Home / Articles / QCG Revival: Another Mirage?

QCG Revival: Another Mirage?

The four-nation Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) talks on exploring ways to revive peace process in Afghanistan, were held in Oman on October 16. Parleys ended without any breakthrough. And participants—Afghanistan, China, Pakistan and the United States—preferred to stay quiet over the event and no joint statement was issued. The QCG, had held its previous meeting in Islamabad early last year.

The QCG was set up in December 2015, by the Heart of Asia Conference in Islamabad. The main aim of the initiative was to make collective efforts for arranging direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban; and since its inception, the group has been trying to carve the path to direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The US has ever since been playing both sides, trying for negotiation with Taliban as well as systematically disrupting it, at will. The group had held five meetings before the process met a dead end after Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansur was killed in July 2016. Now Taliban’s military campaign “Operation Mansuri” is in full swing in Afghanistan

For current revival of QCG process, Muscat was selected as venue to avoid media scrutiny and unnecessary hype; it was a closed-door activity. QCG meetings have restarted with hope for peace in Afghanistan. Muscat session was aimed at discussing options on how to move forward. Expectations were not high ahead of the meeting since it was taking place after a long gap. This was the first meeting of the group under the Trump administration, which thinks that time is not yet ripe for initiating the political solution to Afghan conflict.

Every time the prospects of QCG talks became bright, the process came to a halt, once due to outbreak of news about death of Mullah Omar and later due to killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansour in a drone attack by the US.  Then on, Taliban have shown little faith in the process. During the Muscat round Afghanistan was represented by High Peace Council (HPC) and government representatives in anticipation of attendance by the Taliban delegates; however, the Taliban did not turn-up. They had indicated their intent of not attending the session, as they wanted to gauge the seriousness of the effort.

The QCG initiative continues to be marred by differences between its members. Since assumption of Presidency by Donald Trump, America has been sending conflicting signals. Its recently announced policy on Afghanistan and South Asia is also full of contradictions.

Pakistan has told the US that the option of use of force would be exercised only after a consensus is reached among all QCG members. Pakistan is of the view that a mechanism has to be evolved by all the four countries for the military option if efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table fails. There was no statement issued by the Foreign Office prior or after the meeting. Pakistan attended the Oman parleys with ‘low expectations’.

Given the previous experiences, Pakistan would like to first know whether Afghanistan and the US were interested in the peace process. Recent reports had indicated that the Trump administration was not keen on the revival of the QCG given the new American strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia, issued in August. However, at the same time, America sent across Alice Wells, the Acting Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, to the Oman talks. It indicates that despite hawkish stance a public level, the US would like to pursue the political solution, at least in parallel, and that it has not totally abandoned the option of peace process.

Revival of QCG process also indicates that despite the ongoing rhetoric at media level, undue high heat in the US-Pakistan relations has vented off through safety valves, without causing a serious rupture.  By now it is amply clear that India is not deploying any troops in Afghanistan. Moreover, addition of few thousand foreign troops is not likely to tip the strategic balance in America’s favour. With no additional dynamics factoring in, President Trump may be all set to quietly adopt major action points of his predecessor’s Afghan policy; as he had done on many other major foreign policy issues .

While refusing to do as a scapegoat for collective failure of international community in Afghanistan, Pakistan has reiterated its support for making serious efforts for negotiated settlement between the Afghan government and Afghan Taliban for achieving lasting peace.

In keeping with his chaotic style, while churning out its untenable wish list about Afghanistan in August, Trump may have not anticipated that Pakistan would dig its heels; and that if it did so, the US would not have much of leverage over Pakistan. It is America that critically depends on Pakistan for sustainability of its military operations in Afghanistan. Pakistan does not have much to lose in case of further American squeeze. Trump had warned that there could be further cut in aid. Military aid had already been halved between 2012 and 2016. And Pakistan is contemplating other options to offset the material setbacks that further American squash could cause.

May be, Trump has also gone through summary of a few recent reports by Special Inspector General on Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), pointing towards American follies in Afghanistan. It appears that Trump’s rhetoric with respect to imposing a military solution on Afghanistan would slowly de-steam and the issue of restoring peace may go on back burners. Keeping about 15000 troop stationed in Afghanistan is American compulsion, and that runs counter to achieving even semblance of peace in Afghanistan—the pot must keep boiling to justify cooks necessity.

There are a number of other foreign initiatives by the international community yearning for bringing peace in Afghanistan; some of these processes include the US while others do not. One such ‘minus- America’ forum is Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) Contact Group on Afghanistan.  Group held its deputy foreign minister-level meeting in Moscow on October 11. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov chaired the meeting while deputy foreign ministers of Afghanistan, China, India, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and representatives of SCO and its relevant bodies attended the meeting. Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua, while participating in this meeting, aptly commented that “Afghanistan faces many challenges, including deteriorating security situation marked by increasing ungoverned spaces which are being used to provide sanctuary to the terrorist groups like Da’esh, al Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Jamatul Ahrar (JuA) and increasing drug production which pose serious challenges to Afghanistan’s neighbouring states”.

It was felt during the meeting that there is need for serious efforts for a negotiated settlement between Afghan government and the Taliban for achieving lasting peace in Afghanistan. And conditions conducive to respectful return of Afghan refugees are also essential for sustainable peace in Afghanistan. Needless to say that only a stable Afghan government could lead towards combating the challenges of drug production and human trafficking.

Members of SCO Contact Group pondered over ways and means “to support peace and stability in Afghanistan through facilitating Afghan-led peace process, assisting the Afghan government in dealing with security and counter-terrorism challenges and promoting regional economic integration and connectivity”.

American policymakers have also considered revoking Pakistan’s non-NATO ally status, but found that it would cause only symbolic set back but limited practical impact.

Whether Trump likes it or not, Pakistan remains vital for the United States as a route to supply American and Afghan war effort. Pakistan shares international community’s concerns about instability in Afghanistan. Pakistan is ready to work with every one and any one as a partner for achieving peace and security in the region. However, arm twisting and bad mouthing will not lead any party anywhere.

 

About admin

Check Also

Rear View: Netaji Bose, Nehru and anti Colonial Struggle

While hoisting Indian flag on the occasion of 75th Anniversary of proclamation of Azad Hind Government, Prime Minster Narendra Modi said that the contributions of Bose, Patel and Ambedkar have been ignored by the ruling Nehru-Gandhi family. Nothing can be farther from truth than this statement of his. One knows that Ambedkar was made the minister in the first Cabinet of India; he was also given the task of being the Chairman of drafting committee of Indian constitution and was asked to draft the Hindu code bill. Sardar Patel was the Deputy Prime Minster, looking after the Home ministry. The compilation of Sardar Patel’s letters has been edited by Durga Das, ‘Sardar Patel Correspondence’. As per this book it becomes clear that Nehru and Patel were very close and till Patel was alive most of the decisions which taken were with his consent or due to his initiative. Patel regarded Nehru as his younger brother and his leader; both. Earlier Modi tried to propagate that Nehru ignored Sardar Patel and did not attend his funeral in Bombay. Morarji Desai’s biography describes that Nehru did attend the funeral; this was also reported in the news papers that time. As far as Netaji Bose is concerned, Nehru and Bose were close ideological colleagues. Both were socialists and part of the left wing of the Congress. Unlike the followers of Hindutva politics, Bose was very secular. Hindu nationalist leaders attacked Subhas Bose incessantly as he dared to reserve jobs for Muslims when he was elected to lead the Calcutta Corporation. Bose was aware of the tremendous injustice that Muslims faced in recruitment. It was Bose who opposed the Muslim and Hindu communalists both. In Tripura Convention of INC, Bose was elected the Chief, but Gandhi was opposed to him mainly on the ground of Non violence. Bose tended to support violent means. Due to opposition within INC; Bose left Congress to form Forward Block, a left party, which has been part of left coalition in West Bengal for a long time. Bose and Nehru were on the same page as far as future of industrialization and public sector was concerned. Bose’s biographer Leonard A Gordan writes about his ideology: As per Bose “Each [person] should privately follow his religious path, but not link it to political and other public issues. Throughout his career, he reached out to Muslim leaders, first of all in his home province of Bengal, to make common cause in the name of India. His ideal, as indeed the ideal of the Indian National Congress, was that all Indians, regardless of region, religious affiliation, or caste join together to make common cause against foreign rulers.” Savarkar also said ‘No support to armed resistance against British’. It is interesting that while Netaji was fighting the British from across the border, Savrkar and Hindutva Nationalists helped the British army which was fighting AHF of Subhash Bose! The claims that Modi and Co. is following the footsteps of Netaji are a claim which has no substance. The matter of fact is that the efforts of Savarkar were acting against the interests of army raised by Netaji. In contrast, while Congress did not agree with Netaji’s line of action, it was Congress which raised the legal support to fight the cases of the personnel of AHF in the aftermath of the war. Bhulabhai Deasi, Kailashnath Katju and Nehru himself came forward to battle in the court rooms on behalf of AHF.

Leave a Reply

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