By Dr. Syed Mohammad Ali

Context

While longstanding, relations between the US and Pakistan have experienced much turbulence especially since 9/11. It looks like the unceremonious American exit after two decades of intervention in Afghanistan is going to become another source of contention for this troubled bilateral relationship. Yet, some opportunities still exist for the US and Pakistan to cooperate, especially with regards to ensuring long-term stabilization in Afghanistan.

The story of Pakistan working with Saudi Arabia and the US to help wage a holy war against the Soviets in the 80s is well known. But Pakistan’s security cooperation with US goes back much earlier. Pakistan joined Cold War alliances like the Baghdad Pact in 1955 and the Central Treaty Alliance in 1959. In 1958, Dwight D. Eisenhower even requested Pakistan’s Prime Minister Feroze Khan Noon for a secret facility, to fly reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union. This arrangement was only uncovered when an American U2 spy plane which flew from Peshawar was shot down in May 1960 by Soviet forces.

In the Global War Against Terror (GWOT), Pakistan was pressured to become a ‘frontline’ state, and to help the US fight the same hardliners it helped create in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Pakistan has repeatedly complained of being embroiled in GWOT and not being adequately appreciated for its cooperation and sacrifices. On the other hand, the US has long suspected Pakistan of being duplicitous and not doing enough to ensure stabilization in Afghanistan.

It took the US almost twenty years to realize that there is no military solution to the Afghan crisis. While American talks with the Taliban have produced lackluster results, these ‘peace’ talks did allow President Trump an opportunity to announce a US military withdrawal. Once the withdrawal decision was made, it has proven very difficult for the incoming Biden administration to reverse course, despite his claims of wanting a ‘responsible exit’.

The US and other NATO allies will probably continue proving financial assistance to Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, including funds to the national army that they created. While the US is withdrawing militarily, the budget request for the next fiscal year is still asking Congress for $3.3bn to support and sustain the Afghan Security Forces, a jump of 9.2 percent from 2021. In addition, the US intends to keep ‘over the horizon’ counter terrorism capabilities in neighboring countries to ensure that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not able to gain enough ground in Afghanistan that they become an international threat again.

Pakistan would logistically have been an ideal base for US counter-terrorism operations, but the Pakistani government has categorically rejected the possibility of such cooperation. Pakistan’s refusal to give the US military bases to undertake operations in Afghanistan is understandable. Such a move would be deeply unpopular given the controversy surrounding tacit Pakistani endorsement of US drone strikes despite the collateral damage caused by them. It may risk fueling extremist attacks within Pakistan, and it may irk the Taliban who have warned neighboring countries of hosting an American military presence.

Media reports reflect that under the Biden administration budget request for fiscal year 2022, some military training and economic assistance for Pakistan is forthcoming, but the overall suspension of military aid that came about in May 2018 remains intact. What will be the actual size of US aid to Pakistan next year, especially if it does not succumb to American pressure to provide it military bases to operate in Afghanistan remains to be seen. Pakistan could be pressured by the US via lending agencies like the IMF. Threatening to blacklist Pakistan using the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) if it refuses to allow the US to operate military bases on its soil would not be fair. But in the realpolitik world, states can often resort to such tactics to try and get what they need.

Emerging Complications and Compulsions

While Pakistan keeps insisting that it is open to any permutation of power sharing which are acceptable to the Afghans, the nation is widely suspected of preferring a hardline Afghan state which would rebuff Indian attempts to encircle Pakistan. The latest Congressional Research Service Report’s assessment of Islamabad’s motives are not too rosy. It concludes that Pakistan will prefer a weak and destabilized Afghanistan, instead of a strong Pashtun-dominated government (which would continue to resist the status of the Durand Line and appeal to Pakistan’s own restive Pashtun minority). Such suspicions are questionable, however, given that destabilization in Afghanistan would incur the hefty cost of another large wave of Afghan refugees pouring into Pakistan. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions when it comes to ensuring a semblance of order and stability in Afghanistan. The Tajiks will probably continue to resist the Taliban’s attempt to gain complete power over the country, and they will again look towards different regional backers to challenge the Taliban. Turkey’s recent offer to take a lead role in ensuring the security of Kabul airport after the American departure is an interesting twist in this regard, hinting at an expanded Turkish role in Afghanistan in the foreseeable future.

US attempts to support the Afghan national army from being overrun by the Taliban may compel the Taliban to increasingly rely on Al Qaeda’s support. The CIA has also built-up counter-terrorism militias over these past several years, which have problematic human rights records, and these militias may now back varied factions motivated by personal gains. The presence of major illicit arms and drug trade cartels operating in the region could add to the threat of worsening violence.

While Pakistan can play an important role in helping create stability and economic prosperity in Afghanistan, the US continues to view Pakistan from the narrow lens of achieving its own counter-terrorism goals. Pakistan has not done much either to provide alternative pathways to working with the US which could help improve the lives of ordinary people in Afghanistan.

The Way Forward

Recent Pakistani attempts to reboot relations with the US are perhaps too ambitious given US suspicion of China, and the Biden administration’s decision to continue working with India to contain Chinese influence. Instead, Pakistan now needs to focus on more pragmatic and mutually beneficial opportunities for collaboration, such as the need to enable much needed stabilization in Afghanistan.

One possibility in this regard is the activation of the much discussed but still not operationalized reconstruction opportunity zone (ROZ) on both sides of the Durand Line, via which jointly produced Afghan and Pakistani products could be given preferential access to US markets. A well-functioning ROZ could create a strong incentive for Pakistan and Afghanistan to cooperate and it could provide the means for boosting economic sustainability within Afghanistan.

There is ample room for the US and Pakistan to work together to avert escalating chaos in Afghanistan. In his June 21 article in the Washington Post, Prime Minister Khan reiterated his desire to be a willing partner for ensuring peace in conflict-ridden Afghanistan, even though his government is unwilling to host US military bases. He also significantly asserted that Pakistan would reject attempts to impose a government in Kabul though the use of force.

The need for promoting economic connectivity and regional trade to promote lasting peace and security in Afghanistan is well recognized. Within this context, an ROZ between Pakistan and Afghanistan is an idea whose time has come. There is need to show pro-activeness in articulating parameters of such an ROZ, so that needed incentives are in place for boosting economic cooperation between the neighboring states as soon as a power-sharing formula emerges in post-withdrawal Afghanistan.

The post Recalibrating The US-Pakistan Partnership In Afghanistan appeared first on Politact.

With the calls for new provinces echoing around Pakistan, the President of Awami National Party (ANP) Senator Afrasiab Khattak on Tuesday demanded the establishment of a South Pukhtunkhawa province for Pushtuns living in Balochistan. Additionally, he wants the Tribal Areas to merge with Khyber Pukhtunkhawa province.

Many analysts believe the Pakistan People’s Party’s announcement to establish the Saraiki Province has encouraged other political parties and nationalist groups to demand new provinces.

The post ANP Joins The List Of Parties Demanding New Provinces appeared first on Politact.

Context

Turkey began the year already considered a runner for increasing influence in the Middle East and North Africa. With the aftermath of the May 2010 Freedom Flotilla incident positing Turkey in a new, unfriendly dynamic with Israel and increasing cooperation with Iran, Turkey was seen to be positioning itself for undertaking a leadership role in the Arab world with an eye for an anti western-influence approach.

The NATO efforts in Libya were opposed by Turkey at the onset and the nation seemed to be following through on its new Arab-centric route, however, in recent times the tone coming out of Ankara has been markedly different from that of the beginning of the year, especially as affairs in Syria started to deteriorate. Indeed the Turkish perspective appears to have shifted much more to a pro-NATO, Israel-friendly one. This article looks at the evolving role of Turkey and what it means for other regional contenders, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Analysis

As the US starts to withdraw forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and initiates negotiations on the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) with these countries, the irredentist claims presented by the Kurds, Pastuns and Baluchs are likely to escalate. These claims present an opportunity to keep the regional powers off balance.

(The article includes a map.)

The Syria Factor

The shift invariably came with the onset of trouble in Syria. Syria and Turkey have traditionally been friendly and the border they share relatively peaceful. With Iran and Syria having close ties, the initial Turkish approach would have included warmer ties with these two countries, which necessitates a position away from western influence and good ties with Israel. However, civil unrest and crackdown by the Syrian government against civilians has presented a moral dilemma for Turkey. Assad has continued to ignore requests from Ankara to stop the brutalities against protesters and enter into meaningful reforms, pushing Ankara towards a breaking point in its relationship with Syria.

Perhaps Turkey has seen that with a change in tone it could now enjoy the backing of the EU, the US and even Russia in its stance as a new regional leader. Its nearest competitor, Iran, would never be able to gain such support, with conceivably the exception of Russia. That being said, Turkey is by no means aiming to blindside Iranian relations. Turkish and Persian relations have been steadily building over the past two or three years, with Turkey maintaining close economic ties with Iran, notably in the energy sector.

Turkey’s role as a mediator in the 2010 nuclear swap deal with Iran was a clear demonstration of Turkey’s ability to play a significant part in affairs of the region and sets a precedent for its inclusion into the stagnant Middle East Peace Process. Turkish prowess in mediatory roles was also showcased in talks between Israel and Syria back in 2008. However, Syria is increasingly becoming a thorn complicating Turkeys relations with Iran and other Arab countries.

Turkey’s Evolving Positions

The other factor pushing Turkey to the fore in the Middle East is the loss of credibility in other Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These countries previously held a strong position in regional affairs, but the Arab Spring, and the reasons that led to it, has taken its toll on their standing. Egypt is still coming to grips with the change in its internal circumstances and Saudi Arabia is trying to balance turmoil on its borders with Yemen as well as unrest in Bahrain with its own civil unrest.

This month’s meeting of the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC) in Istanbul sends another message of Turkish dominance in Middle Eastern affairs. It also signifies Turkey’s stepping more into line with the NATO alliance and their actions in Libya. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu officially recognized the rebel government in Libya and pledged $200mn in aid during a trip to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi last Sunday. “Gaddafi should leave power and a genuine political change based on the demands and aspirations of the Libyan people should be realized,” Davutoglu said during the trip. “The unity of Libya must be protected.” The recognition comes just one day after the Turkish government announced it is closing down its embassy in the Libyan capital Tripoli.

Compare the above statements to the ones Turkish leaders made towards the start of the Libyan crisis: “Reporters have been asking me whether or not NATO should intervene in Libya. It is such nonsense. What does NATO have to do with Libya? NATO’s intervention in Libya is out of the question. We are against such a thing,” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had stated while delivering a speech to the Turkish-German Economy Congress in Hanover, Germany.

When the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Libya in February, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stated, “Sanctions, an intervention, would force the Libyan people, who are already up against hunger and violence, into a more desperate situation. We call on the international community to act with conscience, justice, laws and universal humane values – not out of oil concerns.”

On Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) intervention in Bahrain Turkish PM Erdogan had said it could not be termed as foreign intrusion since it is a regional task force that is recognized internationally. On the other hand, speaking on the Middle East revolt, Erdogan had earlier stated that the Arab leaders need to realize that they can’t suppress the demand for change through violence or force.

Neo-Ottoman Ambitions

While Ankara is very keen to give off the impression of a benevolent benefactor, its growing presence in the region is not without concern for many Arab countries, suspecting a rise in neo-Ottoman ambitions. It important to note that so far Turkey has sided with the protesters in Egypt, Libya and Syria while it has backed the Saudi led GC intervention in Bahrain. The Iranians would have certainly noted this inconsistency.

In this vein there have been rumors of closed-door talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu just concluded a visit to Saudi Arab followed by a surprise trip to Tehran. Turkey certainly appears to be domineering the affairs of Middle East and North Africa. Three important US Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman recently conveyed to the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that only Turkey can persuade the Palestinian group Hamas to participate in peace negotiations with Israel.

On the other hand, Iran appears to be strengthening its role in the affairs of Afghanistan, which must be of great concern to the Saudi’s. President Ahmadinejad of Iran, Zardari of Pakistan and Karzai of Afghanistan shared the stage with Al-Bashir of Sudan, Rahmon of Tajikistan and Talabani of Iraq last month for the “anti terror” conference in Tehran to discuss how they would react when the US and NATO withdraw from Afghanistan. In a trilateral meeting between Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the leaders of these three countries discussed a number of issues that may arise after the West exits Afghanistan. All three seemed determined to take matters into their own hands and exercise their sovereignty to boost cultural, political and economic cooperation.

As the US starts to withdraw forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and initiates negotiations on the Status of Forces Agreements with these countries, the irredentist claims presented by the Kurds, Pastuns and Baluchs are likely to escalate. These claims present an opportunity to keep the regional powers off balance.

PoliTact intends to closely monitor the Turkish response to the changing situation in the Middle East, especially as it pertains to the conflicts in Libya and Syria, as these two dynamics and Turkish involvement therein will give clues to how the new Middle East balance of power will evolve.

The post The Evolving Role of Turkey in the Middle East and the Arab and Persian Response appeared first on Politact.