Reigniting old divides

The US decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by September 11 leaves one guessing about the future of a country that has been engulfed in the flames of war for over four decades.

The pull-out will actually begin on the originally promised date of May 1. Will this signal the end of war in the country, or will this be the beginning of another conflict among stakeholders endeavouring to assert their respective supremacy over adversaries?

There are people who are happy with this decision, but there are those who are indignant. The former believe that it was the obvious outcome after a fruitless US involvement in the country led to the deal with the Taliban, while the latter are still holding on to the tenuous hope that the pull-out may yet be delayed to avert the prospect of civil war.

While it is almost certain that this withdrawal brings no guarantee for peace, the real question soliciting a response is whether peace was ever an intention that triggered the decision for the US pull-out. And in the event it was not, is it that the role is being passed on to another country to keep the embers burning?

Simultaneously, the US withdrawal is a signal of victory for the Taliban which they can add to their previous one against the former Soviet Union. But, for the Kabul government, it portends the beginning of a struggle to maintain control over the country, most of which has already slipped into the hands of the Taliban.

President Ghani’s antipathy towards Pakistan has not been a secret. Notwithstanding his irremediable lust for hanging on to power which has gravely impeded the overall process of reconciliation, he has never spared an opportunity to blame his neighbour for all the ills that Afghanistan is afflicted with. In a recent interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN, he talked about the post-withdrawal situation: “It is time for recalculation. It is an opportunity for us. For the Taliban and Pakistan, it is a moment of choice. Will they opt to become credible among the international stakeholders with rules of game for a peaceful Heart of Asia in connectivity, or for asking for chaos? A political settlement is necessary, but the ball clearly is in the court of the Taliban and their supporters (read Pakistan)”. He laid down ‘democratic succession’ as his precondition to proceed further with negotiations. Thereafter, he said, “a government of peace will be set up which the Taliban could join”.

Besides the ones named by Ghani, there are other countries which have stakes in Afghanistan. In addition to the regional players including China, Russia and Iran, Qatar has invested heavily in the prospect of peace. Seeing the opportunity slip out of their hands would not be a pleasant sight to behold. It was Qatar which originally gave the Taliban the permission to set up a political office. That favour cannot be erased from the Taliban consciousness. So, they may be inimical to seeing the venue for negotiations shift from Doha to Istanbul which could also be one of the constituent factors behind their refusal to participate in the parleys. Also, after putting in a massive effort, Qatar may be unwilling to let go of an opportunity to stamp its seal on the ultimate agreement for peace.

India has been left out of the mainstream parleys for peace in Afghanistan. Together with its traditional partners in the land-locked country, it has remained busy in breeding disaffection for Pakistan. President Ghani and his close aides have been the principal proponents of this effort.

On the other hand, Pakistan is most desirous of peace on its western border which also synchronises with its recently-announced transition from the geo-strategic domain to the geo-economic with focus on connectivity, development partnerships and responsibility within and beyond. This ambitious edifice stands on the pillars of regional peace, economic outreach, strategic communication and a shift in diplomatic outreach. The core prerequisite for attaining this paradigm is peace within and in the neighbourhood, most notably Afghanistan. To attain this objective, Pakistan has worked tirelessly, be it inside its borders by eliminating multiple terrorist groups, or around by facilitating the dialogue between the US and the Taliban which ultimately led to the agreement for withdrawal of troops. So, insinuating that Pakistan may not be interested in a peaceful transition in Afghanistan can only be a knowingly incorrect assumption.

With the US withdrawal now on the cards, will India take on the job of the proxy to keep the region boiling? Given the role it has played in the past, which it continues to indulge with increasing venom, it is not beyond rational speculation. In addition to serving the American call to keep China from making further inroads in the region and slowing down its westward access, it will also aim to keep Pakistan destabilised, with CPEC being the main target of this sinister effort. This neither serves China’s interests, nor Pakistan’s, nor those of other countries of the larger region. While China and Pakistan may cooperate to overcome the challenge, India degrading itself to playing a proxy’s role will reflect its massive fall.

It remains to be seen how the game plays out: will the proponents of peace be serenading songs heralding the beginning of an era of harmony, or will the agent provocateur and its accomplices reignite the old divides to subvert the process again?

Afghanistan remains a story of indescribable human tragedy. With the help of some other stakeholders, it may ultimately fall upon Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia to launch a combined effort to stop the spoilers from denying peace to a country which has been ravaged by bloody and incessant strife.

The writer is the special assistant to the PM on information, a political and security strategist, and the founder of the Regional Peace Institute.

Twitter: @RaoofHasan