Home / Articles / Complexities of Afghan chaos

Complexities of Afghan chaos

In another erratic assessment, former Afghan president Hamid Karzai has welcomed reconciliation between Afghan government and Gulbudin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami. He also appreciated inclination by Mullah Rasool’s faction of Taliban to engage with Kabul. “I support all steps towards peace and reconciliation. Peace is the only way for survival”, he said. Ashraf Ghani and Karzai may be betting the wrong hors for real power to unleash or hold back field operations in Afghanistan rests elsewhere. Karzai also blamed Pakistan’s Afghan policy: “The Pakistani establishment should focus on strengthening friendly relations with the Afghans instead of using pressure tactics.” There are no sign of reduction in the complexities of Afghan chaos.

India Factor

Pakistan maintains that India uses Afghan soil against Pakistan. Kabul’s India leaning is no secret. Asked about the ‘third country’ undermining Kabul-Islamabad relations, Karzai said: “It shows our weaknesses.” He acknowledged that ‘third force’ has been involved in Afghanistan since long but Kabul never ‘allowed it to materialise its dreams’. He said, “Pakistan has the right to ensure the territory of its neighbours is not used against it.”

While mainstream Afghan Taliban have rejected immediate direct talks with the Afghan government, the breakaway Taliban faction led by Mullah Muhammad Rasool has expressed the willingness to hold talks with the Afghan government. The Taliban’s spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, has branded Rasool’s faction “a government army in the shape of the Taliban.” He claimed that Rasool was supported by Kabul and Washington.

Whenever prospects of peace talks become visible, some incident happens to sabotage the process. The Murree dialogue was ruined by the sudden disclosure of the death of Mullah Omar and now when there were some hopes of resumption of the dialogue process, the drone attack was carried out to kill the top leader of Afghan Taliban. Undoubtedly, the killing of Mansour has complicated the Afghan peace process and put Pakistan into a more difficult situation as it was working actively and vigorously under the umbrella of Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) to bring the Taliban on negotiations table.

Droning of Mansour: Error of judgement

Killing of Taliban leader Akhter Mansour was a gross error of judgement on America’s part. He had managed the Taliban very well as proxy of Mullah Omar for nearly two years after Omar’s death, and had succeeded in making them part of negotiations, till abortive second round of Murree peace process. Outbreak of Mullah Omar’s death triggered a war of attrition amongst various factions of Taliban; Mullah Akhtar Mansour emerged most powerful as all prominent figures of Taliban leadership aligned behind him, including the Haqqanis and immediate family members of Mullah Omar. Pakistan’s assessment has it that Mansour was not opposed to peace talks. His boys from Doha had all along been visiting relevant capitals for spade work in run-up to re-railing of negotiations.

Akhtar Mansour had emerged as a credible dialogue partner who could enter into an agreement and had the power as well as clout to implement it as well. By all means, negotiations were expected to be tough and Mansour was expected to continue with tactical attacks to augment his bargaining position. His successor(s) would follow the suit unless enabling CBMs are floated by America-Afghan duo that a typical Taliban supremo could sell amongst the middle and lower echelons of Taliban leadership as well as to an overwhelming number of Taliban foot soldiers. US official had hoped that Mansour’s death would eliminate an obstacle to peace negotiations. The opposite has happened. Obama has conceded that there are no hopes for revival of peace talks in the near future.

Afghan Taliban’s  Response

Swift selection of a hard-line cleric as the new Taliban chief has surprised Americans as they must be expecting another round of bloody battles for succession and then bagging the support of breakaway factions. Peaceful transition of leadership indicates that organization has come of age. In all probability, key Taliban leaders would now go underground for security reasons and wait for the new administration in Washington. Tactical commanders are likely to continue their attacks in urban centres so that the entity stays relevant to the conflict resolution. At least for now, Obama is destined to leave the decision on how to end America’s longest war to his successor.

Post Mansour way forward

Pakistan and Afghanistan discussed on May 30 the fate of a fledging reconciliation process in the aftermath of Mansour’s death. Issue was taken up in a meeting between Afghan Ambassador in Islamabad Dr Hazrat Omar Zakhilwal and Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz. Aziz told the Afghan envoy that Pakistan still believed negotiations was the only viable option to bring lasting peace to Afghanistan. Aziz informed Zakhilwal that Pakistan was (still) ready to facilitate talks but for that both Kabul and other stakeholders, including the United States, had to give firm assurances that they would not take any unilateral action against the Taliban leadership.

For any peace deal to have acceptance amongst Taliban cadres, it ought to radiate credible impression that it has been clenched by Taliban leadership from a position of strength. Even though back home Americans could keep projecting a victory. And the sitting Afghan government has to be humble and at the giving end. And any deal to be acceptable to Pakistan must ensure that it caters for effective cut offs with regards to Indian interference into Pakistan through Afghanistan. If Obama-Ghani-Modi axis is willing for this, a political settlement in Afghanistan could come by in weeks.

And if peace process is a cover for sustaining chaos in Afghanistan and facilitating Indian sponsorship of terrorist activities in Pakistan’s urban centres then good luck to America and its proxy rulers of Afghanistan. If so, then it may be time for Pakistan to make a bold course correction—starting with repatriation of Afghan refugees and stringent border management. Pakistan has it platter full of other priority issues.

American intent and prospects of Afghan peace

At this point and time killing of Mansour raises a pointed questions about on which side of peace process various actors are? Does America want peace in Afghanistan or wants to keep the pot boiling to add back more troops to Afghan theatre? Was the option of killing Mansour discussed in the QCG meeting held immediately before the drone attack? Or, Is the QCG a dummy body to gain time and America is working on bilateral channel with Afghan government to impose its own version of peace settlement by co-opting dormant militant Afghan entities? Is India instrumental in derailing the Afghan peace process? Will the Afghan Sikh community begin asserting its minority rights in Afghanistan? As of now one could have only partial answers to these tricky questions; and the content could vary hugely from respondent to respondent. One thing appears certain about Afghanistan: pro-turmoil lobby is quite strong, and peace in Afghanistan is a far cry!

 

 

 

 

 

 

About admin

Check Also

Time to create Rakhine as a Muslim State for Rohingyas

Myanmar insists that Rohingyas are interlopers from Bangladesh despite most of them living for generations in western Rakhine state of Myanmar, they have long been denied basic political rights and liberties. Bangladesh does not accept that Rohingyas have a Bengali lineage. Anthropologists believe that Rohingya roots trace back to Saudi Arabia, who migrated to Myanmar (Burma) around 7th & 8th century AC. Except Bangladesh and Myanmar who think such a return as a good idea, there are hardly any buyers of such forced eviction. United Nations doesn’t want forced eviction to happen. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, warned that forcing the first batch of about 2,200 Rohingya living in refugee camps to ground zero of mass violence against the minority Muslim group would be a “clear violation” of core international legal principles. Human Rights groups have called the move “dangerous and premature.” A number of Human Rights groups say “they are shocked”. Even the people who will be affected the most, Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, are upset that their future, once again, is being decided without their input.So far Aung Suu Kyi’s leadership performance has been derisive. No one expected governing to be easy for her, as country’s leader. Her election had ended more than a half-century of military rule; yet the hegemony has not retrieved; and Bonapartism is galore. In pursuit of her over ambitious political objectives, she has been used and discredited by Junta. Suu Kyi had declared ending the long-running ethnic insurgencies that have torn the country apart as her top priority, but her lacklustre peace effort has proved ineffective. Ever since fighting between government forces and ethnic groups has been spiralling up. Though World has been shocked by reports that the military has carried out atrocities, including rape and murder, against the Rohingya, Aung Suu has said little on the matter and done even lesser. Her government’s growing suppression of speech on the Internet seems perverse for a onetime democracy icon who spent 15 years under house arrest. No wonders her popularity is on decline. Growth has slowed and foreign investment has dipped significantly. Suu Kyi faces daunting challenges. In rebuilding the country, she must overcome decades of mismanagement and profiteering by previous military governments that enriched the generals and their cronies and brought the economy to its knees. The biggest stain on Suu Kyi’s record may be her government’s brutal treatment of the Rohingya, and her tepid response to it. Prevailing World order is known for acting very fast in Muslim versus non-Muslim conflicts where outcome is likely to benefit non-Muslims. And it shows criminal negligence when Muslims are likely to gain through political settlement of any such conflict. When pushed too hard, conflict is settled in a way that it’s a paralytic outcome, ensuring mitigation of equitable advantage to Muslim faction of population. Some of the conflicts like Kashmir and Palestine are deliberately kept on back burners as their settlement would benefit Muslim segment of respective population. Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict also falls in “let ferment” category. Likewise is the situation about Afghan and Yemen crisis, as well as simmering Middle East and North African Muslim countries. Muslims are right to assume that current World Order has not served them a fair deal; and unless there is a significant change in its format, Muslims will continue to be marginalised at state, community and individual levels. But the billion dollar question is that how long the current World Political Order would take to assume ownership of Myanmar crisis? Time has already reached for declaring Rakhine as a sovereign State where Rohingyas could live peacefully and practice their religion peacefully.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *