Afghanistan has become a permanent topic in the regional security agenda discussed all over the world. One would not be mistaken to assert that there is not a single state in the world that has ever gained such a vast political attention than Afghanistan. As the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces from that war-torn country is nigh, there are many states that equally seem to worry about its future.
On December 5th, 2011, German city of Bonn hosted a traditional conference dedicated to Afghanistan. This time it embraced much optimism and epitomized that very relative success that has been achieved in the Afghan mission, rather than acknowledging social and economic flaws, civil losses and future security risks that pose serious threats to the generations to come. It gathered foreign ministers of more than 80 states, as well as representatives of 15 international organizations. The main aim was ensuring a long term help to Kabul on the aftermath of 2014 when foreign troops are eventually expected to flee the country. In their turn, the organizers of the conference required from the Afghan government to tackle corruption, strengthen democracy and provide basic human rights. As some expert note, nothing new has been proposed in the conference apart from the stringent conditions to facilitate all demands. Meanwhile these demands have been estimated at billions of dollars from U.S./NATO budget for several years. In his speech, President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai said that in order to sustain the Afghan army and police his government will need 5 millions Euros annually for the duration of 10 years until 2024[1]. Otherwise it will be difficult to preserve even already achieved success. Consequently, upon the results of the conference the sides found compromise and agreed to develop final document the details of which will be discussed in 2012 at the international conference of donors in Tokyo.
Certainly, there is much optimism towards progress in Afghanistan and recent interests of several states leave much hope for bringing peace to that country. In the meantime, a major impediment for peace building process in Afghanistan is Pakistan which recently embarked into complex relationship with United States following the U.S. airstrikes on Pakistan military personnel at the Af/Pak border resulting subsequent take off from “Shamsi” airbase and leaving the southern supply route, as well as prospects of withdrawal in great complication. Meanwhile, in a long run promoting any peace in Afghanistan without Pakistani engagement seems ineffective, especially given the fundamental rise of several clandestine networks such as Haqanni, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi that are based in Hyber Pakhtunkva province. These factions seem to become major obstacle that hurdle the future engagement of troops, as they create further difficulties in the accomplishment of economic and humanitarian tasks and hinder the peace building process in Afghanistan. In this context, it is worth noting a recent suicide bombing on Shia minorities that killed over 60 civilians[2]. This serves as an evident proof of existence of insurgent groups that express their indignation not only against foreign intervention to Afghanistan, but also against the Bonn conference that has become one of the paramount conferences devoted to Afghanistan.
Following the U.S. drone attacks on November 26, Pakistan as one the key participants of the conference boycotted the Bonn negotiations, thus abstained from participation. Moreover, Pakistan blocked NATO transport routes and gave 15 days to leave the “Shamsi” airbase in Baluchistan where U.S. drones were based. The reactions of the U.S. officials were swift, but rather ambiguous which led to further deterioration of U.S./Pakistani relations. Hence, following the belated comment of the U.S. President Barack Obama on December 5th who called the deaths “regrettable” but said they were not the result of a deliberate attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey refused to express any regrets to Pakistan. Some experts presume that if President Barack Obama apologized over the killing immediately and such rhetoric by high profile U.S. representatives was avoided, perhaps Islamabad would have alleviated its reactions and would have attended the Bonn meeting. However, apart from the U.S. politicians, Pakistan was also criticized by President of Afghanistan Khamid Karzai who accused it in breaking negotiations with “Taliban”[3].
At this stage, it seems that the relation of Pakistan with both Afghanistan and the U.S. has entered the deadlock and situation became more complex than ever before. Although, the U.S./Pakistani relations were never steady[4] and Pakistan was labeled by experts as U.S.’s ‘frenemy’ (friend and enemy). This blending in a way explains this complexity, but in the current situation Pakistan is conspicuously conceived more as its ‘enemy’, rather than a ‘friend’. In the meantime, this decline shall anyhow change with the passage of time, but how it will be done and what moves both U.S. and Pakistan will make is yet arduous to predict. Although, in the current situation, it should primarily be in the U.S. interest while considering its supply route and future withdrawal through Pakistan which is less costly as compared with the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). At the same time, Pakistan is loosing its income and it is deprived from financial aid that the U.S. has once used to provide[5].
Despite all existing complications, Washington is not behaving differently as it is continuing the fight against Taliban that has its headquarters in Pakistan and it seems that the U.S./NATO will continue this with or without Islamabad’s cooperation. Nonetheless, both sides realize that they face a situation which they cannot handle individually, and at the same time cannot go back to the situation which existed before the killing of soldiers. In the view of some experts, the problem is that America sees Pakistani government as completely under the Pakistan army[6] that do not seem to forgive the loss of its soldiers.Following this tragic incident, NATO troops recently became a subject of one of the biggest attacks in Quetta where trucks that supplied goods to the troops in Afghanistan were burned. The convoy was attacked by launchers that annihilated 34 petrol tankers and it became the biggest assault on NATO in the territory of Pakistan.
In spite of optimism and additional efforts that are being taken to strengthen borders with Afghanistan, it is rather impossible to guarantee security without Pakistani involvement. The latter attacks on Shia minorities by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi may instigate further inter-ethnic/religious/sectarian violence in Afghanistan. According to some sources, this extremist organization is based in Pakistan and supported by Pakistan intelligence agency[7]. Furthermore, in this context it may sounds paradoxical, but upon the departure from “Shamsi”, Pakistani “Taliban” has signed a deal with Pakistani government. Already at the end of November 2011 it became known that the Taliban offered cessation of arms to Pakistani authority and declared a moratorium on military operations[8]. At the same time, according to some sources the Taliban had been negotiating with Pakistan for the past six months[9]. Apart from these, in September the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, announced that the Haqqani terrorist network which is responsible for the siege of the U.S. embassy in Kabul is a project of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and it has lately become a serious impediment in the peace building process in Afghanistan[10]. Thereby, acknowledging that current security cards are in the hands Pakistani army, United States cannot avoid collaboration with Pakistan over Afghanistan and sooner or later will have to agree to become again its strategic partner.
As Richard Holbrook, one of the veterans of U.S. political establishment once said, “there is no solution in Afghan conflict, unless Pakistan is part of that solution”. Otherwise without it, both Afghans and U.S./NATO should be ready for more sacrifices.
R. Ahmedov
Expert of the Center for Political Studies
