pakistani342
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,485
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
A great piece of realpolitik by Shashank Joshi, article here, excerpts below:
New Delhi should deepen its ties with the government led by Ashraf Ghani as he looks to distance himself from Pakistan. But with the Taliban resurgence, India must hedge all bets
Last week, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s 18-month engagement with Pakistan collapsed under the stress of Pakistani recalcitrance, Taliban resurgence, and domestic politics. While the result may be a short-term boost in India-Afghanistan ties, longer-term trends are bleak. No one is fully committed to Afghanistan’s dysfunctional government. Beijing is unwilling to use its leverage over Pakistan, Washington is distracted, while Moscow and Tehran are hedging their bets. The idea of a regional concert of powers to resolve the conflict, widely mooted at the beginning of the Obama administration, is implausible today.
....
Mr. Ghani had begun his outreach to Pakistan — incurring a severe political cost at home — with the intention of easing pressure on his battered security forces and creating some breathing space for the economy. He has almost nothing to show for his efforts. And so, in a special joint session of Afghanistan’s parliament last week, Mr. Ghani indicated a change of strategy, though not quite a reversal in course, with his most sustained attack on Pakistan to date. ...
...
It has been fashionable amongst Indian commentators to proclaim support for “Afghan-led” diplomacy while excoriating a supposedly Western tendency to divide militants into the proverbial “good” and “bad” Taliban. In fact, Mr. Ghani — like Hamid Karzai before him — made precisely this distinction, drawing a sharp line between “slaves of foreigners” on the one hand, and “those Taliban who are willing to cooperate with their country” on the other. This taxonomy of the Taliban — Pakistani proxies versus nationalist jihadists — was a deliberate effort to leave the door ajar for direct talks, while seeking to shut out Pakistan. “We will pursue peace,” said Mr. Ghani, “only through Afghan channels”. A day after Mr. Ghani’s fiery speech, his spokesman was more specific. “We are aware that Taliban delegations are in Pakistan,” he said, “but we will not go there until Pakistan fulfils the promises that they made.” The contrast with the May 2015 USIP speech could not be clearer.
...
But Mr. Ghani’s strategy is less so. Does he hope to drive a wedge between pragmatic and hard-line factions of the insurgency, coaxing more flexible elements into direct talks? Some Taliban sources suggest that leader Mullah Mansour commands the loyalty of only 55-60 per cent of the movement. And according to Afghan analysts, last year’s talks in Murree widened rifts that were emerging in recent years over the peace process. The Taliban’s Doha office — whose leader Tayyab Agha later resigned — refused to go to Murree, while others were furious that Pakistan broke its promise to keep the meeting secret. Yet members of the Doha office, naturally those best placed to talk to Kabul without Pakistani officials breathing down their neck, were reportedly part of the Taliban delegation Mr. Ghani’s spokesman was referring to. In short, it is far from obvious that Mr. Ghani has a feasible route around Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. Moreover, the Taliban, although suffering high casualties too, seem buoyed by battlefield successes and show little apparent interest in direct talks.
...
What does all this mean at the regional level? Certainly, New Delhi has an opportunity to build on November’s historic agreement to transfer attack helicopters to Kabul. It should seize it. But this can’t change the fundamentals. The Afghan government cannot endure — economically, politically, or militarily — with the war at its current pitch, the economy in its present shape, and Afghan politics in such dysfunction.
...
Regional powers realise this, which is why countries like Iran and Russia have deepened engagement with the insurgency. Iran has sheltered key Taliban factions in the city of Mashhad; one of Mansour’s rivals, Mullah Rasool, has even urged Tehran’s involvement in peace talks. Meanwhile, Russia’s special envoy to Afghanistan recently acknowledged that “we and the Taliban have channels for exchanging information”. “The Taliban interest,” he added, “objectively coincides with ours” — a reference to the Islamic State’s growing presence. None of these countries, of course, wishes to see a Taliban takeover. But they can see the writing on the wall, and are hedging accordingly.
In the long-term, the Afghan government’s bargaining position vis-à-vis Pakistan and the Taliban will depend on two factors above all. First, how committed is the U.S.? ... But will Mr. Obama’s successor and Congress keep picking up the annual $4 billion tab for the Afghan National Security Forces beyond 2017? This will depend on a second factor: whether Afghanistan’s political elite can pull it together. ...
New Delhi should deepen its ties with the government led by Ashraf Ghani as he looks to distance himself from Pakistan. But with the Taliban resurgence, India must hedge all bets
Last week, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s 18-month engagement with Pakistan collapsed under the stress of Pakistani recalcitrance, Taliban resurgence, and domestic politics. While the result may be a short-term boost in India-Afghanistan ties, longer-term trends are bleak. No one is fully committed to Afghanistan’s dysfunctional government. Beijing is unwilling to use its leverage over Pakistan, Washington is distracted, while Moscow and Tehran are hedging their bets. The idea of a regional concert of powers to resolve the conflict, widely mooted at the beginning of the Obama administration, is implausible today.
....
Mr. Ghani had begun his outreach to Pakistan — incurring a severe political cost at home — with the intention of easing pressure on his battered security forces and creating some breathing space for the economy. He has almost nothing to show for his efforts. And so, in a special joint session of Afghanistan’s parliament last week, Mr. Ghani indicated a change of strategy, though not quite a reversal in course, with his most sustained attack on Pakistan to date. ...
...
It has been fashionable amongst Indian commentators to proclaim support for “Afghan-led” diplomacy while excoriating a supposedly Western tendency to divide militants into the proverbial “good” and “bad” Taliban. In fact, Mr. Ghani — like Hamid Karzai before him — made precisely this distinction, drawing a sharp line between “slaves of foreigners” on the one hand, and “those Taliban who are willing to cooperate with their country” on the other. This taxonomy of the Taliban — Pakistani proxies versus nationalist jihadists — was a deliberate effort to leave the door ajar for direct talks, while seeking to shut out Pakistan. “We will pursue peace,” said Mr. Ghani, “only through Afghan channels”. A day after Mr. Ghani’s fiery speech, his spokesman was more specific. “We are aware that Taliban delegations are in Pakistan,” he said, “but we will not go there until Pakistan fulfils the promises that they made.” The contrast with the May 2015 USIP speech could not be clearer.
...
But Mr. Ghani’s strategy is less so. Does he hope to drive a wedge between pragmatic and hard-line factions of the insurgency, coaxing more flexible elements into direct talks? Some Taliban sources suggest that leader Mullah Mansour commands the loyalty of only 55-60 per cent of the movement. And according to Afghan analysts, last year’s talks in Murree widened rifts that were emerging in recent years over the peace process. The Taliban’s Doha office — whose leader Tayyab Agha later resigned — refused to go to Murree, while others were furious that Pakistan broke its promise to keep the meeting secret. Yet members of the Doha office, naturally those best placed to talk to Kabul without Pakistani officials breathing down their neck, were reportedly part of the Taliban delegation Mr. Ghani’s spokesman was referring to. In short, it is far from obvious that Mr. Ghani has a feasible route around Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. Moreover, the Taliban, although suffering high casualties too, seem buoyed by battlefield successes and show little apparent interest in direct talks.
...
What does all this mean at the regional level? Certainly, New Delhi has an opportunity to build on November’s historic agreement to transfer attack helicopters to Kabul. It should seize it. But this can’t change the fundamentals. The Afghan government cannot endure — economically, politically, or militarily — with the war at its current pitch, the economy in its present shape, and Afghan politics in such dysfunction.
...
Regional powers realise this, which is why countries like Iran and Russia have deepened engagement with the insurgency. Iran has sheltered key Taliban factions in the city of Mashhad; one of Mansour’s rivals, Mullah Rasool, has even urged Tehran’s involvement in peace talks. Meanwhile, Russia’s special envoy to Afghanistan recently acknowledged that “we and the Taliban have channels for exchanging information”. “The Taliban interest,” he added, “objectively coincides with ours” — a reference to the Islamic State’s growing presence. None of these countries, of course, wishes to see a Taliban takeover. But they can see the writing on the wall, and are hedging accordingly.
In the long-term, the Afghan government’s bargaining position vis-à-vis Pakistan and the Taliban will depend on two factors above all. First, how committed is the U.S.? ... But will Mr. Obama’s successor and Congress keep picking up the annual $4 billion tab for the Afghan National Security Forces beyond 2017? This will depend on a second factor: whether Afghanistan’s political elite can pull it together. ...
