Peace in Afghanistan is a difficult project but it’s possible if Pakistan cooperates. Unfortunately, it is still plotting ways to ensure all of us in the region remain in hell and no one gets to go to heaven alone. It will only change its ways once the costs it incurs shoot up
In Afghanistan’s long drawn out transition process to peace and stability, this year has been particularly crucial. Western troops who have held the country together over the past decade and a half are now wrapping up their combat missions. Only about 21,000 will remain to assist the Afghan forces, and it is still unclear how well the latter will be able to hold fort. Already, there have been reports of the Taliban taking back villages in the south from where they had been ousted. A new Government has taken charge in Kabul but it stands on a precarious power-sharing deal between two bitter rivals. In a wide-ranging interview to The Pioneer, former chief of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security Amrullah Saleh acknowledges the challenges ahead but also expresses optimism that Afghanistan’s political establishment will not betray the people’s aspirations. Excerpts from the interview:
Do you believe the new National Unity Government will be stable?
We have passed more difficult times than this in the past 40 years, so I am optimistic. First, the people of Afghanistan want both leaders to work together, so there is popular pressure demanding convergence. Second, the pressure from international community to make this Government work is also massive. Each world leader who calls on the President also calls on the CEO who’s powers are akin to that of a Prime Minister. Regional powers, minus Pakistan, are also supportive. This is unlike in the 1980s and 1990s when the region was divided on the kind of Government that Afghanistan should have. Third, the two leaders know that if they don’t work together, they’ll open the gates for the Taliban to stage a comeback.
How do you think the arrangement will work, in terms of sharing of portfolios etc, given that both leaders have competing interests?
The NUG has not yet taken off. It still has to be assembled. This won’t be an easy task because interest groups will inevitably play tricks. There will be diverse dynamics, and lot of pulling and pushing by vested interests. It is up to the two men at the top to show more statesmanship. So, yes, there all ingredients of instability but the opportunities (for stability) are greater than the challenges.
How is the personal relationship between between President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah?
Since they signed the deal, both sides have taken a more humble approach. They understand they have about five years together — two years until the launch of the loya jirga and another three after that. You know, human beings who claim that they have forgotten the past are saying utter lies. But good leaders suppress past feelings and move on.
Also, the past here is not just the past six months. The leaders should remember the past four decades. They should remember the fate of Afghan leaders who didn’t work together. Afghan history is full of instances wherein the people have given a mandate and the leaders haven’t to work together and they have all lost.
The international community seems optimistic about the NUG. Do the Afghan voters share its optimism or do they feel cheated out of their mandate?
For the masses, ‘hope’ is a commodity. For the people at the top, hope is neither a commodity nor a policy. The only measurable factor is the document outlining the NUG. Moreover, there is little room for violation of the deal. If either side violates the provisions, the people will see that, given the role of media.
What is your assessment of the Afghan security issue?
We are suffering. We are in pain. We wake to headlines of bomb blasts, casualties and tears. I am not hiding that. But the legitimacy of the constitutional democratic space is so strong that the people are willing to defend it.
As for the Taliban, the Afghan system has not been dogmatic in its approach by insisting on the use of force. It has kept the negotiation gate open. But the Taliban are not ready to negotiate because they want to dictate certain terms.
But they can’t continue forever as, compared to the 1980s and 1990s, they are getting support from a much weaker Pakistan. There is a civil-military divide in Pakistan over the Afghan policy, and also over how to tackle extremism within that country and re-brand Pakistan.
Remember even up to the 1990s, Pakistan had a good brand. It was an ally, a front line ally ready to help the free world; it had its own challenges but was not ready to say goodbye to democratic values forever. But what is the Pakistani brand today? It is a hub for extremism and sectarianism; it has a dirty record of nuclear proliferation and the shadow of the army is bigger than physics of democracy. Still, there is one Pakistani side which is constantly reaching out to the Afghan people but the other half, which is the military, is playing a dirty power game. This can’t go on. They will have to realise this or they’ll be forced to realise this.
How are talks with the Taliban progressing under the new Government?
A breakthrough in this regard will come only when Rawalpindi creates one. But Rawalpindi is not interested in peace. Taliban leaders showing some interest in peace have been killed in covert attacks. It is only if Pakistan’s cost of war goes up that that it will force the Taliban to lay their arms. Currently, Pakistan pays too little and gains too much. It gives maybe $30 million to $40 million to the Taliban, and in return, it get billions of dollars in aid from the US (to fight the Taliban). Ironically, the US is financing both sides of the war.
To what extent is Pakistan still cultivating Afghanistan as its ‘strategic depth’ depth against India?
The question should be will it ever get away from this nostalgic idea? Will Pakistan ever realise that it is punching far above their weight? Also, Pakistan should realise that no one has ever been able to dominate Afghanistan. As I told a Western friend recently, “You are subsidising Afghanistan today, for which we are grateful, but can you say we are a pro-West nation with confidence?” Finally, Afghanistan is now a changed country. The new population has different aspirations and is no longer the bearded country that Pakistan wanted it to be.
Some Westerners say Afghanistan is being victimised by India-Pakistan rivalry. What’s your take?
India works with the Afghan Government and doesn’t sponsor non-state actors. India is associated in my country with electricity, education and entertainment. If Pakistan wants to jump into these spheres, we welcome that. But the problem is everything good that India builds in Afghanistan, Pakistan wants to destroy it. That is an evil effort of ‘either we all remain in hell or you alone cannot go to heaven.’ In Afghanistan, Pakistan is trying to put itself at parity with India using wrong means.
Also, India has never looked down upon Afghanistan but Pakistan does not show us respect. We get hurt when we are not respected and our culture is ridiculed. This is what the Pakistani elite used to do. They’d brief Western officials in London and Washington, DC, that, “The Afghans are a bunch of tribes; they are disassociated; you help us, we manage them”. India has never said that.
How will Kabul’s India policy shape up under the new Government? Will the Karzai consensus hold?
I am not in Government, so I can’t speak with authority. But as an informed commentator, I’d like to say that there are realities that politicians cannot change. The reality of our region is that India is a force for stability. With Nato reducing its presence, there has to be another power filling that void. Who else, if not India? Who else has the same amount of interest in maintaining constitutional order in Afghanistan? If the new leaders say ‘no’ to India, then who do they say ‘yes’ to?
(This interview was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on October 30, 2014)
