AFP | AP August 22, 2017
President Donald Trump cleared the way for the deployment of thousands more US troops to
Afghanistan on Monday, backtracking from his promise to swiftly end America's longest war,
while pillorying ally Pakistan for offering safe haven to “agents of chaos”.
In his first formal address to the nation as commander-in-chief, Trump discarded his previous
criticism of the 16-year-old war as a waste of time and money, admitting things looked
different from “behind the desk in the Oval Office”.
“My instinct was to pull out,” Trump admitted as he spoke of frustration with a war that has
killed thousands of US troops and cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars.
But following months of discussion, Trump said he had concluded “the consequences of a
rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable” and leaving a “vacuum” that terrorists
“would instantly fill”.
While Trump refused to offer detailed troop numbers, senior White House officials said he
had already authorised his defence secretary to deploy up to 3,900 more troops to
Afghanistan.
A conflict that began in October 2001 as a hunt for the 9/11 attackers has turned into a
vexed effort to keep Afghanistan's divided and corruption-hindered democracy alive
amid a brutal Taliban insurgency.
Trump warned that the approach would now be more pragmatic than idealistic.
Security assistance to Afghanistan was “not a blank check” he said, warning he would
not send the military to “construct democracies in faraway lands or create democracies
in our own image”.
“We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists.”
Trump indicated that single-minded approach would extend to US relations with troubled
ally Pakistan, which consecutive US administrations have criticised for links with the
Taliban and for harbouring leading militants.
“We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organisations,” he
said, warning that vital aid could be cut.
“We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are
housing the very terrorists that we are fighting,” he said. “That will have to change and
that will change immediately.”
Ahead of the speech, the Pakistan Army had brushed off speculationthat Trump could
signal a stronger line against Islamabad, insisting the country has done all it can to
tackle militancy.
“Let it come,” Inter-Services Public Relations Director General Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor told
reporters, referring to Trump's decision. “Even if it comes... Pakistan shall do whatever
is best in the national interest.”
In advance of the announcement, Vice President Mike Pence called Afghan President
Ashraf Ghani and Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made calls to his Pakistani,
Indian and Afghan counterparts.
Trump for the first time also left the door open to an eventual political deal with the
Taliban. “Someday, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to
have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan,”
he said.
“But nobody knows if or when that will ever happen,” he added, before vowing that
“America will continue its support for the Afghan government and military as they
confront the Taliban in the field”.
His Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went further, saying the US would “stand ready
to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without
preconditions”.
While wary of international entanglements, Trump has also been eager to show
success and steel in the realm of national security. As president, he has surrounded
himself with military generals — from his national security advisor to his chief of
staff to his defence secretary — who have urged him to stay the course.
The Trump administration had originally promised a new Afghan plan by mid-July,
but Trump was said to be dissatisfied by initial proposals to deploy a few thousand
more troops.
His new policy will raise questions about what, if anything, can be achieved by
making further deployments, or repeating the demands of previous administrations
in more forceful terms.
In 2010, the United States had upwards of 100,000 US military personnel deployed
to Afghanistan. Today that figure is around 8,400 US troops and the situation is as
deadly as ever.
More than 2,500 Afghan police and troops have been killed already this year.
“The Afghan government remains divided and weak, its security forces will take
years of expensive US and allied support to become fully effective, and they may
still lose even with such support,” said Anthony Cordesman of The Center for
Strategic and International Studies.
Hours before Trump's remarks there was a stark reminder of the Taliban's reach,
when a missile landed on a field in Kabul's heavily fortified diplomatic zone.
Much of Trump's address on turning around America's longest war sounded familiar,
not least on the need for Pakistan to crack down on Taliban fighters seeking
sanctuary across Afghanistan's border.
More surprising was Trump's call on India and how he linked Afghanistan to totally
separate US-Indian trade matters.
Trump said the US appreciates India's important contributions to Afghan stability.
But he lamented that India “makes billions of dollars in trade with the United
States.” He said he wants India to provide more economic assistance and
development to Afghanistan.
Trump's announcement comes amid a month of serious turmoil for his
administration, which has seen several top White House officials fired and
revelations that members of Trump's campaign are being investigated by a federal
grand jury.
He sought in his address to convince Americans weary of his controversial off-the-
cuff remarks. He also sought to pre-empt a backlash from his base who shared his
previous disdain for military entanglements on foreign soil.
“I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle,” he said,
hoping to show he has sufficiently pondered the decision to send more young
Americans into mortal danger.
One of the main voices arguing for withdrawal, Trump's nationalistic chief strategist
Steve Bannon, was removed from his post on Friday.
His strategy did, however, win over national security-focused Republicans with
whom he has had strained relations.
Senator John McCain described the strategy
as “a big step in the right direction”.
Democrats meanwhile voiced concern with what House minority leader Nancy
Pelosi called “an open-ended commitment of American lives with no accountability
to the American people”.
“President Trump says there will be no ceiling on the number of troops and no
timeline for withdrawal,” she said.
Curtsey:DAWN.COM,August 22,2017
Donald Trump unveils his Afghanistan policy to win a war that has stretched
for over 16 years, calling out Pakistan for its continuous harbour to terrorist
organisations while vowing stronger ties with India.
By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | August 22, 2017
U.S. President Donald Trump announces his strategy for the war in Afghanistan during an address from Fort Myer.
(Source: Reuters)
After months of speculation and delays over his plans about Afghanistan, US President
Donald Trump finally unveiled his strategy to win a war which has stretched over 16
years. Targetting Pakistan for its safe harbour to terrorism over the years, Trump said
that America needs to change its approach in dealing with Pakistan, “We cannot be
silent about Pakistan’s safe heaven for terror groups.” He was addressing Army troops
at Fort Myer.
Identifying Pakistan as a refuge state to terrorism the President said, “Pakistan often
gives safe havens to agents of chaos, violence and terror.” Trump went on to add
that more than 20 US designated terror organisation are active in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, the highest concentration in any region anywhere in the world.
Taking a strong stance against Pakistan, Trump said, “Pakistan has much to gain
from our efforts in Afghanistan and it has much to loose by continuing to harbour
criminals and terrorists. It has sheltered the same organisations that try every
single day to kill our people.” Stressing that things will have to change Trump
said that America has been paying Pakistan billions of dollars while at the same
time they are housing terror organisation that America is fighting, “but that will
have to change immediately.”
Recognising India’s critical role in furthering peace and security in the south Asia region,
Trump appreciated India’s contribution to stability in Afghanistan saying, “We want
India to help us more with Afghanistan in the area of economic assistance and
development and in the broader indo-pacific region.”
Talking about the simmering tensions between India and Pakistan, Trump said,
“The threat is worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose
tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict, and that could happen.” Trump
unveiled his approach towards Afghanistan by vowing to continue the fight to avoid
any “predictable and unacceptable” results of a rapid and sudden withdrawal of
troops from the country.
Calling himself a “problem solver”, Trump said that he inherited a “bad and very
complex hand.” Acting completely opposite to his views as expressed during the
presidential campaign of pulling out from Afghanistan which was an unsolvable
quagmire, Trump said that the decision to pull off might create a vacuum that
terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS could instant fill just as happened
before September 11. Attacking former president Barack Obama for pulling out
“hastily” from Iraq, Trump said that due to those policies Iraq “slipped back into
the hands of terrorists, enemies, and we cannot repeat in Afghanistan our leaders
made in Iraq.” He added, Working alongside our allies we will break their will, dry
up their recruitment, keep them from crossing our border, yes we will defeat them.”
Expressing that American interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan are clear, Trump said,
“We must stop the resurgence of safe heavens that enable terrorist to threat America,
and we must prevent Nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of
terrorists and being used against us or anywhere in the world.”
Saying that the American support to Afghanistan is not a “blank cheque” Trump said
that the strategy in Afghanistan will now shift from time based approach to one based
on conditions. Without revealing the number of troops to remain stationed in
Afghanistan or figures of new deployment in the mountainous country, Trump said,
“We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities,
conditions on ground not arbitrary time table will guide our strategy.”
Expressing that it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future
trump said We are partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people
how to live or govern their own complex society.”
Trump’s speech after months of speculation, revealed a renewed strategy by Pentagon
in Afghanistan which had been advocating to stay in the country to ensure that Afghan
lands are not used as a terror heaven to threaten America again.
President Trump will outline the policy in a televised speech - only the
second of his time in office - from Fort Myers Base in Virginia to an audience
of soldiers and their families.
Written by Praveen Swami | New Delhi | August 22, 2017
President Trump will outline the policy in a televised speech – only the second of
his time in office – from Fort Myers Base in Virginia to an audience of soldiers and
their families.
United States President Donald Trump’s new policy on the war in Afghanistan, scheduled
to be announced late on Monday night, is likely to include a series of measures designed
to coerce Pakistan’s military and intelligence services to abandon their support of the
Taliban and its affiliated jihadist networks, two separate Washington DC-based government
sources have told The Indian Express.
Few operational details of the new strategy are expected to be spelt out in the speech,
but the sources said the President could signal his willingness to destroy jihadist
infrastructure beyond Afghanistan’s borders – in practice, by escalating drone strikes in
Pakistan’s north-west, as well as special forces raids.
President Trump will outline the policy in a televised speech – only the second of his time
in office – from Fort Myers Base in Virginia to an audience of soldiers and their families.
His speech is also expected to announce a modest increase in troop numbers, and reaffirm
its financial commitment to the Afghan military’s counter-terrorism campaign.
The speech is being watched closely by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s national security
advisors, who have been telling the United States that the fall of the Afghan government
will destabilise south and central Asia.
President Trump’s decision was made at a Friday meeting on Afghanistan, where the hard
line counselled by his National Security Advisor, Lieutenant-General Herbert McMaster,
prevailed over more cautious voices, the sources said. A veteran of the Afghanistan war,
McMaster has long argued that the Taliban cannot be defeated unless Taliban infrastructure
inside Pakistan is shut down.
Following a meeting with Pakistan Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa in April, McMaster
publicly chastised the country’s leaders, saying that “the best way to pursue their interests
in Afghanistan and elsewhere is through diplomacy, not through the use of proxies that
engage in violence”.
Lisa Curtis, Senior Director for South and Central Asia at the National Security Council, was
among those who backed McMaster on Friday, the sources said, arguing that punitive
elements were needed to change Pakistan’s policies on Afghanistan, a source familiar with
the discussions said.
Early in August, Curtis had met with National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Foreign
Secretary S Jaishankar, on a low-profile visit to New Delhi, for talks on regional security
issues.
The meeting on Friday, the sources said, saw Defence Secretary Jim Mattis lead discussions,
presenting President Trump with a series of options, ranging from the status quo, to plans
for an extended, aggressive commitment in Afghanistan. Plans for imposing a variety of
sanctions to punish Pakistan for supporting the Taliban, and rewards for its cooperation,
were also discussed in detail.
“I am very comfortable that the strategic process was sufficiently rigorous,” Defence
Secretary Jim Mattis said en route to Jordan, where he is scheduled to meet with the
country’s King Abdullah.
Friday’s meeting was preceded by a palace coup which saw the exit of President Trump’s
chief strategist, Steve Bannon, a controversial far-right figure who had argued against
further commitment to the war in Afghanistan. Trump’s son-in-law and key advisor Jared
Kushner was also absent, in a sign the President had chosen to lean on processional
military and intelligence advice.
President Trump had earlier been expected to provide strategic directions on Afghan policy
to the commander of United States forces in Afghanistan, Gen John Nicholson, by mid-July.
Instead, on July 19, the President reportedly sought to sack General Nicholson, demanding
to know why the 16-year-old war had not been won, and sought “out of the box” ideas
from his staff.
In its most recent report to the United States Congress, the Special Inspector-General for
Afghan Reconstruction reported that the Taliban and its affiliate now control 11 districts
and influence 34 of Afghanistan’s 407 districts, or some 11% of the country’s territory,
while the Afghan government controls 97 districts and influences 146 districts, some 60%
of the country’s territory.
Helped by a string of rural bases stretching from Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, Zabul and
Ghazni, the Taliban are increasingly able to threaten provincial capitals – even though
jihadists remain unable to hold them for sustained lengths of time.
Though the war is described by most experts as having reached a level of stalemate, Afghan
National Security Advisor Hanif Atmar said the country’s military was losing 29 soldiers a day
in combat – levels most experts concur are unsustainable in the long run.
Naveed Siqqidui
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. ─AFP/File
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Tuesday reaffirmed Beijing's support to Pakistan during
a meeting with Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua hours after US President Donald Trump
lambasted Pakistan for allegedly offering safe haven to "agents of chaos" in his South Asia
policy announcement.
Earlier, as Beijing came to Islamabad's defence in light of Trump's remarks, Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying asserted that Pakistan was on the front line in the
struggle against terrorism and had made "great sacrifices" and "important contributions" in
the fight, according to a Foreign Ministry handout.
Chunying called on the international community to recognise Pakistan's role in the fight
against terrorism.
During Tuesday's meeting in China, Yi and Janjua agreed that Pakistan and China would
continue cooperating with each other closely in efforts to establish peace in Afghanistan.
They emphasised the importance of the trilateral Afghanistan-China-Pakistan foreign
ministers' forum, which was established in June when Yi visited Islamabad on a mission to
defuse tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The trilateral forum is apparently meant to sustain Beijing’s mediation space in Pak-
Afghan disputes.
During their meeting, Janjua and Yi also discussed bilateral relations between China and
Pakistan, regional and global issues and the situation in India-held Kashmir.
Reiterating Chunying's statement, Yi lauded Pakistan's contributions and sacrifices in the
fight against terrorism, adding that the international community should fully recognise
these efforts.
Janjua highlighted the importance of Pak-China friendship and reaffirmed Pakistan's support
to China on all issues.
The foreign secretary said that the recent visit of Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang on the
occasion of Pakistan's 70th Independence Day anniversary, during which he addressed a
flag-hoisting ceremony in Islamabad, further solidified the time-tested friendship between
Pakistan and China.
Curtsey:DAWN.COM, August 22, 2017
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson speaks during a briefing at the Department of State on August 22 in Washington,
DC.— AFP
The United States warned an angry Pakistan on Tuesday that it could lose its status as a
privileged military ally if it continues giving safe haven to Afghan militant groups.
One day after President Donald Trump unveiled a new strategy to force the Taliban to
negotiate a political settlement with the Kabul government, his top diplomat upped the
heat on Islamabad.
Trump had warned that Pakistan's alleged support for the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani
extremist network would have consequences, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has now
spelled these out.
“We have some leverage,” Tillerson told reporters, as he fleshed out Trump's speech, “in
terms of aid, their status as a non-Nato alliance partner — all of that can be put on the table”.
As one of 16 “Non-Nato Major Allies”, Pakistan benefits from billions of dollars in aid and has
access to some advanced US military technology banned from other countries.
This year, the US has already withheld $350 million in military funding over concerns Pakistan
is not doing enough to fight terror, but the alliance itself was not in question.
Tillerson said Washington wants to work with Pakistan as it expands its own support for Kabul
in the battle against the Taliban, but warned it to close alleged militant safe havens.
Some of Pakistan's critics in Washington have urged Trump to go further, by authorising US
strikes against militants inside Pakistan or declaring Pakistan a “state sponsor of terror”.
Officials have not yet brandished the designation threat, which could lead to severe sanctions
and legal threats to Pakistani officials, but Tillerson did not rule out strikes.
The US has hit targets within Pakistan before, most famously when Trump's predecessor
Barack Obama ordered US special forces to kill Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
“The president has been clear that we are going to attack terrorists wherever they live,”
Tillerson said.
“We have put people on notice that if you're providing safe haven to terrorists, be warned —
we are going to engage those providing safe haven and ask them to change what they
are doing.”
And Tillerson added that, aside from the Afghans, Pakistan has more to gain “than any
other nation” from an end to the fighting.
Both Tillerson and Trump also called on Pakistan's long-standing rival and fellow nuclear
power India to become more involved in Afghanistan, an idea that is anathema to
Islamabad.
Beyond the stand-off with Pakistan, Trump's new strategy also authorises US generals
to deploy more American troops to support Afghan government forces in what is now
a 16-year-old conflict.
The Foreign Office (FO) on Tuesday had rejected Trump's allegationsthat Pakistan offers
safe haven to "agents of chaos".
"As a matter of policy, Pakistan does not allow use of its territory against any country.
Instead of relying on the false narrative of safe havens, the US needs to work with
Pakistan to eradicate terrorism," it said in a statement.
Published in DAWN.COM, August 23, 2017
Nadia Naviwala
The writer is a Wilson Center Global Fellow and a former staff aide to a member of the
US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
DONALD Trump may not sound different from every other press statement and leaked
comment that has come out of Washington since 9/11, but this is a different Washington.
The populist House of Representatives that has made a tradition out of trying to cut aid
to Pakistan ever year now has the White House as a champion rather than a bulwark
against it. The Senate, where sound policy thinking usually prevails, is unsympathetic.
Then senator Carl Levin took the first step in 2015 when he successfully amended the
law, requiring the United States to hold back military aid if Pakistan failed to take
“sufficient action against the Haqqani network”. Amendments like this usually come
from the house and go nowhere. If passed into law, they are neutered: the president
can waive the requirement rather than make a determination. The Pressler
Amendment fell in this category. It was waived year after year. But Levin’s
amendment cannot be waived. For Levin, then chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, to take a hard line and succeed signalled that even sound minds
in Washington are reaching for sticks instead of carrots.
America’s problem is this: Pakistan can afford to walk away.
Sabre-rattling is typical of Congress, which has the final word on aid and sanctions,
allowing the president to play good cop. Trump is forcing a role reversal. This puts
Pakistan in a tough position. Pakistan has never had strong relationships in
Congress. The US-Pakistan relationship is one between executive branches,
including militaries. Now, Pakistan’s only allies might be parts of the State
Department, including diplomats in Islamabad, some think tanks, and senators
who will listen.
For those who just asked, what does the US military think? Trump just told you
what they think. In the US, the president is the commander-in-chief. Really.
A popular argument is that America cannot afford to alienate Pakistan. The
problem with this argument is that it is old, very old. Another argument is that
cooperation has been working lately. There have been positive overtures, with
senior US officials praising Pakistan’s progress. But it doesn’t count where it needs
to. The Defence Department has failed Pakistan on the Levin certification since it
became law. Last year, Obama’s defence secretary held back $300 million of $1
billion in Coalition Support Funds. This year, Trump’s defense secretary cancelled
$350m of $900m.
The problem for America is this: Pakistan can afford to walk away. A few hundred
million dollars isn’t much of a stick anymore. The China-Pakistan relationship is now
worth $110bn, with around $4bn expected this year. And those billions come easy.
For $900m, Pakistan endures a volatile, loveless affair with the US while China
offers billions without drama, as long as it promises that some government in the
future will pay them back later.
The smart thing for Trump to do would have been to warm up to China and manage
the relationship through them. China has a level of power and influence in Pakistan
now that the US never had. They also have a deep interest in getting Pakistan to
manage its militancy problem, but they are quiet in their diplomacy.
Pakistan made up its mind about the US and the Haqqani network long ago. The
grumbling in the US has been the same for over a decade: Pakistan is not going
after Haqqani. Trump’s national security team is still operating on the idea that US
money but can buy a strategic shift, but they ignore history. Pakistan has carried out
military operations, in Swat and Fata (Zarb-i-Azb), when it has felt the imperative,
not when the US has asked.
Trump’s strategy is high risk. It’s one thing to exit the region and get tough on
Pakistan. It’s another to dig your heels into the war in Afghanistan and then not
only get tough on Pakistan but go zero-sum with India. In a single speech, Trump
suggested abrogating America’s relationship with Pakistan and deepening it with
India. Trump set up the contrast by asking Pakistan to contribute to the values
that India represents: civilisation, order and peace. It wasn’t too different from
the black and white, ‘with us or against us’ coercive diplomacy of the post-9/11
Bush days. If America is re-committing to Afghanistan, it can’t afford to have an
alienated Pakistan next door and join hands with India in Afghanistan at the same
time. Pakistan’s paranoia is bad enough already.
Pakistan might placate the US in the short term. They are good at that. But in the
long run, little will change. Trump’s bluff can’t be called because he isn’t bluffing.
If Pakistan walks away, many will wish that they had done more to manage the
relationship.
The writer is a Wilson Center Global Fellow and a former staff aide to a member
of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Published in Dawn, August 24th, 2017
Zahid HussainUpdated
August 23, 2017
The writer is an author and journalist.
There is nothing in the new US policy laid out by President Donald Trump that can
bring the 16-year-long Afghan war to an end. The much-awaited strategy that links
Afghanistan with the US South Asia policy is likely to only deepen regional tensions.
The toughening stance on Pakistan may have serious repercussions for an already
troubled relationship between Islamabad and Washington.
Although Trump has said that US troops would not stay in Afghanistan for long,
there is certainly no clear exit plan. As in the past, the emphasis is on the military
solution that may keep the US involved in the Afghan war forever. Trump has not
specified the number of additional US forces being deployed there, but he has
already given the Pentagon approval for 3,900 soldiers thus bringing the total
American troop presence in the country close to 10,000.
This marks a complete turnaround in Trump’s election promise to pull out US troops
from Afghanistan. He seems to be getting the US more deeply engaged in what he had
earlier described as a futile war. It is apparent that he has given in to the pressure
from the American military establishment, though one tends to agree with him that
complete military withdrawal would have disastrous consequences for regional security.
Most US defence analysts agree that a surge in troops can only help in maintaining
the existing stalemate. The new American strategy has come at a time when the
Afghan Taliban insurgents have expanded their influence to over 40 per cent of the
country that is plagued by rising internal political discord.
There still seems to be no realisation in the Trump administration about the seriousness
of the Afghan situation. It will not be easy for the US forces to contain the Taliban
advance and to maintain the status quo for a longer period. What is most alarming is
the spread of the insurgency even to regions in north Afghanistan that were previously
considered secure.
Diplomacy and political options are clearly not a priority for the Trump administration.
It has been the bloodiest year in Afghanistan in terms of civil and military casualties
since the US invasion in 2001. The rising spectre of the militant Islamic State group
and daring terrorist attacks, claimed by the network, have worsened the security
situation. The surge in US troops is not likely to shift the balance in the war
significantly. The surge is more of a patchwork effort than a serious attempt at
exploring the possibility of a political solution to the Afghan conflict.
Diplomacy and political options are clearly not a
priority for the Trump administration,
though there has been a fleeting mention of the administration’s willingness to begin
talks with the Afghan Taliban insurgents. There is certainly no road map for peace.
Like his predecessor Barack Obama, Trump has made it clear that the United States
will not be engaged in nation-building in Afghanistan.
But there is also no plan to stabilise the political and economic situation in
Afghanistan. The danger is that a confused and flawed policy may push the United
States much deeper into the Afghan quagmire and fuel regional tensions. While
assigning India a greater role, there is no plan to engage other neighbouring and
surrounding countries in the effort to resolve the Afghan conflict.
Not surprisingly, Trump reserved his strongest criticism for Pakistan. While
acknowledging Pakistan’s sacrifices and its efforts in fighting terrorism, he
declared this country a part of the problem too. It is perhaps for the first time
that a US president has, publicly, warned Pakistan of severe consequences if the
country does not take effective action against the alleged terrorist sanctuaries
along its borders.
It is not clear what kind of military and economic actions the US administration has
been considering. But such threats would not help win Pakistan’s support unless
Islamabad’s own national security concerns are addressed. Like the previous
administrations, the Trump administration too believes in unquestioned cooperation,
ignoring Islamabad’s interests completely.
What has made the situation for Pakistan more complicated is Trump’s policy of
getting India more deeply engaged in Afghanistan. Islamabad’s concerns about
India’s economic and strategic cooperation with Kabul may be exaggerated, but
the previous US administrations were careful not to encourage Delhi to expand its
role in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials contend that the Trump administration has
crossed the red line by making India a part of its Afghan strategy, though the Indian
authorities may not be too pleased by Trump’s remarks about their country getting
trade benefits from the US and not sharing the burden.
Interestingly, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan
Abbasi a few hours before Trump’s speech to convey a more nuanced message to
alleviate Pakistan’s concerns. But there are still lots of questions about the new
American policy of lumping South Asia with Afghanistan.
There is the implicit US threat of expanding action against the Afghan Taliban
insurgents to the Pakistani border regions. There is also a possibility of drone strikes
targeting alleged terrorist hideouts in the settled areas close to the tribal areas.
That will surely make things difficult for Pakistani authorities to win public support
for cooperation with the United States.
Indeed, one must not gloss over our own policy debacle and not getting our concerns
heard in Washington, and not putting our own house in order. It is a huge foreign
policy failure that during the past seven months we could not establish meaningful
contacts with the Trump administration. It also shows a crisis of leadership both in
civil and military spheres that we could never formulate a clear Afghan policy.
Our Afghan policy has largely been reactive and based on duplicity. We lost the
opportunity to improve relations with President Ashraf Ghani’s government in
Kabul. There is still no clarity on how we intend to deal with the new challenges
arising from the toughening American stance. The political instability in the
country has added to our foreign policy and national security problems.
Trump has declared that the US will strive for an ‘honourable’ resolution to the
Afghan war. But his strategy can neither win the war nor result in peace.
The writer is an author and journalist.:zhussain100@yahoo.com
Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2017
US President Donald Trump on Monday night demanded that Pakistan "stop
offering safe haven to agents of chaos” as he presented his policy for the 16-year-
long war in Afghanistan in his first formal address as commander-in-chief.
While inviting India to to provide more economic assistance and development to
Afghanistan, Trump discarded his previous criticism of America's longest war as
"a waste of time and money".
As Pakistan woke up to the US's visibly stronger stance on the country's role in
harboring terrorists, analysts and politicians weighed in on how Trump's policy
in the Afghan war, his invitation to India and demand from Pakistan to do more
could affect the country.
Journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai
"Is it not amazing that President Donald Trump is asking Pakistan to do more
in the war while he wants Pakistan’s enemy number one — India — to invest
in Afghanistan.
"If India is more actively involved, its grip will increase in Afghanistan,
creating a greater threat for Pakistan. How then will we be able to cooperate
with America in this war? I don’t think it is possible. In my opinion, Pakistan
will extend its cooperation in the matter, but to threaten or pressure it into
the decision is not smart.
"Trump does not believe in diplomacy; the tone he had in this address is the
only one he has and it leads to problems rather than conflict resolution.
"He says that he will win this 16-year-old war using different diplomatic,
political, economic and military means.
"One of Trump's intentions is to build pressure on Pakistan; he will make a
number of demands from us as he believes that America can win the war
in Afghanistan if Pakistan cooperates.
"However, he needs to understand that building pressure on Pakistan will
not lead to a swift resolution of this conflict; rather, it will only make
things worse."
PTI Chief Imran Khan
"Just as India blames Pakistan for the indigenous Kashmiri uprisings when
these are a result of its own failed policy of military repression in India-
held Kashmir, the US again blames Pakistan for its deeply flawed and
failed Afghan policy stretching over a decade.
"This should teach Pakistan once and for all a valuable lesson: never to
fight others' wars for the lure of dollars.
"We fought two wars in Afghanistan at the US' behest [while] paying
heavy human and economic costs both times. We sacrificed 70,000
lives in the US 'War on Terror'.
"Our economy suffered over $100 billion in losses. In addition, there
were intangible costs on our society. Time for Pakistan to say 'never
again'.
"We must also reject being made scapegoats for the policy failures
of US and India."
Journalist Zahid Hussain
"Toughening of the US stance will have serious ramifications for the two
sides [US and Pakistan].
"This is the first time a US president has threatened Pakistan directly since
we started participating in the 'War on Terror'.
"By assigning India a greater role in Afghanistan, the US has raised
serious concerns in Pakistan — something previous US administrations were
careful not to indulge in since we started helping in their war."
Analyst Zarrar Khuhro
"There are three ways to look at Trump’s new stance; domestically
speaking, whenever a US president realizes people have concerns that
they have failed to address, they use war as an effective tool to divert
attention — if we remember, Trump has done this before with the
missile strike on Syria.
"Tactically, for Pakistan, it is going to be more of the same — only
ramped up a notch.
"There is already a four-fold increase in drone strikes since Trump came
into office.
"We may also anticipate physical incursions into our lands as soon as the
US starts feeling that its policy is not effective — which will happen very
soon.
"We have already witnessed that all US efforts have failed in Afghanistan;
there is widespread corruption in lands and all of their efforts to build any
infrastructure have only made things worse.
"I think that they will see their policy fail very soon, and then try and amp
up the pressure on Pakistan using more of the same old tactics.
"Strategically speaking, Trump’s stance just speeds up the process for the
formation of alliances that we were already seeing being formed.
"We are witnessing closeness between the Trump administration and India.
However, I would caution India and tell them to not celebrate as yet as
Trump views his international relations in a very transactional manner.
"Pakistan’s alliance with the US is fast approaching its natural conclusion
as we align our interests with China more and more.
"Lastly, the South Asia we see at the moment is not the South Asia of 2001
— It is a totally different ball game. Russia has an interest in the region
now, China is fast emerging as a player, and one country that no one has
talked about in this scenario as yet is Iran.
"Iran has a growing interest in Afghanistan as well — it has been recruiting
Afghan shias to fight for its cause in the Middle East. On the other hand
Iran also has increasing links with the Afghan Taliban.
"Another thing that may happen — if Pakistan takes up the opportunity —
is an understanding between Pakistan and Iran.
"It is interesting that Iran's Armed Forces chief of staff General Mohammad
Hossein Bagheri visited Turkey, a common ally, last week.
"In conclusion: I believe, from the US, there will be more of the same for
Pakistan, if not slightly more amped up."
Analyst Nusrat Javeed
"President Donald Trump has made a clear-cut statement: he is not asking
us to do more, that time has passed — the American president is now
asking us to act or else…
"I anticipate more inland attacks on Pakistan besides the economic
sanctions that will soon be slapped on us."
PTI leader Asad Umar
"Trump is threatening to go back to an Afghan policy of troop buildup and
pressure on Pakistan — a policy which has failed to deliver in 16 years.
"As far as threat of sanctions are concerned, has anyone told Trump that
US flows to Pakistan are so small as to be nearly irrelevant?
"There is no solution in Afghanistan without bringing all its segments on
board and addressing the legitimate concerns that Pakistan has."
PPP senator Sherry Rehman
"US policy on Afghanistan doesn't sound new.
"But the administration is new, so its tactical plus geo-strategic moves
have amplified an old dogma to new levels.
"I'm sorry, but others need to 'do more' in Afghanistan, not Pakistan.
"I guess we were doing alright as long as [our] supply lines were needed."
Curtsey:DAWN.COM
AFP
United States (US) President Donald Trump has vowed success in Afghanistan,
but analysts say his strategy contains nothing new against enemies which his
predecessors could not defeat ─ a sobering assessment that points to endless
war for weary civilians.
The US and Afghan governments face formidable opponents in the ascendant
Taliban, weak and corrupt Afghan institutions and meddling regional powers ─
plus the growing menace of the militant Islamic State group.
The US president vowed to leave American boots on the ground indefinitely
while turning away from nation-building.
But his refusal to release details and define the conditions for victory have
raised fears America's involvement in the conflict may never end.
"Strategy is about matching means to ends. I think we heard a lot about ends
but rather little about means," James Der Derian, from the Centre for
International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, told AFP.
Trump backtracked from previous promises to end America's longest-ever war
during a primetime speech late Monday, paving the way for thousands more US
soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan.
While he refused to offer detailed troop numbers, senior White House officials
said he had already authorised US Defence Secretary James Mattis to deploy
up to 3,900 more troops to Afghanistan.
There are currently 8,500 US personnel in-country who are largely restricted to
NATO's mission of training the 190,000-strong Afghan army and offering strategic
support on certain missions.
Trump said withdrawing them would leave a "vacuum" that terrorists "would
instantly fill", but analysts said sending a few thousand extra soldiers would only
serve to deepen the American quagmire in the country.
"I'm sorry, but unless you are willing to commit 300,000 troops there's no filling
the vacuum. That's the harsh reality of Afghanistan... of counter-insurgencies in
general," said Der Derian.
"The Taliban can wait out another 4,000 troops. They have survived much worse,"
the security expert added, describing areas falling to insurgents and then being
recaptured again as "a whack-a-mole phenomenon".
Trump's remark that "conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables" would
guide strategy also met with scepticism from analysts, who questioned his long-
term plan for the war and what a victory would actually look like.
"The United States has not actually defined those conditions," Javid Ahmad, a
fellow at the Atlantic Council's South Asia Center, told AFP.
The Taliban, whose pockets have been lined with the profits from a bountiful
opium poppy trade, and other militant groups have seen their areas of control
or influence increase recently.
As of February only about 60 per cent of Afghanistan's 407 districts were
reported to be under government control, with the authorities in Kabul struggling
to counter the militants' resurgence, according to the US watchdog agency SIGAR.
Waqas Shabbir
By continuing the failed strategy and paradigm of the last 16 years, Trump has in
fact renewed his war against peace in Pakistan and China’s prospects to build a
New Silk Road
Donald Trump in his speech on Afghanistan scolded Pakistan for allegedly failing to
use its position effectively despite hefty financial backing of Pentagon. Trump
accused Pakistan of nurturing safe havens for terrorists and allowing them space to
operate successfully which eventually disrupts the peace process envisioned in
Afghanistan by America. In an attempt to present himself as more of a serious and
astute politician, Trump put forward his future strategy in Afghanistan and South
Asia. The US president delivered exactly what the US media and war mongers in
the country wanted.
Tump clearly parted ways with his campaign promise of withdrawing troops from
Afghanistan. After the swift departure of Steve Bannon - Trump’s chief strategist,
this was a major step taken away from the policy devised by Bannon and Trump.
It was evident from scathing response by the far-right news agency Brietbart
which accused the president of becoming a puppet of generals, after sanctioning
more troops to counter the Taliban, ISIS and Al Qaida in Afghanistan.
Continuously marred by controversies and deemed unfit to rule America, Trump
has been caught in a catch-22 situation. On one side, he has his populist support
base which will not be pleased with this shift in strategy as it contradicted the
campaign pledge on reducing the role of US military interventions abroad. Far-
right will want answers as he was elected on populist rhetoric which rejected the
stance of Obama administration on military adventures which were deemed
unwinnable. While on the flip-side, Trump has to fight the ever-plunging support
among the status-quo, amid the inquiry in to alleged role of Russians in facilitating
his election campaign. Fearing the looming crises, ongoing fiasco and humiliation
in White House, this opportunity presented him with a way to boost his credentials.
Trump has certainly ceased this opportunity, if one assesses the media’s favourable
reaction. Him aligning closely with India and presenting the case for India’s future
role in development of Afghanistan and lambasting Pakistan for doing so little (in
dismantling the terrorist networks) points clearly towards his government’s inability
to offer anything new as he repeated the rhetoric of his predecessors. Ironically, he
stated his “strategy will change dramatically” but analysis of his speech depicts that
he had nothing new to offer. This is simply a continuation of the older policy.
Following the footsteps of his predecessors; Bush and Obama, he wanted to give an
impression of change depicting a major shift in the policy but in fact it was the same
old story of ‘do more’, ‘threat of vacuum in case of hasty withdrawal’ and ‘seeking
an honourable exit’ to honour the tremendous sacrifices that have been made,
especially the sacrifices of lives’. Change was simply an illusion created to dodge
voters.
In reaction to Trump’s speech, Pakistan’s Ambassador to United States Aizaz Ahmad
has reaffirmed Pakistan’s stance that, ‘there are no safe havens for terrorists in
Pakistan’. He also regretted the US failure to acknowledge the huge sacrifices of
Pakistan in the war on terror. Similar statement was also issued by the country’s
Foreign Office which also reasserted Pakistan’s continuous efforts in combating
terrorism.
Though, Foreign Office was late to respond on the matter. However, China was quick
to put the record straight by backing Pakistan’s efforts in fighting terrorism as a
front line state. But, why did China respond promptly to rebut Trumps offensive
against Pakistan? Did Trump reprimanded Pakistan or indirectly it was China?
China has huge stakes in Pakistan’s sovereignty and its functioning as a safe country
which could facilitate its dream of creating a new Silk Road. China’s economy is on
track to overtake US economy in the next decade. The Sub-continent and Afghanistan
always had a pivotal importance in the global history. Even today, Pakistan is
instrumental in linking east with west through its geographical location. New Silk
Road of China (in the making) is to offer further prosperity to already growing China
and all the countries linked on its way to Europe. With prospects of new markets
opening, prompting close cooperation between Pakistan, Afghanistan and China,
economic hurdles for America will increase.Therefore, US disapproves this new
dawn as it will prove the lifeblood for the connected countries especially Russia.
For example, this new route will potentially bring cheaper and plentiful energy via
a new pipeline having a capacity of 950 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year
through Central Asia, Turkey from Russia Similarly, investment in railways will
increase the containers transported through train from 7,500 in 2012 to 7.5
million by 2020. China is willing to connect Paris, Berlin, Balkans, Moscow, central
Asian countries linking Iran with Pakistan. This will pave way for minerals, energy
sources and will connect the oceans with cities and will boost the volume of trade
sharply which will tilt the tides in favor of China.
Why would America want China to have access to resources to fulfill its economic
needs in the future? Any disruptions in the Silk Road plans could undermine
China’s economic supremacy. And America would never want China to succeed
in its ambitious plans.
Trump cannot be termed as shrewd or astute politician. He is too naïve for a
politician. Steve Bannon was right when he said Trump looks more like a puppet
of generals in the White House. Briefings by generals has certainly transformed
his opinion, no wonder he said in his speech, ‘all my life I heard that decisions
are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office’. Well, you
heard right Mr President because it is the status quo which runs America not
presidents like you. By continuing the failed strategy and paradigm of the last
16 years, Trump has in fact renewed his war against peace in Pakistan and
China’s prospects to build a New Silk Road.
Waqas Shabbir is a Derby Business School graduate in Finance, currently
working as a freelance writer having interest in South Asian and European
economics. He previously worked as a study advisor at University of Derby
The Nation: August 23,2017
Trump’s posturing on Pakistan is a gift to China
Instead of maintaining a policy of careful diplomacy, the US president’s attack
on the country has gifted China greater influence in an unstable region
‘Close ties are a problem for the US because it wants to use India to
counterbalance China’s rise in the region.’ Chinese soldiers parade during
Pakistan Day celebrations in Islamabad. Photograph: T. Mughal/EPA
‘Close ties are a problem for the US because it wants to use India to counterbalance China’s rise in the
region.’ Chinese soldiers parade during Pakistan Day celebrations in Islamabad. Photograph: T. Mughal/EPA
Wednesday 23 August 2017
Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, is not a man predisposed to smiling. And yet, as
I watched Donald Trump outline his Afghanistan strategy, I could easily imagine
his face lighting up. If there is one clear winner of the new approach in Afghanistan,
it is China.
The sternest rebuke in Trump’s speech was aimed at Pakistan. He called on
Islamabad to “demonstrate its commitment to civilisation, order and peace” and
said that the US could no longer stay silent about its “safe havens for terrorists”.
While previous administrations have also voiced concerns, Trump decided to skip
any subtlety and take a primetime dig at a non-Nato ally.
This is a serious strategic mistake. While Pakistan has harboured militants, its
role has also evolved. It helps the US and its allies fight al-Qaida and the Taliban.
It is also a crucial supply route for Nato troops in Afghanistan. The speech
threatens to push Pakistan closer to China and jeopardises the fragile civil-military
balance in the south Asian nation. In one speech, Trump has undone years of
careful diplomacy in the region.
Pakistan’s close relationship with China goes back to 1950, when it became one
of the first countries to recognise the new communist regime. The bonds are
now so close they pose a threat to Indian and US interests. Beijing is planning
to invest more than $55bn as part of the China-Pakistan economic corridor
and in March, its soldiers marched in a foreign parade during Pakistan’s
national day celebrations.
In a clear sign that Trump’s speech will bring the two even closer, China rushed
to defend its ally, saying Pakistan “is at the frontline of fighting terrorism”.
PML-N supporters in Multan, Pakistan, protest after Trump’s statement.
Photograph: Faisal Kareem/EPA
Close ties between China and Pakistan are a problem for the US because it wants
to use India to counterbalance China’s rise in the region. China supplies arms
and funds to Pakistan, partly to keep tensions high on its border with India. A
Pakistani ambassador to the US admitted as muchwhen he called his country
“a low-cost secondary deterrent to India”. With India distracted, China can then
grow unchallenged in the region. Keeping Pakistan on side and preventing China
from becoming its primary patron is thus crucial for the US.
The civilian government in Pakistan will also suffer because of Trump’s speech.
The military in Pakistan has used the threat of India as a bogeyman to get a
large slice of the budget and resist civilian meddling. Its influence has grown
so large that some local television stations have instituted a 30-second buffer
in live broadcasts to mute any criticism of the army.
The likelihood of a military coup in Pakistan would increase in the absence of
a strong benefactor supporting democracy
Recently, the US has been an ally for Pakistan’s civilian governments struggling
to rein in the army. A 2011 diplomatic crisis illustrates this: the then-Pakistani
ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, was forced to resign for compiling a
memo asking the US to help avert a coup by his own army. No such call would
ever go out to Beijing, because it has no soft spot for democracy. The likelihood
of a military coup in Pakistan would increase substantially in the absence of a
strong benefactor supporting democracy.
Finally, the speech was also counterproductive because of the call on India to
“help more with Afghanistan”. Inviting Pakistan’s nuclear rival to intervene in
Afghanistan is wholly counterproductive if the aim is to get Islamabad to back
off. What is more, any hint that India is expanding activities in Afghanistan –
militarily or otherwise – would again allow the Pakistani army to raise the
spectre of Indian encirclement and tilt the civil-military balance in its favour.
There is a reason diplomacy is generally bereft of loud posturing. It is
detrimental when dealing with complex issues, like an ally that is both wayward
and critical. Barack Obama understood this as US president, and pressed
Pakistan more subtly. Trump, as usual, has failed to grasp any nuance,
choosing posturing over real effective diplomacy. A maestro of own goals,
he has struck another one for US foreign policy.
• Abhishek Parajuli is Clarendon scholar at the University of Oxford and
Peter Martin fellow at the Financial Times
SOURCE:THE GUARDIAN:
HTTPS://WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM/COMMENTISFREE/2017/AUG/
23/TRUMP-PAKISTAN-CHINA-INFLUENCE-UNSTABLE-REGION
India, UK and NATO express support for US president's policy, but
Pakistan, China and Russia offer little enthusiasm.
Donald Trump has committed the US to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan [Reuters]
Politicians from across the world have reacted to US President Donald Trump's
new strategy for the war in Afghanistan.
Trump on Monday committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in
Afghanistan and signalled he would send more troops there.
He insisted that the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies step
up their commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict.
He hit out at Pakistan, which he said was offering safe haven to "agents of chaos,
violence and terror".
Allies of the US have welcomed the strategy, pledging military and financial
support to Afghanistan, while others remained sceptical.
Here's a round-up of reactions from leaders around the world.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani welcomed the strategy, saying it would increase
the capacity of the training mission for Afghan forces.
Trump's plan could enhance Afghanistan's fledgeling air force and double the
size of the Afghan special forces, he said.
Trump's speech showed the US was "with us, without any time limit", Ghani told
troops on Tuesday in southern Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban.
Urging the Taliban to join talks, Ghani said: " You cannot win this war."
A Taliban spokesman meanwhile warned Trump was only "wasting" American
soldiers' lives.
"If America doesn't withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, soon Afghanistan
will become another graveyard for this superpower in the 21st century,"
the Taliban's Zabiullah Mujahid said.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai wrote on Twitter that he "very strongly"
opposed the new US strategy, saying it was "against peace and the national
interest of Afghanistan".
He said: "The strategy excludes bringing peace and prosperity to Afghanistan
and is focused on more war and rivalry in the region. [The] US must seek
peace and stability in Afghanistan rather than extending conflict and bloodshed
in Afghanistan and the region."
A Pakistani army spokesman dismissed Trump's remarks, saying Pakistan had
taken action against armed groups on its soil.
"There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan," spokesman Major General Asif
Ghafoor said.
Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khwaja Muhammad Asif met US ambassador David
Hale and reiterated the country's "desire for peace and stability in Afghanistan",
a statement by the foreign ministry said.
He "underlined Pakistan's continued desire to work with the International
Community to eliminate the menace of terrorism," the statement said.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Trump's "conditions-based
approach" and said the US-led alliance was committed to increasing its presence
in Afghanistan.
He said: "Our aim remains to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a
safe haven for terrorists who would attack our own countries."
More than 12,000 troops from NATO and partner countries have been helping to
"train, advise and assist" Afghan security forces since January 2015, after the
alliance wound down combat operations there.
India has welcomed Trump's demand that Pakistan stops offering safe havens to
armed groups and reaffirmed its policy of extending reconstruction aid to Afghanistan.
India's Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that it welcomed Trump's
"determination to enhance efforts to overcome the challenges faced by Afghanistan
and in confronting issues of safe havens and other forms of cross-border support
enjoyed by terrorists".
Without naming its rival Pakistan, the ministry said: "India shares these concerns
and objectives."
India has provided a total of $2bn to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban.
The UK welcomed Trump's commitment to step up the military campaign against the
Taliban, saying the US and its allies must "stay the course in Afghanistan" to reduce
threats to the West.
"The US commitment is very welcome," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon
said in a statement.
"It's in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer:
that's why we announced our own troop increase back in June," he said.
China defended its ally Pakistan after Trump's sharp rebuke, saying the country
was on the front line in the struggle against "terrorism" and had made "great
sacrifices" and "important contributions" in the fight.
"We believe that the international community should fully recognise Pakistan's
anti-terrorism," Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China's foreign ministry,
told a daily news briefing.
China hoped "the relevant US policies can help promote the security, stability
and development of Afghanistan and the region," she said.
Russia does not believe Trump's new strategy will lead to any significant positive
changes in Afghanistan, the Interfax news agency cited an unnamed Russian foreign
ministry source as saying on Tuesday.
SOURCE:
HTTP://WWW.ALJAZEERA.COM/NEWS/2017/08/WORLD-REACTS-TRUMP-STRATEGY-AFGHAN-WAR-
170822102826834.HTML
By Amir Khan
PHOTO: REUTERS
KARACHI: Pakistan is learnt to have conveyed to the United States that it will call
off its efforts in the Afghan reconciliation process if the Trump administration does
not change its new policy of intimidation and coercion towards Islamabad.
It has been conveyed to the US administration through diplomatic channels that
Pakistan will set its strategy for a peaceful Afghanistan in view of its national
security policy, sources told Daily Express.
The civil and military leadership has expressed serious reservations over the new
US policy on Afghanistan.
“Consultations at the highest levels concluded that Pakistan will not give in to any
American pressure or demands,” sources said, adding that senior federal authorities
have voiced their reservations.
It has been conveyed to the Trump administration that Pakistan has achieved 100%
results in its military operations against terrorists of all hue and colour and will
continue doing so until the last terrorist is eliminated.
According to sources, Pakistan has told US Ambassador David Hale that neither was
Islamabad dependent on Washington for its defence system nor did its economy
need American financial assistance.
They said that Pakistan had started approaching its allies, including China, Russia
and other countries to muster support in the face of the new US policy. Beijing has
assured Islamabad that it will veto any possible resolution in the UN Security Council
by the US.
Sources also said that Islamabad has set its own strategy to deal with the new US
strategy. Pakistan, they said, has warned the US of possible pull-out from the
Afghan reconciliation process if Washington didn’t change its approach.
“If the US adopts a balanced policy, Pakistan will also establish good relations with
the Trump administration, otherwise Pakistan can review its relations on all issues,”
they added.
According to an important source, the US administration has started discussions on the
policy in light of Pakistan’s reaction.
Foreign Minister Khawja Asif’s visit to the US will be vital in the context as the minister
has been tasked to state Pakistan’s stance to the Trump administration.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had earlier this month invited Asif to Washington.
The invitation was extended by the secretary of state during a telephone conversation
with Asif.
Reciprocating the gesture, Asif also extended an invitation to Secretary Tillerson to
visit Pakistan. Tillerson, according to the Foreign Office, accepted the invitation.
Sources said the federal government would set its policy at the National Security
Committee meeting today (Thursday).
Analysts predict Trump's strategy will only intensify the war, leading to more
casualties in a conflict that began in October 2001 after the then-Taliban
government refused to hand over Al Qaeda chiefs following the 9/11 attacks.
Afghan civilian deaths are at their worst since records began in 2009.
In the first half of the year, 1,662 civilians were killed and more than 3,500
injured, according to the United Nations.
More than 2,500 Afghan police and troops have been killed already this year.
"The Taliban and other belligerents are likely to respond with a new wave of
violence across the country. There may be some spectacular attacks in urban
areas to send their own message," said Ahmad of the Atlantic Council.
There are hopes that increased military pressure can over time force Taliban
leaders to the negotiating table ─ a prospect that Trump sounded sceptical
about, although Rahimullah Yousufzai, a Pakistan-based expert on Afghan
affairs, said some of the militants "may be willing".
But many Afghans want to see America follow a multi-pronged approach that
involves helping Kabul tackle rampant corruption, strengthen its institutions
and boost its demoralised national army.
They also want Trump to put pressure on Pakistan which they blame for
allegedly fuelling the insurgency ─ something which he said he would do.
Analysts warned that the pressure may not do much good, claiming that
Pakistan wants to keep Afghanistan in its sphere of influence as a bulwark
against India, which it sees as an existential threat, and is unlikely to be
deterred.
At any rate, some analysts say Washington's role on the world stage has
shrunk, meaning Trump's more forceful rhetoric may not have the impact it
once did.
"Trump should have a smart policy and be ready to play with many
stakeholders," said Mohammad Alam Sarosh, professor of political sciences
at Ghazni University.
"He has to be very serious about putting pressure on Pakistan and Iran,
and find ways to convince Russia that terrorism is an international threat."
Curtsey: The Express Tribune: Published: August 24, 2017
DAWN.COM
Editorial
The question that bedevilled the last two American presidents appears to
have bewildered the latest one too: what should the US do about Afghanistan?
After months of internal debate, President Donald Trump has unveiled his
administration’s strategy in Afghanistan; it is a mixture of the familiar, the
tested and the failed. There are some important differences to the strategy
former president Barack Obama had pursued.
There will be no timeline for an exit by US troops in Afghanistan. There will
be looser rules of engagement for US troops, which will likely lead to more
civilian casualties and fresh political turmoil. There will be an increase in
covert operations, presaging an increase in tensions with Pakistan over
tactical matters. And the possibility of dialogue with the Afghan Taliban has
been discarded for the foreseeable future, once again exposing Pakistan to
the US mantra of ‘do more’ without a sense that a political settlement is at
hand.
For Pakistan, the challenge will be twofold: to not react emotionally to the
American president’s invitation, unreasonable though it is, to India to have a
greater role in Afghanistan; and to continue to focus on the national priority
of progressively reducing the space for all manner of militancy, terrorism and
extremism in the region.
It will not be easy. Mr Trump’s speech underlined that there will be no reset
in relations with Pakistan; that the trend evident since the final years of the
Bush administration will continue; and that ties will remain firmly transactional,
with all the possibilities of misunderstanding, frustration and disconsolateness
on both sides. Certainly, Pakistan will not be able to simply ignore the demands
of a US president who is an avowed isolationist with a fierce desire to see
America’s perceived enemies defeated.
Perhaps the best-case scenario for Pakistan would be to continue to push for
common sense and reciprocal cooperation with Afghanistan. The banned TTP
and other anti-Pakistan militant sanctuaries in eastern Afghanistan and the
perception that the Afghan intelligence network may be sympathetic to such
groups are problems that can be addressed. Meanwhile, the fight against IS
is a unifying factor for all actors in Afghanistan and the region.
Pakistan must also recognise that the American and Afghan focus on the
Haqqani network and Pakistan’s alleged ties to the group is a problem that
won’t go away. Better, then, to identify areas of potential cooperation with
Afghanistan and the US than to allow matters to further unravel.
Now that another US administration has announced its strategy in Afghanistan,
there is unlikely to be an immediate course correction. But US policymakers
ought to consider that a fundamental mistake they continue to make in
Afghanistan is to regard what is essentially a civil war as a counterterrorism
problem. The wrong prism cannot produce the right solution.
Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2017
US Ambassador David Hale meets army chief General Qamar Bajwa at the GHQ in Rawalpindi on
Wednesday. PHOTO: ISPR
ISLAMABAD: The army chief has apprised the US envoy of Pakistan’s
reservations over giving India an enhanced role in Afghanistan, besides
reiterating that Pakistan does not need financial assistance from Washington,
but simply its trust and acknowledgement for the sacrifices rendered in the
fight against terrorism.
The envoy, David Hale, visited General Headquarters in Rawalpindi on
Wednesday to brief General Qamar Javed Bajwa about the new US strategy
for Afghanistan and South Asia.
In his speech, President Trump targeted Pakistan for ‘not doing enough’
to deal with certain militant outfits including the Afghan Taliban. Trump
said Pakistan had to change that approach or face the con
Reports from Washington suggest that the US may revoke Pakistan’s major
non-NATO ally status and cut military and other assistance if the country
‘continues to provide sanctuaries’ to the Taliban and the Haqqani network.
Speaking against the backdrop of this development, the army chief informed
the US envoy that Pakistan did not need any financial assistance from Washington.
“We are not looking for any material or financial assistance from the US but
trust, understanding and acknowledgement of our contributions,” he was
quoted as saying by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).
He pointed out that peace in Afghanistan was as important for Pakistan as
for any other country, dismissing assertions that the country was a spoiler.
“We have done a lot towards that end and shall keep on doing our best, not
to appease anyone, but in line with our national interest and national policy,”
General Qamar stressed.
“Collaboration and synergy of effort between all stakeholders is the key to
success in bringing this long-drawn war in Afghanistan to its logical
conclusion,” he added.
Ambassador Hale said the “US values Pakistan’s role in the war against
terror and is seeking cooperation from Pakistan to resolve the Afghan issue.”
Sources said the army chief conveyed his reservations over the manner in
which Pakistan was singled out and held responsible for the mess in
Afghanistan. He also reportedly cautioned the US ambassador about the
negative implications of giving a formal role to India in Afghan affairs.
Pakistan has long suspected that India is using Afghan soil to create
instability. In the past, US administrations were wary of giving any direct
role to India, but Trump seems intent on increasing New Delhi’s
involvement in Afghanistan.
Even American commentators believe this would be a recipe for disaster
given the continually high regional tensions between Pakistan and India.
Interestingly, a Trump aide on Tuesday dismissed Pakistan’s concerns about
growing Indian involvement in Afghanistan as an ‘excuse’.
“What India is doing in Afghanistan is not a threat to Pakistan. They’re not
building military bases. They’re not deploying troops,” the official told
journalists on a conference call.
“They’re not doing the things that would constitute encirclement, for lack of
a better term, which is one of the things that the Pakistanis complain about,”
he added.
The Foreign Office, in its preliminary reaction, expressed disappointment over
Trump’s speech for overlooking perennial disputes in South Asia, including
the longstanding dispute over Kashmir between Pakistan and India.
A more detailed government response to the new US strategy for Afghanistan
is expected today (Thursday) when the National Security Committee, the top
decision-making body on national security and foreign policy issues, meets
and discusses the evolving situation.
The Express Tribune,August 23,2017
Send email to nazeerkahut@punjabics.com with questions, comment or suggestions
Punjabics is a literary, non-profit and non-Political, non-affiliated organization
Punjabics.com @ Copyright 2008 - 2018 Punjabics.Com All Rights Reserved
Website Design & SEO by Webpagetime.com
