Karachi-Born US Senator Van Hollen Stands Up For Pakistan During Afghanistan Hearing

[Riaz Haq]

Maryland Democrat Chis Van Hollen, a key US senator who was born in Karachi, said it was the Trump administration that asked Pakistan to release the top three Taliban leaders for US-Taliban peace talks in Doha Qatar. He was speaking at a recent US Senate hearing on the fall of Kabul to the Taliban and the chaotic US withdrawal that followed the Afghan Army collapse. 

Senator Chris Van Hollen

Senator Chris Van Hollen was born in 1959 in Karachi where his father was serving as a foreign service officer at the US Embassy in Karachi, Pakistan. His father later served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1969–1972) and US Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives (1972–1976). His mother worked for the CIA as chief of the intelligence bureau for South Asia.

“Is it not the fact that the Trump administration asked the Pakistani government to release three top Taliban commanders as part of that (peace) process?” Senator Van Hollen asked. Targeting the Trump administration, Van Hollen continued, “And so, we pick a date. We say to the Taliban you can attack Afghan forces and then we say, now let’s negotiate the future of Afghanistan. Isn’t the way it was set up when you walked in?” “That’s essentially, yes," Blinken replied.   

Referring to allegations of Pakistan's complicity in promoting chaos in Afghanistan, Senator Van Hollen said, “I think a number of those countries, at least Pakistan — like India, like the others — have an interest in preventing chaos and civil war in Afghanistan".

Here's the exchange between Van Hollen and Blinken at the Afghanistan hearing on Capitol Hill:

 Van Hollen: “Is it not the fact that the Trump administration asked the Pakistani government to release three top Taliban commanders as part of that process?” 

Blinken: “That’s correct".

Van Hollen: “And one of them is now number two in the Taliban government, Baradar, right?”

Blinken: “That’s correct.” 

Van Hollen: “He is the person everybody saw in those photos in Kabul, right?” 

Mr Blinken: “That’s correct.” 

Van Hollen: “And there was another senior commander, and they began the discussions in Doha.” 

Blinken: “That’s right.” 

Van Hollen: “They (US negotiators) did not include the Afghan government, did they?” 

Blinken: “That’s right, correct.” 

Van Hollen: “And they in fact essentially ordered, pressured, the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners, right?” 

Blinken: “That’s correct.” 

Van Hollen: “Many of those fighters are involved in the attack on Kabul today, right?” 

Blinken: “Yes.” 

Van Hollen: “Now, let’s see what the negotiation was: the US will leave by a certain date in May this year, right?” 

Blinken: “Correct.” 

Van Hollen: “You can’t attack American forces, but you can attack the Afghan forces with impunity, right?” 

Blinken: “That’s correct.” 

Van Hollen: “And so, we pick a date. We say to the Taliban you can attack Taliban forces and then we say, now let’s negotiate the future of Afghanistan. Isn’t the way it was set up when you walked in?”

Blinken: “That’s essentially, yes.” . 

British Defense Forces Chief General Sir Nick Carter is another western leader who has defended Pakistan recently. Responding to the familiar charge of "safe havens" for Taliban in Pakistan, General Nick Carter told BBC's Yalda Hakim that Pakistanis have hosted millions of Afghan refugees for many years and "they end up with all sorts of people". "We would be very worried if they heartlessly kicked out" the Afghans from Pakistan. He said that Pakistan's Army Chief General Bajwa genuinely wants to see a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. 

Carter Malkasian, former advisor to US Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford, has also recently talked about how Afghan governments have scapegoated Pakistan for their own failures. He said: "Let’s take Pakistan, for example. Pakistan is a powerful factor here. But on the battlefield, if 200 Afghan police and army are confronted with 50 Taliban or less than that, and those government forces retreat, that doesn’t have a lot to do with Pakistan. That has to do with something else". 

In another discussion,  Malkasian explained the rapid advance of the Taliban and the collapse of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani. Here's what he said:

Over time, aware of the government’s vulnerable position, Afghan leaders turned to an outside source to galvanize the population: Pakistan. Razziq, President Hamid Karzai and later President Ashraf Ghani used Pakistan as an outside threat to unite Afghans behind them. They refused to characterize the Taliban as anything but a creation of Islamabad. Razziq relentlessly claimed to be fighting a foreign Pakistani invasion. Yet Pakistan could never fully out-inspire occupation.  

Many westerners, including politicians, generals, analysts and journalists, are angry with Pakistan for the stinging US defeat in Afghanistan. They are trying to scapegoat Pakistan for the West's failed policies. Some want to punish Pakistan. However, many of them also recognize the importance of Pakistan in dealing with the aftermath of the Afghan fiasco. American analyst Michael Kugelman recently tweeted about America's use of Pakistani airspace (ALOCS) for "over-the-horizon" counter-terrorism ops in Afghanistan, underlining Pakistan's importance to the United States.  

US Analyst Michael Kugelman on American Reliance on Pakistan

A recent piece in Politico summed up US reliance on Pakistan as follows :

"The Biden administration has been unusually circumspect about revealing its contacts and discussions with Pakistan. While Pakistan’s actions often appear at odds with the United States, it nonetheless is a nation with links to the Afghan Taliban whose cooperation on fighting terrorism can be helpful. It’s also a nuclear-armed country American officials would prefer not to lose entirely to Chinese influence".  

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

Pakistani Officials Had Warned of Afghan Army Collapse

British Defense Minister Questions US Superpower Status

Did Pakistan Aid Taliban's Swift Victory in Afghanistan?

Coll's Directorate Demonizes Pakistan ISI

Gen Petraeus Debunks Charges of Pakistani Duplicity

British Defense Forces Chief General Nick Carter Backs Pakistan

Pakistan ISI: Afghans' Bogeyman?

Ex CIA Officer on ISI

Trump's Straight Talk Angers US Establishment

India Ex RAW Officer Documents Success Against Pakistan

Robert Gates' Straight Talk on Pakistan  

Riaz Haq's Youtube Channel

PakAlumni Social Network

[Riaz Haq]

#Russia says it’s in sync with #US, #China, #Pakistan on #Taliban. FM Lavrov said all 4 governments are in ongoing contact and their representatives have recently traveled to #Qatar and then to #Afghanistan’s capital, #Kabul to urge "inclusive government"
https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-general-assembly-business...


UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia, China, Pakistan and the United States are working together to ensure that Afghanistan’s new Taliban rulers keep their promises, especially to form a genuinely representative government and prevent extremism from spreading, Russia’s foreign minister said Saturday.

Sergey Lavrov said the four countries are in ongoing contact. He said representatives from Russia, China and Pakistan recently traveled to Qatar and then to Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, to engage with both the Taliban and representatives of “secular authorities” — former president Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, who headed the ousted government’s negotiating council with the Taliban.

Lavrov said the interim government announced by the Taliban does not reflect “the whole gamut of Afghan society — ethno-religious and political forces — so we are engaging in contacts. They are ongoing.”

The Taliban have promised an inclusive government, a more moderate form of Islamic rule than when they last ruled the country from 1996 to 2001 including respecting women’s rights, providing stability after 20 years of war, fighting terrorism and extremism and stopping militants from using their territory to launch attacks. But recent moves suggest they may be returning to more repressive policies, particularly toward women and girls.

“What’s most important ... is to ensure that the promises that they have proclaimed publicly to be kept,” Lavrov said. “And for us, that is the top priority.”

At a wide-ranging news conference and in his speech afterward at the U.N. General Assembly, Lavrov criticized the Biden administration including for its hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan.

He said the U.S. and NATO pullout “was carried out out without any consideration of the consequences ... that there are many weapons left in Afghanistan.” It remains critical, he said, that such weapons aren’t used for “destructive purposes.”

Later, in his assembly speech, Lavrov accused the United States and its Western allies of “persistent attempts to diminish the U.N.’s role in resolving the key problems of today or to sideline it or to make it a malleable tool for promoting someone’s selfish interests.”

As examples, Lavrov said Germany and France recently announced the creation of an Alliance For Multilateralism “even though what kind of structure could be more multilateral than the United Nations?”

The United States is also sidestepping the U.N., he said, pointing to the recent U.S. announcement of a “Summit for Democracy” despite, Lavrov said, U.S. President Joe Biden’s pledge this week “that the U.S. is not seeking a world divided into opposing blocs.”

“It goes without saying that Washington is going to choose the participants by itself, thus hijacking the right to decide to what degree a country meets the standards of democracy,” Lavrov said. “Essentially, this initiative is quite in the spirit of a Cold War, as it declares a new ideological crusade against all dissenters.”

[Riaz Haq]

Get the Generals Out of Pakistani-U.S. Relations
Civilian-led outreach can find areas of actual cooperation instead of mutual blame.
By Adam Weinstein, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/30/pakistan-us-afghanistan-relati...


What makes the U.S.-Pakistan relationship so toxic is not that their interests have diverged widely from the halcyon days of anti-Soviet cooperation but the prevailing assumption that their differences can only be managed through coercive engagement, money thrown at the problem, or disengagement

One root cause of this dysfunction is relations are largely managed through the two countries’ security establishments. In 2018, then-commander of U.S. Central Command Gen. Joseph Votel testified to the House Armed Services Committee, saying he spoke to his Pakistani counterpart “almost weekly.” U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has spoken by phone with Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, at least four times, and in early September, CIA director William Burns met with Bajwa and ISI Director-General Faiz Hameed. U.S. President Joe Biden has yet to call Khan, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi met in person for the first time last week on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

Relations between the United States and Pakistan have often grown closer during periods of military rule, such as during the 1960s under then-Pakistani President Ayub Khan, the 1980s under then-Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, and the early 2000s under Musharraf. Ties grew noticeably colder under the civilian leadership of then-Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970s, who ultimately accused Washington of plotting against him prior to his imprisonment and execution by Zia-ul-Haq.

Washington’s leaders might say they have no choice but to deal directly with Pakistan’s security establishment, which is the country’s real decision-maker on matters of national security. But Washington, as Bolton’s words in 2010 indicated, has also grown accustomed to the political expediency of going straight to Pakistan’s brass and sidelining its civilian government. Bush’s “with us or against us” ultimatum to military dictator Pervez Musharraf was successful precisely because he was the sole decision-maker. Had Pakistan been a genuine democracy 20 years ago, fully accountable to its lawmakers and public opinion, then things might have gone differently. Instead, Washington and Islamabad’s spymasters and generals have eked out a working relationship while the civilian government remains disengaged.

Congress’s dubious attitude toward Pakistan was best summarized by Rep. Bill Keating when he recently described it as “one relationship that really always troubled me.” During that same hearing, Rep. Scott Perry struck at the heart of Pakistan’s insecurities when he exclaimed, “we should no longer pay Pakistan [for counterterrorism cooperation], and we should pay India.” Recently introduced legislation calls for an assessment of Pakistan’s past support for the Taliban but falls short of any punitive measures.

Khan’s jovial charm is powerful, but it hasn’t led to a significant shift in Washington perceptions of Pakistan, save for a few well-tended interlocutors like Sen. Lindsey Graham. But even there, praise for Islamabad is sometimes little more than an underhanded compliment intended to poke at a domestic political rival, such as when Graham criticized Biden for failing to reach out to Khan by phone—a snub that is a source of anxiety in Islamabad and a sign of how little Biden prioritizes Pakistan’s civilian leadership.

[Riaz Haq]

Get the Generals Out of Pakistani-U.S. Relations
Civilian-led outreach can find areas of actual cooperation instead of mutual blame.
By Adam Weinstein, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/30/pakistan-us-afghanistan-relati...


On Sept. 27, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan penned an op-ed in the Washington Post asking the United States to stop scapegoating Pakistan. He has a point. Pakistan’s nefarious role in Afghanistan is very real, but scapegoating Islamabad also became a coping mechanism for Washington and Kabul to avoid confronting their own failures. Washington’s unhealthy reliance on Pakistan throughout its war in Afghanistan kept the relationship at a dysfunctional equilibrium, but now relations are at risk of degenerating sharply, and the two countries have only themselves to blame. Overcoming this requires both Washington and Islamabad to prioritize realistic areas of cooperation over rehashing tired narratives of blame.

Pakistan, once rattled by the United States’ arrival in Afghanistan, became comfortable with the status quo of gradual Taliban gains kept at bay by a stuck United States reliant on Pakistan’s help. Islamabad only began to show inklings of buyer’s remorse over its support of the Taliban as the U.S. withdrawal deadline grew closer.

Almost exactly one year earlier, Khan penned an op-ed in the Washington Post warning against a “hasty international withdrawal” from Afghanistan. It was a carefully worded paean to Pakistan’s efforts in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. Khan concluded that “bloodless deadlock on the negotiating table is infinitely better than a bloody stalemate on the battlefield.” He got the deadlocked negotiations—but the result was anything but bloodless. Afghanistan descended into a tempest of Taliban-led fighting, unclaimed targeted killings with the Taliban quick to use Islamic State-Khorasan for plausible deniability, and diplomatic gridlock.

Islamabad’s hopes for what it called a “geoeconomic reset” that would broaden relations beyond security were cast aside by a new iteration of “do more.” As the Taliban advanced, Pakistan’s purported red line for its intransigent protégé retreated from don’t restore Afghanistan to don’t enter Kabul by force. That second line was never tested as the Taliban simply moseyed into the capital following the collapse of the Afghan government.

----------

The “maximum pressure” campaign used against Iran eroded the middle class, hurt private businesses, was a boon for ventures backed by the security establishment, and helped advance hard-liner narratives. A copy-and-paste application of this failed policy in Pakistan would likely produce similar results or simply foment a rally-around-the-flag effect. Some critics of Washington’s reliance on Pakistan propose a narrower approach focused on targeted sanctions against specific officials, ending its major non-NATO ally status, and scaling back attempts to cooperate. But like it or not, Pakistan’s cooperation is crucial for continued evacuations, refugee resettlement, and economic development in Afghanistan. Even some of the biggest critics of Pakistan’s security establishment have credited it with assisting Washington against transnational terrorist groups. Washington and Islamabad will likely continue to fight these groups together, even if the target list is narrower than the U.S. Defense Department and the CIA prefer. Pakistan also holds an inherent importance as a nuclear-armed country of more than 226 million people that finds itself on the front lines of climate change.

[Riaz Haq]

Pakistan: The handy Afghan bête noire?Published 2 hours ago on October 1, 2021By Amjed Jaaved

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2021/10/01/pakistan-the-handy-afghan-bet...

The portents are that the United States has once again found a convenient scapegoat to blame for the Afghan debacle. Wow, the US generals have vowed. “We need to fully examine the role of Pakistan sanctuary.” They emphasised “the need to probe how the Taliban withstood US military pressure for 20 years”. Claiming that the Taliban was and remains a terrorist organisation, the top US general Milley said: “It remains to be seen whether or not the Taliban can consolidate power or if the country will further fracture into civil war.”

Chairman of the Joint Chief General Mark Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committeealso claimed, “We estimated an accelerated withdrawal would increase risks of regional instability, the security of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenals”. Both generals, however, declined to discuss more on their concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and the potential that they could fall into the hands of terrorists.

They acknowledged, “We need to fully examine the role of Pakistan sanctuary,” The general emphasised the need to probe how the Taliban withstood US military pressure for 20 years. They implied that it was Pakistan’s legerdemain that helped taliban carry the day. They said they would discuss this and other sensitive issues in a closed session with the senators.

Purpose of Pakistan bashing

The Pakistan bashing is an outcome of India’s pressure who wants quid pro quo for participation in the QUAD. The US wants to return to the good old days when Pakistan provided vital air corridors to bomb Afghanistan.

Familiar pattern

The Pakistan bashing has a familiar pattern. After a lull, they take out the old skeleton of nuclear proliferation and whip it into the international media. India is always in the forefront of this orchestrated campaign.

For instance, Press Trust of India dated January 10, 2006 reported “Pakistan continues to be the hub of nuclear black-market involved in trading surplus goods to other countries despite the uncovering of the proliferation network of disgraced former top scientist A Q Khan two years ago, a report said today citing European intelligence sources. The Khan network may not have been completely put out of action, an unnamed administration official has been quoted as saying by the ‘Washington Times.’9 not Washington Post). …”Khan has been pushed aside, but other, younger people have taken over,” David Albright, a nuclear analyst tracking the A Q Khan network at the Institute of Science and International Security told the daily. European intelligence agencies have come to the conclusion that Pakistan continues to procure – including from Europe- far beyond its needs”. It is believed that there are as many as 20 Pakistani government offices, laboratories, companies and trading organisations that are actively involved in the procurement effort with the end users being front companies of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission or the trading firms that are active on behalf of Islamabad. “In developing its nuclear installations, Pakistan depended on deliveries of equipment from abroad, particularly from Europe,” according to an intelligence assessment of July 2005, which noted that there have been attempts since 2004 at procurement with the range of materials bought going “clearly beyond” Pakistani requirement for spare parts.”
-------------

One unmistakable conclusion from the dossier is that Pakistan’s motivation to go nuclear was well founded. In view of restrictions on nuclear exports, Pakistan did what other countries did to make its bomb.

Yet, Pakistan should prepare for a long period of nuclear bashing.

[Riaz Haq]

Pakistan can repel militants, protect nukes, says US report

https://www.dawn.com/news/1649634/pakistan-can-repel-militants-prot...

Pakistan is capable of repelling any ‘jihadi’ attempt to seize power and of protecting its nuclear weapons, says a report by a prestigious US think-tank.

The Brookings report — “The Agonising Problem of Pakistan’s Nukes” — argues that the Taliban victory in Afghanistan has emboldened militants in Pakistan, stirring fears of a resurgence of militant activities in the country.

“The fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home,” the report claims.

“Trying, of course, is not the same as succeeding. If history is a reliable guide, Pakistan’s professional military would almost certainly respond, and in time probably succeed,” the author, Marvin Kalb, adds.

But the report warns that even a failed attempt could reopen “the floodgates of a new round of domestic warfare between the government and extremist gangs.”

The Brookings report warns that a resurgent insurgency would “leave Pakistan again shaken by political and economic uncertainty.”

The report then turns to another possibility that Pakistan has often warned against — instability in South Asia increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict in the region. Pakistan uses this argument to strengthen its demand for international arbitration to settle the Kashmir and other disputes in India.

The Brookings report does not mention the Kashmir dispute but it acknowledges that “when Pakistan is shaken, so too is India, its less than neighbourly rival and nuclear competitor.”

------------

Former President Barack Obama translated this challenge into carefully chosen words: “The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term,” he asserted, “would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.” (Author’s italics).

The nation that has both nuclear weapons and a dangerous mix of terrorists was — and remains — Pakistan.

No problem, really, Pakistan’s political and military leaders have quickly assured a succession of anxious presidents. Whether it be Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehreek-e-Labaik, al-Qaida, or the Afghan Taliban’s Quetta Shura — these terrorist organizations have always been under our constant surveillance, checked and rechecked. We keep a close eye on everything, even the Islamic madrassas, where more than 2 million students are more likely studying sharia law than economics or history. We know who these terrorists are and what they’re doing, and we’re ready to take immediate action.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/28/the-agon...

[Riaz Haq]

Western Dependence on Pakistan Is Not Going Away
With the Taliban now running Afghanistan, calls are mounting in Washington to punish Pakistan for its alleged support of militant groups.

by Rupert Stone

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/western-dependence-pakistan-...



First, they still need to evacuate some of their citizens and Afghan helpers who were left behind after the troop withdrawal concluded on August 31. Pakistan’s close ties to the Taliban, its open embassy in Kabul, and its long land border with Afghanistan suggest it could be well placed to facilitate evacuations.

Pakistan already evacuated some Afghans on behalf of Germany in August, prompting an appreciatory message from the German ambassador in Islamabad. Since then, Foreign Minister Heiko Mass has visited Pakistan as part of a regional tour, followed by the Dutch and Italian foreign ministers. U.S. deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman is visiting, too.


Former British foreign secretary Dominic Raab traveled there in September, and his successor Liz Truss recently entertained her Pakistani counterpart. Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan facilitated the departure of Americans from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, prompting a letter of thanks from Glenn Beck, whose organization was overseeing the evacuation.

Second, there is the issue of refugees. Western governments are concerned that they may see a repeat of the 2015 refugee crisis, when more than a million Syrians, Afghans, and others fled to Europe, fueling support for anti-immigrant populist parties. This was not a concern during and after the Soviet war, when Afghans settled mainly in Iran and Pakistan.


Now, however, regional countries appear reluctant to accept any more refugees to the millions they already host. The European Union is, therefore, planning an aid package to fund neighboring countries’ settlement efforts. The UK is also providing more assistance to Pakistan.

A third factor is narcotics. The Afghan illicit drug economy is far larger than it was before the U.S.-led invasion: in 2018, the area under opium poppy cultivation was three times what it was in 2000, and Afghanistan has in recent years diversified into methamphetamine, which was unheard of in the 1990s.


Western counter-narcotics agencies have now lost their foothold in Kabul and will need to rely more on Pakistan as a regional base and partner in addressing the Afghan drug menace. This is more of a problem for European countries than it is for the United States, given that opiates from Afghanistan do not reach America in large quantities.

The fourth issue is, of course, terrorism. The United States is far more concerned about this than it was before 9/11. Indeed, the Biden administration has been working to develop an “over the horizon” counterterrorism capability that will enable it to monitor and neutralize targets from outside Afghanistan.

But this is easier said than done. The country is flanked by U.S. adversaries like China and Iran. Finding a partner to host a U.S. base or grant access to its airspace for airstrikes or commando raids is not a simple task. The Central Asian states are under heavy Russian influence, and Russian president Vladimir Putin has apparently rejected American facilities there.

That leaves Pakistan as the only real option. The Biden administration has reportedly been negotiating with the Pakistani government for basing rights. But as far as we know, these efforts have not yet borne fruit, and Khan has publicly and forcefully opposed hosting U.S. forces.

Without a base in Pakistan, the United States would have to launch drones from the Gulf and fly into Afghanistan through Pakistani airspace. The only alternative is to send flights from the Caucasus over Turkmenistan, which is not only under Chinese and Russian influence but is farther away from the areas of Afghanistan where terrorist organizations tend to operate.

[Riaz Haq]

#India's security concerns will be 'first and foremost' and in "front and center" for the #UnitedStates, says Deputy Sec of State Wendy Sherman in #NewDelhi.
#US putting together a robust program for "over-the-horizon" (OTH) capability for #Afghanistan. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/indias-security-concer...

The US Deputy Secretary of State said both India and the US have a similar approach on the way forward in Afghanistan.

[Riaz Haq]

Moeed W. Yusuf
@YusufMoeed
·
My article in
@ForeignAffairs
, highlighting Pakistan's sacrifices; positive contribution and commitment to peace in Afghanistan - sustainability of which is only possible through constructive global engagement with the new Afghan government.

https://twitter.com/YusufMoeed/status/1446121838434603014?s=20

Afghanistan deserves peace and prosperity, and a blame game among international actors will not get us there. Nor will a repeat of the mistakes of the 1990s, when the United States abandoned Afghanistan and sanctioned Pakistan, its close ally throughout the 1980s, once the Soviets had been driven from Kabul. This isolated the region as international assistance and attention disappeared, placed Afghanistan on a path to civil war and economic meltdown, and strengthened international terrorist outfits—eventually culminating in the 9/11 attacks. Although ordinary Afghans and Pakistanis will always face the greatest risks from instability inside Afghanistan, mass migration flows and terrorism threaten the entire world. It is therefore in every country’s interest to prevent history from repeating itself.

The prudent way forward is for the international community to engage constructively with the new government in Kabul. The goal must be to create the conditions for Afghan civilians to earn a respectable livelihood and to live in peace. This will require the international community, especially the countries that were present in Afghanistan for two decades, to play a positive role in leveraging its influence to further the cause of peace and stability.


Pakistan has been at the forefront of international humanitarian efforts since the fall of Kabul. It has helped evacuate approximately 20,000 foreign citizens and Afghans from the country and has created an air and land bridge to channel emergency supplies to the country. These efforts are important, but diplomatic engagement with Afghanistan must go much further. Afghanistan does not have the resources or the institutional capacity to stave off economic disaster on its own. In order to ensure a durable peace, the international community must determine the means through which development assistance can be provided while ensuring that its concerns about the situation in the country are addressed. But given the precarious humanitarian and economic situation in Afghanistan, time is of the essence. A wait-and-see approach, although more politically tenable for many countries, would be tantamount to abandonment.



Pakistan’s expectations of the new government are no different than those of Western governments: Pakistan wants a state that is inclusive, respects the rights of all Afghans, and ensures that Afghan soil is not used for terrorism against any country. Unlike in the 1990s, the Taliban have repeatedly stated their interest in continued engagement with the world. This is an opportunity for the international community. The leverage generated through assistance and the legitimacy the Taliban will derive from it can be used to secure inclusive governance from the new administration.

Over the past month, Pakistan has led diplomatic initiatives with Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors and other countries in the region to discuss the way forward. We will continue these efforts. However, Western diplomacy needs to be better connected with regional initiatives to forge a common agenda for engagement and decide on the multilateral and bilateral avenues available to channel assistance. A starting point could be a major donor conference where regional players and Western countries sit down together and draw up specific plans for humanitarian and economic relief. An understanding is also required on the terms of the release of the Afghan central bank’s reserves, most of which are held by the United States. Such a forum could also be used to encourage countries that have unfinished development projects in Afghanistan to consider completing them for the benefit of the Afghan people.

[Riaz Haq]

The war in #Afghanistan is over, but the West still needs #Pakistan. "It is too important—and dangerous—to ignore" #Nuclear #Taliban #ISIS_K #Terrorism #US #Europe #NATO #CIA #ISI #India #China #Russia #Iran https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/07/the-war-in-afghanistan... @TheEconomist

When the last American troops departed from Kabul on August 30th, it meant not only the end of a 20-year campaign in Afghanistan but also the end of Western reliance on neighbouring Pakistan. In that time the country had been an infuriating partner that had helped nato forces with logistics and intelligence even as it provided a haven to the Taliban’s leaders. Now, perhaps America could wash its hands and walk away.

America and its allies have plenty of reasons to feel aggrieved. Pakistan is perpetually sparring with its neighbour, India—which is steadily becoming a vital regional partner for the West. It has close diplomatic and commercial ties with China, to which it provides access to the Indian Ocean, via the Karakoram highway and the port of Gwadar. It is home to lots of Muslim extremists. With a gdp per head that is just two-thirds of India’s and which has in recent years been falling, Pakistan might seem a sensible country to shun.

[Riaz Haq]

#Pakistan struggles to balance ties between #Washington & #Beijing:"Despite Pakistan's longstanding support for Taliban, the group seems unable or unwilling to contain terrorist groups operating within Afghan borders, including those targeting Pakistan" https://p.dw.com/p/41gqL?maca=en-Twitter-sharing

Alice Wells, the US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia under Donald Trump, called the CPEC initiative an "unstainable and unfair" debt for Pakistan during a visit to Islamabad last year.

Pakistan rejected the US's criticism of CPEC last year. The Chinese embassy in Islamabad at the time stated that "the US is obsessed with the story it [has] made for CPEC."

Last month, Pakistan's ambassador to Afghanistan, Masoor Ahmed Khan, held talks with the new Afghan leadership about Kabul's joining CPEC. 

The deteriorating security situation in Pakistan, however, has prompted concerns about how it could hamper Chinese investment in the country, as well as Islamabad-Beijing relations. China has in the past urged Pakistan to improve security for its projects and personnel against possible Pakistani Taliban attacks.

Elizabeth Threlkeld, director of the South Asia program at the Washington-based think tank the Stimson Center, told DW that Pakistan runs the risk of "spillover instability" from Afghanistan, as cross-border terrorism incidents and attacks are carried out in the Balochistan province and tribal areas.

"Despite Pakistan's longstanding support for the Taliban, the group seems unable or unwilling to contain terrorist groups operating within Afghan borders, including those targeting Pakistan," she said.

Shuja Nawaz, a South Asia analyst at the Atlantic Council in Washington, told DW that Pakistan should maintain ties with both the United States and China, saying it "need not try to swing" between the two.

"China is an important neighbor and friend. The US and Pakistan have long historical ties," Nawaz said.  

"Pakistan needs to act in its own interest in reshaping its relations with the United States so it is not dependent on the Americans nor does it have to deceive them about its actions on their behalf," Nawaz added.

Threlkeld said Pakistan "will be hard pressed to maintain positive relations with the US" as "US interest wanes and frustration grows over Pakistan's support for the Taliban."

"While it might be tempting to focus solely on its ties with Beijing, Islamabad knows it must continue to engage with Washington," she said.

"The US, likewise, continues to need Pakistan for counterterrorism support in Afghanistan," she added.

Pakistan in need of 'a deep public debate'

Nawaz said Pakistan would need to engage in dialogue on its foreign policy stance. He says civilian and the military leadership must take a unilateral stance, and avoid short-term foreign policy strategies.

"Pakistan needs a deep public debate on its foreign policy in Parliament and then an articulation of the principles of its foreign policy for the next 10 years," he said. "No zigzags or short-term deals, which have been a recent pattern."

Pakistan "must not exaggerate the value of a telephone call with Biden again and again," Nawaz said. It is "important for the groundwork to be done at lower levels," before Biden and Khan speak with one another, he added.

"More importantly, Islamabad and Rawalpindi [where the Pakistani military headquarters is based] must speak with one voice to Washington, DC," he said.