newjerseynewsroom.com

BY SIDRAH ZAHEER

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

COMMENTARY

In recent meetings that were held between state officials of the U.S. and Pakistan, one point of agreement that came forward was about working together to build their relationship on a positive track. In order to show a good will gesture, the U.S. wants to help both Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their border disputes mutually. But how they go about achieving this is something that the U.S. does not view as its concern. However, in return the U.S. expects both of these countries to assist the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in stopping “incidents” on both sides of the border.

Afghanistan alleges that Pakistan is cross-firing, which does not give the right signal for maintaining good relations. This charge is denied by Pakistan, which says that the fires are only to attack militants hiding in Afghanistan that cause terrorist attacks in Pakistan. Pakistan continues to declare that it does not believe in assisting terrorist elements in Afghanistan merely to prevent India from enlarging its influence in the country. Any instability in Afghanistan will trickle down inside the Pakistani borders as well, something which is already the case with Afghan militants sneaking into Pakistan and launching different terror attacks as well as many Afghan refugees who have nowhere else to go.

With all three concerned parties blaming each other for inciting attacks, the Taliban are getting a free pass. Besides this air of mistrust, there are outright actions, especially the drone attacks by the CIA, which are not helping matters. President Karzai believes that the U.S.-led War on Terror is being pursued in the wrong manner as Afghan villages are being destroyed rather than the intended insurgents. The repercussion of such a war tactic has been the increase of terrorism and rarely its control.

Lately, the U.S. has been upset with Afghanistan, too. The U.S. wants Afghanistan’s approach to look at the right enemy and not the wrong one. The U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reminded President Karzai that more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Afghanistan insists that the U.S. pressurizes Pakistan on militants hiding out in the country and has accused the U.S. of playing a “double game” in the War on Terror. Afghanistan also ascribed Pakistan of “financing terrorism” and getting military aid from the U.S., whereas Afghanistan’s request to get modern weaponry for fighting terrorism has been so far rejected; although the U.S. military has been helping Afghanistan to build its army on modern lines. Being utterly corrupt and involved in high-level embezzlement of funds, the government of President Karzai is not as sovereign as he thinks. Hence, the words from a leader so dependent for his power means little, if anything.

President Karzai also strongly disagrees with the notion that once the foreign troops will pull out, Afghanistan will face a civil war in which case the Taliban will return to power. He called it a “psychological war by the Western media against Afghanistan.” The Afghan presidential elections are expected to take place in 2014 and President Karzai says that he will fire those Afghan officials whose families are involved in “bad-mouthing” Afghanistan while residing abroad. However, people have mistrust on President Karzai’s conduct. Foreign donors for Afghanistan’s rebuilding have promised to give $16 billion in the next four years, but due to lack of transparency there is no guarantee that this foreign aid will get through to the Afghan people and be invested in projects for them.

ISAF’s Commander General John Allen agrees with President Karzai that Al-Qaeda has returned, even though not in large numbers, but then these terror groups don’t rely on numbers. More than numbers, they focus on their means to counter any attempts against them. The U.S. has plans to keep a small number of security forces in Afghanistan post-2014 withdrawal, but so far has commented officially about permanent bases in the country. But that scenario is not far-fetched either.

The U.S., unfortunately, has not been able to maintain a heroic image in front of the Afghan people as such incidents like burning of the copies of Koran at a military base, the abuse of corpses and a massacre of civilians by an American soldier do not present a favorable picture of the U.S. in a country it wants to democratize and modernize. Thus, there have been several "green-on-blue attacks" on the U.S. troops in Afghanistan apparently committed by some soldiers in the Afghan National Army.

However, seeing that the future stability of Afghanistan cannot be guaranteed without taking into confidence its immediate neighbor, Afghanistan now wishes to sign the strategic pact with Pakistan on certain preconditions. Afghanistan primarily demands that Pakistan deals with terrorists within its borders strictly. The relations between these two South Asian neighbors have been strained because of the cross-border shelling by the Pakistan military targeting insurgents hidden inside Afghanistan’s mountainous region.

For protecting the security and strategic interest of the U.S. in this region, the U.S. still maintains that it must support Pakistan, no matter how strong is the opposition to such a move. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the decision to waive legal restrictions has been made in mid-August of this year and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notified the U.S. Congress in mid-September. She had informed the U.S. Congress in straightforward terms that using her authority she has waived the legal restrictions on economic and military aid to Pakistan worth around $2 billion, keeping in mind the national interests of the U.S.

Some analysts believe that this measure is desperation on part of the Obama administration, because it shows how far the U.S. is willing to go to get Pakistan on its side when the U.S.-led ISAF is withdrawn by the end of 2014. Under the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, the U.S. government was required to certify that Pakistan is playing along with the U.S. strategy rather than playing against it.

Pakistan’s current government, which even though is a civilian government and prides itself to have come to power through “mandate of the people,” is far from being democratic. No matter how the U.S. hands over aid to Pakistan, all that Pakistani political leadership seem to care about is the money flowing in, no matter the cost to country’s image. Waiving of the legal restrictions in fact means that Pakistani government has again led down its people in stopping terrorism and in building democratic institutions.

No matter what the predictions say, the circumstances in South Asia with regards to the War on Terror are likely to change after 2014. If Afghanistan manages to have a fair presidential election, then democracy can take hold. On the other hand, the American conservatives worry about the extent the U.S. can trust Pakistan. There is always a possibility that the U.S. can end its monetary support to Pakistan at any point in time if it thinks that there is no other step to deal with the situation. The U.S. has also assigned Pakistan the task of bringing the Afghan Taliban to peace negotiations. The most effective way is to gather a consensus on counter-terrorism strategy, something which should have been done since day one of the War on Terror. The Working Groups have been formed by the U.S. and Pakistan to advise both governments specifically on the kind of feasible measures to take in this regard.

To build relations with the people of Pakistan diplomatically, the U.S. has to take some measure not just to reduce drone attacks, but stopping them altogether. The U.S. has acknowledged the sacrifices made by the people of Pakistan, but not with regards to the drone attacks. The U.S. peace activists from the ‘Code Pink: Women for Peace’ are participating in an anti-drone march that will enter tribal areas under threat of terrorist attacks. The U.S travel advisory has prohibited American citizens from traveling there due to this very reason of a volatile situation which can turn ugly. Thus, at the risk of their safety these peace activists are marching in along with a prominent national political party to demand that drone attacks be stopped completely. The provincial government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is highly alert about their security.

The AfPak region does present itself as a strategic quagmire for the U.S. interests, their desired execution and achievement. The only "bone of contention" between the U.S. and Pakistan pertains to what makes Afghanistan stable and how to deliver that stability. Pakistan thinks that Afghanistan’s future should not be decided by anyone else except by the Afghan people themselves and as to that effect, wants a real democratic change in Afghanistan. The interests of the other stake-holders in the region also clash with one another. The U.S. has signed a strategic agreement with Afghanistan called Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement and will enforce policies within its framework. Whether it will be sufficiently enduring or not, only time can tell.

Sidrah Zaheer is an independent journalist and a researcher based in Karachi, Pakistan. She specializes in the American Studies and Confidence Building Measures. She constantly covers issues related to politics, society and economics of Pakistan and the U.S. foreign policy. She can be followed on Twitter @SidrahZaheer