Context

As Afghan Taliban political office in Doha becomes a reality, contradictory narrative is emerging on the future of TTP. While the new government in Pakistan has backed negotiations with TTP, the death of its key deputy Wali-ur-Rehman in a drone strike has had the opposite impact. This does not mean that attempts at reconciliation have stopped altogether.

TTP Spokesperson Ehsanullah Ehsan commented on June 25th, “We accept all decisions taken by Afghan Taliban as we are their part.” TTP also welcomed the opening of Afghan Taliban office in Doha.

There are also reports that a track-two approach is being attempted to narrow the differences between TTP and Pakistan, and the help of Afghan Taliban is being sought to facilitate. For this purpose, Mowlana Sami-ul-Haq, Mowlana Fazl-ur-Rehman, and Hafiz Tahir Ashrafi are spearheading the efforts from Pakistan’s side.

On the other hand, recent media reports suggest that TTP safe havens located in Kunar and Nangarhar have come under attack from Lashkare Toyyiba (LeT), Ansar ul Islam, and other local Pakistan based tribal militias. Moreover, TTP is seeking the mediation of Afghan Taliban to avert further clashes.

This development contradicts the western held position of collusion between AQ, Afghan Taliban, TTP, India oriented jihadists (LeT), and other sectarian groups (LeJ) that are a source of havoc in Balochistan, Karachi and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Even if they did in the past (Shura-e-Murakeba), it no longer seems to be true. This indicates the American strategy to wean off AQ from its regional affiliates in the region is working, obviously with Pakistan’s assistance.

Analysis

Nonetheless, these reports put Afghan Taliban in a more influential role than is generally perceived. At the same time, it diminishes the leverage Karzai has increasingly signaled to have. Furthermore, the message for TTP is that they can either accept peace talks with Pakistan or face attacks of the kind described above. Simultaneously applying military and political tactics appears to be an approach of choice, being adopted by all relevant stakeholders.

The opening of the Doha office, however, has made India and Russia especially worried. They are interpreting the American willingness to tolerate Islamic militant groups once more as an ominous sign. Particularly, when events of Syria appear to back such a premise. John Kerry was seen negating any such perception during his recent visit to India, where he backed a stronger role for India in Afghanistan.

The post Pakistan’s Emerging Approach Towards TTP appeared first on Politact.

Context

Another round of trilateral meetings between Afghanistan, Pakistan and US have started. After the latest get together in Brussels last Wednesday, John Kerry commented, “It’s fair to say that there is a good feeling among all of us that we made progress in this dialogue. But we have all agreed that results are what will tell the story, not statements at a press conference.”

Speaking to the media a day earlier, Kerry had reiterated the future US role: “The mission (of US) will be to support, advise, train the Afghan military on an ongoing basis as well as to engage in counterterrorism activity.”

The success of this mission is dependent on good ties between Karzai and Islamabad, to jointly keep a tab on the extremists. The challenge being, ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan keep swinging between amicable to really tense, and Karzai’s relations with US are faced with pretty much the same unpredictability. While Pakistan is blamed for supporting Afghan Taliban, Afghanistan is now being accused of backing TTP elements.

On the one hand, Karzai keeps blaming US for civilian deaths, but on the other hand, the country wants NATO forces to stay longer. Every time Afghan Security Forces are criticized for poor performance, the nation starts blaming Pakistan for providing safe havens to Taliban. In fact, there is a danger the border skirmishes between the two countries may transform in to something larger, especially if Karzai decides to exploit the nationalistic sentiments.

Until these incongruities are addressed, progress will be hard to come by, and no matter how many players are involved, finding a common ground will be difficult.

Analysis

Interests of Karzai Regime

The basic question is what would Afghan government gain from a speedy reconciliation. The answer is not much. While US is striving for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan, this will put the onus of fighting on the Afghan Security Forces. Despite the hype, doubts about the fighting capabilities of Afghan forces on its own persist. Its commitment to carry on the fight against Taliban will really be tested once NATO forces leave. The interests of Karzai government are best served by keeping NATO forces engaged while stoking up nationalism, and blaming US and Pakistan for what ails the country.

As far as Afghan Taliban are concerned, they have questioned the credibility of the Karzai government, claiming it to be a puppet of the West. At least publicly, the Taliban have even refused to talk with Karzai, who wants to control the political talks. President Karzai has also accused US of holding direct talks with Taliban, while keeping him in the dark. Furthermore, while Afghan government is insisting on keeping some level of US and NATO presence in Afghanistan, the Taliban want a complete withdrawal of foreign forces.

This raises the most elementary question of all, who has the upper hand. The answer to this query is linked with the reasons why the principals to the conflict decided to seek a political solution. The anomaly being the military campaign to resolve the conflict has continued as well.

Implications for Pakistan

While Afghanistan has generally projected Pakistan as the villain in the whole affair, longer the conflict sticks around; the price for its neighbor is getting steeper by the day. Accelerated political reconciliation in Afghanistan will have a direct impact on improving the security and economic situation of the country, including regional trade. In this, the US and Pakistan’s interests are more aligned.

As the reconciliation process drags on, the responsibility for bringing the Afghan Taliban to the table may squarely fall on the shoulders of Pakistan, if it has not already, while it is also being blamed for maintaining ties with them. On the other hand, Pakistani officials have repeatedly claimed that while it can assist in bringing various warring Taliban factions to the table, the country cannot ensure a certain outcome. The challenge boils down to if Afghan Taliban think they are wining, why would they want to reconcile with Karzai, or listen to Pakistan for that matter.

American Position

Big powers have global repute to protect. Accepting weakness or failure in one part of the world, has direct implication for interests in another regions. This particular aspect has created unique challenges for both NATO and US. In addition, the assessment of Afghan policy has included what is achievable and what goals are simply beyond reach. The war there has dragged on for too long, at a huge cost, and it simply not possible economically to continue the course.

While Afghan Taliban have been difficult to manage, reports suggest the threat from Al Qaeda, in this part of the region, has been contained for the most part. This premise provides the basis for an exit strategy.

Ironically, the Afghan government may only get serious about reconciliation, if US sticks to its timeline for withdrawal. Jumpstarting the political talks may require a temporary cessation of a military campaign; with the commitment that Taliban will enter a serious dialogue with the Afghan government. The stipulation of removing foreign forces could be conditioned to Taliban terminating ties with Al Qaeda, agreeing to not attack Afghan and coalition forces, and respect other international human right conventions. In other words, an interim peace accord leading to a permanent cessation.

Conclusion

The truth is that the regional approach to Afghan conflict has now morphed into a global one. And, too many cooks, is a recipe for failure. For example, in addition to the three core parties, discussions on Afghanistan have also recently taken pace between Pakistan, India, China and Russia. The most interesting track being the India-China bilateral discussions. The latest round was held on April 18th, which stressed, “working with regional countries and the international community to help Afghanistan achieve objectives of peace and stability, independence and development.”

To think that Russia, China, and India are simply trying to help the international community, or NATO more precisely, would be naïve. The correct wording is perhaps that they are seeking to protect their own interests in Afghanistan that may or may not rhyme with the other players.

The reality is until and unless the three principals have a coordinated game plan, other players are only going to add to the confusion and paralysis, while Taliban benefit. This will also prolong and complicate the worsening law and order situation in Pakistan. If Afghan Taliban settles, this is only going to isolate the Pakistani Taliban (TTP).

The longer the conflict drags on American motives are likely to be questioned as well. Why will the US desire a full military withdrawal from Afghanistan if the situation of Middle East continues to deteriorate over Iran’s nuclear program and its support of Assad and Hezbollah?

The post The Stumbling Blocks Toward Afghan Reconciliation appeared first on Politact.

US counterterrorism officials have claimed Al-Qaeda, once the most formidable terrorist group in the world, has been reduced to two main figures. Ayman al Zawahiri and his second in command, Abu Yahya al Libi, a religious scholar who escaped from the U.S. prison at Bagram air base in 2005 are believed to be its last “high value” targets. The capture of these two commanders is expected to effectively end the group’s operation and result in its defeat.

According to reports, AL Qaeda’s support is limited to Pakistan and Yemen. CIA Director David H. Petraeus has sustained drone attacks in the tribal belt of Pakistan to further weaken the network; “Now is not the time to let up the pressure,” said a U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We’ve got an opportunity to keep them down, and letting up now could allow them to regenerate,” he said.

The post Drone Pressure To Continue On Al Qaeda appeared first on Politact.

The circle is complete; all the neighbors of Pakistan with the sole exception of China, now claim that Pakistan based extremist groups are involved in destabilizing their countries. The latest warning came from Iran, and this is happening after the signing of Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline deal last month.

Iran has blamed the Americans and the Iranian Sunni Baluchi insurgent group – Jundullah, for the May 29th bombing of a Shiite mosque in Zahedan. About 30 people are believed to have died in the attack. Jundullah is active in Baluchistan province of Pakistan and Sistan-Baluchistan part of Iran, with possible links to Taliban and other extremists. The group claims to be fighting for the rights of Sunni’s in Iran.

Iran declared yesterday that if Pakistan does not act against Jundullah, it has the means and capability to do so on its own. This warning is similar to the one usually delivered to Pakistan by India. There is a difference though; unlike Afghanistan and India, Iran is already on the bad list of many Western powers.

In other words, there are many powers that would like to destabilize Iran, to distract it from not only its nuclear ambitions but diminish its influence in the Middle East. There is no better way to do that than by creating problems in Iran’s own back yard. For Pakistan, the situation represents a nightmare when three of its neighbors are threatening to directly interfere with in the country, while US continues the drone attacks in FATA. Pakistan has become a conduit which funnels many foreign interests.

In the above context, the Iranian message is clear. If Pakistan desires to keep the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project going, it will have to burn some bridges with the Saudi’s and the United States. India has for the time being decided to stay away from the project while China stands ready to join. The Russian energy company Gazprom has excitingly offered to help build the infrastructure. It appears presently that the Iran-Pakistan pipeline is still many powers moves away from implementation.

The post A Bombing in an Iranian Mosque and the Future of Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project appeared first on Politact.