AF-Pak Cauldron

Bonn conference on Afghanistan this time embraced much optimism and epitomised the very relative success that has been achieved in the Afghan mission rather than acknowledging social and economic flaws, civil losses and future security risks that pose serious threats to generations to come. It gathered foreign ministers as well as representatives of international organisations with the aim to ensure long-term help to Kabul in the aftermath of 2014. The organisers required the Afghan government to tackle corruption, strengthen democracy and provide basic human rights. As some experts note, nothing new has been proposed in the conference apart from the stringent conditions to facilitate all demands. Meanwhile, these demands have been estimated at billions of dollars from the US/NATO budget for several years. In his speech, President Hamid Karzai said that in order to sustain the Afghan army and police, and to preserve the already achieved success, his government will need 5 million Euros annually for the duration of 10 years. Upon the results of the conference, the sides agreed on a compromise and decided to develop a final document, the details of which will be discussed in 2012 at the international conference of donors in Tokyo.
Certainly, there is much optimism regarding progress in Afghanistan and recent interests of several states raise much hope for durable peace. In fact, Bonn conference has positively reflected on an earlier initiative of the Afghan government on the strategic partnership with the US. Earlier, this agreement has been approved by the majority at Loya Jirga that consists of elderly tribesman, ethnic representatives, religious leaders, etc., and takes a collective stand. Such an optimism was summoned also by several states that already wield acting mechanisms for stabilising the situation in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the only exception remains Pakistan, which recently embarked upon a complex relationship with the US following NATO airstrikes. Meanwhile, in the long run, promoting any peace in Afghanistan without Pakistani engagement might be ineffective, especially given the fundamental rise of several clandestine networks such as the Haqqannis and others that are said to be based in Pakistan. These factions seem to become major obstacles to the future engagement of troops, as they create further difficulties in the accomplishment of the economic and humanitarian tasks at hand and hinder the peace building process in Afghanistan.
Despite all existing complications after the NATO attacks and the subsequent blocking of NATO transport routes and expulsion from Shamsi airbase, Washington has refused to back down and in all likeliness, will continue its operations with or without Islamabad’s cooperation. Nonetheless, both sides realise that they face a situation which they cannot handle individually, but cannot also return to the situation which existed before the killing of soldiers. Some experts feel that the problem is that US sees the Pakistani government as completely under the Pakistan army that refuses to forgive the loss of its soldiers. Following this tragic incident, NATO became the target of one of the biggest attacks in Quetta where trucks that supplied goods to the troops in Afghanistan were burned.
Against the backdrop of worsening of US-Pak relations, the role of Central Asian states can ultimately increase. But this does not guarantee that the security threat in the region will be diminished. In his speech at Bonn, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the situation in northern Afghanistan is deteriorating, which directly put Central Asia states in jeopardy. Meanwhile, in spite of optimism and additional efforts that are being taken to strengthen the borders with Afghanistan, it is impossible to guarantee security without Pakistani involvement. The attacks on Shia minorities by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi may instigate further sectarian violence in Afghanistan.
Some sources believe that this extremist outfit is based in Pakistan. Paradoxically, the Pakistani “Taliban” has shown enthusiasm towards striking a deal with the Pak government. At the end of November, it became known that the Taliban had offered to declare a moratorium on military operations. At the same time, there were reports that the Taliban had been negotiating with Pakistan for the past six months. Previously, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had alleged that the Haqqani network responsible for the siege of the US embassy in Kabul “is a project of ISI” and it has lately become a serious impediment in the peace building process in Afghanistan. This acknowledged that the current security cards are in the hands of the Pakistani army, US cannot avoid collaboration with Pakistan over Afghanistan and sooner or later will have to agree to become its strategic partner again. Otherwise, both the Afghans and US/NATO should be ready for more sacrifices.

(The views expressed by the author are personal)