Back to square one with strained neighbourhood? ….Imtiaz Gul
Is Pakistan-Afghan relationship back to square one after the aerial strikes on TTP hideouts in Paktika and Khost provinces of Afghanistan early morning on March 18? What ensued was heightening of tensions and closure of border points (Kharlachi and Ghulam Khan) because of Afghan forces’ retaliatory fire into the Pakistani territory.
The immediate cause for this extreme cross-border action was the martyrdom of seven army men including a colonel in multiple suicide strikes at their regional headquarters in Mir Ali, North Waziristan on March 16.
Context for Pakistan’s Action
The military action against TTP on March 18 essentially stemmed from frustration with the Taliban regime, and underscored that Pakistan’s patience on TTP havens in Afghanistan has worn thin. As long as the terrorist outfit enjoys shelter and patronage in Afghanistan, soft approach i.e. more concessions in trade, visas, etc are out of the question. ‘You cannot continue to run with the hare and hunt with the hound’ was and is the categorical message by Pakistan’s military establishment.
Secondly, Pakistan’s decision last year to begin expelling the illegally, overstaying Afghans triggered a series of hostile references to the border saying the ‘Durand Line’ is an imaginary line and has to go. With the second phase of expulsions to soon kick off, the situation is likely to worsen. Some Taliban leaders also called out the Pakistani Army for its “failures” — pointing to the 1971 break-up of East Pakistan.
Thirdly, the leadership here also felt frustrated that multiple CBMs on cross-border movement of Afghans — patients, traders, students, females in particular — failed to convince the Kabul regime that international relations are never a one-way express, and instead thrive off reciprocity. And Pakistan expected reciprocity on an issue that has become an existential threat to it.
Taliban, however, chose denial as a response, without being categorical on why no action was taken against TTP if its leaders have avowed allegiance to Mulla Hibbatullah Akhund, who had barred all and sundry from attacks on neighboring countries.
Coincidentally, a UN official, too, called out the Taliban.
“In the region and beyond, there are well-founded concerns over the presence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan…it is not only Daesh that constitutes a threat but also TTP, a major concern for Pakistan, which has seen an increase in terrorist activity,” Roza Otunbayeva, the head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, said at a March 6 UN Security Council meeting
Lastly, Kabul’s intransigence on TTP apart, it is quite evident that proxy terrorism — not only against Pakistan but also Iran and China — draws its oxygen from outside. It is not about a small group such as TTP but of a destabilisation campaign designed to keep the country on tenterhooks, and probably linked to the regional geo-politics.
Consequences
The trade-off for Pakistan’s extreme action against the TTP, nevertheless, is loss of bilateral and transit trade that has seen considerable decline in the last year or so because of restrictions — some of them unacceptable even to Pakistani importers — on the Afghan transit cargo (down from a high of $7 billion last year to $500 million this year) via the Karachi port. Dwindling Afghan business via Pakistan has hurt thousands of commuters, daily wagers, transporters and all those associated with the services sector such as hotels, restaurants, workshops along the route. Thousands of families, mostly from tribes that straddle the border regions, rely on the movement of bilateral and transit trade. They are the direct sufferers whenever trade and people’s movement is suspended.
For years, Torkham and Chaman in particular, have occasionally suffered prolonged suspension of trade — at least a dozen times since 2017 — following violence or disagreements. We have not been able to insulate trade against political events and disagreements.
Kneejerk reactions from the security forces because of continued violence this side of the border, and an unrealistic sense of entitlement on the other side, remain at the heart of relations.
It would be tragic indeed if the Emirate rulers attempted to leverage their contacts with the Indian government while dealing with Pakistan. President Ashraf Ghani and his team did the same. In fact they systematically discouraged relations with Pakistan and turned down or held up almost every initiative that Pakistan offered.
Way Out
If not short-sighted, the Emirate leaders would desist from taking the path that Ghani did. They should also acknowledge that the two-decade-long violence was the result of their militant campaign against Kabul and its Western supporters.
If peace has returned to Afghanistan it is simply because the group responsible for violence returned to power in August 2021. Instead of polemics, its primary concern now should be to protect millions of needy and starving Afghans. Its responsibility also includes demonstrable solid measures against all the groups that threaten interests of neighbouring countries. Hiding behind misplaced bravado, Islam, Pashtoon tradition or jihadist camaraderie will only worsen Kabul’s relations with Pakistan and other neighbours. And the direct victims will be millions of Afghans — women and children — who need urgent support as well education and healthcare.
As for Pakistan, it needs to shun emotional, patronising responses to Afghans. Harsh measures will only hurt it more than Afghanistan. The best course probably would be to seek support of friends like China, a country that always pleads non-interference and respect for territorial integrity of other countries — big or small — in sorting out differences with Afghanistan.
Courtesy The Express Tribune, March 23rd, 2024.