Afghanistan Crisis:
A Pragmatic Approach
Columnist Zafar Nawaz Jaspal counsels a careful and practical approach.
The United States diplomatic, economic and military responses to the terrorist attacks of September 11 on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, has put a great emphasis on Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy, its defence vis-a-vis India and internal political stability. Pakistan is passing through a very critical situation. Many analysts, endlessly, articulating the diplomatic and economic dividends associated with the shift in Pakistan’s Afghan policy. Some, however, have serious reservations about President Musharraf’s decision to support the US led international coalition against international terrorism. Both schools of thought have strong convincing arguments. Difference of opinion is not a condemnable factor in the national debate. But failing to realize or deliberately undermining the National Interest of Pakistan is a convictable act. As a nation we need to be responsible and vigilant, while prioritizing the available options, chalking out national strategies and criticizing the current government policies. Otherwise our enemies should exploit our weakness and not allow us to live as a sovereign, responsible and respectable nation in the international community.
On October 7, the United States air force started bombing targets associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan. The important targets include aircraft, early warning radars, surface-to-air missile systems, airports, runways, terrorist training camps, military command and control centres, ground forces and other Al-Qaeda and Taliban sites. Taliban forces, air defence systems have offered no resistance. The next tier of the United States (US) military operation is to move its ground Special Forces in Afghanistan. Sending ground Special Forces would support the aerial warfare strategy by locating and destroying Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network. In fact, the primary objective is to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and the replacement of Taliban government. So the Afghanistan should cease to be the hotbed for the international terrorists.
The US seemed satisfied with the results from cruise missiles and aerial bomb attacks. The US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had confirmed while stating that the strikes had made progress toward eliminating the air defence sites and airfields in Taliban-controlled regions of Afghanistan. He added that warplanes “can’t crawl around on the ground and find people”. US Special Forces have reportedly been preparing to move into Afghanistan from the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, stationed in the Indian Ocean, at the time of writing these lines. But it is certain that very soon the US will launch its ground military operation.
The political process for replacing Taliban and formulating a new government in Kabul is also part of the current international debate. Who will replace Taliban? This question has been attracting great importance in Afghanistan neighbours particularly, and in the other concern states generally. Recently, Mr. Rumsfeld has spoken of helping to arm the Northern Alliance. “They’re going to have some help in food, they’re going to have some help in ammunition, they’re going to have some help in air support and assistance,” he said. What would Northern Alliance receive in reciprocity? For us the adequate solution of this problem is imperative. It would be a big mistake not to take into account the Afghan society’s demographic composition in the formation of a future government in Kabul. Pakistan’s security is very much linked with the future road map of Afghanistan’s politics. The puppet regime or minority factions’ government will not bring political stability in Afghanistan. The rag-tag Northern Alliance may be acceptable for some external powers but it is not capable to promulgate peace and political stability in the country. The practical strategy is that Kabul government should be broad based. Otherwise the US military strikes once again would be followed by the civil war in Afghanistan.
Taliban’s threat to declare war on neighbouring countries, providing military help to United States, may sound like rhetoric — but it serves as a call to its supporters inside Pakistan. The religious radical leaders mostly Frontier based have been enthusiastically criticizing the shift in Pakistan’s Afghan policy. They are mobilizing people in Pakistan on the basis of religious sentiments and Pushtoon nationalism. Their approach is more ideological and they have one point agenda i.e. to oppose the US and support Taliban’s government. They have not analyzed the international scenario, the National Interest of Pakistan and limitations of President Musharraf government. They are revolting violently. Which indicates their ignorance about national security of this country.
The religious extremists are finding growing support among unemployed urban youths with limited education and few job prospects. Most of their hardcore followers are students of Madressahs. They have been successful in organizing pro-Taliban demonstrations in the major cities of Pakistan. These protests have disturbed the law and order situation in many cities. The identical factors in these agitations are stoning police, blocking roads and chanting slogans against the US President Bush and President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who supports the U.S. campaign to destroy Osama bin Laden terrorist network in Afghanistan. In some places these protests ended up in burning the official buildings, damaging the private property and worst of all exchange of fire with the law enforcing agencies. However, their support base is small and limited in a few pockets of Pakistan. Therefore, they may not cause serious internal destabilization and could be contained. At the same time one cannot ignore that if the US military operation prolong, Pakistan could become the target of terrorism from Afghanistan.
The Indian leadership is looking forward how to take an advantage of the current situation in which Pakistan finds itself. The religious extremists and some political leaders, for the sake of their own petty interests or because of their ignorance, are opposing government’s Afghan policy. Their violent street demonstrations are giving an impression to the enemies of Pakistan that government policies have lost acceptability in the masses. The society is fragmented. Pakistan is facing internal political instability. The Indians always try to make the most of the internal political crisis of Pakistan. We do not forget her decisive role in the East Pakistan crisis and tragedy of 1971. Their nefarious designs are an open secret. Therefore, they do try to exploit the present internal turmoil of Pakistan for their wishful desire. They, certainly, endeavour to fulfil their ever-lurking dream of Akhand Bharat or at least establish its hegemony in South Asia by taming Pakistan’s resistance capabilities.
The Indian External Minister Jaswant Singh did his best to convince the US and Europeans that Pakistan is the real hotbed of terrorists. Therefore, declare it a rogue state. Besides, anti-Pakistan propaganda to declare it a terrorist state, they are also considering the military strikes option against Pakistan. On October 15, 2001 India attacked at least 11 Pakistani positions along the Line of Control (LoC), which separates the two sides in Kashmir. Following it, the Defence Minister George Fernandes issued warnings that Indian forces could set up attacks on freedom fighters in Kashmir and engage Pakistan along the LoC. These developments are very much in line with the earlier response of Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee to the request of the puppet Chief Minister of Indian Held Kashmir. While speaking with the newsmen, he said that in retaliation for Pakistan’s support to the freedom fighters an attack on Pakistan could be considered. These developments need serious considerations and unity in our own ranks.
From the very beginning, the US policy makers acknowledged the inevitability of Pakistan in its Infinite Justice or Enduring Freedom policy. Despite India’s powerful multidimensional propaganda campaign against Pakistan and its offer for the bases, intelligence and logistical support, the Bush administration approached Pakistan and secured her support under the pretext of war against international terrorism. President General Musharraf after consulting almost all factions’ of the Pakistani society announced his government’s Afghan policy in the changed international scenario. The determinants of admitting frontline state status once again in US foreign policy are the National Interest of Pakistan and security of Afghan people. Pakistan’s foreign policy always seeks peace and stability in Afghanistan.
It was reported in the national and international media that in order to boost its military operation, the US had demanded airports from Pakistan. Pakistan’s foreign office confirmed that no offensive operation would be launched from Pakistan’s territory. According to prior understanding with the US in its war against terrorism, Pakistan agreed to provide logistical support. What sort of logistical support? Its parameters are secret or not defined yet. It seems that the dynamics of war will finally outline the premise of it. As there is lot of ambiguity, the self-centered selective interpretations by anti-Musharraf government forces and unqualified reports regarding the logistical support in the national and international media are generating unrest in the masses.
The situation became further dubious after the Washington’s announcement of its possible war theatre expansion. On October 7, the US also warned the UN Security Council that the war on terrorism could necessitate attacks beyond the territory of Afghanistan. In fact, the US is focusing on the perceived sanctuaries of Osama bin Laden and his associates. This warning generates discomfort among many coalition partners. Analysts are debating the possible determinants of the US policy to target and hit outside Afghanistan.
The threat to attack outside Afghanistan, unchecked Israelis terror around the clock, insincerity in settling the right of Kashmiris’ self-determination, the US military operations against Abu Sayyaf group in Philippines and announcement of the terrorists list indicates that the US anti-terrorist policy is based on unilateral concept, i.e. Clash of Civilization. Is it realistic approach? Who will be the sufferers of Clash of Civilization? The harsh reality is that in the prevalent circumstances Muslims are the prime targets. But this approach would have severe backlash. The anti-US protests in the Muslim communities are natural. Consequently, the US led anti-terrorism collision would lose the support of the Muslims. And the international politics would be once again victim of bipolar tensions.
Theoretical explanations by the President Bush and the Prime Minister Tony Blair that their anti- terrorism campaign is not led by the religious biases do not satisfy the Muslims. Are Muslim extremists, the only terrorists in the world? They need to adopt some tangible measures to address the Muslims’ concerns. Otherwise, the unacceptable political upheaval in the Muslim world would prove Osama bin Ladins’ prophecy, “kill me and a hundred Osamas will rise to take my place”. The leaders of the world have to save the world from the unending war among different Faiths. It’s imperative that they address the menace of terrorism in its totality.
President Musharraf government needs prudent and practicable strategies to address the current scenario. He issued orders for security forces to crack down hard on radicals attempting to stir up a backlash over the US air strikes and mounting reports of civilian casualties. He told provincial governors and police chiefs to adopt a policy of zero tolerance towards any troublemakers. The caution is that government does not only rely on its police and paramilitary forces. The religion is a powerful motivator. The political forces are mobilized against those who are using Islam for their own interests. The government announced that any of the three million Afghan refugees in Pakistan who would be involved in violent protests would be deported immediately. Deportation, however, is not enough. He should be treated severely so that the others realize that Pakistanis are generous only to those Afghan brothers who believe in peace. Our diplomatic endeavours keep India as a part of the audience in the current situation. But carefully watch its frustration and adopt anticipated measures to counter its any form (political, diplomatic and military) of assault against Pakistan. Finally government ensures that in the aftermath of military operation, there should be indisputable broad based, multi- ethnic representative government in Afghanistan, which will facilitate the return of Afghan refuges and rebuild Afghanistan.
