Peace or chaos beyond 2014?

[Cute Badshah]

By Shamshad Ahmad

April 26, 2013

The writer is a former ambassador to the UN and a former foreign secretary of Pakistan.


“South Asia is fast approaching a period of profound change and potential upheaval” is the assessment in Washington as we await the 2014 Afghan withdrawals and pivotal elections in the region, with growing domestic political strife raising concerns over the region’s future political landscape. Indeed, the horizon looks hazy and unclear if not murky. There are many imponderables on the very nature of the stipulated end-state in Afghanistan.

In the absence of a coherent dialogue strategy, Washington’s haphazard approach has not gone beyond tactically-motivated perfunctory contacts with so-called Taliban ‘representatives’ through third parties. Even these contacts do not seem to give any direction towards a political solution. No meaningful dialogue can take place in an environment of mutual mistrust and suspicion. While Washington’s attention right now may be focused on turning the page over from Afghanistan, one doesn’t see any peace plan on its part other than the stipulated military withdrawal by the end of 2014.

The only visible plan is the one envisaging Afghans to take “full control of their own security”. This transition, in the Afghan context, is easier said than done. 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 country is too large, its ethnic composition too varied, and population too heavily armed.

No army or police force without genuinely reflecting the Afghan ethnic reality can deliver in this scenario. While the US wants both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do more to facilitate the transition, there are doubts and apprehensions in both countries on the very viability of the whole process. For them, the US withdrawal is not the issue. They want it. The issue of concern to them is the very premise on which the proposed transition is based. The US needs to overcome the ‘trust deficit’ it faces in both countries where many believe that its whole Afghan policy is confined to its own self-serving regional interests.

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. No reconciliation imposed from outside will work in Afghanistan. Afghans alone must be the arbiters of their destiny.

The foremost requisite for any dialogue in a conflict situation is to hold fire and not to let military means disrupt the political process. The road map for peace in Afghanistan must also begin with mutual cessation of hostilities followed by dialogue with sincerity of purpose on both sides. However, before sitting together for a meaningful dialogue, both sides will have to come out of their straitjacketed mode to be able to have enough flexibility for a political settlement.

Given the intensity of deeply seared trust deficit on both sides, the UN alone can provide a neutral ground and credible mechanism for the main players to negotiate the Afghan peace. Once the rules of the game are established in good faith, instead of aimlessly pursuing further tactical objectives, it would be advisable for both sides to move into serious talks through a credible intermediary, preferably a special representative of the UN Secretary-General to lead the mediation phase.

But if the UN is no longer considered the sole, meaningful arbiter on issues of global peace and security, the US and Nato, rather than pursuing further tactical objectives, should move ahead with serious contacts with the Afghan Taliban. In this process, Pakistan’s intercession as a helping hand would be useful in evolving the broad parameters of an eventual settlement for which the UN could, at least, provide facilitation services. On their part, the Taliban must also join the peace process in good faith and with seriousness of purpose.

Fortunately, there are no longer preconditions on either side for the talks to begin. The US already recognises the Taliban as part of the Afghan ‘political fabric’ and is ready to negotiate with them a political settlement leading to the withdrawal of foreign troops in return for the Taliban’s acceptance of a constitutional set-up in Afghanistan and severance of links with al Qaeda and any other terrorist networks.

Whether one likes it or not, Pakistan’s geopolitics makes it an unrivalled player in the whole process for genuine Afghan peace. No other country has paid greater price or suffered more gravely in the ongoing Afghan turmoil. Besides facing the brunt in an al Qaeda-led war with almost 50,000 Pakistani civilian and security personnel having lost their lives in terrorist attacks in the last few years, it has been suffering immeasurably in terms of protracted violence, massive displacement, trade and production slowdown, investor hesitation, and worsening law and order situation.

There is no other country in the world with deeper stakes in Afghan peace. It is in its interest to have an independent, friendly and united Afghanistan, free of foreign influences. Besides sharing a long border, both Afghanistan and Pakistan have unparalleled common ancestral history, civilisational legacy and deep cultural links. There is also a long history of physical contact and mutual influence between the two nations, with large segments of Pakistani culture representing the byproduct of Afghan culture.

Whatever the endgame, Pakistan’s active and direct involvement would be indispensable for durable peace in Afghanistan. But for Pakistan to play its indispensable role effectively in the Afghan peace process, its legitimate concerns will have to be addressed by ensuring that the Afghan soil is not used for undermining its security and territorial integrity. Likewise, it is also important that the peace settlement in Afghanistan is fully cognisant of the security concerns of the states in the region and the broader international community.

Peace-or-chaos-beyond-2014?