Afghan president Karzai, Vice President Biden, President Obama and Pakistani president ZardariAs the Obama administration ponders a more rapid withdrawal of American troops in light of the recent killing spree by a troubled staff sergeant, observers in South Asia see a bleak future as ethnic rivalries and unsettled scores continue to haunt the region.
Indian observers pointedly note that their country was not consulted prior to President Obama’s announcement of American withdrawal by 2014. Nor, they add, has India been brought into the process that is meant to result in a stable Afghanistan once that withdrawal takes place. And they see little evidence of Washington attempting to engage key Central Asian republics bordering Afghanistan—such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan—whose policies could have a significant impact on that country’s future.
Afghanistan: Divide and Conquer?
India’s grievances are linked to a more ominous development. It appears that the region’s major actors, India and Pakistan, are both anticipating a renewal of civil war in Afghanistan, with Pakistan backing the Pashtun-dominated Taliban and India supporting a revived Northern Alliance consisting primarily of ethnic Uzbeks and Tajiks. It was precisely such an alignment of forces that led to the Taliban’s triumph in the late 1990s, followed by its sponsorship of al-Qaeda and the trauma of 9/11.
Indeed, President Karzai’s seemingly erratic relations with the United States can best be understood in terms of his concern about the future cohesion of his country once American forces depart. Should anything remotely like this civil-war scenario manifest itself again, America’s decade-long war will have been for naught.
Some South Asian experts outline an even more troubling scenario: the division of Afghanistan into two states, one dominated by the Taliban and the other run by the Northern Alliance, followed by a similar breakup of Pakistan into a Pashtu North, a Baluch West and a Punjabi-Sindhi Center. Such developments, however unlikely, cannot be dismissed outright—after all, such a breakup is exactly what happened to both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
In some respects, a breakup of Afghanistan is less likely than a similar scenario in Pakistan. Afghans are a quarrelsome, ethnically driven lot, to put it mildly. Nevertheless, their polity has held together for centuries, precisely because Afghanistan has rarely been governed by a strong central authority; indeed, the most powerful ruler in Kabul, Dost Mohammed, reigned over 150 years ago. It is their very sense of autonomy that prompts Afghans to unite so forcefully in the face of outside threats and retain their allegiance to their Afghan identity.
Pakistan’s Shaky Foundation
The case of Pakistan is entirely different. The country’s history dates back only six decades; its identity is essentially a negative one: it is the Muslim non-India. But its raison d’être has long been threatened by three uncomfortable facts.
First, its Muslim population, numbering just under 200 million, is smaller than that of Hindu-dominated India. (Pakistan also includes small Parsi and Christian communities.)
Second, Pakistan remains a feudal country and the economy, despite occasional spurts, has been in the doldrums for decades when compared with India’s surging GDP growth.
Third, despite the supposed glue of Islam, Pakistan has long struggled with a low-level insurrection from the Baluch ethnic group, which has now been paralleled by a Pashtu-dominated fundamentalist threat to the power of the entrenched Punjabi and Sindhi elites. All of these factors point to the potential for dissolution; the fact that it is a nuclear power adds to the deep concern about its future that permeates expert opinion in South Asia, not least in India.
The Obama administration certainly is sensitive to the worries about Pakistan’s future. But it does not appear to be doing much about it. It is clear that the administration will fight to ensure that aid is not cut off by a Congress used to imposing sanctions on Islamabad. (Indians also worry about losing the cooperation of Congress, especially since New Delhi currently maintains a trade relationship with Tehran against Washington’s wishes. Fear that Congress could impose sanctions or cut off arms deals makes India reluctant to commit more forcefully to military cooperation with the United States.) Nor is there much evidence that Washington has engaged New Delhi in discussions on preserving a cohesive, united Pakistan, which is clearly in India’s interest as well.
Finally, South Asians are worried that the administration’s vaunted “pivot” toward Asia does not include their region but rather is exclusively directed toward the east and southeast of that continent. There is a feeling that, once again, Washington is beating a hasty retreat from Afghanistan as it did in the 1990s, only this time it is fueled by a decade’s worth of war-weariness.
DC Damage Control
The administration denies it is doing anything of the sort. It points to President Obama’s visit to India and the U.S.-Indian agreement on civilian-nuclear development as indicators of Washington’s ongoing efforts to deepen ties with New Delhi. It argues that the withdrawal of most combat troops from Afghanistan does not in any way signal that it is abandoning the country. And it asserts that it continues to expand its activities along the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), which passes through Russia and Central Asia.
Comments
The burning question in both Pakistan & Afghanistan is the struggle of different nations for the survival of their coming generations. It`s really a fight among different nations against their different rivals which can`t be substituted by centralisation, democracy or fight against terrorism of Talibans/al-quida. Once the ethnic groups walk with triumph, after getting their freedom, all the problems will be solved.Northern Alliance & Hazara community`s independence shall foil the Pashtun card -Talibanisation- to dominate whole of Afghanistan. At the same time Northern Alliance shall be proved to be a "buffer-zone" to de-talibanize & de-narcotise Central Asian States and Russia. The impact of Northern Alliance`s buffer-zone shall be the co-operation of Central Asian States to-wards the Northern Alliance instead of intervention in Afghanistan.The migration of Pashtuns from Northern to Southern Afghanistan shall create a new situation. Pashtuns shall not be used by Pakistan as their assets to seek "deep stratagey" against Pashtun-lands in Afghanistan, any more, but shall be confronted with the huge concentration of Pashtuns from all over Pakistan and Afghanistan. In this scenario, Pashtun nationalism shall shall grow on the debrice of Talibanisation & Al-quida.Tthe century old enmity between Pashtuns and Panjabis/Karachi Mohajirs shall be surfaced abruptly in which the seeds of "Pashtunistan" shall grow to be a strong tree.The threat from Pashtuns shall compell Panjab to become a buffer-zone between India and Pashtunistan in which the world community shall play their must role to safeguard the nuclear arsenals of Pakistan.As regards Balochistan, potentially Sindhu-desh, they shall adapt their historical claims to get the status before 1843 when British Army conquered their lands.The focus of interest shall be changed from Pakistan to Balochistan due to her geostratagical situation, mineral wealth,560 miles of coast with Gwader Port, control of persian-gulf, keeping an eagle`s eye on Iran and Middle-eas and access to Afghanistan and exploiting the Hydrocarbonate resources from the Central Asian States through free Balochistan.The wise Pundits of the Globe have already predicated that, " Any power which gets most sphere of influence over free Balochistan, shall be the unchallanged Super power of the world in the coming thousand of years...!!"Actually, this is a process of evolution of different ethnic nations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran which can`t be moulded by unnatural methods & devices.http://www.savebalochistancampaign.blogs...
You have made many pertinent points. While agreeing with your general assessment, I feel that you may have exaggerated the dangers arising from a re-consolidation of boundaries in AfPak region. The Pashtuns on either side of AfPak border have never agreed to the Durand Line as the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are also fiercely independent-minded people who dislike being ruled by anyone other than their own government. Even though Karzai is a Pashtun, he has little in approval ratings from the Pak-based Pashtuns as perhaps from thr Afghani Pashtuns too. Meanwhile Pakistan as a nation state has succeeded in alienating all the constituent nationalities within its post-1971 borders. The Baluchistan imbroligo is beginning to echo in US Congress, and the Sindhis are not too sold on the union with the Punjabis these days.Altogether, it may be a better idea to re-constitute the borders of these countries before the Americans pull out from the region. It will probably result in a more stable and homogeenous population in the reconfigured countries, isolating the terror-supporting Punjabis from new mischiefs, and establishing US-friendly nations behind in place of the aggressively anti-American dispensation now existing in Pakistan. USA can also then have alternate routes into Afghanistan without depending on the unreliable South Asian route of the present.But, yes, the only problem can be the nukes lying around Pakistan. Finding a way to locating them and rendering them harmless may be easier if all of them get concentrated in the smaller areas of Punjab than when it is spread out all over the place in Greater Pakistan, I suppose.
It's more than a little piquant to hear a neo-con like Mr. Zakheim who I believe was one of those fore-square in favor of occupying Afghanistan originally and is now clearly in favor of us staying there indefinitely, talk about the dangers arising from a destabilized Pakistan. The United States had the right to go into Afghanistan to go after bin Laden, and it had the right to brush aside any Taliban efforts to obstruct us in that. Beyond that however it was clear from the start that the Taliban were creatures of Pakistan, and we couldn't then stay and occupy Afghanistan and try to replace the Taliban without causing all kinds of trouble with and for Pakistan. Now that we have done so and have indeed destabilized Pakistan on the advice of folks like Zakheim, whaddya know, there they are saying that now we have to stay *longer* in Afghanistan because, gee, Pakistan is destabilized. Whatever happens in Pakistan it should never be forgotten: It was the neo-con project that bumped that planet from its stable, U.S.-friendly orbit into its God-knows-where-it-may-lead trajectory.
Notwithstanding your views on US backing out from Afghanistan are affirmative to certain extent, any country should be left alone to solve its internal disputes by itself.Afghanistan having enjoyed the anarchy for more than 2 decades and now with the deep access to Pakistan's military resources it is most unlikely to stop itself here. However as the noble saying goes "What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday", the present situation in Afghanistan is the outcome of string of events since 1979 tilldate. US, with it's prime mission of hunting down Osama bin laden been accomplished, has little interest in Afghanistan's reconstruction. It is fair to oneself to understand that Mr. Obama have done with his promise which he did to his countrymen & willing to leave the lawless land to its fate to decide by itself.But Washington while deciding to quit, shall appreciate the support it received from the countries like India to achieve its mission. These countries are still geographically is closer to Afghanistan and likely to receive retalliation operations from Talibans. It is not only ethical but also rational to Washington to support these countries in the consequencial events henceforth.
Again we concentrate our discussion to the main topic. The leaders of the dominant brutal ruling nations of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan decided in ISlamabad, last month, to jointly treat their ethnic minorities with "iron hands" and help Pakistan & Iran to continue their illegal occupation over Balochistan. Later, Pakistani and Afghani leaders convinced President Obama to not pay heed to the burning issue of free Balochistan. The Pakistani threats compelled the American establishment to throw the motion of American Senator in dust bin. Mr. Dana Roherbacher had recognized the just demand of "free Balochistan" and demanded to stop the abuses of voilation of human rights of Balochs by Pakistani Army. Why one should be worried about separtion - freedom of nations - in South Asia? One can understand the anxiety about separtion in a democratic country like Canada, Germany or India but not in the countries like ex-jogoslavia, Sudan,Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, where there is no hope for the oppressed nations to get their civil rights in the future. Even India is feared about the retataliation operation from Taliban after NATO lead campaign are ended in 2014 despite her huge security arrangements and potential instaliation of a mega device, "Missile Defence Programme" to defend her citizens. It`s totally irrational to abandon the security and defence of Baluchs, Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Sindhis, Gilgit-baltastanis and others from the menace from Talibans and their masters. Can any body confirm to find wether hundreds of Pakistani Gilgati soldiers lie under ice after avalance in Siachen, in Gilgit or they lie in mass graves after a mutiny with their counterparts due to the unrest between Gilgatis and Pakistanis. The freedom of Baluchs & the minority ethnic groups of North Alliance is the only way to contain Talibani adventures in South Asia. Stop the Pakistani game of "fire and blood" in Baluchistan, Sindh, Gilgit-Baltistan & in Afghanistan.