Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Afghanistan

Afghanistan

A creative mind? An early assessment of Modi’s foreign policy

by

By Zoha Waseem:

As Narendra Modi prepares to depart for the 6th summit of BRICS during what will be the Indian Prime Minister’s first international appearance since being voted into office in May this year, many will observe closely to dissect his meetings with his Brazilian, Russian, Chinese and South African counterparts. Modi’s foreign policy, a matter that has been the subject of much speculation, was also the subject of the Chairman of the Indian National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) and former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran’s talk at King’s College London, ‘Indian Foreign Policy under Prime Minister Modi: An early assessment’, on Friday, July 11. On the domestic front, Mr. Modi has been blatantly vocal and articulate about his goals for India, but his intentions towards the Asian neighbourhood have been less transparent. Mr. Saran, who holds a commendable record as a respected Indian diplomat for four decades now, attempted to break these down.

After acknowledging the positive developments between India’s relations with Bhutan and Bangladesh, Mr. Saran turned his focus to her dynamics with Washington. The negative legacy of this relationship, and a certain amount of bitterness that lingers on between the two countries, was worsened by the decade-long visa restriction irritant (which was quickly reversed following Modi’s victory). Despite this, Mr. Saran observed, the United States is bound to remain a preferred partner for India, although Modi’s visit to the US later this year will reveal more on this account.

This brings us to another key question: how will India deal with China? In Modi’s views, previous Indian governments have taken a weak posture towards China, which needs to be changed. Under Modi, India is likely to have a more robust stance that will safeguard Indian interests first but, according to Saran, will be balanced with a stronger economic relationship as the Prime Minister has long been fascinated by the Chinese economic model, which could be an area he would likely want to expand upon

Mr. Saran argued that to strengthen the defence policy vis-à-vis China, India is likely to build closer relations with the US and Japan. There is thus a possibility of stronger security ties with Tokyo, coupled with a furtherance of shared defence interests, while maintaining the slowly developing industrial relations ahead.

The possibility of regional cooperation with China is also going to be influenced by the Pakistan factor. By Mr. Saran’s analysis, although the Chinese have been previously unwilling to speak about Pakistan with India, this attitude is gradually changing. While Mr. Saran did not specify to what extent this is going to be discussed between the two neighbours, it can be assumed that Chinese grievances with Pakistan for not taking stronger action against the Uyghur militants affiliated with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), on the territory bordering China, is likely to be a common ground for discussions between New Delhi and Beijing.

Despite Mr. Saran’s optimism, Modi should not be quick in expecting a frank cooperation from China as the latter’s relationship with Islamabad – fair-weathered as it may be on security matters – is unlikely to be strained on economic and energy fronts.

While Modi’s policies vis-à-vis East Asia will be moulded long-term, Afghanistan is likely to be a critical and immediate issue in the foreseeable future, which will naturally influence the Indo-Pak relationship ahead.

On the non-military foundations of this relationship, Islamabad has requested for the supply of power and petroleum from India. This request, as per Saran, made by the civilian government may not be something the Pakistani army is particularly happy about. Regardless, ties between the two governments are going to remain a subject of apprehension ahead of the uncertainty surrounding what might happen in Afghanistan.

Concerning military assistance to Kabul, Mr. Saran maintained that while India is going to continue providing aid and training to the Afghan military and police forces, boots on ground is not an option New Delhi is likely to pursue.

Coming to the pressing question of the terrorist threat from Pakistan, Mr. Saran referred to previous statements from Delhi that have recognised that Pakistan’s internal threat of terrorism is far greater than otherwise understood abroad. But while there are efforts on the part of the Pakistani army to fight non-state actors in North Waziristan, India – like many within Pakistan – is concerned about the lack of efforts being made to target groups that have particular agendas against her.

Coincidentally, Saran’s concerns on this regard were voiced at King’s soon after a seminar was held at the Lahore High Court by Hafiz Saeed in which the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief, while praising Operation Zarb-e-Azb (the on-going Pakistani military’s operation against terrorists in North Waziristan, FATA), said that the United States and NATO are ‘bound to be defeated in this region’. This was Saeed’s second address to the Lahore High Court this year. In May, he was invited as a chief guest at the Lahore High Court Bar Association. One month later, the US blacklisted JuD as a foreign terrorist organisation and a charity front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Mr. Saran warned that despite a willingness in India to push ahead with the peace dialogue with Pakistan, should there be another Mumbai-style attack on its soil, orchestrated by any group in Pakistan, the ability to take the Indo-Pak friendship forward would be stalled once again and the forbearance shown by the Indian Congress – the previous administration – may not be likely anymore. The Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) government has already made clear its intentions towards taking a robust response to any terrorist attack. Whether this is pure political rhetoric or a strategy that will be practised, are theories that can only be tested should New Delhi be confronted with the repeat of such an event. Only then will Modi’s threshold be truly gauged.

Moving on to the Gulf, Mr. Saran analysed that the region is important to India for two reasons. First, the obvious remittance factor, and second, most importantly, the threat of sectarian conflicts spilling over to India. The risk of the latter is being realised by a couple of recent developments in Iraq: the abduction of 46 Indian nurses by ISIS in Tikrit (released last week) and the kidnapping of 39 Indian construction workers near Mosul in June.

The growing sectarian divide in the Gulf region (coupled with that in Pakistan), according to Mr. Saran, poses risks for an otherwise peacefully co-existing Sunni-Shia population of India (its peaceful coexistence has by no means been an absolute condition and should be read here in relation to and in comparison with that in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the broader Middle East). While there have been no major recent sectarian struggles in India, there have been a few sporadic clashes erupting. This is likely to be further aggravated by the fact that recent news now reveals that at least 18 Indian citizens have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight as ‘jihadis’.

Asked if Modi’s lack of experience on the international stage could hamper India’s foreign relations, Mr. Saran assured that even during his tenure as Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi had made several visits to China, Japan and other countries. Besides Nehru, not many Indian prime ministers have had foreign exposure prior to being voted into office, but they have been assisted by selected advisors. Moreover, as was demonstrated by his invitation to Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for his swearing-in ceremony, Mr. Saran insisted that Narendra Modi has ‘a creative mind’, implying that Modi’s lack of past presence in Delhi and abroad should not be taken for granted.

 

________________

Mr. Shyam Saran was hosted at King’s College London by the Department of War Studies and King’s India Institute.

Zoha Waseem is a PhD researcher in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London and Associate Editor at Strife. You can follower her on Twitter @ZohaWaseem.

Back in the fold? Canada's tentative re-engagement with NATO

by

By Zachary Wolfraim:

nato-flag-w-istock

Amid the increasing tensions with Russia, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s meeting on 5 May with the head of NATO’s military operations, General Philip Breedlove along with the recent deployment of 6 F-18s to Romania have garnered some Canadian press attention. This represents some of the highest-level contact between the Canadian government and NATO leadership in some time. The question is, does this signal a Canadian re-engagement with NATO?

Since Canada’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011, there has been a marked disengagement with the alliance, the hints of which came while Canada was still engaged in Kandahar. The decision to deploy Canadian forces there, motivated by undoubtedly honest intentions, nonetheless placed a heavy strain on a force not really designed for a long-term overseas combat deployment. The challenge of stabilizing southern Afghanistan was underestimated by allies and the casualties among the deployed nations attest to the grim and thankless challenge. With years of blood and treasure spent in southern Afghanistan and trying to muster greater commitment to the operation from NATO Allies, Canadian policymakers had seemed fed up.

After continually hammering allies over burden sharing and finding no relief for their forces in Kandahar, the Canadians faded into NATO’s background, still present, but not nearly as forward-leaning, constructive or vocal as in years past. Beyond Afghanistan and Libya, there was no more Canadian engagement in any other NATO operations, be it Kosovo, counter-piracy off the coast of Somalia or elsewhere. The commitment to the Libya campaign, while not irrelevant, was done without fanfare which can be attributed to Harper’s tight control over diplomatic messaging. While quiet diplomacy can be positive, the lack of recognition in headquarters of Canada’s contribution adds to the perception of its diminishing NATO presence.

When coupled with Canada’s meagre presence in the International Military Staff, it further highlights how it has lost its informal presence around the Brussels headquarters and across the alliance. Moreover, Canada publicly withdrew from NATO’s aerial surveillance platform (Airborne Warning And Control System, AWACS) which it had previously supported. The withdrawal left the programme in limbo and upset its allies. On top of that, the withdrawal from the allied ground surveillance programme was also noticed as both of these happened as the Secretary General was pushing for more shared capabilities in the Alliance.

Undoubtedly, Harper’s move to support NATO against Russia is the right one, but as of yet it doesn’t represent a wholesale re-engagement with the alliance. NATO needed to send a clear message that the annexation of Crimea would evoke a notable transatlantic response and the deployment of US and Canadian assets to Europe helps underscore the alliance’s solidarity, To not respond to NATO requests for assets would have been damaging for the alliance and certainly upset a number of allies, perhaps most importantly the US and the UK. The current government has often accused previous Liberal administrations of offering hollow rhetoric and relying on its peacekeeping and ‘middle power’ traditions without offering concrete contributions. In this circumstance, the Canadian contribution, important as it is, needs to also support a robust diplomatic effort on the part of Canada focused on keeping the Alliance relevant and purposeful.

The deployment of F-18s to Romania and a frigate to support NATO’s Standing Maritime Naval Group in the Mediterranean is significant, but they need to be coupled with a diplomatic effort in NATO headquarters. Though it is unlikely to happen, the Harper government needs to offer some additional leeway to its diplomatic corps in order to let them not only ‘talk up’ Canada’s contribution, but also offer some significant experience and depth of knowledge.

This is an opportunity for Canada to once again exercise a level of leadership and agency in NATO and help shape its character for the year to come. It may not represent a new ‘overarching’ theme to Canadian foreign policy, but it will show allies that not only is it an active contributor to the defence of Europe, it is also proactive in ensuring the future transatlantic relevance of the alliance. As the past decade of foreign policy has demonstrated, it is not enough to wield the stick; speaking softly is also a requirement. The upcoming NATO summit in Wales and a lack of identifiable deliverables places a burden on the shoulders of the member nations to start articulating a vision for a post-Afghanistan phase. While this was previously conceived of as the transition from ‘NATO operational’ to ‘NATO prepared’ these plans, however nebulous they may be, will have required some alteration. Russia will certainly dominate the agenda, but for NATO to lose the capabilities it has developed in Afghanistan would also be tragic. The alliance has worked relatively successfully with militaries from around the world in Afghanistan and built relationships with many more. To see these partnership opportunities wither or disappear after 2014 would diminish the influence of NATO for years to come.

This should also give policymakers in Ottawa some pause and hopefully encourage a more serious contemplation of Canada’s foreign policy, which has been adrift for some time now. With elections next year there will be an opportunity to redefine Canada’s place in the world and encourage a deeper contemplation as to what that means for Canadian influence. Are they content to continue with ad hoc diplomacy or can they define priorities which not only defend and advance Canadian interests but also buttress an increasingly beleaguered Western international order?

 

_____________________

Zachary Wolfraim is a third year PhD student in the War Studies Department, King’s College London, where he focuses on the role of narratives in shaping foreign policy in relation to NATO operations. He previously worked as a consultant in NATO Headquarters on operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

‘The era of saving failed states is over’: The Afghan withdrawal and its regional implications, with special focus on Pakistan

by

by Zoha Waseem

Speaking at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) on Friday 17 January 2014, Ahmed Rashid, journalist and author of Taliban, Descent into Chaos, and most recently, Pakistan on the Brink, confidently asserted that the West will no longer be a major stakeholder in the Afghan region as ‘the era of saving failed states is over’. According to Rashid, all regional players must accept this and take responsibility instead of ‘weeping tears’ of betrayal or abandonment.

Another era of transitions

Rashid, addressing a gathering on the withdrawal from Afghanistan and its regional implications, argued that although the military transition in Afghanistan has been the primary focus of the West, it is the political and economic transitions that are more relevant in the short-term. He noted that the coming elections must give credibility to the next president (sans rigging); without a legitimate government, there may never be a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan between the government and the Taliban. This settlement, Rashid believes, will be the major deterrent to a multi-faceted civil war.

‘The Taliban are ripe for a peace settlement. There is a lobby for it within the Afghan Taliban. They are fed up of fighting, or living in Pakistan. They are fed up with al Qaeda. The older generation of Taliban understand that they cannot govern Afghanistan. [They] know that they are a basket case. Therefore, [they] need a peaceful power-sharing agreement.’

Just how supposed free-and-fair elections should take place during a ‘dodgy transition’ in a corrupt and battle-ridden country where everything is up for grabs is not a subject matter the speaker delved into.

Economically, Rashid reminds us, there has not been the creation of an indigenous economy, a reason that could deter the Taliban from taking over cities. ‘The Taliban are not in a position to take over cities. They need the cities for economic reasons. They will let the cities flourish and act sensibly.’ Rashid rejected the ‘Helmand paranoia in the UK’ (that the Taliban will re-enter their former provinces), arguing that it is only inevitable for them to return to their natural habitat.

‘Of course, they will come in. They come from Helmand; the population in Helmand is pro-Taliban; poppy production is allowed by the Taliban; and [their] families reside in Helmand too.’

‘A Pandora’s Box is about to be opened’

At the moment, Rashid believes, there is power equilibrium in the region as all stakeholders are taking a hands-off approach. Nevertheless, he warns us that should even one country interfere, it could disturb the delicate balance within the region. India and Pakistan are the most likely to play out their rivalries in Afghanistan; Iran does not want the Taliban coming into power, which could upset the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan dynamics in the country; Russia and Central Asian countries are equally nervous, having been left out of post-war negotiations. China appears to be uninterested in mediation, but is likely to step in for economic reasons once the conflict comes to an end.

In Rashid’s opinion, all regional players want stability in Kabul, especially Pakistan. ‘Backing Taliban for the second time will have a blowback in Pakistan’, he argued, as an insurgency across the border is likely to keep trickling into Islamabad’s territories. Because of this, current Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government has been working on bettering civil-military relations, as both organs of the state finally have a consensus for a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan.

For this, Pakistan (as well as the US) needs to speed up the facilitation of dialogue but efforts towards dialogue as part of the reconciliation have not been good, argued Ahmed Rashid. There appears to be a lack of clarity for Americans, Pakistanis, as well as Karzai.

‘More authoritarian regimes in [Islamic] states will emerge the West takes a hands off approach towards failed or failing states [and] if they don’t be careful with nation-building. Right now, the US do not have a clear agenda for the troops that are intended to remain in Afghanistan’.

A Pakistani official, who wishes to remain anonymous, addressed the Afghan question vis-a-vis Pakistan:

‘Pakistan has limited influence in Afghanistan. Pakistani army and the civilian government are on the same page. Pakistan does not have favourites in Afghanistan anymore [but] it does not want to abandon the Taliban [again]. But also, we don’t have Mullah Omar in our pocket.’

Much of Rashid’s analysis echoed that of other Pakistani analysts. Journalist Zahid Hussain, speaking at the London School of Economics in November 2013, rejected the theory that Islamabad has strategic depth in Afghanistan. Rather, Hussain claimed, it is the Afghan Taliban has that has strategic depth in Pakistan. Similarly, the Pakistani official quoted above and Ahmed Rashid both maintained that there is no longer a doctrine of strategic depth for the Pakistani army or state.

‘Fixing’ Afghanistan

Nevertheless, some of the arguments put forth by the speaker require further analysis. Rashid pointed that Afghanis have done nothing to fix themselves (‘What have Afghanis done to fix themselves? There is still intrinsic corruption – shameful!’), without clarifying how they should be expected to ‘fix themselves’. On elections, it seems that the speaker emphasised that the centre (Kabul) cannot hold unless the next government is legitimate. But can western-style, free-and-fair elections take place in Afghanistan, minus corruption and minus political agreements signed covertly?

Anatol Lieven, a professor at the Department of War Studies (King’s College London) writing for the New York Review of Books, has already pointed out that this view may be too idealistic.

‘The choice Afghanistan faces is not between some idealized version of Western democracy and a corrupt state; it is between a corrupt but more or less consensual Afghan state and the horrors of no state at all.’

Furthermore, Rashid highlighted the supposed desires of the Taliban to stop fighting and work towards improving their economic conditions. While it could be accepted that the insurgency may have reached exhaustion, to expect a group that is acknowledged historically as trained fighters, known to have battle in their blood and revenge in their code, to simply go home with weapons and work in the fields is unconvincing.

Lieven has also pointed out, like Ahmed Rashid, that there is no risk of the Taliban taking over Kabul, but, is less optimistic about how things may progress if the West disrupts its flow of cash.

‘US and international aid now account for around nine-tenths of the Afghan national budget… Today, we too have created an Afghan state and army that cannot survive without our help, and that will also disintegrate again into warlord anarchy if our help is withdrawn. The West has a deep moral and historical responsibility to make sure that this does not happen.’

Rashid also placed little emphasis on the Durand Line (the 2,640 kilometre border between Afghanistan and Pakistan): ‘It’s an issue, but I don’t think this is occupying people’s minds’. It is unclear why the question of the Durand Line has been sidelined, when it is still not recognised by the Afghan Taliban – and the Pakistani Taliban for that matter – who move freely between the porous territorial divisions. It also remains to be seen that, should there be a peace settlement with the Taliban, could it amount to the recognition of the Durand Line? If not, what is to stop the Pakistani Taliban from travelling across the Line, making Pakistani military efforts against its own militant groups in its tribal areas that much more futile? And without a clear understanding of how the Afghan Taliban seeks to deal with the Pakistan Taliban (and vice versa), can you reasonably expect all regional players to just sit tight?

 

_________________________
Zoha Waseem is a PhD researcher in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. You can follower her on Twitter @ZohaWaseem.

Film Review: Dirty Wars

by

by Zoha Waseem

The Guardian described it as one of the most important political films in two decades, while The Independent called it the most effective film since All the President’s Men. Jeremy Scahill’s script for Dirty Wars, based on his book Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, peels apart layers of secrecy and unaccountability shrouded under cloaks of expensive national security measures in order to expose America’s covert operations and the increasingly notorious Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). The film depicts how the US directs conflicts around the world in a war that seemingly ‘has no end’. Dirty Wars is not an easy watch, and it leaves you more than a little uncomfortable.

The film opens in Kabul, Afghanistan, narrated by Scahill, an investigative reporter and author of the book of the same name. It takes the viewers through warm hues and sepia tones to Gardez, in the province of Paktia, where in February 2010 US-trained Police Commander Mohammad Daood and two pregnant women were gunned down late at night during a family gathering celebrating the birth of a new-born. NATO said the women killed were victims of Taliban honour-killings, but Daood’s family members, also attending the gathering that night said the shooters were men from the US forces who had later also assaulted survivors. In response, one American General simply stated that these civilians just happened to be ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’.

Scahill’s investigation into what one survivor of this raid called the ‘American Taliban’, leads him to uncover the then little known JSOC. The then commander of JSOC, William McRaven – who later tried to offer a sheep as compensation for the deaths – was ultimately suspected to be involved in the raid on Gardez that night. Under US President Obama’s orders, JSOC has been given unprecedented authority for covert military operations. Formed in 1980 in the aftermath of Operation Eagle Claw, the failed hostage recovery mission in Iran, JSOC was the very unit responsible for the coordination of Operation Neptune Spear which led to the Abbottabad raid of 1 May 2011, killing Osama Bin Laden.

By Scahill’s estimates, US special operations and interventions have expanded the Global War on Terror to 75 countries. During the course of this film, we are taken into Yemen where Anwar al-Awlaki, the one-time go-to Imam for the United States and an advocate of democracy turned rogue (following the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003)), became the first American civilian placed on the drone kill-list. Voice recordings of Awlaki and Obama are played simultaneously, and repeatedly, during the coverage of this operation. ‘Mirror images of each other’, Scahill narrates them to be.

While Scahill’s investigations may be met with dubious voices and harsh criticisms, and his efforts undermined in the same manner as those of other activists, it goes without saying that Scahill’s script succeeds in breathing morality into even the most critical observer. The soul of his film rests in testimonies gathered from families of victims such as members of Awlaki’s family who suffered the loss of his 16-year-old son in a simultaneous drone strike. This second attack seemed to have been a preventive strike, in case the son was to grow up and take on his father’s role. Further, interviews with former warlords of Somalia, supposedly on US payrolls and Scahill’s own conscience which remains at the centre of his storytelling strengthen the script of this film.

Though depicting the human side of war and violence, Scahill makes no half-hearted attempts of providing solutions to the war on terror. Instead, he solemnly voices the concerns of the masses, in that it is likely to go on for a very long time.

‘Our job is to go to the other side of the barrels of guns and the other side of missiles and talk to the enemies. Our job is not to be nationalists. Obama’s administration has targeted more whistle-blowers under the Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined’, said Jeremy Scahill while addressing an audience following a screening of Dirty Wars at Birkbeck University in London. ‘Mr Nobel Peace Prize Winner’, he mocks, ‘is presiding over a global assassination programme’.

Dirty Wars (dir. by Richard Rowley) premièred in the UK 29 October 2013.

Zoha Waseem is a PhD researcher in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. You can follower her on Twitter @ZohaWaseem.