The Afghan conundrum

Gone. Abandoned. Runaway. Ditched. The American story in Afghanistan continues. The Afghanistan story in Afghanistan continues. The Indian story in Afghanistan continues. The Pakistan story in Afghanistan discontinues. Seriously? That is what the Americans are asking. That is what the world is wondering. That is what the only deviation from the script is so far. What has happened in Afghanistan in the last two decades has been condemned and criticized in millions of statements, researches and studies. What went wrong, what could have been done, what to do and what not to do has volumes of studies of the region in each archive of the world. Yet, that is exactly what the key players are doing. Will it have the same destruction and devastation it had last time post-US exit? Only time will tell. Pakistan’s “absolutely not” may not be welcome in the west but will lead to more trust with Afghan stakeholders.

9/11 was a tragic event. What happened after that was disastrous. A classic example of treating violence with more violence. A classic example of misusing might in a misled approach. A classic example of breaking all human principles in the name of human rights. What we saw was the lowest of lows. Millions died. Billions suffered. More violence in the region. More violence in the world. And to top it all, the Taliban minority have now become the majority in Afghanistan. And as expected, the country has now descended into a civil war with little administration or governance to stem this free for all. For Pakistan this is a shuddering reminder of what went wrong last time and what can go wrong this time if a different approach is not adopted. The 3 main geo-political conundrums enveloping the post US withdrawal chaos are:

Nation building to nation destroying- Most wars that America has undertaken have been on the big agenda of “nation building”. Afghan war was no exception. America has indulged in one new nation-building commitment every other year between the end of the Cold War and 2005. Before that its interventions were on “humanitarian grounds”. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor were part of these “noble” interventions. With so much devastation in the forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq President Joe Biden flatly denied the ex-American designs by saying “We did not go to Afghanistan to nation-build.” That in ordinary terms meant “Let’s get the hell out of Afghanistan asap”.

From dependence to abandonment- The problem with US occupation strategy is that that they are very good with entering a country and gaining control but very poor with its exit strategy. The American strategy to choose weak governments, supply aid and military assistance, control policy gives leverage over the country’s main decision making bodies. These client governments suffer from insurgencies and violence in retaliation of American intervention. The US military machinery starts using drones and other state of the art attack weapons. As the intervention increases, the client government weakens further increasing dependency on US. Capacity building of locals, which is a core American agenda and a pre-requisite for an exit strategy fails due to many competence and engagement reasons. That is why after twenty years of US micro management in Afghan affairs the ability of Afghan National Army to defend itself against the Taliban, etc., is negligible.

From spoilers to facilitators- The tragic part of a country allowing foreign intervention is that lessor players become encouraged to exploit the division and fragmentation. The emergence of the Northern Alliance is an example. The inroads of India is an evidence. A country incapable of being sovereign then becomes internally and externally a testing ground for political predators. India has used Afghanistan to launch its own businesses and trade. It has set up multiple consulates to implement its foreign policy objectives against Pakistan. Pakistan, unfortunately in the past became a subset of American agenda and incurred the wrath of Afghan people and Afghan terrorists.

The question is that if America has done what it has done before, where do we go from here? The answer to this question may take some deep thinking and strategy brain waves. There are some things Pakistan can do to avoid becoming the dumping ground of the damage spill-over across the Durand Line:

“Absolutely No” at all levels- The hardest decision was to refuse American need for Pakistan’s assistance in fighting from the safer shores cross border. This is the major policy shift from last time. It is important not to relent on it and to let the perception of Pakistani non-interference firm up. The civil-military leadership being on the same page is good but many other factions in other vested interest groups may want to offer their help to the spoilers, which should be firmly dealt with. Any deviation from this will result in a violent retaliation as it happened last time.

Facilitate intra-Afghan negotiations- Pakistan has made a great move in collecting all stakeholders for Peace talks after Eid. That is the best mode of facilitation for peace. Engage with them, involve them and help them negotiate a win-win for the Afghan people. The fact that the likes of Hamid Karzai and Gulbadin Hikmatyar are also part of the talks is a great step. This engagement should be a continuous process.

Develop a Central Asian political lobby-Pakistan is widely and deeply engaging with Central Asian countries as part of its trade policy. This interest can be leveraged to develop a lobby to facilitate negotiations and peace in Afghanistan. A “Council for Peace, Stability and Prosperity for Central Asia”, i.e., CPSP CA may be formed to get a more influential stake in ensuring Afghanistan’s stability post-US withdrawal.

Keep pegging at the Western mindset- At the moment Pakistan may be feeling the repercussions of the defiance of Western geostrategic pressure. However, there are many countries in Europe that want to stay away from conflict. Similarly, within the US there is a divide on the American way of dealing with the conflict. Pakistan needs to identify the countries and the influencers that can support Pakistan’s stance of dealing with this conflict.

Two decades of war cannot end with more war. Two decades of violence can end with more conflict. Two decades of instability cannot be reversed with off shore drones and bombs. It has to be talks, dialogue, deals and negotiation, no matter how repetitive and long drawn the peace process is. As Martin Luther King said, “hate cannot end hate, only love can, darkness cannot end darkness only light can, and war cannot end war, only peace can.”

(The writer can be reached at [email protected])

Copyright Business Recorder, 2021