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.
