| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| The end of Pakistan's double-games in Afghanistan |
| 2016-06-21 |
| [AlJazeera] Julian Huxley once wrote that "a nation is a society united by a common error as to its origins and a common aversion to its neighbours". If there is any truth to Huxley's remark, the recent bloody border clashes between the Afghan and Pakistani military forces illustrate the common aversion of the Afghans towards their antagonistic eastern neighbours, Pakistan. The incident, which left three border guards and two children dead on the Afghan side of the Torkham crossing in eastern Afghanistan, stirred anger throughout the country. Transcending internal differences, Afghans poured into streets in protest and some began marching towards Torkham to render support to the Afghan National Army. A video clip has gone viral on the social media, showing a group of men, claiming to belong to the Taliban forces, declaring war on Pakistan and urging others to join in defending Afghanistan's honour and territorial integrity. Yet others think that Pakistan was testing the waters and was trying to take advantage of what it perceived as a vulnerable moment in Afghanistan. A year that has been marked with the highest military and civilian casualty figures and increased political discord in Kabul would probably be an opportune time to settle the disputed border issue. In either case, Pakistan's calculus proved wrong. The seemingly disarrayed, multiethnic Afghan nation came together and showed a common aversion to their aggressive neighbour. Beyond a show of unity in the face of foreign aggression, however, the phenomenon signals a wider shift of dynamics in the two neighbours' historically thorny relationship. The majority of Afghans believe that since the days of the Afghan resistance against the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, Pakistan has been playing a ruthless game of manipulation with both the Afghans and their largest benefactor, the US. Some argue that Pakistan's interference in Afghan's internal affairs is driven by its insecurity about the Durand Line, the disputed border demarcation upon which the Torkham crossing sits. As soon as Kabul accepts it as the official dividing line, the argument goes, Pakistan will stop its meddling. Pakistan's ambitions, however, are greater. Their doctrine of gaining "strategic depth" in Afghanistan, which is justified by their fear of an attack from India, is one of the reasons for Islamabad's relentless efforts to install a puppet government in Kabul. The ISI intelligence agency's grossly misguided Taliban project eventually gave birth to various groups of Pakistani Taliban, the survival of al-Qaeda and the harbouring of various Central Asian and Chinese radical groups. But Pakistan could not have become a godfather of sorts to most of the world's terrorist organisations had it not been for the puzzling acquiescence, over the past 15 years, of the United States. Whether it was a case of prolonged underestimation, a strong and generous Pakistani lobby in Washington, or simply a chaotic AfPak strategy - or lack thereof - the US did not challenge Pakistan's behaviour in any serious and consistent manner. Since 2002, the average annual US aid to Pakistan has been roughly $2bn. In 2010 alone, Pakistan received about $4.5bn in military and development aid from the US. Yet, public opinion polls in Pakistan show that the majority of Pakistanis view the US as an enemy. But, finally this spring, American policy-makers felt the fatigue from Islamabad's double games. In March, the US Congress began to voice doubts about the continuation of the flow of US aid to Pakistan. Congress passed a bill imposing strict conditions on a $450m aid package to Pakistan and opposed the financing of eight F-16 jet fighters that would be granted to Pakistan through the Foreign Military Financing scheme. Other disconcerting events of late include the US shift of policy, indicating the end of favouritism to Pakistan, and the opening of Chabahar port, a collaboration of Iran, India and Afghanistan that could isolate Pakistan in regional trade activities. The Afghans' reaction to the recent border incident represents the culmination of over three decades of frustration with Pakistani malfeasance. They have fought the British and Soviet empires against all odds. If pressured and humiliated further, the Afghans might take on Pakistan. While the killing of the former Taliban leader, Mulla Mansour, the imposition of conditions on aid to Pakistan and the expansion of military role in Afghanistan are positive signals in the US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, staying the course will be the determining factor in changing Pakistan's behaviour. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #4 Iran has been playing footsie with Pakistan, too, as I recall. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2016-06-21 14:00 |
| #3 The Chinese have been backing the Paks for decades. It doesn't get any play because they've been a) circumspect about it and b) investing in Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2016-06-21 11:24 |
| #2 Pakistan and their benefactor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia KSA being more widely heralded than the Pak's Chinese benefactors. Please see the Kissinger Foundation for additional reading. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-06-21 10:42 |
| #1 Pakistan and their benefactor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have played us for fools since 9/11. Bush and Obama are both responsible. If Clinton wins...this will continue. The Pakistani ISI trained, directed and funded the Taliban that fought us in Afghanistan - acts of war. They rape our supply lines with impunity - and we intentionally turn a blind eye - an act of stupidity on our part. They consider us fools. |
| Posted by: Tennessee 2016-06-21 10:36 |