Afghanistan and Pakistan: The False Promise of Rapprochement

Political and military power in Pakistan has always used external threats and provocations to remain in power. Hence its constant hostility towards both its neighbors - Afghanistan and India. In fact for many years, the US Government provided Pakistan with financial and military aid to counteract so called Soviet influence with India. In 1971, President Nixon sent in the US 7th fleet to support Pakistan in its fight with India! Pakistan also received a great deal of Chinese support over the years, including in its development of the nuclear bomb.
So from Pakistan's point of view, it pays to support insurgencies in Afghanistan. For many years, Afghans and others have claimed that the Taliban problem resides in Pakistan and not Afghanistan. So of course we invade Afghanistan and provide arms and money to Pakistan!

The Article seems a bit true to me but the author must answer me one question..... Why Afghanistan gave their bases to Indian Airforce to bomb Pakistan (Peshawar) during 1965 and 1971 wars between Pakistan and India??? Why?

I am from India and I am not a diplomat, but a keen political observer over the years in the Indian subcontinent. In my three plus decades of observance I am in full agreement with Mr. Daudzai that Pakistan is a very recalcitrant partner. It is either its way or highway! The sad thing for for me that of all the country the USA is bending backward to have this talk of Taliban from either country speak to each other! I mean these marauders are the either side of the same coin. Obviously with all these troubles notwithstanding , Pakistan is playing a political equivalent of "high-wire" act and Mr. Ghani is furthering it.

The Indian sub- continent still carries the very heavy ethnic sectarian historical burden of British imperial perfidy.

India is the most populous democracy and a majority Hindu nation with the 3rd most Muslims as a minority. Pakistan is the 2nd most populous Muslim nation and Bangladesh is the 4th. Punjabis are a 44% plurality in Pakistan while 98% of Bangladesh is Bengali. Pashtuns are a 42% plurality in Afghanistan but a majority of Pashtun live in Pakistan where they are only 15% of the population. The Taliban is all Pashtun but not all Pashtun are Taliban.

After the 75 million Tamil, the 50 million Pashtun are the largest ethnic group without a nation state where they are a majority. Followed by the 35 million Kurds living in Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq etc.

There is no military solution to any of these ethnic sectarian civil war conflicts. Only diplomacy along with socioeconomics including commerce and aid and political dialogue offer any hope of resolution.

America's primary interest is preventing any nation state or non-governmental group posing a national security threat to the American homeland. While American values rest in a belief in the virtues of civil secular plural egalitarian democracy in which all persons are created equal with certain unalienable rights expecting to export and promote those values in foreign lands is neither necessary nor reasonable.

No group has suffered more in the "War on Terror" than Muslims.

Golden opportunities for the new Chinese-dominated IMF surrogate.

Well what Mr. Daudzai is saying is nothing new. Everyone knows who the spoiler in the region is, everyone knows which is the country whose only contribution in the region is instability, and that it negotiates financial and military aid on the basis of its ability to create that instability. And yet that aid is given. The price may be paid by Afghanistan, which has the misfortune of living with such a neighbour as Pakistan. But Afghanistan is not very rich. America is. Europe is. China is, and India is. Good luck in the years ahead dealing with this nuclear armed, radical Islamic State in the Indian Subcontinent (the next ISIS).

The friend continues: Unfortunately Pakistan continues to exploit US ignorance and the huge and continuing influx of unsupervised taxpayer dollars in pursuit of its delusional dreams of subduing India, fighting India to the last Afghan. It is American weapons, bought with Anerican money, wielded by terrorist organizations like the Taliban and al-Queda, which are in turn funded by US taxpayer dollars handed out by Pakustan, that have killed American soldiers, while serving Pakistan 's larger ambition of proving itself India's master.

The solution to Afghanistan is for the US to cut off all funding to Pakistan, and follow India's lead in investing in Afghanistan's future, without playing favorites. It should grant President Ghani's request for a modest level of security personnel as the means to achieve the overwhelming desire of the Afghan people's to be rid iof all Pakistani interference. In this, America should work to partner with India, a country that has demonstrated skills in building an effective and professional military starting from multicultural, feudal(sometimes tribal) roots.

A friend sends this in: ]Despite popular American belief, the Afghans are not primitive savages. In India's historical experience, they have been a civilized, cultured and talented people with a special gift for administration, trade and performance art. For India, both Karzai and Ghani represent different strands of this heritage and the hope it engenders for an Afghanistan that realizes its potential to be a positive contributor to the human civilizational journey.

Mr Daudzai is an ungrateful person who along with 3.5 million Afghan refugees was sheltered by Pakistan. Pakistan is a poor country and paid a huge price by hosting these refugees from Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. It is a shame that this person who was an ambassador to Pakistan holds such anger and envy against its neighboring country, even though he has taken the salt of that country. ( Namak Haram is the local definition of such a person ). It also appears that this article reflects the views of India, which has always been hostile to its muslim neighbor and has been an existential threat to Pakistan. No good deed gets unpunished, when you deal with such Afghans.

Dear Pakistani,
With all respects, be careful what you say. Language like yours cost you East Pakistan. Pakistan has used all resources from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and treated Bangladeshis like slaves over 25 years. You killed 3 million Bangladeshis and made 10 million homeless with no apology even after 45 years. Your 93,000 soldiers including General Niazi should face war crime. You sucked all US tax payer's funds to fund your nuclear programs in the name of fighting terrorism. You funded militants against India all your life forgetting the democracy and building the economic infrastructure. The result - look where India stands in the world's stature and where you are as Pakistan. If Pakistan behaves as your language suggests Pasthun and Baluch will make another Bangladesh. I also wonder how the editor let your language be published. I, as Bangladeshi, agree with what Mr. Dauszai has to say. Let us have a civil discussion on Pakistan's democracy, blasphemy law, shariat law, military, military relation with the civilian government, and its relation with neighbors. Did you ask yourself what will happen if talibans get hold of Pakistan's nuclear weapons? The way it looks it may not be very far off.

Pakistan has been playing with fire for years, antagonistic views within and 'superficial tweaks' in cooperation with others. Its dubious equilibrium with the Taliban, and its attempt to maintain control regionally (Afghanistan), and its stupid military stance against a by-and-large peaceful neighbor (India), leaves a lot to be desired. And trust in their process, fleeting at best. How could cooperation be viewed under these circumstances?

Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the region, and perhaps the world. It's nuclear arsenal is large, growing and dispersed. It's 'natural' allies are Saudi Arabia and China. One sees eye to eye with the Taliban, the other is India's rival. The U.S. is relentlessly criticized for bankrolling Pakistan's military. That may be a fool's errand, or it may buy critical insight into Pakistan's nuclear weapons system. Although discussion revolves around extremism, the danger from nukes is far greater. An exchange with India would be the greatest catastrophe since WWII. It could be worse, if it caused a global environmental change.

Mohammed Umer Daudzai is not the only official in Kabul, who is critical of Ashraf Ghani's effort to forge a "rapprochement" between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ghani's predecessor, Hamid Karzai is even more critical. The former president had never made a secret out of his hostility towards Islamabad. And to provoke the Pakistani generals, he maintained close ties with India and let Indians train Afghan forces.
Although Karzai is official no longer in office, he enjoys the trappings of a president and behaves like one, receiving officials, foreign ambassadors and tribal delegations from across the country. It looks as though he is vying for a comeback! Perhaps he begrudges Ghani's effort to try to bring stability to Afghanistan, something he himself had failed. No doubt Ghani has to be careful in his dealing with Islamabad! Perhaps the Afghans should give him a chance. It couldn't do more harm!

The article reflects a personal frustration of a "leftout" Afghan. There is no other explanation for his views. For decades Afghanistan had the chance to build its institutions (under the US and NATO occupation) but it could not. It could not even come out of the "stone age", in its social setup. Obviously, Pakistan has no control over the centuries old social structures of Afghanistan. The Pashtun issue is settled. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan have chosen Pakistan.
Mr. Daudzai can do a favor to Pakistan by convincing the Afghan government to allow millions of refugees, still residing in Pakistan. These refugees prefer Pakistan, because of its much developed socioeconomic and political facilities.
Pakistan and Afghanistan are two different worlds - one moving in the modern era while the other remains in the darkness of ignorance and misery - because of its centuries old mindset and tribal orthodoxy. There is no chance that Afghanistan will come out of this in decades to come.

By any projective measure the Indian economy will be 15-20 times larger than Pakistan's over the next 2 decades. It's defense budget is already 8 times that of Pakistan, and will grow exponentially. To equate the two, as most Westerners do, would be as ridiculous as to suggest that the USA and Mexico are military and economic equals. The power struggle in the coming years will be between India and China for control of Afghanistan and Pakistan. One scenario that has to considered is the eventual balkanization of these two failed states into more manageable ethnocentric entities with the Balochs, Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pashtuns having their own nation states. Muslim Punjab which has been the cradle of Islamic terrorism will be sequestered and unable to pose a threat to world peace.

Pakistan is a black hole where $30 billion US dollars have gone only to be transmuted into jihadi's and nuclear weapons.
The Pakistani government takes time out from stabbing us in the back to stab us in the face.

The U.S. has used, encouraged and financed weak Pakistan to further its own regional aspirations. In the latest round against Soviet Union, US and Saudi money has permanently destabilized the region and filled it with weapons and religious extremism. Damage to Pakistan may be irreversible. Afghanistan will have to suffer, as a result. Bottom line is control Pakistan, rest of the blocks will automatically fall in place.

Both countries are failed states, it doesn't matter what they do or don't do.

Mr Daudzai is the same COWARD who ran to Pakistan during the Afghan war. He lived a life of luxury in Islamabad and Peshwar. Instead of being thankful to Pakistan who hosted millions of cowards like him, he and his countrymen (Karzai included) do not stop spewing venom against Pakistan. Why don't all these millions of THANKLESS coward Afghans go back to their paradise in Afghanistan? These same people oppose the building of a barbed wire along the Durand Line. Please spare this country of mine who has hosted these thankless millions for the past 35 years. A Pakistani

This is an excellent analysis. I don't agree with the other reviewer that this article has been written from Indian point of view. Pakistani Military runs its foreign policy. We used to say back some [ when I was in former East Pakistan] "that every country has an army; Pakistan Army has a country". After the partition in 1947, Pakistan should have tried to accommodation with India rather than competition. Pakistan Army needs war in Kashmir to justify its rather huge size and budget. During the Afghan-Soviet war , Pakistan was a launching pad and Army made a lot of cash using USA-KSA cash. Having said all these, Pakistan will remain to be a headache for us [USA] for the years to come. It will demand hard cash from us for any anti-terrorism service it provides for the world community at large.

Daudzai, like Karzai are Afghan version of paid lobbyists/interest group that loses if peace prevails at Afghan-Pakistan border; hence the desperate attempts to stymie the bold new President of Afghanistan. These naysayers wish to preserve status quo/stalemate that suits corrupt elements.

we've heard these hackneyed accusations from the afghans before. pakistan has not harbored or assisted the afghan taliban. the NATO and US led coalition installed a puppet regime led by president hamid karzai, who enabled and led a minority government run by tajiks and ethnic panjiris. the pashtuns were sidelined to a minority in their own country and government. that is exactly what should have NOT happened. so instead of killing the taliban insurgency, the US and hamid karzai governemnts enabled it. big mistake. the taliban regrouped and being better fighters than the afghan national army were able to mount continuous spring offensives against afghan targets. that has nothing to to with pakistan. does pakistan want to see an afghanistan that is amenable to its national interest? i dont know. perhaps. what country doesnt want a stable and peaceful border. but this false accusation of the pakistan army or state colluding with the taliban against hamid karzai is false and stale.

"And this is why Mr. Ghani’s overtures to Islamabad are dangerous: They are diverting attention away from more essential, perhaps existential, tasks — like strengthening the Afghan National Security Forces, which is critical to increasing the Afghan government’s leverage in any talks with the Taliban."
US and Nato has already spent Billions over many years trying to train Afghan army that can stand up on it's own and defend Afghanistan without any real success. Continued focus on Afghan military training should be a priority but that in no way means that Mr. Ghani should not be pursuing alternate paths including reaching out to Pakistan To open channels With Taliban. If ability of Afghan security forces is any evidence, pursuing alternate paths including reaching out to Taliban for peace should be of higher priority not less.

Everything is possible if the United States wants it! After all, Pakistan is nothing more than an Instrument of American policy in that region. President Carter's National Security Adviser, Mr. Zbigniew
Brzezinski, in his single minded ambition to weaken Soviet Union gave away the entire store to Pakistan to secure the latter's active support in creating the Taliban. Brezinsky and Carter still stand tall, despite the Osama Bin Laden acts and the 9/11! Things will change only when the United States will stop being myopic and only when this great country of ours will not allow any of her individuals or groups within to overtly influence her foreign and military policy. Is that possible? A very tall order as we see with the present President! Meanwhile, countries like Afghanistan must fend for herself vis -a- vis Pakistan, and no amounts of visits from their leaders will be able to persuade the powers in the United States to do anything "positive" towards lessening the threats from the Pakistan's hand-maiden Taliban forces!

Someone has to try or there will never be peace anywhere.
The conditions are different, in China, in Saudi, with non-Taliban terrorists all over the globe.
Maybe it could be worth it one of these times someone reaches out to work together instead of using or smashing the other. You've got to try, or give up.

While Pakistan’s military and ISI continue to hold on to ‘strategic depth’ as instrument of national security policy, increasingly this is not true of the elected government of Pakistan. Mr. Daoudzai is oblivious to the impact of the changing circumstances inside Pakistan, relative improvement in India-Pakistani relations which directly impinge on this issue and the ability of the United States to press the Pakistani military for a recalibration of obsession with ‘strategic depth’. Mr. Daoudzai is also misguided in his assertion that Pakistan prefer to see a destabilized Afghanistan so that the latter will not have the resources and policy focus to support Pushtune separatism in Pakistan’s tribal areas. In the throes of an active insurgency, Afghanistan simply can not push for Pushtune autonomy in Pakistan; indeed, at the apex of Afghan power during the Daoud Khan prime minister ship, Afghanistan could offer only symbolic support.
The former Afghan ambassador does not provide any alternative whatsoever, except to suggest that President Ghani focus on building the army, as if a President can only focus on one issue at a time. Bold policy change is, indeed, what the doctor ordered. That said, Afghan regional national interest will continue to be best served by closer relations with genuinely democratic India; still the refreshing new policy venue pursued by President Ghani is warranted.

These people are very violent, dangerous,really. We should have nothing to do with them. Let China deal with it. We should strengthen a friendly relationship with India.

Afghanistan is an unfortunate country that has been caught up in power games for over a century. The author seems to imply that Pakistan is the only one playing games, and that the U.S., China, India and Iran have no self-interested agendas in that broken country. Could it be that Pakistan does not trust Afghanistan because it was the only country in the world to vote against Pakistan's membership in the UN in 1947? Could it be because up until 1979 every Afghan ruler played proxy for the interests of India, with whom Pakistan had a conflict over Kashmir? Or is it because - as the author tacitly admits - Afghanistan has actively supported insurgencies in Pakistan? It is not Pakistan, but Afgahnistan that has to prove it has turned a new leaf.

Mr. Daudzai, shouldn't you be talking to Ashraf Ghani directly rather than through the pages of the NY Times op-ed section? If my surmise that Ashraf Ghani is the latest cape-wearing, bribe-accepting American puppet installed after a ridiculous, rigged election in which pretty much everybody misbehaved, then Mr. Ghani is likely doing the bidding of his American paymasters.

It appears as though you were briefly in Mr. Ghani's administration, so I am guessing that your advice was not sought, or wanted. If you threaten either our latest attempt at spinning Afghan security straw into gold, or the ministrations of Mr. Ghani, then you more than likely were pushed out on purpose.

It must be frustrating to you to helplessly watch your home land stay status quo after so many empires have attempted to overtake it, then left after the iron will of the local mujahadeen prevailed over armies seemingly mightier than their ragtag groups. I wish American troops would vacate Afghanistan entirely, but there is no chance of that happening. The mountainous border region with Pakistan is like the Korean demilitarized zone: we will be there for the foreseeable future.

Afghanistan is making the same error of judgement that America did when they invaded Afghanistan looking for OBL in the aftermath of 9/11.The real enemies are further east and are still harbouring enemies of the US,Afghanistan and any other country that does not agree with their world view!.Pakistan was and continues to be the epicentre of world terrorism.

Here's what I don't understand. Mr. Daudzai claims that Pakistan is actively taking action against the Taliban, but then goes onto claim that it also views it as an asset. He talks about how Pakistan wants to expel Afghan refugees but it hasn't taken into account what it would cost Afghanistan to reintegrate them. And then he drops the final gems by claiming that Pakistan wants Afghanistan to be so embroiled in its own mess, that Afghanistan can't help the separatist Baluch and Pashtun movements in Pakistan.

I'm sorry Mr. Daudzai, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Why should Pakistan look out for Afghan interests? Isn't that Afghanistan's job? Why should Pakistan continue to bear the cost of 3 million Afghan refugees? Isn't that Afghanistan's job? Under the garb of the refugee influx, Pakistan was introduced to the heroin and Klashinkov culture. And why shouldn't Pakistan maintain its strategic interests? Isn't that what all countries do, including your own? You want to support separatist movements in Pakistan, and your government has been doing that for the past 15 years. But Pakistan should continue to look out for Afghanistan's interests? So basically what you're saying is, your country should be allowed to play it's deadly double game, but Pakistan should bend over to appease you. I don't think that's going to happen, as you so rightly pointed out.

Excellent op-ed. The Pakistani establishment, specifically the Punjabi dominated officer corps, has no interest in peace or rapprochement. Pakistan wants chaos in Afghanistan to justify its large payroll and prevent India from gaining a foothold there.

Pakistan has waged a proxy war in Afghanistan since 1972. What makes Ghani think Pakistan will suddenly change course?

Its rather interesting that Mr. Daudzai has the audacity to blame Pakistan for wanting to return AFGHANs back to their home land.
In the same breath he blames Pakistan for not wanting secessionists to be based in Afghanistan. “Pakistan has an interest in keeping Afghanistan so preoccupied by its own instability that it cannot spare any resources on the Pashtuns’ and Baluchs’ cause.”
Afghans will do themselves a lot of good if they decided to get out of drug running and being pawns to others. As the saying goes you can never buy an Afghan, but you can always rent one.
Please do not blame Pakistan for the ills that befit your Godforsaken country.

Pakistan remains a bad friend to anyone foolish enough to look to them for anything. Boy did we back the wrong dog in the region.

Seems the first two commenters on this thread have not been following even current news. The Afghan President is visiting Washington, D.C., and among other things, is going to ask for a prolonged American presence in Afghanistan. The reason is Pakistan and the Taliban.

To catch up with what this OpEd is about, please watch Georgetown's C. Christine Fair, at the World Affairs Council: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eClddgCTP4

If you don't have an hour to spend on it, look up Amrullah Saleh on youtube, there are some short, informative clips.

Two groups seek to recruit Afghanistan. India wants to use it against Pakistan, and Pakistan wants to use it against India.

This article uses the Indian point of view, without explanation or examination. The strategic depth and militancy it derides are the key concepts of Pakistan's defense against India, specifically regarding Kashmir.

Afghanistan will cease to be pulled between these two only if they finally settle the Kashmir question, and make a larger peace. Until then, both sides will look at the strategic depth of the other around the contested region, and Pakistan will use militancy to resist the occupation of Kashmir.

As between these two, Afghanistan is as much an object used for other purposes as it always was to the US against first the Soviets and then Iran and China.

Incidentally, the US is still trying to use Afghanistan against Iran and China, and they are mentioned in this article as siding with Pakistan, again without explanation or context.

Settle Kashmir. Settle the US/Iran controversy. Stop trying to set up bases in the backcountry of Afghanistan in some dream they could be of use against China. Then the Taliban on both sides will have nothing more to be proxy for, and the fighting will die off.

What is the context for this op Ed piece?

Is there some other campaign on Afghani Pakistani friendship so this piece provides some supposed balance?

On its face an out of power Afghan bureaucrat says nuts to Pakistan, now and forever. So?

Some reporting would be nice.