Two significant developments have taken place in the last 24 hours. These events signify the continuation of the steps taken by Pakistan to protest the November 26 NATO attack on Salala check post, in Mohmand Agency.

Pakistan has now withdra
wn its officers from some of the joint intelligence-sharing centers, located across the Pak-Afghan border, reportedly for consultation purposes. The country has also recalled its Ambassadors from United States, Russia, the EU countries, Afghanistan, India and many other key countries for an emergency conference, as the nations reorients its foreign policy to the emerging realties. Pakistan’s envoy to US, Husain Haqqani has already resigned due to the Memgate controversy, while three other representatives are also reportedly being replaced.
On the other hand, two powerful Republican US Senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham,
think that Pakistan is about to rescind its relation with US as it relates to the war on terror, and that US should now review all economic and military aid for Pakistan. McCain is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee while Graham is on the committee that allocates US foreign aid. In a joint statement, they stated:

“The United States has been incredibly patient with Pakistan. And we have been so despite certain undeniable and deeply disturbing facts,” they said. “The time has come for the United States to fully review its relations with Pakistan. We must assess the nature and levels of our support.”

Furthermore, former CIA official, Bruce Riedel thinks it was time for US to start containing Pakistan’s military as a policy, and with in a broader framework.

The post Pakistan Recalls Its Ambassadors, Staff From Joint Intelligence Centers, US Representatives Call For Review Of US Policy appeared first on Politact.

Context

In the aftermath of the NATO attack on Pakistan’s check post in Mohmand Agency on November 26th, the country protested strongly claiming it was ‘unprovoked’ and ‘deliberate’. About 24 Pakistani troops had died in the attack. Subsequently, Pakistan blocked NATO’s Afghan supply line, gave a 15 day notice to the Americans for vacating the Shamsi airbase, and boycotted the Bonn conference.

Although US and NATO passed condolences and sincere regrets, they did not apologize. Meanwhile, Pakistan refused today to take part in the joint NATO investigation of the incident. Now a more serious escalation is taking shape that cannot be simply discounted as rhetoric.

Analysis

Pakistan denied claims by the Wall Street Journal that Pakistani officials gave the go ahead for the NATO strike which killed 24 people. A Pakistani military official denied the report; “Without getting clearance from the Pakistan side, the post had already been engaged by US helicopters and fighter jets. Pakistan did not have any prior information about any operation in the area,” he said.

US officials have however said US commandos came under fire from a camp along the border with Pakistan which turned out to be a military post. They said the US commandos contacted the joint border-control to determine if there were any Pakistani military personnel in the area. When called, the Pakistani representatives at the centre said there were no Pakistani military forces in the area identified by the commandos, clearing the way for the air strikes, the US officials said. Washington has ordered an investigation into the incident and for a formal report to be submitted by Dec 23.

Pakistan has declared it will retaliate if NATO forces attack its territory again. General Kayani after a meeting with his top commanders commented that NATO would now be viewed as a threat. Former Federal Administered Tribal Areas secretary Brig (retd) Mehmood Shah said,

“Until now the focus of security forces at the Afghan border was to take action against militants and stop cross border infiltration but now they will also be keeping an eye on future NATO strikes.”

Defense analyst Lt General (Retd) Abdul Qayum added that according to the decision, Pakistani soldiers would not have to seek approval from their commanders to retaliate against NATO airstrikes. Reports also suggest Pakistan is considering deploying more troops along its borders with both Afghanistan and India and that it has already equipped the troops with the appropriate weaponry.

Meanwhile, according to a British newspaper, NATO has decided to increase its operations against insurgent groups in Pakistan. The military organization is considering escalating aerial attacks and cross border ground raids. ISAF commander, General John Allen, said the need to confront the sanctuaries in Pakistan was “one of the reasons we are shifting our operations to the east”.

NATO is hoping to reduce extremism from the tribal belts so that Afghan security personnel will be able to contain the threat when power is handed over in 2014. US and Afghanistan are also likely to sign a strategic deal at the Bonn Conference that allows presence of US troops there up to 2024.

It is unclear how NATO will seek to proceed following last week’s air strikes, which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and raised tensions between Pakistan and NATO. However, PoliTact sees a war of nerves and a much more serious escalation in the making.

The post As NATO Plans To Push In Eastern Afghanistan Gen Kayani Authorizes Troops To Return Fire If Attacked Again appeared first on Politact.

Pakistan announced on Thursday that it would no longer share intelligence with the US. Islamabad has refused cooperation with Washington till it takes concrete steps in the aftermath of NATO/ ISAF strikes which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Pakistan has asked the US to issue a formal apology for the attack and to compensate the victims’ families. In addition it has also demanded for punishment to be meted out to NATO officials involved in the incident.

The event has led to rapid deterioration of relations between NATO and Pakistan. Pakistan has stopped the supply to NATO, and has already boycotted the Bonn Conference next week. It has also issued a notice to the US to vacate Shamsi airbase within 15 days.

An official source said that the US was apprehensive regarding Pakistan’s decision to stop sharing intelligence. It was also concerned about the incident’s impact on Islamabad’s level of support regarding the reconciliation process with the Taliban.

The post Reports: Pakistan Has Stopped Sharing Intel With US appeared first on Politact.

The Secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Anders Fogh Rasmussen insisted the transfer of power to Afghan forces was progressing well,

“Transition is firmly on track…Over the coming months, Afghan security forces will progressively take over lead responsibility for providing security in a further 18 areas,” he said.

The NATO led force ISAF, is expected to leave Afghanistan by end of 2014, handing over power to Afghan forces. The first tranche of areas where Afghan forces would take over from NATO, were announced in July by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Attacks by Taliban militants and shortage of trainers for Afghan security forces have been seen as a major hindrance to the transitional process.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has refuted claims by Afghan officials that it provoked a NATO border attack. Islamabad has vehemently denied accusations that its actions forced the NATO forces to retaliate. Responding to the allegations, spokesman Maj-Gen Athar Abbas in a text message said,

“This is not true. They are making up excuses. What are their losses, casualties?” Gen Abbas accused NATO forces of continuing the raid for more than an hour, despite being contacted by local commanders to stop the strike.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called the attack a “grave infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

Islamabad has blocked supply lines to NATO in Afghanistan and announced today it would boycott the Bonn Conference, scheduled for December 5th. NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen expressed his condolences and said “the deaths of Pakistani personnel are as unacceptable and deplorable as the deaths of Afghan and international personnel”. The attack took place at the Salala checkpoint, close to the Afghan border, on Saturday morning killing 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The post Pakistan Boycotts Bonn Conference As NATO Chief States Afghan Transition On Track appeared first on Politact.

Context

NATO gunships launched an attack on Pakistan’s check post in Salala, located in the Tehsil Bayzai of Mohmand Agency, and situated across Kunar province of Afghanistan. The attack took place early on Saturday and has resulted in the death of 24 soldiers and two officers, with up to 12 soldiers injured. According to Pakistan’s military spokesperson, the incident took place 2 kilometers with in its territory and was unprovoked and deliberate. NATO Spokesman Brigadier-General Carsten Jacobson has stated it was investigating the details of the incident and offered condolences.

Meanwhile, the US Ambassador to Pakistan was called in to launch a strong protest and Prime Minister Gilani is holding an emergency meeting of the cabinet. According to media reports, the NATO supply line passing through Khyber Agency has been closed in protest. It’s not clear if the southern Chaman supply line has also been shut down.

A strong reaction is likely from Pakistan as it has been under pressure from US to launch a military operation in North Waziristan. The incident is likely to impact the tense US Pakistan relations and the upcoming Bonn Conference on Afghan reconciliation, scheduled for December 5th. The calls for cessation of all military operations are likely to rise for nascent political process to move forward. Furthermore, the role of foreign troops in Afghanistan would be in the limelight as well.

The post Pakistan Calls NATO Attack On Mohmand Post Deliberate And Shuts Supply Line appeared first on Politact.

The head of the National Coalition of Change and Hope (NCCH), Dr Abdullah Abdullah said on Thursday the Bonn conference could have been a great opportunity for Afghanistan. He told reporters the symposium scheduled for December 5 in Germany, misses a great chance to discuss issues relating to the country. Abdullah said the meeting was unlikely to yield significant outcomes and would serve as a talking shop for government officials.

“If the Afghan delegation represented the Afghan people or if the past activities of Afghan government were satisfactory, the conference could have been in Afghanistan’s favor,” he said.

Dr Abdullah also criticized the conference organizers for failing to consider the input of the opposition. He said the NCCH should have been consulted in the drafting the agenda of the conference.

The NCCH agenda demands for transparent and fair elections, and the safeguard of legitimate rights of the population. It also calls for the impartiality of the Independent Electoral Commission and the independence of the judiciary.

The post Dr. Abdullah: Bonn Conference Represents A Missed Opportunity appeared first on Politact.

Russia asked the United States to explain its plans for setting up military bases in Afghanistan on Monday. Russian Foreign Minsiter Sergei Lavrov said his country was concerned about the creation of US military bases after 2014; “It is important for us to understand how the (U.S.) troops withdrawal and the creation of the military bases correspond, if it was announced that the U.S. military objectives will be reached by 2014,” Lavrov said. He said Moscow was looking to take into account the situation in Afghanistan, to assess its affects on the region. Levrov said Russia would discuss the issues amicably with both Kabul and Washington.

The Afghan traditional grand assembly last week agreed to partake in a strategic partnership with the US, which allows the Americans to set up U.S. bases in the country until 2024.

The post Russia Asks US To Explain Its Military Bases In Afghanistan appeared first on Politact.

Context

In addition to the Afghan-US-NATO alliance, the main issue under deliberation at the Loya Jirga was the signing of a long-term security pact between the US and Afghanistan. Over 2,000 Afghan delegates have convened in Kabul for a Loya Jirga, or grand council. The rhetoric coming out of the Loya Jirga will irk many in the US establishment; however it will most likely be overlooked given the positive outcome for the US-Afghan pact.

Nonetheless, several contentious issues are developing related to reconciliation in Afghanistan. The main ones being,

• The Intra-Afghan political dynamics.
• The shape and size of US presence in Afghanistan after withdrawal in 2014.
• The role of regional stakeholders in Afghanistan.
• The process of US military withdrawal.
• The involvement of various Taliban factions in the political reconciliation and the role of Pakistan.
• The tussles of Emerging and Established powers.

Analysis

Midday Saturday it was reported that a vast majority of the Loya Jirga delegates, which comprise tribal heads and regional delegates, had voted to support the US-Afghan pact for a continued US presence in Afghanistan past the 2014 withdrawal of combat forces.

The approval of the pact was widely expected, however it is far from establishing the agreement as a clear-cut deal. The delegates approved of the treaty with the inclusion of two conditions: Firstly, that there would be an end to night-time raids on civilian houses, and secondly that all detention facilities in the country would come under Afghan control.

The issue of the night raids has been a sore one for the Afghan’s, as it is strongly felt as an invasion of the privacy of the house, which is a sacrosanct thing for the fiercely private and honor-driven Afghans. However, for the US the night raids have proven a very successful tactic at rooting out militants in civilian areas. An estimated 82 percent of suspected militants currently in detention were captured in night raids.

While the raids and the status of detention centers are important, the overriding sentiment behind the inclusion of the two conditions was that of asserting sovereignty. A reoccurring theme in Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s speeches at the Jirga was that Afghanistan is a sovereign, independent nation and should be treated as one. The consensus at the Jirga, and the two conditions set out by delegates, are seen as a strengthening of Karzai’s bargaining power with the US. This does not guarantee that any conditions will be met, but it bolster’s his position because there is a rare consensus behind him. Karzai does not need the permission of the Jirga delegates to broker a deal with the US, however his calling the Jirga together, and standing by the resolution of the Jirga will be seen in a positive light both in the US and in Afghanistan.

Bonn Conference

The Loya Jirga has been called at a significant time for Afghanistan, in between the Istanbul Conference, held in early November, and the Bonn Conference, scheduled for early December. Both conferences seek to deal with issues of Afghanistan’s future, and the timing of the Loya Jirga couldn’t be more spot-on.

The confirmation of backing for the security pact between the US and Afghanistan is an important step, and will mean a lot more progress is possible at the Bonn Conference. Much more so than at the Istanbul Conference.

Iran’s position at the Bonn Conference also looks positive, given that they were very active at the first Bonn Conference in 2001. President Karzai expressed warm sentiments in regards to Iran at the Loya Jirga, which may pave the way for Iran to take a central role at the Bonn Conference in December. While this is an uneasy balancing act for Afghanistan between the US and Iran, there was some small leeway made in this regard at the Istanbul Conference, as both parties expressed optimism at the shared interest in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan.

Pakistan and the US: Friend of Foe?

Pakistan’s position vis-à-vis Afghanistan was expressed with slightly confused sentiments at the Loya Jirga. On the one hand, Pakistan was censured for continuing allegations of interference in Afghanistan, and on the other Karzai vowed that he would side with Pakistan in the eventuation of a US-led attack on the country.

The confused rhetoric did not stop at Pakistan. Karzai played to the anti-American sentiments of his countrymen in his speeches at the Jirga, which will no doubt have irked a great many in the US. Washington, however, has chosen to bight its tongue in this regard, as there is an understanding that the anti-US rhetoric is more about internal politics than any serious design to break ties. Moreover they are far more concerned about brokering the security pact than becoming overly upset about anti-US speechifying.

The Way Forward

The end result of the Loya Jirga was positive for Karzai, positive for the US and saw an unprecedented level of consensus from the Jirga delegates. However, the elephant in the room in all this is that the Taliban were not involved in the Loya Jirga, and did not support its formation, nor its resolutions.

This is a growing trend in the solution-finding process for Afghanistan. The decisions being made in Afghanistan, and at the Istanbul Conference, and no doubt the Bonn Conference as well, are all being rejected by the Taliban. This is not a reason for the solution-finding process to stop, but it is a very big reason to channel more energy into the reconciliation process.

There appears to be a resemblance between the tactics being adopted in negotiations now to those used at the time of Geneva Accords in the late 80s, dealing with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and what would follow. The Mujahidin did not directly take part in the Geneva talks and that part was mostly handled by Pakistan and the US. The counter part included President Najeebullah of Afghanistan and the Soviets.

With US recently shifting its position from excluding Pakistan from the political approach, to putting the onus on it to bring the various factions of Taliban to the table, appears to have a historical precedent. Meanwhile, Pakistan has provided no such guarantee that they have the will or a capacity to pull this off, as they did against the Soviets. Former Mujahidin that are now Taliban leaders, such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of Hizb-e-Islami and Sirajuddin Haqqani of Haqqani network, would likely provide the institutional memory that would result in strong opposition to Pakistan taking on the representation role again. PoliTact would continue to monitor the dynamics of the reconciliation process in Afghanistan.

Tell Us What You Think

The post Loya Jirga And The Future of Afghan Reconciliation appeared first on Politact.

Context

On November 2, 2011 a daylong conference on the future of Afghanistan was held in Istanbul. The conference was titled “Security and Cooperation in the Heart of Asia” and was attended by 17 countries, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Iran, Russia and the US, among others. While there was a lot of positive rhetoric coming out of the conference, there was little in the way of concrete steps forward for resolving the sticking-points of achieving a stable and prosperous Afghanistan and Central Asian region.

The most significant aspect of the Istanbul Conference, and subsequently of the Bonn Conference scheduled for December is that there are no representatives of the Taliban or other non-government Afghan parties attending. The absence of key players from Afghanistan means that there is a sense of a top-down approach being adopted at these conferences. This could potentially become another road block point in the path towards political reconciliation.

Analysis

There was never any doubt that the Istanbul Regional Conference would produce few tangible advances in the road toward peace and stability in Afghanistan. One day, after all, is not enough to resolve over a decade of violence, nor was it expected to. So what was expected from the November 2 meeting?

The main issues on the agenda of the conference were to discuss the options for the three areas that are considered paramount for transition to a stable and peaceful Afghanistan after the US and NATO troops withdraw in 2014. These are the Afghan security handover, which necessitates the capacity building of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and police forces; Political reconciliation and thirdly economic independence and prosperity.

The conference adopted a declaration that addresses issues related to these three key areas, as well as in the fields of education and cultural exchanges. A great many Confidence Building Measures (CBM) were agreed upon in the declaration, including:

A regional Preferential Trade Agreement to encourage the flow of goods within the Central Asian region — termed at the conference “The Heart of Asia.” The declaration called on a number of CMBs and initiatives to be investigated, including: hydroelectric power options and cooperative water management; cooperation on energy flow within the region; increased agricultural cooperation and infrastructure development within the region; expanding the connections between educational facilities within the region as well as a number of CBMs on cultural exchanges, promoting intercultural understanding and removal of prejudices.

Aside from the numerous CBMs agreed upon in the conference declaration, there was also a lengthy section detailing the support from conference members for Afghanistan, especially in the realm of counter-terrorism efforts and efforts to root out narcotics production, highlighting Afghanistan’s prominent geo-strategic position as a “land bridge” connecting South and Central Asia and the Middle East.

On top of this, the conference declaration included a number of statements regarding Afghanistan’s position in the region:

– It recognized Afghanistan as a sovereign, democratic state with inviolable borders.
– It recognized Afghanistan’s commitment to not let its territory be used as a safe haven for terrorists
– It recognized Afghanistan’s commitment to respect the territory of its neighbors
– It recognized that any Afghan dealings with a state are not directed against a third party

These last statements from the declaration are the closest we can find to censure and warning in the declaration, even worded so cautiously. There seem to be specific messages in these passages of the declaration that deal with the recent tensions between Afghanistan, India and Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Reservations

While the official line from Pakistan is that the Istanbul Regional Conference is viewed with a great deal of positivity, unofficial statements from anonymous members of the conference delegation have painted a slightly more skeptical picture.

The anonymous diplomat told the Pakistani newspaper The Express Tribune that the main issue of concern for Pakistan was the push by the United States to seek permanent bases in Afghanistan once the 2014 pull-out date had passed. The diplomat further stated that Pakistan had gone into the conference with low expectations due to the divergent approaches of key players on a number of important strategic issues.

While Washington denies that it is pursuing permanent military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan was joined by Russia, China and Iran at the conference pressing for clarity over the issue. They all also rebuffed the need for a new ‘regional mechanism’ to deal with the Afghan endgame, with Pakistan officially stating that the mechanisms already in place were sufficient to deal with the problems the region faced.

The strong opposition to the formation of a new regional mechanism in the form of a contact group that included non-neighboring countries to Afghanistan – India among them – saw the proposal dropped from the conference declaration.

Iran and US

The conference was an unusual platform for the United States and Iran. The Iranian delegation, headed by Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, decided to attend at the last moment despite reservations over an “absence of honesty” from the United States. While there were no direct meetings between Iran and the US delegation, they are both party to the declaration adopted by the conference, which gives them a modicum of common interest, and thus is being heralded as a baby step down the long road of normalization between the US and Iran.

More importantly it paves the way for Iran to take a more central role at the Bonn Conference in December, which will carry on from where the Istanbul conference left off in many regards. Iran played a significant part in the first Bonn ten years before, where a smooth transition of power in Kabul was achieved after the fall of the Taliban. There are still strong feelings in Tehran that Iran’s role in this regard was greatly overlooked and even dismissed, with the US shortly afterward placing Iran on the notorious “Axis of Evil” list. Leading up to this year’s Bonn conference, Iran is willing to take a central role again, but is anxious that its position not be overlooked, and any contribution it makes acknowledged in full.

For the US this requires a thorough streamlining of its foreign policy toward Iran, which has been schizophrenic of late, oscillating between wanting dialogue, to coercive diplomacy to outright hostility.

No Taliban?

The most significant aspect of the Istanbul Conference, and subsequently of the Bonn Conference scheduled for December is that there are no representatives of the Taliban or other non-government Afghan parties attending. The absence of key players from Afghanistan means that there is a sense of a top-down approach being adopted at these conferences.

The approach being favored by US is to involve the regional stakeholders first and then deal with forces in Afghanistan. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger best described this model on Tuesday. Kissinger in a panel discussion at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars told audience that “I have no [objection] in principle of negotiating with the Taliban, but for the purpose of ending the war, it’s the wrong sequence of events. The first negotiation in my view ought to be with surrounding countries.” He also urged the US to reach an agreement before troops are withdrawn from the country. Kissinger also suggested that troops should be pulled out at the end of the process, and not the beginning, so as to maintain influence in the region.

Pakistan, on the other hand, realizes that peace and stability in Afghanistan, and hence the region, is contingent on the reconciliation process within Afghanistan, without which no other effort will bear fruit.

The past decade of war is clear proof that the Taliban is not an insignificant force in Afghanistan, and cannot be overcome by force alone. Their absence at the conference almost undermines the whole premise of the conference, because before the internal dysfunction of Afghanistan is healed, other initiatives will likely make little headway.

A Taliban spokesman has dismissed the declaration adopted by the Istanbul conference because it “did not call for withdrawal of invaders.” This is consistent with the longstanding stance of the Taliban that it will not participate in talks until a tangible framework for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan is announced.

Conclusions

While the Istanbul conference was important for diplomatic reasons, and was a platform for the region to test out the waters of cooperation, there was little achieved at the conference that will translate into concrete outcomes.

This is due largely to the fact that there is a lot of hope being pinned on the Bonn conference, and indeed many are regarding the Istanbul conference as an agenda-setter for Bonn, rather than a vehicle of success itself. Also, without the participation of key groups in Afghanistan, the Istanbul conference is an exercise in rhetoric, given that the main causes of continued trouble in the country cannot be overcome without their involvement.

Tell Us What You Think

The post Istanbul Regional Conference – Setting The Stage For Political Reconciliation In Afghanistan appeared first on Politact.

US has announced it will revise its strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan. Washington has said that a revised plan of action would incorporate greater negotiations with insurgents to maintain peace in the region. The new strategy also recognizes that talks must take place between the militants, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US. Previously Washington insisted that dialogue must take place between Kabul and the insurgents, with US facilitation and Pakistan’s support.

According to the revised strategy, the US will urge Afghanistan’s neighbors to take a more active role in aiding the country, achieve political and economic prosperity. The plan also suggests a New Silk Road to be constructed to help increase trade in the region. Key regional countries such as India, China, and the Central Asian states are expected to help in convincing Iran to maintain a policy of non interference in the South Asian country. A conference in Germany on Dec 5 followed by a NATO summit in May will further add political elements to the plan.

The post US Revisiting Its End Game Strategy For Afghan War appeared first on Politact.