Ghani takes risk, but clock is ticking for Pakistan too

National Unity Government (NUG) had promised to bring peace and stability during their election campaigns. For this end, Ashraf Ghani remarkably changed his foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan, which has been considered the key for what NUG had pledged to fulfill. This paradigm change has been severely criticized inside Afghanistan. Critics argue that Ghani has been offering more while receiving nothing or very little. We discuss that the rapprochement, bearing in mind the key role and dependency on Pakistan, is an attempt to balance relations between two rivals (Pakistan and India) rather than asymmetric concessions.

Afghanistan and Pakistan relation have been drastically improved since Ashraf Ghani took office on 29^th of September 2014. Visits of high ranking officials of the two countries including President Ashraf Ghani, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, chiefs of army staffs Raheel Sharif of Pakistan and Sher Mohammad Karimi of Afghanistan and heads of Inter Service Intelligences Rizwan Akhter have been increased. Afghanistan for the very first time sent army cadets to be trained at the Pakistan Military Academy in Abbottabad and this was something Pakistan has been reportedly eying to achieve since the Taliban has been ousted.

 A much hyped intelligence sharing memorandum of understanding (MoU) has been allegedly signed between Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) and National Directorate of Security (NDS) though it has not been officially confirmed yet. Although the MoU has not been made publicly available yet, leaked reports suggest that, besides sharing intelligence information about terrorism, it will bind AfPak to conduct coordinated cross-border military operations against insurgency and ‘separatists’. AfPak relations were greatly suffering lack of trust and neither side was believing in what the other was stating publicly. To cripple suspicion and build trust, a bold initiative seems prerequisite.

In response, so far Pakistan army has stopped mortar shelling of Kunar province of Afghanistan which took tens of civilians’ lives in the past. The army had been claiming of targeting Tahrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) who they thought were hiding there, but this claim has been repeatedly rejected by Afghan government. Mortar shelling was one of tense issues between Pakistan and Hamid Karzai government, which had in turns deteriorated relations. Besides that, Pakistan national security adviser Sartaj Aziz recently stated that they have facilitated Taliban and Afghan government envoys meeting in Uromqi of Xinjiang province of China though Taliban rejected and called those who were representing Taliban ‘unauthorized’ ones. Aziz further said that the two will have another meeting in a week and it has also been said that ‘good news’ about peace is due in three months. Furthermore, Pakistan has publically made it clear that ‘enemies of Afghanistan are enemies of Pakistan’. Since action matters more than sheer words, Afghan government should seek a more solid reciprocation.

Although AfPak relations have been improving, security situation is deteriorating in Afghanistan. Causalities of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) have increased. Two districts in Kunduz and another one in Kunar have fallen to Taliban. Hike in instability seems to be more seasonal bearing in mind the fighting season, but this year the scale of insurgency is unmatchable.  The intensity in attacks may have reason and it is; strike with full strength which could lead you to gain more and dominate if peace talks are to be negotiated. 

Afghan president is also under fire inside Afghanistan for marginalizing India. Criticism come mostly from the predecessor and of those who had antagonistic relations with Pakistan during the past two decades.  Hamid Karzai’s government had friendly relations with India. They signed Strategic Partnership Agreement[1], which stipulates India to train and equip Afghan army. Republic of India has spent more than $ 2.5 billion in re/construction of Afghanistan. Ashraf Ghani, considering Pakistan’s sensitivity, relatively goes cautiously with India. 

The most serious issue for Pakistan, what I learnt during my research on AfPak among other (the Durand Line, Baluch ‘separatists’, Tahrik-Taliban Pakistan, water management and Afghan refugee) was the growing involvement and visibility of India, “Pakistan takes the issues of ‘Indianization’[2] of Afghanistan very seriously”. Parvez Musharaf, ex-president and Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan, once warned countermeasure if India keeps further domination in Afghanistan. Afghanistan as a sovereign state has legitimate right to establish relations with any country that suits her interests the best. Nevertheless, to expect tangible outcome from Pakistan, it is not free of cost. However, Ashraf Ghani paid an official visit to India where he stated in remarks to business community “we want to assure you that if you invest in Afghanistan, nobody is going to shake you down”. Furthermore, Prime Minister Narenda Modi promised to support open and functional Chabahar port of Iran, which gives Afghanistan sea access. In the recent development, Ashraf Ghani told in an interview that ‘more agreements are to be inked with in three months’. (I need to use exact words and cite a source for this).

Ashraf Ghani by taking paradigm shift in foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan has taken risk. The risk is more domestic than at international arena. A more severe backlash may erupt against overall rapprochement of Ghani and particularly against the MoU, which has already been named by the critics who have not been made part of the NUG in malicious term i.e. ‘infamous’, ‘notorious’, sinful’ and ‘selling out of Afghanistan’ if the conciliation does not yield an expected outcome.

This time-bounded rapprochement is seemingly neither totally one-sided nor it is asymmetric concession, but it could be interpreted as an attempt to mend and balance relation between the two all-time rivals in pursuit of stabilization of Afghanistan.  Presumably the national unity government pays higher cost, but clock is ticking for Pakistan and it has more at stake. This seems to be the last chance for Pakistan to befriend Afghanistan.

---

[1] www.mofa.gov.....

[2] This term is deliberately used in Pakistan to show their anger about the growing visibility of India in Afghanistan.

The recent developments in AfPak relations: excitement and worries

Political changes in leadership and power transition in both Afghanistan and Pakistan have given hopes but also has raised criticism particularly in Afghanistan. In almost 67-year history of Pakistan, an elected president completed his first tenure and democratically handed over authority  to another elected one. The same did happen in Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani replaced Hamid Karzai. After the two governments have started working, Afghanistan and Pakistan (AfPak) relations have been passing through more tangible changes, this time seemingly in a ‘positive’ direction. However, the question whether this rapprochement is seasonal or will yield desired outcomes - though too early - remains blurred.

‘Change’ in AfPak relations was deemed necessary. The then status-qua was criticized and of course having ‘good relations’ – through very broad term- can better suit AfPak interests. However, asymmetric concessions are time-bound and won’t prove productive in the long run. Unless proper and immediate reciprocal measures take place, it may have counterproductive reactions mainly because of frustrations and lack of sincerity. President Ghani may come under extreme pressure from within and he may resort to pursue his predecessor's policy or even harsher than that. 

Afghan cadets, for the first time, went to Pakistan for training. Afghan government has launched military operation in eastern Afghanistan, where the existence of TTP is allegedly believed. Besides that, drone strikes have been increased particularly in Kunar province of Afghanistan. As the Guardian noticed, Ashraf Ghani has reportedly suspended a deal where India was providing weapons for Afghan army and any high level officials have yet to visit India since the inauguration of new leadership in Afghanistan. These are Pakistan’s demands which were marginalized and ignored in Karzai government but the new government is meeting them more enthusiastically.

Although high level relations and interactions have been increased and improved with the advent of the new government in Afghanistan, the ground realities particularly in border regions remain intact and even worsen, a witness who is familiar with the issue told me “the armed opponent of Afghan government receive better financial supports and they nowadays buy cars, which they were just dreaming of it.” Following the Zar-e-Azab military operation in Waziristan, insurgency spikes in Afghanistan, Wall Street Journal noticed. The question ‘whether it is the spillover effect or strategic move’ may have multidimensional answers. In a recent crackdown of refugees in Pakistan, about 30,000 Afghans have been deported according to Tolo News report.

The terms ‘paradigm shift’ and ‘game changer’ have been repeatedly heard recently in media. But even in ultra-optimistic analysis too, ‘mentality’ takes time to be ‘shifted’ or ‘changed’. It does not happen overnight. Everyone who smokes knows the disadvantages of smoking and reads ‘it causes cancer’ but they keep smoking.

After all, the word ‘Pakistan’ should not be translated literally in terms of representation. So far, it represents the army and its intelligence wing when it comes to foreign policy and security of Pakistan.

Cost and benefit analysis must have been measuring the current trends of AfPak in both countries and region. There is ‘no free lunch’ when it comes to politics and international relations, but in this case ‘quid pro quo’ approach has not been used, at least so far.

It is too early to judge, as some are harshly criticizing while others are more optimistic, the possible outcome. However, a state-to-state channel of communication and interactions is considered a rational development. A state-to-party, ethnicity and individual actor channels, which were the main stream of communication in the past, seem to be fading away.