Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Zoha Waseem

Zoha Waseem

‘The era of saving failed states is over’: The Afghan withdrawal and its regional implications, with special focus on Pakistan

by

by Zoha Waseem

Speaking at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) on Friday 17 January 2014, Ahmed Rashid, journalist and author of Taliban, Descent into Chaos, and most recently, Pakistan on the Brink, confidently asserted that the West will no longer be a major stakeholder in the Afghan region as ‘the era of saving failed states is over’. According to Rashid, all regional players must accept this and take responsibility instead of ‘weeping tears’ of betrayal or abandonment.

Another era of transitions

Rashid, addressing a gathering on the withdrawal from Afghanistan and its regional implications, argued that although the military transition in Afghanistan has been the primary focus of the West, it is the political and economic transitions that are more relevant in the short-term. He noted that the coming elections must give credibility to the next president (sans rigging); without a legitimate government, there may never be a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan between the government and the Taliban. This settlement, Rashid believes, will be the major deterrent to a multi-faceted civil war.

‘The Taliban are ripe for a peace settlement. There is a lobby for it within the Afghan Taliban. They are fed up of fighting, or living in Pakistan. They are fed up with al Qaeda. The older generation of Taliban understand that they cannot govern Afghanistan. [They] know that they are a basket case. Therefore, [they] need a peaceful power-sharing agreement.’

Just how supposed free-and-fair elections should take place during a ‘dodgy transition’ in a corrupt and battle-ridden country where everything is up for grabs is not a subject matter the speaker delved into.

Economically, Rashid reminds us, there has not been the creation of an indigenous economy, a reason that could deter the Taliban from taking over cities. ‘The Taliban are not in a position to take over cities. They need the cities for economic reasons. They will let the cities flourish and act sensibly.’ Rashid rejected the ‘Helmand paranoia in the UK’ (that the Taliban will re-enter their former provinces), arguing that it is only inevitable for them to return to their natural habitat.

‘Of course, they will come in. They come from Helmand; the population in Helmand is pro-Taliban; poppy production is allowed by the Taliban; and [their] families reside in Helmand too.’

‘A Pandora’s Box is about to be opened’

At the moment, Rashid believes, there is power equilibrium in the region as all stakeholders are taking a hands-off approach. Nevertheless, he warns us that should even one country interfere, it could disturb the delicate balance within the region. India and Pakistan are the most likely to play out their rivalries in Afghanistan; Iran does not want the Taliban coming into power, which could upset the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan dynamics in the country; Russia and Central Asian countries are equally nervous, having been left out of post-war negotiations. China appears to be uninterested in mediation, but is likely to step in for economic reasons once the conflict comes to an end.

In Rashid’s opinion, all regional players want stability in Kabul, especially Pakistan. ‘Backing Taliban for the second time will have a blowback in Pakistan’, he argued, as an insurgency across the border is likely to keep trickling into Islamabad’s territories. Because of this, current Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government has been working on bettering civil-military relations, as both organs of the state finally have a consensus for a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan.

For this, Pakistan (as well as the US) needs to speed up the facilitation of dialogue but efforts towards dialogue as part of the reconciliation have not been good, argued Ahmed Rashid. There appears to be a lack of clarity for Americans, Pakistanis, as well as Karzai.

‘More authoritarian regimes in [Islamic] states will emerge the West takes a hands off approach towards failed or failing states [and] if they don’t be careful with nation-building. Right now, the US do not have a clear agenda for the troops that are intended to remain in Afghanistan’.

A Pakistani official, who wishes to remain anonymous, addressed the Afghan question vis-a-vis Pakistan:

‘Pakistan has limited influence in Afghanistan. Pakistani army and the civilian government are on the same page. Pakistan does not have favourites in Afghanistan anymore [but] it does not want to abandon the Taliban [again]. But also, we don’t have Mullah Omar in our pocket.’

Much of Rashid’s analysis echoed that of other Pakistani analysts. Journalist Zahid Hussain, speaking at the London School of Economics in November 2013, rejected the theory that Islamabad has strategic depth in Afghanistan. Rather, Hussain claimed, it is the Afghan Taliban has that has strategic depth in Pakistan. Similarly, the Pakistani official quoted above and Ahmed Rashid both maintained that there is no longer a doctrine of strategic depth for the Pakistani army or state.

‘Fixing’ Afghanistan

Nevertheless, some of the arguments put forth by the speaker require further analysis. Rashid pointed that Afghanis have done nothing to fix themselves (‘What have Afghanis done to fix themselves? There is still intrinsic corruption – shameful!’), without clarifying how they should be expected to ‘fix themselves’. On elections, it seems that the speaker emphasised that the centre (Kabul) cannot hold unless the next government is legitimate. But can western-style, free-and-fair elections take place in Afghanistan, minus corruption and minus political agreements signed covertly?

Anatol Lieven, a professor at the Department of War Studies (King’s College London) writing for the New York Review of Books, has already pointed out that this view may be too idealistic.

‘The choice Afghanistan faces is not between some idealized version of Western democracy and a corrupt state; it is between a corrupt but more or less consensual Afghan state and the horrors of no state at all.’

Furthermore, Rashid highlighted the supposed desires of the Taliban to stop fighting and work towards improving their economic conditions. While it could be accepted that the insurgency may have reached exhaustion, to expect a group that is acknowledged historically as trained fighters, known to have battle in their blood and revenge in their code, to simply go home with weapons and work in the fields is unconvincing.

Lieven has also pointed out, like Ahmed Rashid, that there is no risk of the Taliban taking over Kabul, but, is less optimistic about how things may progress if the West disrupts its flow of cash.

‘US and international aid now account for around nine-tenths of the Afghan national budget… Today, we too have created an Afghan state and army that cannot survive without our help, and that will also disintegrate again into warlord anarchy if our help is withdrawn. The West has a deep moral and historical responsibility to make sure that this does not happen.’

Rashid also placed little emphasis on the Durand Line (the 2,640 kilometre border between Afghanistan and Pakistan): ‘It’s an issue, but I don’t think this is occupying people’s minds’. It is unclear why the question of the Durand Line has been sidelined, when it is still not recognised by the Afghan Taliban – and the Pakistani Taliban for that matter – who move freely between the porous territorial divisions. It also remains to be seen that, should there be a peace settlement with the Taliban, could it amount to the recognition of the Durand Line? If not, what is to stop the Pakistani Taliban from travelling across the Line, making Pakistani military efforts against its own militant groups in its tribal areas that much more futile? And without a clear understanding of how the Afghan Taliban seeks to deal with the Pakistan Taliban (and vice versa), can you reasonably expect all regional players to just sit tight?

 

_________________________
Zoha Waseem is a PhD researcher in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. You can follower her on Twitter @ZohaWaseem.

'Still violent, vulnerable and vital'. Pakistan's prospects for 2014

by

by Zoha Waseem

In Pakistan’s 67th year of existence, living with violence in contested spaces appears to have become a norm. Since 2003, over 50,000 Pakistanis have been killed in terrorism-related violence. An estimated 5,366 people were killed last year alone; over half of them reportedly in urban violence in Karachi. In the beginning of 2013 the Pakistani army finally altered its stance on militancy and recognised that internal terrorism was the biggest threat to its national security. But the civilian government has yet to devise a strategy to tackle this monster. As the world enters 2014 it carries with it ghosts of conflicts past and Pakistan’s baggage is perhaps one of the heaviest. This is a brief analysis of developments that shaped the country in 2013 and what is in store for the year ahead.

Pakistan Goes to the Polls

Perhaps the greatest milestone last year was a smooth transition of power; the landmark elections of May 2013 celebrated the first completion of a democratic government’s tenure. While clouded by riots and rigging, it was a watershed moment for Pakistanis who came out in scores to campaign and vote, demonstrating the country’s resilient street power. Unfortunately, almost customarily, Pakistan voted in a previously tried and tested government, that of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Sharif’s third term in the position under Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) has succeeded in undermining the role of President Mamnoon Hussain, contrary to the authority previous president Asif Ali Zardari held. Sharif’s agenda focuses on three core elements: economy, energy and extremism. Sharif will have his hands full this term with Afghanistan, India, Iran, domestic militancy and rising sectarianism, economic instability, and volatile political eruptions in the province of Sindh.

The May elections also saw the rise of Imran Khan, Chairman of political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which has over the months witnessed diminishing popularity following Khan’s statements criticising drone strikes; blocking NATO supply routes; calling for negotiations with the terrorist group Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP); creeping further to the right by allying with Jamaat-e-Islami, and attempting to vindicate Bangladeshi war criminal Abdul Quader Mullah. Eight months on, PTI has yet to deliver as Khan appears to be stuck in campaign gear. In 2014 Pakistanis will watch closely how his government performs in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (the northern province of Pakistan that borders the Federally Administrative Tribal Areas and Afghanistan, and has been home to both Afghan and Pakistani Taliban).

The months leading up to the election period coincided with the return of former president and army chief, Pervez Musharraf, from London. Now on trial for treason for imposing emergency rule in 2007, and trying to avoid the court on medical grounds, Musharraf faces death penalty or life imprisonment if convicted. While Musharraf maintains that the army is on his side, his prosecution could be demoralising for the entire institution – perhaps the strongest in Pakistan – and risk complicating the slowly mending civil-military relations.

Negotiating with the TTP

One of the most debated subjects in Pakistani media was the dialogue with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). When TTP chief Hakimullah Mehsud was killed in a drone strike in November, the government criticised the United States for hampering negotiations. Little importance was given to the fact that members of the TTP denied that these talks had begun. The killing of Hakimullah in a drone strike put the TTP under the leadership of Mullah Fazlullah, a militant notorious for lashing out over the radio against the Pakistani government, education, and anti-polio drives. Staunchly against negotiations, Fazlullah is said to be close to the Afghan Taliban, having taken shelter in the country following a military operation in Swat (2009), and his appointment may indicate warming relations between the Afghan and Pakistani Talibans.

The year ended with the government appointing chief of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islami, Sami-ul Haq, to initiate dialogue with the TTP. The group has three core demands: (i) withdraw the armed forces; (ii) implement TTP’s brand of Sharia; (iii) eradicate democracy. Sharif insists the TTP must disarm and accept the Pakistani constitution, but Sami-ul Haq is known to be supportive of TTP’s demands. Pakistan’s current strategy of negotiation – with the appointment of said middleman – already appears feeble.

Besides uncertainty over how or with whom to negotiate, Pakistan must remember previous violations of ceasefire agreements by the TTP. While these are beyond the ambit of this article, it suffices to say that continued targeting of civilians calls into question TTP’s sincerity for peace. The July jail break that led to the escape of 250 prisoners from Dera Ismail Khan (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa); the church attack in Peshawar that killed over 80 people followed by one in Qissa Khwani bazaar claiming 40 lives; the attacks on anti-polio drive workers across the country; the attacks on female students in Quetta; and the massacre of 10 foreign mountaineers in Nanga Parbat are but some reminders of the audacity of the group which, at this rate, is likely to continue operating with scant regard for the writ of the state.

Operation: Karachi

Karachi suffered from one of its deadliest years in history. 2013 started with waves of target killings, now almost the city’s trademark, including Parveen Rehman, a devoted social worker, and Zahra Shahid, vice-president of PTI. In August 2011, the Supreme Court took a suo motu notice of the increasing crime and violence in the city. It took two years before law enforcement agencies were finally instructed to crack down and begin an operation against criminals and terrorists. Over 14,000 suspects have been arrested since September, but violence continues unabated.

Alongside 3,000 civilians killed in violence in Karachi (compared to 143 in Islamabad), more than 172 police officers were targeted last year (1 every 2 days), making it the worst year for city police fatalities. Assassinations of police officials have continued into 2014, with the recent suicide attack on SSP (Crime Investigation Department) Chaudhry Aslam, a distinguished officer recognised for his counter-terrorism efforts in Karachi, especially against the TTP. The group retaliated in broad daylight, theatrically demonstrating their increasing presence in the city.

The previous summer saw Altaf Hussain (chief of Karachi’s leading ethnic political party, Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM)) under fire from the British media after Scotland Yard took notice of his money laundering activities, his alleged involvement in the murder of Imran Farooq (a senior member of the MQM in London), and for inciting violence in Karachi. Presently, media reports are again hinting that Hussain’s recent statements may cause Scotland Yard to investigate the case this year. Should this happen, and if Karachi is disturbed by developments in London that demoralise MQM activists, Islamabad may pressure the British to temporarily take a softer approach to Hussain in order to gain time to stabilise Karachi and allow the on-going operation to continue. This will be a particularly sensitive subject in the first half of 2014, ahead of the local body elections due to take place.

Escalating Sectarian Strife

Pakistan further suffered the loss of 500 civilians to sectarian violence, 96 percent of whom were Shia Muslims. Systematic killings of the Shia Hazara minority continued (over 125 were killed in 2012, whereas the first two months of 2013 saw more than 200 Harazas targeted). Responsibilities for these attacks have been claimed by both the TTP and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (both pro-Sunni, anti-Shia groups). Sectarian minorities (including Ahmedis) in Balochistan and elsewhere, blame the federal government for its lack of dedication to the plight of minorities.

Of Foes and Friends

Drone attacks remained a crucial aspect of Pakistan’s rocky courtship with the US. In response to the droning out of Maulvi Nazir and then Mehsud (senior TTP commanders), PTI rashly responded by blocking NATO supply routes to Afghanistan via Pakistan, hurting not only civilians for whom the supplies were intended, but also other NATO countries not responsible for drones. Sharif received no justification on this subject during his sit-down with Obama in Washington DC in October, 2013. Sources on the ground suggest the attacks will continue this year, though perhaps with reduced frequency post-NATO withdrawal, and that supply routes will remain open through backdoor diplomacy. Despite feelings of betrayal and subordination, Islamabad will continue relying on the US for financial support.

Backdoor diplomacy also appears to be the preferred tactic on the question of Afghanistan. Pakistani media is relatively quiet on how the state intends to deal with Afghanistan ahead of coming elections. Analysis suggests that the Pakistani establishment remains divided: some within the establishment will back the Afghan Taliban, whereas other will seek to resist it. Regardless, the complete disregard by the Taliban for the Durand Line suggests Pakistan’s porous border will remain tense and open to militant activities.

Pakistan’s policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan will be considered with India in mind. Pakistanis still feel uncertain about Narendra Modi, the leading prime ministerial candidate in India’s upcoming elections, and his agenda for Islamabad. Sharif’s campaign emphasised bettering relations with India, opening dialogue, and ending visa restrictions. But Modi has thus far hinted towards a hard-line approach in dealing with its nuclear neighbour. With Kashmir and Afghanistan still circling the room like two giant elephants, the tense relationship and dialogue will remain vulnerable to breaches and violations. There were 400 cease-fire violations on the line of control in the disputed territory of Kashmir and the much-awaited Director General Military Operations (DGMO) meetings took off in December 2013 to discuss these violations. The fact that the DGMOs met for the first time since the 1999 Kargil War is a positive development. Nevertheless, it is likely that while talks and meetings continue, behind-the-door arms build-ups, border skirmishes, and indirect support for low-scale conflicts on opposing sides, will continue with all guards geared for defence.

Pakistan is also faced with a strict deadline of completing the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline by the end of 2014, which is crucial for Sharif’s desire to address the energy crisis. Though dedicated to the project, Islamabad feels the heat of US pressure and threats of sanctions should it continue. Iran has already suspended the loan for Pakistan’s side of the pipeline, and if unable to follow through with the deal, Pakistan will face severe financial repercussions as well as risk jeopardising ties with Tehran.

The Year of Appointments

2013 was also a year of new appointments in Pakistan. The retirement of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was met with mixed feelings. Once renowned for judicial activism and recognised as the face of the Lawyer’s Movement, Chaudhry soon became notorious for judicial dictatorship and addressing personal vendettas. The decline of judicial activism welcomed the appointment of Tasadduq Hussain Jilani who, in a remarkable contrast to Chaudhry, is mild-tempered, nicknamed ‘the gentleman judge’, and indifferent to the media.

Former chief of army staff Ashfaq Kayani also stepped down in 2013. The antithesis to Musharraf, he was respected for keeping the military outside of the civilian government’s domain, tolerating extreme criticisms in the media, and recognising the threat posed by domestic terrorism. His successor, Raheel Sharif, has been hand-picked by Nawaz Sharif (no relation), with indifference towards merit-based selection (Raheel Sharif was third in line). Raheel is close to the PM, but Pakistani history indicates that a selection that does not respect seniority or merit does not bode well for Pakistani politicians. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto appointed Zia-ul-Haq who hanged him; Nawaz Sharif previously appointed Musharraf who overthrow his government in a coup. Both were low in seniority.

Pakistan will have a full plate in 2014 with too many hungry appetites. Power struggles in the centre between government and opposition will continue trickling down to provincial and local levels, gathering arms and soldiers as they ripple on. Like in Afghanistan, where the future is up for grabs, in Pakistan, power and space will be contested through violence and chaos. This is unlikely to present a picture much different from the previous year.

 

____________________
Zoha Waseem is a PhD researcher in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. You can follower her on Twitter @ZohaWaseem.

“Pakistanis: Divided we stand”

by

by Zoha Waseem

On the evening of 25 November 2013 gathered about four hundred people at the London School of Economics facing Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s granddaughter and Benazir Bhutto’s niece, Fatima Bhutto. In the hour-long Q&A session that followed, she presented less her upcoming book, and answered questions pertaining more to the politics and current affairs of Pakistan. Bhutto also honoured the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women by briefly, but vigilantly, mentioning how unfairly Malala Yousufzai has been treated inside Pakistan and must be supported unconditionally, regardless of how certain politicians in the West may be marketing her cause for their own self-interests.

In Miss Bhutto’s words, ‘when you live in Pakistan, politics defines the way you live’. Yet for someone who herself is a product of decades of family politics of one of the leading political parties, the People’s Party of Pakistan (PPP), she treads carefully in wording her political alignment, advocating the right to support people over parties. She was also, like many Pakistanis, weary of defining what the role of the West should be in Pakistan, expressing the need for less foreign intervention, an argument in line with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf’s chairman, Imran Khan, who has succeeded in temporarily blocking NATO supply routes to Afghanistan to protest recent drone strikes in the country. That one of these strikes took out one of the most despicable terrorists, Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, and that the closure of these routes economically impedes both Pakistan and Afghanistan, are apparently other matters. They were also, surprisingly, not discussed by Bhutto even though drone attacks affect most specifically the tribal areas of Waziristan that happen to be the setting of her latest literary work.

In an interview given to a local newspaper, London Evening Standard, earlier this month, Miss Bhutto presented her image of the country’s largest city with remarkable amnesia. Gravely exaggerating that one could not walk in Karachi without the likelihood of being mugged, molested or murdered, she refrained from mentioning that the creation of such an environment in the city is the by-product of the country’s turbulent political culture, a good chunk of which was designed at the hands of her own family members, where once her father, the late Mir Murtaza Bhutto (mysteriously gunned down in Karachi during Benazir’s prime ministerial term) was notorious for traversing the streets of Karachi with armed gunmen spilling out of his vehicles and creating terror.

‘Pakistan’s struggle has to be fought by Pakistanis’, argued Fatima Bhutto, ‘and be led by Pakistanis as well’. Herein lay the inherent memory loss and selective denial that have been increasingly gripping the youth of the country. The argument begs the question: which Pakistanis? As a people, tragically, Pakistanis are not unified. Not only are internal and external borders sources of major contentions defining identities, a majority of the people identify themselves on religious, or ethnic, or linguistic, or tribal lines. Post-colonial Pakistan has never really had a strong grip on nationalism. Political narratives and discourses range from religious nationalism to ethnic nationalism, further dividing themselves into sub-categories of Pashtun nationalism or Muhajir nationalism. The list goes on.

November this year falls on the month of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar which also commemorates the Battle of Karbala fought in 680 AD between Imam Hussian (the Prophet Ali’s son) and the army of Yazid in present-day Iraq. The battle was to forever divide Shias and Sunnis for centuries on. Shias consider Muharram to be the month of mourning and it reflects most strongly the divides within Pakistani Muslims, some of whom resort to extreme violence against Shias. The latest Sunni-Shia clashes sparked as a result of pre-meditated rioting and bloodshed in Rawalpindi, just minutes away from the capital, Islamabad, demonstrate how quickly and vehemently some people within the country can be incited into turning on each other following religious and sectarian sermons.

So, while one can sympathise with Miss Bhutto’s bitterness towards the chaos engrained in Pakistani politics today, one finds it difficult to overlook the divisions created within societies for the sake of Pakistan’s coming into being. As a people, Pakistanis cannot even agree upon the vision Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder and first leader of Pakistan, had for the country he created. One can only assume it was not this.

______________________

Zoha Waseem is a PhD researcher in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. You can follower her on Twitter @ZohaWaseem.