (1954) and by 1955 we had joined two major Western alliances, SEATO and CENTO in the hope that they will provide strength to us in our quest for survival. But when it came to defending ourselves against India in 1965 and then again in 1971, we were left all alone, and in the process lost half the country.

Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979, Pakistan again became a key ally of the US and also the front-line state in the last and decisive battle of the Cold War which hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union and its symbol the “Berlin Wall”. In this process, we received in 1981, a five-year, $3.2 billion aid package.

Once the war was over and the Soviets pulled out, the US just walked away, leaving Afghanistan and its people at the mercy of their fate. We were also left in the lurch, with a painful legacy in terms of a massive refugee influx and a culture of drugs and guns, commonly known as the “kalashnikov” culture, which has almost torn apart our social and political fabric.

Painful Experiences
In the years that followed, the US not only turned a blind eye on our strategic concerns vis-à-vis India but also started bringing us under greater scrutiny and pressure for our legitimate nuclear programme.

The events of 9/11 represented a critical threshold in Pakistan's foreign policy. Gen Musharraf was among the first foreign leaders to have received a clarion call from Washington. "You're either with us or against us," was the message.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Pakistan is once again a frontline state, and a pivotal partner of the United States in its war on terror. As a battleground of this war, Pakistan could not escape the fall out of the crisis in the form of a heavy toll on its already volatile socio-economic environment as a result of protracted violence, instability, displacement, trade and production slowdown, export stagnation, investor hesitation, and concomitant law and order situation.

A proxy war is being fought on our soil. Pakistan is the only Muslim country with an ongoing military operation against its own people. We have brought the anti-Taliban war into Pakistan which puts our armed forces on the wrong side of the people. Our sovereignty is being violated with impunity. Our freedom of action in our own interest is being questioned and undermined. We are accepting the responsibility for crimes we have not committed.

The sum-total of Pakistan's post-9/11 foreign policy has been its new identity on the global radar screen as the “hotbed” of religious extremism and terrorism, and a country afflicted with an incorrigible culture of violence and sectarianism. The US, in particular, sees Pakistan as the “ground zero” and a pivotal lynchpin in its war on terror. We have brought Washington's anti-Taliban war into Pakistan and have placed our armed forces on the wrong side of the people.

Our problems have been further complicated by the complex regional configuration with Americans sitting in Afghanistan, growing Indo-US nexus, India's strategic ascendancy in the region and its unprecedented influence in Afghanistan with serious nuisance potential against Pakistan. From being a major power in
South Asia always equated with India, Pakistan today is bracketed with Afghanistan in terms of its outlook, role, needs and problems. This is an unenviable distinction which circumscribes our role both within and beyond our region.

History seems to be repeating itself again. As we fulfil our obligations as a partner and an ally in the war on terror, the US has entered into a long-term defence pact with India, introducing a new and ominous dimension to the already volatile and unstable security environment of the region. The emerging “strategic partnership” between the US and India not only aggravates Pakistan's security concerns but is bound to destabilise the critical balance of power in the region.
As if this was not enough, there have been reports in recent weeks suggesting US plans in the making modelled on the American strategy in Iraq's Anbar Province to pour more money and arms into our tribal areas, thus making Pakistan another Iraq. These alarming signals have been reinforced by recent reports on escalation of US unilateral strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas allegedly with Islamabad's consent.

Pakistan-US Relationship
Despite the chequered history of their relationship, Pakistan and the US have been friends and allies for sixty years now. For much of its history, however, this relationship has lacked continuity and suffered interruptions in its intensity as well as integrity. The "hinge" has purely been one of mutual expediency as both sides were always aiming at different goals and objectives to be derived from their relationship.

For Pakistan, the issues of security and survival in a turbulent and hostile regional environment and its problems with India were the overriding policy goals in its relations with Washington. The US policy interests in Pakistan, on the other hand, have traditionally encompassed a wide range of regional and global issues, including nuclear and missile proliferation, drugs trafficking, human rights, and now the war on terror.

It is an old relationship which saw periods of both engagement and estrangement depending on the convergence and divergence of our respective goals and policies. But every US “engagement” with Pakistan was issue-specific and not based on shared perspectives. The spells of close ties between the two countries have been, and continue to be, single-issue engagements of limited or uncertain duration. (Cold war, Afghanistan and now terrorism)

Shortly after the 9/11, President Bush lifted completely the economic and military sanctions against both India and Pakistan which had been imposed for their nuclear tests. Since then, Pakistan is again a close and pivotal ally of the US and has been extending full cooperation in the war on terror. The US, on its part, has lifted all previous sanctions and is providing economic and military assistance to Pakistan. Since 9/11, nearly $12 billion have been received in economic aid from the US but there are no results visible on its utilisation.

What both sides now need is to set a better bilateral perspective for this relationship. According to US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Joseph Biden, this has traditionally been a “transactional” relationship which needs a “new approach” to make it a mutually beneficial “normal, functional relationship” with policy focus on the people of Pakistan rather than on one man.
fear or favour. I earnestly appeal to the public at large to identify the corrupt officials associated with judiciary at any stage and avoid bribing them.”
For this purpose, he established a separate Complaint Cell at his Secretariat. Members of the Bar and general public have been provided a forum to raise their grievances and float suggestions for improvement in the working programme of the system. All the complaints and the grievances of the masses are being redressed at this forum on daily basis.

The only purpose of facilitating the judges and lawyers was to promote amicable and harmonious relations between them so that a peaceful environment may prevail in the courts. It certainly leads to quick dispensation of justice and ultimately mitigates the woes of the litigant public. On the contrary, special benches were formed for disposal of anti-terrorism, NAB, commercial and condemned prisoners' cases on a priority basis. Due to keen interest of the chief justice, from January 1 to March 31, 2008, a total of 65,000 family cases and 3700 family appeals were adjudicated. So, subordinate courts in the Punjab showed a remarkable performance in this regard.

Supervision and moni-toring of judicial affairs in the province is the responsibility of the chief justice whereas an Adminis-trative Committee, headed by the chief justice, takes key decisions for dis-pensation of justice and functioning of the judiciary.

The chief justice is com-mitted to set the institution of justice on right track and lower courts are on his priority list. For the first time in the judicial history of the country, the chief justice paid a surprise visit incognito without any protocol or prior information to civil/family courts at Lahore and got the first-hand knowledge of the performance of judicial officers as well as difficulties being faced by lawyers and general public.

Real Challenges
As anywhere else in the world, our foreign policy has been inextricably linked to our domestic policies and situation. And domestically, Pakistan's post-independence political history has been replete with endemic crises and challenges that perhaps no other country in the world has experienced.
Throughout its independent statehood, Pakistan has gone through traumatic experiences, which have left us politically unstable, economically weak, socially fragmented and physically disintegrated.

The tally of our woes includes costly wars and perennial tensions with India, loss of half the country, territorial setbacks, political breakdowns, military take-overs, economic stagnation, social malaise, societal chaos and disintegration, and a culture of violence and extremism. Proxy wars were fought on our soil. Sectarianism has ripped our society apart. Even places of worship have not been spared as venues of cold-blooded communal and sectarian killings.

All these problems that we continue to suffer have nothing to do with our foreign policy. Our problems were rooted in our domestic failures. No country has ever succeeded externally if it is weak and crippled domestically. Even a superpower, the former Soviet Union could not survive as a superpower only because it was domestically week in political and economic terms.

Our difficulties have been aggravated by decades of internal struggle for power and privilege, long spells of military rule, inept political leadership, weakened institutions, incessant corruption, and general aversion to the rule of law.

Our domestic failures have seriously constricted our foreign policy options. Decades of political instability resulting from protracted military rule, institutional paralysis, poor governance, socio-economic malaise, rampant crime and corruption, and general aversion to the rule of law have exacerbated Pakistan's external image and standing.

In the ultimate analysis, our problems are not external. Our problems are domestic. We need to overcome our domestic problems. We need domestic consolidation, politically, economically and socially. This would require fixing our fundamentals and re-ordering of our national priorities.

It is a challenge to the new political leadership. But this is the last chance for a systemic change. If the present government fails to grasp the nettle, nothing will save the country from a revolution that the people will be obliged to bring as the last resort to free themselves of the legacy of their continued exploitation and oppression by the feudal, elitist and civil-military establishment, and to have a system rooted in their own inalienable will and based on constitutional supremacy, rule of law, independence of judiciary and good governance.

Source:http://www.jworldtimes.com/Article/72008

Muzzamil · #2 Tuesday, May 28, 2013

The Twin Challenges By Shamshad Ahmad

Nothing goes off suddenly; even the earthquakes set in motion from the depth of the earth to the rooftops of villages." This line from a poem written two decades ago by a renowned Palestinian poet Mourid Barghouti was quoted in the American media two years ago to explain the long-brewing frustration over the political morbidity of Western-supported authoritarian culture in the Arab world and eruption of violent reaction to this phenomenon in many Arab countries that came to be known as Arab Spring.
Barghouti’s line is no less reflective of the grotesque scenario that we are witnessing today in our own ill-fated region, as a cumulative result of the wrong policies and military campaigns played out by major powers for their own self-serving ends. First, it was the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and then the US-led “war on terror” that has kept this region in turmoil with vast array of social, cultural, political and economic problems unleashing unparalleled scale of human tragedies and humanitarian catastrophes in this part of the world. Pakistan, in particular, is the worst victim of extremism and terrorism ever since its geopolitics made it the pivotal frontline of the two protracted Afghan wars.
There is a cumulative historic perspective to this crisis, which in our own domestic context is the legacy of two long spells of military rule, 11 years of General Ziaul Haq and nine years of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf. Both ruined our social fabric by fuelling religion-based militant extremism as a tool of their statecraft. And both were the blue-eyed boys of the West. In recent years, thanks to Musharraf’s self-serving and opportunistic policies, Pakistan came to be known as the breeding ground of religious extremism and violence. We never had extremism in our country. General Musharraf allowed this monster to grow only to remain relevant to the war on terror and thus prolong his military rule.
We also did not have this scale or intensity of violence before he took over. The only violence we knew was sectarian in nature. We are today the "ground zero" of the "war on terror" with a full-fledged military conflict going on within our tribal areas. We have been the main target in an al-Qaeda-led war in our country with almost 50,000 Pakistani civilian and security personnel having lost their lives in terrorist attacks in the last few years. It is paying a heavy price in terms of huge military expenses and collateral damages. Pakistan continues to suffer protracted violence, massive displacement, trade and production slowdown, export stagnation, investor hesitation, and worsening law and order situation.
We have staked everything in this war and are constantly paying a heavy price in terms of huge military expenses and collateral damages. And yet, one is bewildered at Pakistan’s demonisation by its friends and allies. The problem is that the world does not even know how to define terrorism. Other than varied descriptions of violence in all its manifestations, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, which is today generally viewed as "politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents." A short legal definition used in the UN for an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime."
Terrorism is, indeed, a universal phenomenon and an evil that transcends all boundaries, and in recent years has deeply impacted the political, economic and security environment of all regions, countries and societies. It has no faith or creed. It is only an ugly and violent manifestation of growing anger, despair, hatred and frustration over injustice, oppression and denial of fundamental freedoms and rights.
Globally, terrorism occurs most often when a state’s overwhelming military power is used to occupy a weaker people or country, or where it is applied to suppress the legitimate right of a people to self-determination, liberty and freedom. In such situations, terrorism becomes a tactical tool of asymmetric warfare by the weak and the desperate.
Also, as admitted by UN Secretary General in his May 2006 report on ‘counter-terrorism strategy’, violent internal as well as interstate conflicts invariably witness terrorism, both state and non-state terrorism. According to him, terrorism is the product of "a broader mix of problems" caused by bad governments, opportunistic politicians and militant leaders, who exploit grievances. When there are no legitimate means of addressing the massive and systemic political, economic and social inequalities, an environment is created in which peaceful solutions often lose out against extreme and violent alternatives, including terrorism.
No strategy or roadmap in the war on terror would be comprehensive without focusing on the underlying political and socio-economic problems. There can be no two opinions on the need to combat terrorism. But to eliminate this evil, we must address its root causes. To address the root causes is not to justify terrorism, but to understand it and then to overcome it. Only a steady, measured and comprehensive approach encompassing both short-term and long-term political, developmental, humanitarian and human rights strategies that focus on the underlying disease, rather than the symptoms would bring an enduring solution to this problem. This mindset will not disappear through military operations.
Unfortunately, the war on terror has not gone beyond retribution and retaliation. What is being ignored is that terrorism is not all about individuals or organisations, or even about a neglected country or its countryside wilderness. Nabbing or killing of a few hundred individuals or changing the leadership in one or two countries will not bring an end to terrorism, which in its deeper sense is a violent manifestation of growing sense of injustice and resultant despair and despondency. The world community must find ways and means of promoting peace and stability, and addressing the current situations of foreign military occupation and the denial of the legitimate right of peoples to self-determination.
A special remedial effort is needed to address the causes of "injustice and instability" in Pakistan and to purge its society of extremism and militancy, which have crept into its ranks due to frequent political breakdowns, military takeovers, bad governance, institutional paralysis and aversion to the rule of law. The ultimate responsibility to deal with the twin-challenges of extremism and terrorism lies with the government, which must ensure good governance and rule of law, promote tolerance and communal harmony, reinforce popular resilience and mutual respect in the country.
We also need reordering of national priorities with greater focus on human development needs and people-centred socio-economic infrastructures. Terrorism will neither flourish nor survive in a democratic, progressive, moderate, educated and prosperous Pakistan.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.

Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...win-challenges

Muzzamil · #3 Tuesday, May 28, 2013

An all-weather partnership by Shamshad Ahmad

China’s Prime Minister Li Keqiang arrives in Islamabad tomorrow on a two-day visit to Pakistan. A traditionally warm welcome awaits Premier Li on his first visit to Pakistan after he assumed his office in March this year. The visit takes place immediately after the elections in Pakistan in which the people have chosen their new leadership by giving a renewed mandate to the PML-N as the largest political party of the country. During his stay in Islamabad, the Chinese Prime Minister will be meeting with Pakistani civil and military leaders, including the newly-elected political leaders, especially PML-N Chief Nawaz Sharif.
According to our Foreign Office, besides providing an opportunity for high-level leadership contact between the two countries, Premier Li’s visit will give further impetus to the special relationship between the two countries. In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials also described their Premier’s visit to Pakistan as "a sign of the high level of mutual trust and the special friendship between the two countries."
In a press briefing, Vice Foreign Minister Song Tao said: “This will send positive signals to the people of both countries and the international community that China values its relations with Pakistan and is committed to inheriting the traditional friendship and expanding mutually-beneficial cooperation between the two sides.” As an all-weather partner, China will continue to firmly support Pakistan's efforts to maintain stability and seek development, he said. "We are convinced that through joint efforts, the Pakistan-China strategic cooperative partnership will be lifted to a new level," he added.
During Li's visit to Pakistan, the two sides are scheduled to sign three agreements on economic and trade cooperation, while a Chinese trade and investment promotion group will also be visiting the country. These exchanges will no doubt further reinforce the multi-dimensional cooperation between the two countries reflecting a continuously upward momentum in their relationship, which has over the years grown in its dimension and scope. China has contributed significantly to Pakistan’s security and economic development.
Economic cooperation is the bedrock of this multi-dimensional relationship. From Karakoram Highway reviving and revitalising the old Silk Route to the newly completed Gwadar Port a whole string of industrial plants, factories, electrical and mechanical complexes, power producing units, including hydro and nuclear power plants, stand testimony to Pakistan-China cooperation and China’s vital contribution to the economic development of our country.
What the people of Pakistan admire most about this relationship is that unlike the conditionality-based aid programmes from other countries, everything that China has done or is doing in this country is people-specific and meant only for their benefit. It has never been ruler-specific. The Chinese help has always been selflessly unconditioned involving sacrifices in terms of many Chinese lives. Even today, thousands of Chinese engineers and workers are engaged under most difficult conditions in building roads, bridges, tunnels, dams, schools, universities and hospitals for the people of Pakistan.
It is a long-term partnership for peace, stability and prosperity at the bilateral, regional and international levels. Rooted in mutual trust and confidence, this relationship is not based on transient interests or expediencies, and is above personalities or any changes in domestic or international situation. Both countries have supported each other in their just causes, which for Pakistan include a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue and preservation of its independence and territorial integrity, and for China, the issues of Taiwan, human rights, Tibet and Xinjiang.
At the UN, we have been working together on many issues of common interest, including the question of UN reform. We also have common position on the question of enlargement of the UN Security Council. On Kashmir, China’s position is well known and needs no reiteration. Till now, global changes in the direction of international politics have proved the permanence of Sino-Pak friendship. The world around us is, however, changing rapidly. Interstate relations are experiencing new equations.
We cannot remain oblivious of the new realities. The new India-US nexus involving a long-term strategic, military and nuclear alliance is not without serious far-reaching implications for the delicate balance of power and stability in the region. Both China and Pakistan will have to withstand the winds of change with maturity and self-confidence and in keeping with the soul and spirit of their relationship.
Though China has been repeatedly affirming its support for Pakistan’s “efforts in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity”, this does not mean that we completely absolve ourselves of our own responsibilities leaving our fate in the hands of others whoever they may be. The Chinese ‘assurances’ may be heartening for us, but in no case exonerate our rulers of their obligation to preserve the country’s sovereign independence, which in recent years they have been so callously squandering for their own self-serving interests.
Interestingly, it is now the established Chinese tradition to combine their leaders’ visits to India and Pakistan. The Chinese diplomatic finesse is unparalleled anywhere in the world. Nothing is done in Beijing without a calculated purpose. There is a clear though nuanced message in this tradition of combining their leaders’ visits to India and Pakistan as a polite but deliberate rebuke to the US policy of dehyphenating the two nuclear capable neighbours in South Asia. It is a message of rebuke against America’s discriminatory policies in its dealings with India-Pakistan nuclear equation, the only one that grew up in history totally unrelated to the Cold War.
No wonder, before coming to Pakistan, Premier Li also visited India as part of China’s larger Asia policy, which is predicated on “peace, security, cooperation and prosperity.” China handles sensitive issues concerning surrounding countries in an “appropriate” manner and advances mutually-beneficial cooperation with its Asian neighbours bilaterally as well as regionally. It is understandable, therefore, that Premier Li’s discussions in New Delhi must also have been “cordial and frank” given the need for repairing the long-estranged relations between the two countries.
Both have been talking for quite some time of “their vision for the future, qualitatively upgrading bilateral relations to a strategic level.” Their bilateral trade volume is growing even faster than the target rate. From US$66.5 billion in 2012, it is now scheduled to reach US$100 billion by 2015. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, we should be taking lessons from this model of burgeoning economic relationship, instead of hopelessly remaining a ‘basket’ case. Our new leadership surely knows what it means to be at the mercy of other powers and will put the country back on its own feet.

Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...er-partnership

Muzzamil · #4 Friday, June 07, 2013

The Afghan ‘closure’

Our media last week over blew President Barack Obama’s statement after a meeting with Nato Secretary General in Washington that Nato will hold a summit next year on the “final chapter” in its Afghan war and on a new “training mission” after the scheduled combat troops withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. What this reportage clearly ignored was the fact that Nato’s summit next year will not be an event specially convened to discuss the long-awaited Afghan ‘closure’. It will just be a routine two-yearly gathering of the world’s 28 ‘militant’ leaders representing this sole military alliance, which claims to be a ‘coalition for peace’, but, in effect, it is a war machine that keeps waging wars, occupying countries, changing regimes and brandishing economic and military threats. In its biennial summit meetings, Nato traditionally addresses a whole range of security agenda within the purview of its global outreach. Afghanistan is just one of its military adventures gone wrong. Since the Lisbon 2010 Summit, this issue has been at the centre stage of Nato’s deliberations with most of its members losing patience over the costly war with no end in sight. The Lisbon decision became the basis for a phased military withdrawal from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 as a prelude to the transition plan with an eye on ending their combat mission in Afghanistan by 2014. This decision was reaffirmed at the 2012 Chicago Summit that discussed many other global issues, including the ongoing financial crisis, European ballistic missile defence and nuclear deterrence issues, the heated Arab Spring, Libyan civil war and Nato’s policies of military support for active insurrections in the region such as Syria as well as the nuclear standoff with Iran. Next year’s Nato Summit, the venue and dates of which are yet to be decided, will no doubt discuss the same issues again, while also focusing on the “final chapter in its Afghan operations.” Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen sounded overoptimistic in expecting the mission in Afghanistan next year to reach an “important milestone” with the withdrawal of combat troops and transition to training, advising and assisting posture. “Our goal is in sight,” he said, defining that goal for “an Afghanistan that can stand on its own feet.” He was at pains in reassuring the Afghans that even after withdrawal, they will not stand alone. Likewise, President Obama also said: “We are prepared for an enduring partnership with the Afghan people.” It is anticipated that at least 10,000 if not more troops will still remain in the war-ravaged country on the pretext of a “training mission” to ensure that “Afghan security forces are effective and can control their own borders and that Nato members can be assured that Afghanistan will not be used as a base for terrorism in the future.” Beyond these wishful calculations, one does not see any genuine peace plan much less a coherent dialogue strategy for a political settlement in Afghanistan. At least till now, there has been no serious effort or fresh thinking in Washington for talks with Taliban whose incentive to negotiate is also lessening as time passes with the US departure deadline fast approaching. Meanwhile, the transition process under which the Afghans are to take “full control of their own security” is also nowhere in sight. There are serious doubts on the feasibility of recruiting and training as many as 400,000 Afghan security forces to take over as the foreign troops start pulling out. No transition process can work in Afghanistan, unless it is built on the country’s demographic reality and is not weighted in favour of, or against, any particular ethnic group. The enormity of the problem is aggravated by challenges of corruption, predatory behaviour and incompetence within the Afghan army and police. On top of these problems, there is also the question of money and resources. The annual cost of maintaining the Afghan forces is estimated at up to $10 billion, whereas Afghan tax revenue totals less than $2 billion, which leaves a huge gap to be filled by the American taxpayer. Questions already abound in Washington on why the Americans must pay in propping up corrupt Afghan rulers like Hamid Karzai. Faced with an economic crisis at home, Obama knows the limits on his own military budget. The cost of any counterinsurgency plan left on autopilot would be a minimum of $1 trillion over 10 years. So “who will pay the bills to avoid having those armed soldiers and police mobilised as part of the next insurgency?” Senator John Kerry was blunt enough to ask at a congressional hearing last year. He also questioned what he described a “fundamentally unsustainable” monthly expenditure of more than $10 billion on a massive military operation with no end in sight. Against this backdrop, apparently, the US is looking only for a tactical Afghan ‘stalemate’ in which it can withdraw by December 2014, but not entirely. It plans to keep a certain size of military presence as a ‘counterterrorism’ mission. Those familiar with Afghan history know what it means for any foreign presence on its soil beyond 2014, no matter under what arrangement or nomenclature. Whatever the Afghan endgame Washington and its Nato allies may be pursuing to get out of Afghanistan, one thing is clear: the Afghan conflict will not be resolved at Nato conferences. The Afghan solution lies only in Afghanistan where the Afghans alone are the arbiters of their destiny. The people of Afghanistan have suffered for too long as victims of foreign-imposed wars and deserve peace sooner rather than later. And the Afghans are not the only victim of the Afghan tragedy. Pakistan too has suffered immeasurably in terms of refugee influx, socio-economic burden, rampant terrorism, unabated violence and protracted conflict in its border areas with Afghanistan. There is no country with deeper stakes in Afghan peace or more relevant credentials as an unrivalled player in any intra-Afghan dialogue or reconciliation. Meanwhile, there are clear signs of fatigue and frustration among Nato partners, who are increasingly becoming mindful of the war-led fiscal pressures in Europe and elsewhere, and also of the growing public opposition to a costly and unwinnable war in which they could not defeat the Afghan Taliban even after 12 years of fighting. France has already withdrawn its troops, while most other Nato members are also looking for an early exit. It is, perhaps, against this self-indicting backdrop that next year’s Nato Summit will review the “final chapter” in its long Afghan war.

Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...afghan-closure

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PMS 2011 Written Part Result has been Announced	SDM	PCS/PMS Result	30	Sunday, December 16, 2012 10:58 AM
PCS lectureship exams 2011 result date is announced	famfai	PPSC Lecturer Jobs	60	Thursday, December 08, 2011 07:18 PM
Congratulations to CE 2009 Qualifiers.	maliasghar	Humorous, Inspirational and General Stuff	66	Sunday, July 04, 2010 12:55 AM
Problems of Pakistan and their solution	Mazher	Essays	10	Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:29 AM