Pakistan’s dilemma by Moeed Yusuf in DAWN 4/2/13 - http://dawn.com/2013/02/04/pakistans-dilemma/
THE Pakistani establishment has been as much a victim of its
successes as it has of its failures over the years. The Afghan policy during the
1990s that manufactured the Afghan Taliban’s rise to power and shut India out of
Afghanistan was celebrated as a victory. We are now living
through the blowback it created.
At Kargil, the plan was
to launch a limited tactical operation but the ease with which the infiltrators
managed to capture unattended peaks led the advance to go well beyond its remit.
The result was that Pakistan lost tremendous international standing and its
stance on Kashmir has since never been entertained seriously.
Afghanistan is likely
to put the establishment to the test again.
Virtually all of
Pakistan’s actions in the ‘endgame’ phase in Afghanistan can be explained by one
overriding objective: pushing for a reconciliation process in Afghanistan which
includes the Afghan Taliban, gives their demands adequate weight, and
consequently allows them space in a power-sharing structure post-2014.
Pakistan’s ideal is to get the Taliban in but not on top.
Any military solution
in Afghanistan would go against this outlook. Neither a US military victory that
would degrade and split the Taliban nor a Taliban triumph that would inevitably
be preceded by a bloody civil war — with the attendant negative spillover into
Pakistan — and be seen as a success of the Islamist ideology could be
attractive.
Pakistan’s propensity
to allow the Taliban sanctuaries to continue perpetrating violence in
Afghanistan coupled with the multiple policy failures of the international
coalition and Afghan government have brought the on-ground reality closer to the
establishment’s desired outcome. The quest for military victory for the US-led
campaign is all but over.
Moreover, recent
developments clearly suggest that all capitals, including Islamabad, are
scrambling to get a reconciliation process going. The tough talk vis-à-vis the
Taliban is giving way to non-opposition to provocative plans that seek to give
the Taliban a way back into the power structure while allowing Pakistan a role
to facilitate the process. The “road map to peace plan” floated by the High
Peace Council is a pertinent example. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear
that the realistic options at this point seem closer to Pakistan’s position than
to the somewhat more hopeful end-results touted by Western capitals and
Kabul.
If the present trend
continues, the Pakistani decision-makers may well get an outcome they could
consider their latest tactical victory. Herein lies the establishment’s
dilemma.
First, while it may
have moderated its position from the pre-9/11 days, the change does not
constitute the much-touted strategic shift. The strategy still relies on the
Afghan Taliban and even though the biggest driver of policy today is the concern
about domestic instability, Pakistan’s actions (or in some cases the lack
thereof) have still been Machiavellian and are partly responsible for allowing
the Taliban insurgency to fester.
The official line is
that once the Afghan Taliban vacate the sanctuaries, Pakistan will be able to go
after the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in a decisive manner. Till then, however, we
will spare the Pakistani Taliban’s centre of gravity in North Waziristan; de
facto, the state has accepted a certain level of violence and the TTP’s ability
to continue spreading its ideology as a fait accompli in the
interim.
Worse yet, how can we
say that the Afghan Taliban, relieved of Pakistani hospitality post-2014, will
not back the TTP? They may have shown restraint in this regard thus far but they
have never denied ideological linkages. In fact, their links are well-known; the
establishment even uses the Haqqani network to rein in the TTP from time to
time.
As for the Quetta
Shura, it is important to recall that even during the 1990s, when push came to
shove, Mullah Omar’s regime didn’t budge — not on the Durand Line issue, not on
the Bamiyan Buddhas, and not even when Pakistan asked for sectarian militants to
be handed over. With the Quetta Shura’s resentment towards the ISI only having
grown over the past decade, why could the same, or even worse, not happen this
time round?
But let us assume that
the Taliban, given their own constraints and dependence on Pakistan, do not hit
back in this manner. What about the other extreme? Would some in the
establishment get carried away and see the Afghan situation as a window of
opportunity to spread Pakistan’s influence westward again?
Will this lead a
segment of the establishment to either redeploy a ‘forward policy’ or to force
the Haqqani network and Quetta Shura to do their proxy bidding?
Will some be
tempted to do unto India what the establishment feels India has done to it in
the past 10 years, i.e. fish in troubled waters?
The good news is that
the establishment’s appetite for such shenanigans is much less than before.
There isn’t any sense of triumph or much longing for ‘victory’ in Afghanistan;
there is more worry, concern and panic about the situation.
This may not be enough,
however, to keep the most adventurist from being tempted when the opportunity
arises.
What Pakistan
desperately needs is a change in mindset on the Taliban. A complete divorce from
any group espousing Islamist ideology must be a primary long-term
objective.
Between now and 2014,
Pakistan must, at the very least, pressure the Afghan Taliban to enter
negotiations and agree on a power-sharing arrangement with other Afghan
political factions. It must signal its unwillingness to allow the Taliban to
continue waging war from its territory once serious negotiations are under
way.
Moreover, Islamabad
must work to moderate the Taliban. For this, it ought to view northern political
factions in Afghanistan (that will also be part of post-2014 Kabul according to
the establishment’s vision) as partners, not opponents.
An unchecked Taliban
presence on Pakistani borders will invite an ideological spillover into a
Pakistan that is far more susceptible to such thinking than it was in the 1980s
and 1990s.
Is there another
tactical victory in the making for the establishment? If so, will it again turn
into a strategic blunder? Or has the establishment learnt from the past? We will
know soon.
The writer is South Asia adviser at the
US Institute of Peace, Washington, D.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment