India / Afghanistan - A New Strategic Relationship

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 12, 2011
By Nazir Naji
The India-Afghan (im)pact: Pakistan Today

Code: Select all

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/10/the-india-afghan-impact/

When such pacts are agreed upon, they lead to many years of analyses and drafting of new strategies in light of the new details. The 1971 pact between India and the Soviet Union took place so that the Pakistan army (aka America’s ally) could be driven out of Bengal. America knew that it was difficult for its ally to remain there and it tried to dissuade our generals but they would not budge. India has only made two security pacts in its history. One with the Soviet Union and the other with Afghanistan with now. The former and latter were both formed keeping Pakistan in mind. If we want, we could seize the chance which this pact presents to look for peace or we could embroil ourselves in another bloody war, whose outcome will not be to our liking. What are the ways we could benefit from this agreement?

[Agnimitra]

Brihaspati ji, thanks for that post.

Both AFG and PAK traditionally have remained weak mercantile core regions. At the moment China is maintaining its momentum because it is on a temporary phase of mercantile dependence on the rashtra. But there are already signs that the mercantile core is developing and expanding and starting to hedge its interests over and above that of the regime.

It looks like Chinese mercantilism may be running into trans-rashtra expansion issues because of the nature of the dispensation behind them (article linked below). It would be helpful if a public sentiment wary of PRC mercantilism similar to that emerging in African populations begins to take hold in Afghanistan as far as its own resources are concerned. Just as Afghans have a popular anti-Pak sentiment due to TSP's terror shenanigans, one hopes ordinary Afghans also become aware of the mercantile imperialist nature of an Uighur-oppressing PRC regime.

Is China drinking its own Kool Aid?

But there is more wrong with the Chinese model than its inability to get the Western democracies to acknowledge the global validity of the Chinese economic miracle. The Chinese model itself had its best years when the George W Bush administration was blindly and brutally pursuing hegemony in the Middle East.

Developments in Taiwan, Myanmar, and, of all places, Zambia, send important signals - and they are not merely warning signs of aggressive US rollback under the Obama administration. In each of these countries, China has labored to deliver the economic goods. But in each country, the political system is poised to administer a rebuke.

In Taiwan, Beijing has assiduously attempted to pump up the Taiwanese economy in order to boost the electoral prospects of mainland-friendly President Ma Ying-jyeou. But the perception that China's economic might (and Chinese President Hu Jintao's concern for his own legacy) stand behind Ma (and would not stand behind the government of his challenger, independence-friendly Tsai King-wen ) apparently has little weight in the electoral scales.
China is faced with the distinct possibility that Ma's party will lose the presidency in January 2012, and Beijing will have to write off a considerable amount of political and financial capital. [2]

Meanwhile, in order to demonstrate its sincere desire for rapprochement with the West (and provide the US State Department sufficient political cover to engage with the newly-minted civilian government despite the vociferous complaints of the Free Burma lobby), Myanmar announced it would free some political prisoners and also pulled the plug, at least for three years, on a big, China-funded hydro project, the Myitsone Dam.

The announcement apparently took China by surprise; indeed, it was probably the Myanmar government's intention to leave some egg on Beijing's face in order to demonstrate its new distance from China.

Considering the fact that the project was highly dubious on environmental grounds, was situated in the middle of a tribal war zone, and was supposed to send all its power to China instead of the impoverished locality - and the fact that the US State Department has been working indefatigably to engage with Myanmar in order to wean it from China - it seems that the Chinese government might have seen that one coming.

But it apparently didn't.

And in Zambia, China's efforts to boost the electoral fortunes of the allegedly compliant and corrupt incumbent, Rupiah Banda, with a major inflow of economic goodies came to naught as Beijing's b๊te noire, Michael Sata, came to power on a populist, anti-China platform.

[...]
(Howard) French concludes that the Chinese have done a good job of ingratiating themselves with political incumbents, but not a good job of "winning hearts and minds" among ordinary citizens (in Zambia, etc).

[...]

it looks like China was simply the most conspicuous and politically advantageous manifestation of rather widespread foreign malfeasance in the Zambian copper sector:
Zambia will negotiate larger stakes in projects with foreign mining firms and plans to revamp tax collection to improve transparency and maximize benefits for itself, the minister of mines said.

"We would like to increase our shareholding to at least 35 percent in all the projects, but that will depend on how well we negotiate with the mining firms," Mines Minister Wylbur Simuusa told Reuters in an interview.

Foreign mining companies operating in Zambia include Canada's First Quantum Minerals, London-listed Vedanta Resources Plc, Glencore International Plc, Barrick Gold, Brazil's Vale and Metorex of South Africa. [5]
So perhaps it's premature to look for a wholesale exodus of


Chinese from Zambia, let alone the African continent, accompanied by some ecstatic backfilling by the West's finest multinationals.

China's biggest problem is not that Taiwan, Myanmar and Zambia have declined to deliver political endorsements of China's economic penetration.

It doesn't appear that the government's efforts to promote a new ideology of economic growth and national unity inside China have succeeded, either.

The government's over-reaction to the threat of Jasmine Revolution provocations indicated that it didn't have any good ideas for keeping the political lid on beyond the tried-and-true "knock 'em down and lock 'em up" if economic growth, nationalism, and US$40 billion in expenditures for the Beijing Olympics failed to do the job.

The government's difficulty in forging a social consensus was also demonstrated by its efforts to combat "rumors" on the Internet. [6] In particular, the Chinese security apparatus appears to be utterly flummoxed about what to do about microblogs, which were permitted, presumably with a certain amount of trepidation, in 2010 and promptly exploded as a platform for personal expression.

It's one matter to enforce socialist discipline on the Internet manifestations of conventional outlets. It's another thing to grub around the personal microblogs of millions of citizens.

The government effort is quixotic, but not just because "information wants to be free".

[...]

Howard French pointed to what he considered a salient characteristic of the Chinese elite circa 2011: hubris.
"Among all nations, I think China is doing the best at getting resources from countries and putting back into those countries," Zhou [Xiaohua] told me. "Can you find any other country that is doing better?" Several minutes later, when I asked the ambassador what the Americans had contributed to Zambia, he marked a long pause and then fairly sneered, "You employ local people and put them as observers at each and every polling station. What else? I haven't seen any roads being built by them, any schools, any hospitals that really touch people, that can last, that can serve society for long. Maybe training election people is your biggest contribution."

What struck me most about his remarks was the infusion of a kind of creeping hubris that I've seen on numerous stops in my research among Chinese diplomats and business executives. It allowed Zhou little space to consider Zambian perceptions of his country or of their own needs. [7]

[...]

Substitute "Chinese popular perceptions" for "Zambian perceptions" and you get an idea of the problem.

It is more important to consider the problem of Chinese hubris, which appears to be shared both by Zhou Xiaohua - who is China's Mr Africa, an experienced and highly skilled diplomat - and the notoriously smug and incurious heir apparent to the whole China shebang, Fifth Generation princeling Xi Jinping.

China's doctrine of economic development as the road to national happiness and world peace, when viewed in the light of the Arab Spring and the rebuffs China has suffered in its rather limited circle of economic and geopolitical allies, looks like a threadbare model of international relations and national development that does little more than provide a fig leaf for headlong economic growth.

Democracy is unlikely to be a simple "win-win" panacea for China.

Especially post Arab Spring, anybody who discounts the possibility that democratization in China would not lead to a declaration of Taiwanese independence and an explosion of populist and secessionist activity in Tibet and Xinjiang despite/because of the influx of Han immigration and whatever growth and economic aid numbers the government has chalked up - plus gleeful hooting and incitement by the Western democracies - is whistling past the imperial graveyard.

The case could be made that a Chinese republic would do quite well even if shorn of two-thirds of its landmass, just as Vaclav Havel's Czechoslovakia bid a casual adieu to its eastern half when Slovakia was declared an independent state and the Czech Republic came into being.

But nobody is making that case, as far as I can tell. The Chinese government doesn't want to go there, and it seems Chinese dissidents don't even want to admit it's there - understandable, since raising the issue probably means a quick ticket to the pokey for sedition, in addition to spoiling the whole feel-good democratic vibe with awkward questions.

[ramana]

A map of the full Silk Road in ancient times:



Link to Silk road Project:

http://www.silkroadproject.org/tabid/177/default.aspx

The invention ship board navigation, steamship, and the turmoil in Cnetral Asia due to Mongol invasions, religious conquests, expansion of Duchy of Muscovy to Tsarist Russia, all led to the breakdown and utter poverty of the region. This took ~800 years from the 12th century onwards. What we want to do is reverse it in a decade?

Also look at the maps of the modern world at the silk road project page.

[RamaY]

I am looking at this Asian-Highway project and cannot stop wondering why there is no connection between India-core to the Af-Pak road network. This area (south of Kolkata-Delhi road) has >500 million population and GDP of >$1T, much more than the network one sees in any other area.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ghways.png

[RajeshA]

The Silk Road from India meets at Khotan in East Turkestan. A revitalization of that route just increases China's influence as a hub of the Silk Route!

I think we should wait till we regain Chitral!

[SwamyG]

I am suspicious of all the "mineral wealth" of Afghanistan. It could be propaganda from the West. If it is true, West is not going to ever leave Afghanistan. So why make plans after 2014? Unless the West wants India to take care of military and security needs, while the minerals are siphoned off for the benefit of far away people. Is there any way India can corroborate or validate those Western reports of massive wealth hidden under the rough terrain of Afghanistan? Even if they exist what will be the RoI for any private company or government agencies? India needs Afghanitan's territory no doubt, if it has minerals well and good. No agreements should be signed based on Western Reports, and I have faith in our Indian babus. They are the system, and they will take care of the Indian interests. It is only the politicians...who will flip flop. My guess is Karzai, having been educated in New Delhi, will have a soft corner for India. Except for hard core fanatic, any one from the third world country educated in India is bound to like India.

ps: I wish SRK and Amitabh had a big show in Kabul. Let GoI foot the bill.

[brihaspati]

but b-ji, since the mercantile class also funds the rashtra - directly or indirectly, you cannot quite destroy them either

Only at the initial stage first phase. In the second they fund the regime and the rulers - more on the personal side, and not the rashtra. Its more like graduating from looting the country to looting outsiders and sharing it as a joint venture - on a non-national, personal, sub-network alliance basis.

It is this dependence of the regime in the second phase - that gives power over to the mercantiles, and a gradual weakening of the rashtra itself.

The engagement with AFG is problematic because India is not stating, and not simply because of some supposed chanakyan secrecy - its goalposts and parameters in AFG. If we look closely at the history of the problem, and the situation on the ground, there will be some obvious and serious obstacles in the current Indian rashtryia machinery coming to any concrete conclusions or agenda. There are mixed feelings about projecting power in the neighbourhood - with the message having been clearly delivered from outsiders through two [or perhaps three] significant assassinations. If this had anything to do with the future of the nation as a whole then it would have been a different issue.

But in India's case obviously, if individual assassinations appear to halt down the entire rashtryia machinery's limping towards some degree of power projection beyond borders as a step in the eventual expansion of the safety buffer around the nation - then it means that the political rulership deem their personal safety and the continuance of their small dynasty based coteries, of overwhelming importance in which the nation comes a distant second.

It is therefore pretty easy to direct India's foreign policy because the rashtra deems the nation as less important than particular families, which in turn means that external threats can get away with pressurizing a much smaller group than an entire nation.

The second is the perception in this small group that - any step that can be whipped up by the Islamists or mullahcracy anywhere in the world, as being against Islamic interests - can have a political backlash that may hit at the base of their personal power. It is not just about imagined fears of internal Muslim petulance, but also about providing ammunition to its imagined biggest enemy - the majority "culture", and hence losing out on external support from the colonial legacy which in turn is based on another "cultural" theological supremacy doctrine.

At the moment the steps being taken are too insignificant to have any concrete long term effects. The excuse that any more intensely significant step will trigger a backlash from Pakistani mobilized world or regional opposition, does not hold ground - since Pakistan reacts equally to all levels of supposed "provocation". The steps are so insignificant in terms of the reality on ground, are actually consistent with a rather reluctant move that looks more likely to have been undertaken with a view to satisfy external pressures.

GOI, and especially the congrez is forever hostage to the twin imagined fears of a Muslim backlash, and a dynastic assassination or overthrow - to take steps of the magnitude that would be necessary to eliminate the AFPAK threat. Hopefully not too many Indian and civilian lives are lost in this exercise of doing nothing by doing something.

[ramana]

My thoughts, when those mineral deposits was reported, was that its psy-ops to induce the warring Taliban factions to compromise with West to get rich exporting the stuff like the Bellary brothers.

however what the reports made the bad Taliban (Quetta and Hackany) realise was they should get rid of the good Taliban (illusion) and take all that 'wealth' themselves!

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 14, 2011
By Saida Fazal
Kabul-Delhi strategic partnership: A recipe for trouble: Business Recorder

Code: Select all

http://www.brecorder.com/articles-a-letters/single/626/187/1241670/

Kabul-Delhi strategic partnership:A recipe for trouble

Now after reading this piece, would someone believe that Pakistan was sponsoring pure terrorism in Afghanistan! Good paint job!

[ramana]

From above article Saida motorham writes

...Speaking at a Delhi-based think-tank, Observer Research Foundation, he said "Pakistan is a twin brother, India is a great friend. The agreement we signed with our friend will not affect our brother." The very fact that he had to hold out an assurance to Pakistan amounts to an indirect acknowledgement of the nature of the threat he had decided to create for the brother a day earlier.


The brother has been offering its services for training Afghan security personnel. It will not be pleased to see its traditional rival getting that role and impinging on what it views as part of its core security interests. Our security establishment makes no secret of its worry that this country's traditional rival must not outflank us on both eastern and western borders. Besides, Pakistan is unlike any other neighbour of Afghanistan. Its geography and demography place it in a unique relationship with the latter. What happens in Afghanistan affects Pakistan deeply.

She neglects to mention that Pakistan has been doing unbrotherly acts of training Taliban terrorists to carry out attacks in Afghanistan and not to mention killing those Taliban that want to neogtiate for peace in Afghansitan. It was the repeated actions that drove brotherly Afghanistan to seek some help from big brother India as US was not being serious in its message to TSP to stop the unbrotherly actions!

[ManuT]

Crisis in ties with Afghanistan
By Khalid Aziz

http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/crisis-i ... istan.html

RECENTLY, President Hamid Karzai signed a strategic partnership agreement with India in New Delhi. Among other things, it provides for the training of Afghan army officers in India.

Before departing for India, President Karzai had accused Pakistan of some involvement in the murder of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the head of the Afghan High Peace Council. Irrespective of the merits of such a claim, merely the charge may have serious consequences and isolate Pakistan further during the forthcoming regional conferences in Istanbul, Bonn and later in Chicago that have been called to work out the Afghan transition.

Investigations into the death of Mr Rabbani may solve the mystery of his assassination. However, the party most threatened by peace in Afghanistan may be Al Qaeda as it would come under extensive pressure to move out of the region.

Secondly, the haste of the Indian government in pleasing Mr Karzai at the risk of harming its relationship with Pakistan may mean that another zero-sum game is in the offing. Normally, India makes decisions with prudence and after doing its homework. Can it be assumed that the agreement was actually negotiated some time ago and signed now to suit the circumstances? {Writer cannot make up his mind, is it 'haste' or well thought out}

The Indo-Afghan agreement gives a clear indication that it is aimed at Pakistan`s purported sphere of influence in Afghanistan. {TSP has a God given right to Lord over Afghanistan} Does that mean that the US, India and Afghanistan have decided to jointly mount pressure on Pakistan? If so, this portends yet another conundrum for Pakistan.

The Indian military recently began manoeuvres near the Pakistan border in Sindh and Punjab. The simultaneous move of sophisticated Su-30 fighter jets to the region lends credence to Pakistani worries that India may be on the threshold of executing another `Cold Start` exercise to place Pakistan under pressure.

Why India would generate pressure in the region now when it is at the threshold of huge economic growth is inexplicable. One possible explanation may be Indian suspicions of a jihadi attack inside India. The exercise may be a pre-emptive message to force Pakistan to act more responsibly.

If such an event should occur, it would prove disastrous for the whole region; thus, extra care and vigilance is required of Pakistan. India`s moves and the strategic agreement are clearly meant to put Pakistan on notice regarding acting against jihadi networks in the country.

In June 2009, the US secretary of defence directed Centcom to prepare a report advising the US government on how the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) could achieve its objectives in Afghanistan. The report was prepared by Gen McChrystal, the Isaf commander in August 2009.

It highlighted many issues related to the challenges facing the international coalition in Afghanistan. Although it was not followed in letter or spirit, the report was honest and realistic and drew some forthright conclusions that are worth revisiting.

Amongst other conclusions drawn by Gen McChrystal, an important one was that “The Afghan government has not integrated or supported traditional community governance structures — historically an important component of Afghan civil society — leaving communities vulnerable to being undermined by insurgent groups and power brokers”.

The breakdown of social cohesion at the community level has increased instability, made Afghans feel unsafe, and fuelled the insurgency. He further added: “The insurgency … is predominantly Afghan.”

If the Afghan government has been unable to increase its capacity due to various reasons, is it not possible that the death of Mr Rabbani may have been the result of ethnic rivalries or the dynamics of Afghan politics?

Then, Gen McChrystal had said that “Stability in Pakistan is essential, not only in its own right, but also to enable progress in Afghanistan. While the existence of safe havens in Pakistan does not guarantee Isaf failure, Afghanistan does require Pakistani cooperation and action against violent militancy, particularly against those groups active in Afghanistan”.

He cautioned about expanding India`s role in Afghanistan: “Increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.”

International politics are based on realism: relations are based on competition and conflict rather than cooperation. Realists consider states to be concerned with their own security and act in pursuit of their own national interests in their struggle for power. International politics are characterised by active or potential conflict among states.

In the current situation, the US, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan are obviously following the realism route. Pakistan, however, must calculate the cost of confronting a mounting coalition against it for its alleged support to the jihadis, including the Haqqani group.

Clearly, the survival of the Pakistani state is more important than tactical preferences. The parallels of the current crisis with the East Pakistan situation in 1971 are too close for comfort.

Pakistan`s geography on the junction of Punjab with Sindh has remained its Achilles heel. To cover this weakness, Pakistan considered Afghanistan as within its legitimate sphere of interest, and resultantly the new strategic agreement between India and Afghanistan is viewed with alarm. However, realism teaches us to watch out, for there is greater danger lurking. {Alarm vs greater danger}

The pieces on the chessboard clearly do not augur well for peace or for an orderly withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2014. Common sense would suggest that the best strategy for bringing peace to the region would be to engage both India and Pakistan in a collaborative mode for the endgame in Afghanistan. {what stops TSP from doing that i.e. collaborating, instead of bumping off anyone that disagrees with it.}

Such a result may best be achieved by the appointment of a special representative of the secretary general of the United Nations {clutching at straws} with a mandate to expeditiously consult the states concerned on how to create a regional consultative mechanism to ensure peace in Afghanistan and an orderly drawdown of forces by 2014 while also assisting in maintaining regional security.

The writer is the chairman of the Regional Institute of Policy Research in Peshawar.

[email protected]

[Pranay]

http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278637

In this ongoing realignment, India has emerged as a player, a surety of sorts against the vagaries of the future. What has enabled India to carve a niche of its own is its impressive growth over the last 10 years, its inclusive democracy, its growing military might, and the faith the US has reposed in New Delhi’s ability to play a global role. As former ministry of external affairs secretary N. Ravi told Outlook, “It’s not only the familiarity and trust that all these countries have with India but also the fact that our development and growth provides a framework for many of them to use as a model.”

Hamid Karzai’s recent visit best illustrates the vantage position India occupies. With Pakistan-controlled terror groups killing top Afghan leaders and the atmosphere of acrimony enveloping US-Pak relations, a rattled Karzai signed a strategic partnership agreement with India. It was perceived as an attempt to register growing frustration with Islamabad’s reluctance to act against terror groups operating from Pakistani soil against the Karzai regime. It was Karzai’s way of telling Pakistan that it had better accede to his wishes or else run the risk of seeing India emerge as a major player in Afghanistan. To put it mildly, this is anathema to Pakistan, with its cult of ‘strategic depth’, which demands a friendly neighbour in the west so that it can focus on its eastern border with India.

Srinath Raghavan of the Centre for Policy Research provides another reason: “Unlike others, India worked on a stand-alone basis in Afghanistan by talking to the Afghans directly and not through the US or others. Through the agreement, Karzai has recognised India as a long-term and reliable partner.”

If Afghanistan and India have come closer, then so have China and Pakistan. What has prompted Islamabad to seek Beijing as never before is Washington’s refusal to accept Pakistan as the sole arbiter of Afghanistan’s future. Frustrated and angry, Pakistan has been talking tough with the US. Some in the Indian foreign policy establishment feel Pakistan’s bold stance has been at China’s behest. Others, however, feel this could be China’s method of merely testing America’s resolve. Their argument: it isn’t in Beijing’s interest to allow the Pak-US problems to fester beyond a point. It, therefore, might soon ask Pakistan to back off. Their reason? Instability and violence in Afghanistan could spill over into China and impact its growth. Nor would China want to substitute the Americans—and consequently commit its resources—in bolstering Pakistan’s creaking economy. In this game of bluff and bluster, Karzai sees in India an important card to play against Pakistan.

[Pranay]

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... licy-twist

India is pushing the reset button to pump new life and hopefully more gas and oil into this “civilisational relationship” between age-old neighbours (until Partition). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar, and other members of a large Indian delegation will be flying to Tehran in the coming months to wipe out the past five years from Iranian memory.

Experience has shown that Iran can be a tricky partner, prone to cancelling or ‘reopening’ previously signed contracts, as it did in 2005 after India voted against it at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The vote cost India a cool $5 billion in a liquefied natural gas agreement. With hydrocarbon prices continually climbing, India needs to ensure its stakes in Iran’s giant South Pars and Farsi gas blocks remain insulated from arbitrary political decisions.

To meet and greet a man India’s new best friends—Americans and Israelis—see as evil incarnate was provocative, no doubt, but there was much more. Under all those layers of oil and gas discussed (Iran is India’s second largest supplier of crude oil at 18 million tonnes annually), there were deliberations about the future of Afghanistan. Iran is a significant player in the region, no matter how distasteful to Washington, and crafting peace in these badlands requires its cooperation. Iran hosted an ‘Islamic Awakening Conference’ in mid-September attended by a Taliban delegation and about 700 religious leaders from around the world.

India can be a credible interlocutor for Iran, and by extension for the United States in its desperate search for a viable exit strategy from Afghanistan. India, Iran and Russia share roughly the same fears about Afghanistan’s future being overwhelmed by Taliban Inc. All three countries participated in a conference in Norway last week to discuss possible formulas for reconciliation. Time is short and the ground situation grave, as Pakistan-supported factions kill for political space.

India is clearly worried by how its larger neighbourhood is shaping up, and Defence Minister AK Antony’s statement that after the US leaves Afghanistan, “a resurgent Taliban will be the biggest security challenge for India” has only telegraphed New Delhi’s acute anxiety. This was one American military intervention that New Delhi favoured, even though Manmohan Singh harshly criticised Western military actions in Libya and the clamour for something similar against Syria in his UN speech. “Societies cannot be reordered from outside through military force,” he lectured. Yet, it is no secret that India would like nothing better than a neat reordering of Afghan society, where the Taliban factions are contained, the ethnic Hazaras, Uzbeks and Tajiks have a prominent role, and India can safely continue to build bonds and buildings.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 16, 2011
Dr Maleeha Lodhi
A flawed road map: Khaleej Times

The Istanbul conference’s focus has become so broad that it is now expected to be as much about the region as about Afghanistan. An amended draft declaration circulated ahead of this at a preparatory meeting in Oslo indicates an intention to establish a regional structure for the ‘geographical area broadly surrounding Afghanistan.’ This is being called a security and cooperation initiative for the heart of Asia.

Instead of enunciating general principles of cooperation for regional states to affirm, the planned declaration seeks a new regional architecture comprising fourteen states from “South Asia, Central Asia, Euro-Asia and the Middle East”, with the US and other so-called ‘AfPak’ countries being cast as supporters of this initiative. Significantly for Islamabad, India is included in this group.

How these countries have been selected and who has selected them is not explained. It is also presumed that states comprising a ‘region’ beyond Afghanistan’s immediate neighbourhood will all be willing to sign up to a regional arrangement which will establish a ‘Senior Officials Group’ to oversee a set of ‘confidence-building measures’ and agree on a monitoring and enforcement mechanism. Many countries including Pakistan will have reservations about this.

The objectives set for the Istanbul conference are two-fold, relating to Afghanistan and the region. If the broader aim is to be pursued this should really be done separately and not be mixed up in a single initiative. The measures needed to establish peace and stability in Afghanistan are very specific to the country and have to decisively be addressed internally. This means resolving the insurgency by an inclusive reconciliation process, establishing effective governance, assuring ethnic balance in the political dispensation and security institutions, eliminating corruption and addressing development needs. This is diluted by the broader approach embodied in the Istanbul plan. The Istanbul document presumes that the internal requirements for stability can be addressed ‘externally’ through a regional initiative. The underlying presumption that all of Afghanistan’s problems are external and have to be addressed by outside powers is grievously mistaken.

The international consensus that has crystallised is that peace in Afghanistan has to be achieved through a negotiated settlement. This makes ‘reconciliation’ the commonly accepted premise for the transition process to move meaningfully forward. Washington acknowledges this. It has reaffirmed this most significantly by consultations in the trilateral ‘core group’ (Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US) aimed at advancing the ‘reconciliation’ process. If this premise is accepted then logically it should have produced a three stage process intended to culminate in the 2014 ‘transition’: i) Progress on reconciliation and an internal roadmap for effective governance ii) Endorsement by Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours of the outcome of this peace process and commitment to Afghanistan’s independence and sovereignty and iii) Ratification and support by a broader group of countries for the principles and agreement evolved by the first two processes.

The approach taken by the Istanbul conference starts the process from the wrong end. It skips the first two and concerns itself with what should be the third and final phase. By also bringing in so many additional parties it risks complicating the core issue of Afghan stabilisation. In trying to artificially graft a regional structure on to the Afghan stabilisation process it can end up injecting equations that make the process more difficult.

Meanwhile US-sponsored plans are underway to mobilise support for a regional ‘Contact Group’ of countries to consult on Afghanistan’s security. This will raise new problems. Uneasy bilateral dynamics between countries expected to be part of the group will likely spill over and stymie the group’s effectiveness.

The return of Afghan refugees is not mentioned anywhere in the document even though it is a critical issue for Pakistan and Iran. It is surprising to find this in a draft that has emanated from Turkey, a close friend of Pakistan. But a more significant reflection of the disregard shown for Islamabad’s interests is the effort to confer an enhanced role to India in Afghanistan and equate the role of neighbours with that of ‘near neighbours.’

[Kakkaji]

PVNR had assiduously cultivated good relations with Iran, while at the same time improving relations with the US and Israel. It required some deft foreign policy footwork but he managed it,

ABV continued the same policy.

Unfortunately the MMS govt, at least until recently, leaned too far in the US direction, and lost the goodwill with Iran.

It will require a lot of smart diplomacy now, to get back where we were in relations with Iran.

What I don't understand is when the GOTUS did not treat India's enemy (Pakistan) as its enemy, why did the GOI go out of its way to treat The US' enemy (Iran) as a pariah?

I am not surprised that Iran now shows a cold shoulder to India.

IMHO, without hearty cooperation from Iran, there is no viable Afghan strategy for India.

[hnair]

It will require a lot of smart diplomacy now, to get back where we were in relations with Iran.

That is giving way too much leverage to Iran, which they dont actually have over us. They cannot demand *anything* from India. They too had their chance with Chabahar and the gas deals. But they blew it.

What I don't understand is when the GOTUS did not treat India's enemy (Pakistan) as its enemy, why did the GOI go out of its way to treat The US' enemy (Iran) as a pariah?

I am not surprised that Iran now shows a cold shoulder to India.

IMHO, without hearty cooperation from Iran, there is no viable Afghan strategy for India.

That is a very valid point. We should have told US there is a clear equal-equal with Paki vs Iran, if they persist with stocking up pakis with AMRAAMs and SPHs. Dr MMS govt did seem to have conceded to that one-way demand of US.

Iranians are just posturing. If we give them leverage (like that stupid "Shia protests iniative" sideshow of Indian Left during the nuke-deal mainshow) they will put up a burlesque show. But if we talk only business, they will come around sooner or later. Iran always wanted wealth of India

[SwamyG]

IMHO, without hearty cooperation from Iran, there is no viable Afghan strategy for India.

Quite possible. If one wants to use the Chah Bahar port to send goods into Afghanistan.

I recently went to an Afghani restaurant. The food was good. I engaged in small talk with the owner. He had migrated long time back. He said he came from "what was once up on a time the capital of Afghanistan" with great sadness in the tone. He does not monitor the recent happenings in that region. After hearing I was from India, he remarked "India is RICH in culture" and mentioned the shared culture and history of the two countries. He added how Pakistan was a crazy country that should not exist, "half the country belongs to Afghanistan, the other half belongs to India" He was a Pashtun who spoke Farsi, did not know Pashto, and lamented how some of the Pashtuns do not consider such Pashtuns talking Farsi as Pastuns.

[ramana]

Kakkaji, Is it a coincidence that the Iran plot gets revealed despite its incredibleness, right after the Indo-Afghan strategic treaty which relies on transportation thru Chah Bahar to Zaranj? It thus puts the route in jeopardy of being abandoned if UN sanctions are brought forth and India has no veto power to turn it down. Some thing to ponder. Wheels with in wheels. It could be CBM from massa to TSP saying how they can stymie the implementation of the treaty in favor of MNNA's good behavior?

PS: MMS first priority was to get out of NSG sanctions vias the IUCNA. He did that and Iran can fend for itself.
Lets see the future unflod.

[Neshant]

I believe it has more to do with Eyeran accepting yuan and rupees as partial payment for its oil instead of USD. If that trend catches on, the petro-dollar status will be in jeapordy and US will no longer have its major source for funding budget deficits.

Were US to attack Iran (doubtful), they would be getting in over their heads as the Iranians could harass them both in Afg, Iraq, in the straits...and become an all-year-round nusiance. Countries in the region have already expressed their intent not to host the US military in the event it attacks Eyeran so where would they even launch a sustained attack from.

Thus likelyhood of Eyeran being attacked is low.

The claim of a terrorism plot against a saudi arabia ambassador is a bogus story to create some drama ahead of calls for sanctions. But most countries did not buy it and the war weary US citizens themselves are skeptical and suspicious of what the real White House agenda is.

[SwamyG]

Afghanistan is key to CAR. Until we see an Independent Balochistan that will help us reach into Afghanistan and beyond, we simply cannot consign Iran into dustbin. If we can balance the Junta of Burma, we should be able to balance Iran with its flaws. The iron is really hot, we have to strike it real hard. Afghanistan should be firmly in the SPhere of Indic InfluenCe (SPIIC)

[RajeshA]

If we become dependent on Iran, it would severely constrain our diplomatic and strategic maneuverability space. On the one hand Iran would be making all sorts of demands upon us and threatening us with closing our route into Afghanistan after we have become dependent on it, on the other the West and Israel would start fuming at the relationship and bringing in all sorts of measures to make Indo-Iran collaboration difficult, and on the other Iran would be able to negotiate with Pakistan from a better position, having more leverage!

That is why we should keep our footprint in Afghanistan as small as possible, and our deployment there should have supply lines completely independent of not just Pakistan, but Iran also.

We cannot provide Afghanistan with Indian troops to defend itself. What we can give Afghanistan is training and funding for its troops. We can give that training better if those Afghan troops are allowed to travel to India and receive a major part of their training in India itself.

1) However India should become very vocal about Pakistani shenanigans in Afghanistan!

2) If and when Afghanistan comes under pressure, India should increase the pressure on Pakistan's Eastern border manifold.

Quetta Shura, Haqqani Network, ISI, TSPA, Al Qaida attacks on Afghanistan should always lead to India becoming very vocal in criticizing Pakistan and putting pressure on Pakistan's border, as well as increasing Afghan retaliation.

The LoC needs to turn hot when Durand Line heats up!

The Indian contribution to Afghan stability should not come from Indian soldiers in Afghanistan, but from Indian soldiers on the LoC and the Indo-Pak border!

Secondly Afghans should kill 10x more TSPA and ISI leaders as leaders of Afghans get killed. And India should help in all ways possible!

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 16, 2011
German president promises to remain ally to Afghanistan: Deutsche Presse Agentur

Kabul - Germany will remain a loyal ally of Afghanistan, but also expects the country to do its utmost to stamp out terrorism in the region, said German President Christian Wulff during a visit to the country Sunday.

'Afghanistan and the international community can not shy away from any effort to end terror and violence against innocent people,' said Wulff during a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

'Germany will not abandon Afghanistan,' Wulff said on what was the first state visit by a German president to Afghanistan for 44 years. At the same time, he also decried corruption, criminality and a drug trade that still runs rampant in parts of the country.

In return, Karzai told Wulff - whose role is largely ceremonial - Germany was an 'old friend of Afghanistan.'

Part of the reason for trip was to prepare the way for a conference on Afghanistan scheduled for December in Germany.
But Wulff - who was on his way to visit German troops in Afghanistan's north - was also careful not to forgo a visit with Karzai. Such a move in 2010 by Wulff's predecessor - Horst Koehler - was seen as a snub by Karzai.

Koehler resigned shortly afterwards due to controversial comments he made about German military involvement in Afghanistan.

Wulff said that Germany would remain a friend and partner for Afghanistan even after the withdrawal of international troops planned for 2014.

Karzai praised Germany as one of the biggest donors to Afghanistan over the past decade, adding: 'Germany has served the people of Afghanistan, and has endeavoured for the prosperity and development of Afghanistan and has put the money earned with sweat and hardworking of its people in the service of Afghan people.'

Even as India trains ANA and ANP, India cannot be expected to undertake the full burden of financing Afghanistan's security forces. Germany, Japan, and other rich countries would have to share the burden!

We need to adopt the Chinese way here! The way Chinese have become Pakistan's bestest ally without really giving them much in the form of money, but letting the West finance their dog. We too need to give ANSF (Afghanistan National Security Forces) the teeth with which they can take down TSPA, but let the West provide the ANSF with the food!

[Philip]

Indo-Iranian relations cannot be viewed through the monocular lens of Afghanistan.The inter-state relations stand alone quite independent by itself.

Firstly,India and Iran have a historic relationship that goes back centuries,long before the US was brought into being! Iran is also the leading Shiite nation on the planet and abulwark against the excessve zeal of the Wahabi fundamentalists who are bankrolled by the Saudis.The call from the head of the Sufi Muslims of India-in the media today,to all Muslims to resist the efforts of the Saudi backed Wahabis ,to resist getting involved with thir terror plots against the Indian state ("hand them over to the police"),is a very welcome statement and policy.India needs also needs strong support internationally from other Muslim countries to oppose the nfarious plots and machinations of the Saudi-Paki combine and it is here that Iran is a massive obstacle to these designs.It is why the saudis-who have an exceptionally close relationship with the US,are trying to destabilise Iran.

The news today that the Pakis and US have patched up their relastionship and "cannot do without each other",is the most disgusting expression of illicit,diplomatic fornicating between two nations that have no scruples whatsoever.For the US it is a sad betrayal of the hundreds of lives of American soldiers lost in the Afghan War,who were betrayed by the Paki/ISI/Taliban family,who actually sup with Hillary Clinton and the Sate Dept dervishes at the same table after having drunk the blood of US soldiers! Thos Indians who saw a new direction in US foreign policy for the region will be deeply dismayed as we predicted it all a long time ago.America has no guts to go after Pak and would rather sacrifice more lives of it soldiers-cannon fodder,instead of taking the hard road to cleansing Pak.America's lust for it favourite rent-boy will come back later to haunt it and the Obama regime has shown itself to be utterly without morals or integrity.India must prepare for the worst in Afghanistan,as now we will have both the CIA and the ISI working together to wound India.Nauseating in the extreme.

Therefore,Indo-Iranian relations must be given the highest priority,just as we are doing with Vietnam,etc.,and the two nations should work out a roadmap to counter the devilish plots of Wahabi demons of Pak and Saudi Arabia.Remember too that Iran has the capacity to choke oil supplies from leaving the Gulf and one would rather have Iran inside India's tent pissing out-at the Saudis and Pakis,then outside pissing in!

[RajeshA]

Indo-Iranian relations must be given the highest priority,just as we are doing with Vietnam,etc.,and the two nations should work out a roadmap to counter the devilish plots of Wahabi demons of Pak and Saudi Arabia.Remember too that Iran has the capacity to choke oil supplies from leaving the Gulf and one would rather have Iran inside India's tent pissing out-at the Saudis and Pakis,then outside pissing in!

The only condition is that India does not become dependent on Iran for our military/strategic involvement in Afghanistan! Everything else can be discussed.

[abhischekcc]

The $1 trillion mineral wealth in afghanistan is a myth promoted by teh US general who was thrown out by Obama (forget his name). He was at war with the civilians over the future course of afghan war, and he needed this propoganda to justify a high level of military engagement in afpak.
-----------

Very few people want to state the obvious.

For years, the US officials and Indian liberals have said that the only reason to support a dictator is pakistan is to prevent someone worsely jehadic from taking over. Well, Kiyani is that worsely jehadic general.

What people in liberal/western narrative do not want to say is that there is now no reason for a complete break down of relations between India and Pakistan. This is because admitting this would be admitting the utter failure of their policy of appeasement, and the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that it exposes on their side.

[RajeshA]

What people in liberal/western narrative do not want to say is that there is now no reason for a complete break down of relations between India and Pakistan. This is because admitting this would be admitting the utter failure of their policy of appeasement, and the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that it exposes on their side.

abhischekkcc ji,

Official Line should be "India is trying to downgrade the forces within Pakistan which want to spread terrorism and chaos in the region, not only in India and Afghanistan, but in Pakistan also. These obscurantist and imperialist forces should not succeed. As such India will collaborate and cooperate with all right-thinking constituencies and groups who share the same aim.

Some parts of the Pakistani establishment are determined to cause harm to both India and Afghanistan. These elements need to be rooted out!

India is in favor of a peaceful region where all three countries - India, Pakistan and Afghanistan can prosper, share in the prosperity and historical cultural ties and enable a better future for their populations."

And then we go out and hit at TSPA and ISI from both ends!

Of course Aman ka Tamasha can continue with the civilians!

[Philip]

India's foreign policy should be sovereign and independent.We should not be swayed either from the east or west and judge situs according to our interests.Therefore Iran cannot become a "kidnapper" of India's foreign policy and the relationshp will and should be more transparent .

Latest news indicates that the US may be planning a larg military adventure into Haqqani territory.Is Obama serious or is this another tamasha for the media?

really going after the Haqqani as the report says or is it only further sabre-rattling.

US gathering troops near Pak border: Tribal elder
American troops in Afghanistan are massing along the border with Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region where insurgents hold swamy, a tribal elder said Monday.

17/10/2011
US gathering troops near Pak border: Tribal elder
American troops in Afghanistan are massing along the border with Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region where insurgents hold swamy, a tribal elder said Monday.

Malik Muhammad Mumtaz told Xinhua via phone from the region that travellers had seen movement of US troops in Afghanistan near the border areas.

Afghan nationals, who routinely travel to North Waziristan for trade, said they had seen US fighter aircraft flying over the border region, the elder said.

TV channels also reported that the US troops clamped curfew in some areas in Afghanistan to restrict movement of the people.

Geo television said that American forces in the border Khost province have sealed the border with Pakistan.

The US forces have moved heavy weapons, including artillery, to the Pakistani border region, the reports said.

The motive behind the troop movements were not clear but it comes amid tension between Islamabad and Washington over the Haqqani network, which the US says is launching attacks from North Waziristan across the border into Afghanistan.

US drones have stepped up strikes in Waziristan region. At least four US strikes in three days have killed nearly 10 people, including three Egyptians who were thought to be linked to Haqqani network.

US officials say that members of the Haqqani network operate from North Waziristan tribal region and plan cross-border attacks there into Afghanistan.

The US is asking Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network, blamed for last month's attack on the US embassy in Kabul that killed 10 Afghan security men.

Barrack Obama has decided to go all-out against the Haqqani network.US gathering troops near Pak border: Tribal elder
American troops in Afghanistan are massing along the border with Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region where insurgents hold swamy, a tribal elder said Monday.

2You recommend this71%You don't recommend this29%Share


Malik Muhammad Mumtaz told Xinhua via phone from the region that travellers had seen movement of US troops in Afghanistan near the border areas.

Afghan nationals, who routinely travel to North Waziristan for trade, said they had seen US fighter aircraft flying over the border region, the elder said.

TV channels also reported that the US troops clamped curfew in some areas in Afghanistan to restrict movement of the people.

Geo television said that American forces in the border Khost province have sealed the border with Pakistan.

The US forces have moved heavy weapons, including artillery, to the Pakistani border region, the reports said.

The motive behind the troop movements were not clear but it comes amid tension between Islamabad and Washington over the Haqqani network, which the US says is launching attacks from North Waziristan across the border into Afghanistan.

US drones have stepped up strikes in Waziristan region. At least four US strikes in three days have killed nearly 10 people, including three Egyptians who were thought to be linked to Haqqani network.

US officials say that members of the Haqqani network operate from North Waziristan tribal region and plan cross-border attacks there into Afghanistan.

The US is asking Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network, blamed for last month's attack on the US embassy in Kabul that killed 10 Afghan security men.

Barrack Obama has decided to go all-out against the Haqqani network.

[SwamyG]

Last OT on Iran.

The shortest route to CAR is from PoK. In the absence of our access to CAR through PoK. We have to look elsewhere. India shares with Iran history for good or bad. Iran on itself is important because of the access it provides to CAR & CIS republics; and its population of 75 million and vast land mass. It takes more importance because of our interest in Afghanistan. Spread of influence in a society is better done through trade and cultural exchanges. As long as Afghans are sympathetic to Bollywood, Indian lifestyle, Indian culture & heritage; India should maximize the trade opportunities. India cannot wait till Pakistan is sorted out. It needs Afghanistan now. Though Iran is on the Arabian sea, it should be considered to be an Indian Ocean Rim country for strategic reasons. PVNR instituted "Look East", I hope some one institutes a visible policy on the Indian Ocean Rim.

[ramana]

I am losing interest in Af-pak thread after the pact.

Meanwhile Nightwatch on lessosn learned in Afghanistan

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Ni ... 00207.aspx

Afghanistan: The first suicide bombing in in the Panjshir valley of Panjshir Province occurred on 15 October, near a Coalition facility.

Four militants were stopped outside the Provincial Reconstruction Team headquarters that houses US and Afghan troops and civilians, according to Afghan and NATO officials. Militants detonated their explosives, killing two civilians and wounding two guards, the deputy provincial governor said. The compound was not breached and there were no foreign casualties, a NATO spokesman said.

Comment: The NATO command tried to put the best face on this attack by minimizing the quantity of such attacks. The fact is Panjshir Province has been free of Taliban activity since 2001. Panjshiris despise Pashtuns. The Taliban never succeeded in subduing the Panjshiris, even when they ruled from Kabul. However, this attack indicates the anti-government entities have sufficient support that they could execute a bombing attack even in Panjshir, after ten years of trying.

The expansion of suicide tactics to Panjshir is unprecedented. There is now no province of Afghanistan that is free of Taliban and other anti-government subversion and violence. It is an important benchmark of the deterioration of the security situation. It means that the combined forces of Afghanistan, NATO and the US could not keep a single province of Afghanistan safe from anti-government violence, even one with a supportive local population.

Special comment: The Panjshir attack puts in focus four recent comments. First is General McChrystal's remarks that the US entered Afghanistan without knowing enough. In fact, the US has been engaged in Afghanistan almost since the end of World War II, but not with military forces. That explains how, for example, the Dupree's became two of the foremost experts on Afghanistan in the English-speaking world. If the General and his staff didn't know enough it was his and his staff's fault because the expertise was available and was presented, or at least offered, to every US commanding general starting in 2001.

McChrystal told the media that the US had a superficial understanding of the situation and the history and had a frighteningly simplistic view of Afghanistan when the war began. That might have been the true of the general, his colleagues and the special operations command, but it was never true of defense intelligence.

The second comment was from a German general who helped in the formation of the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), which NATO later took over. General Harald Kujat said Germany was never informed that its forces would be engaged in combat. As a result they deployed to Afghanistan improperly equipped and funded. They were told by the Americans, he told a German media outlet, that they would control a peaceful region in northern Afghanistan, centered on Konduz Province, and would be engaged in stabilization, not combat.

NightWatch readers will recognize Konduz Province as the most volatile of all the northern provinces because it contains a large Pashtun population. For six years the Germans have been in combat near continuously in Konduz with poor equipment, leadership and success.

A third commentary was sour grapes from British generals who said the security problem remains much more serious than they were led to expect and the gains of the NATO forces have been exaggerated.

The fourth commentary is from a pair of US academics. These two studied British tactics in Afghanistan in the late 1800s and found that the British had already tried and applied what are now the main precepts of American counterinsurgency doctrine, such as having tea with village elders to discuss problems. The British senior officers wrote in detail about their experiences and those writings remain available. The British learned those tactics produced short term good will, but long term failure.

Finally, the Russians also have a large body of military literature about lessons learned in Afghanistan dating to before the 1920s. Various Russian generals and field grade officers have lamented on occasion that the Americans never consulted them, but have made the same mistakes the Russians made in Afghanistan.

Need to watch for these lessons. The main one is that the Afghans should not preceive the Indian presence as occupiers. All above case are occupying troops being opposed.

[Rudradev]

Serious question. Assume the political will existed and diplomatic groundwork was done. Can the Northern Areas be taken back, independently of Ghulam Kashmir (Mirpur and Muzaffarabad?) Are there strategic/operational difficulties that preclude a campaign to take back Gilgit and Baltistan, while only maintaining a defensive posture along the southern LOC (or at the most, pre-emptively seizing and holding certain strategic spots like Haji Pir bulge to safeguard Punch?) Would the possession of any existing supply line through Ghulam Kashmir make an invasion of Northern Areas easier to support? Conversely, would TSPA having control of Ghulam Kashmir confer any military advantage on them in a battle for Northern Areas?

[ShauryaT]

The shortest route to CAR is from PoK. In the absence of our access to CAR through PoK. We have to look elsewhere. India shares with Iran history for good or bad. Iran on itself is important because of the access it provides to CAR & CIS republics; and its population of 75 million and vast land mass. It takes more importance because of our interest in Afghanistan. Spread of influence in a society is better done through trade and cultural exchanges. As long as Afghans are sympathetic to Bollywood, Indian lifestyle, Indian culture & heritage; India should maximize the trade opportunities. India cannot wait till Pakistan is sorted out. It needs Afghanistan now. Though Iran is on the Arabian sea, it should be considered to be an Indian Ocean Rim country for strategic reasons. PVNR instituted "Look East", I hope some one institutes a visible policy on the Indian Ocean Rim.

Relationships not based on shared values need a transactional underpinning. What Iran can offer to us is hydrocarbon resources - Kind of our own Saudi Arabia. What we can potentially offer to Iran is security guarantees and a strong defense and political relationship - against the Sunni world and a way to have a reasonable relationship with the west - under our protection. I think, Iran would welcome such a move, question is can India deliver? A similar question exists for Vietnam too. Can India deliver? Also for Burma.

[Neshant]

What we can potentially offer to Iran is security guarantees and a strong defense and political relationship - against the Sunni world and a way to have a reasonable relationship with the west - under our protection.

Most Iranians i've met are hot headed.

India should get involved with them on a strategic level as they are rather unstable in their behavior and could land us in all kinds of quagmires.

Second they don't need protection. They are pretty formidable and have a population that, despite pounding of arab islam into their heads, are quite nationalistic. Invading their country Iraq style by the US would be no cake walk.

The biggest threat to their government are their own people who tend towards violent uprisings.

The only thing India needs from them are their hydrocarbons. Maybe they are common interests here and there but I would not go overboard with any alliance with these folks.

[RajeshA]

Recently there was a study conducted by the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation of Germany in Afghanistan. It polled 5000 Afghans from 5 provinces in Afghanistan, 1000 from each province (Kabul, Herat, Nangarhar, Khost and Balkh). 23 questions were put to them.

1) Are you satisfied with the democratic evolution of Afghanistan?
YES: 51 NO: 49

2) Are you satisfied with the performance of the Government?
YES: 31 NO: 69

3) Are you satisfied with the performance of the new Parliament?
YES: 23 NO: 77

4) Do you trust the various organs of the State (Ministries, Departments, etc)?
YES: 28 NO: 72

5) In your view, do the political parties are relevant in Afghanistan?
YES: 45 NO: 55

6) Is democracy the best political system for Afghanistan?
YES: 47 NO: 53

7) Would you vote in the next elections?
YES: 66 NO: 34

8 ) Are you satisfied with the security situation in Afghanistan?
YES: 22 NO: 78

9) Should the Government negotiate with the Taliban?
YES: 63 NO: 37

10) Should Taliban be allowed to share in the political power?
YES: 51 NO: 49

11) Can the Taliban be defeated militarily?
YES: 46 NO: 54

12) Are you in favor of a pullout by the NATO/ISAF troops in 2014?
YES: 57 NO: 43

13) Do you believe that Osama bin Laden is dead?
YES: 57 NO: 43

14) Does the terror organization Al Qaeda still pose a threat?
YES: 70 NO: 30

15) Do you see NATO/ISAF as a guarantor of security for Afghanistan?
YES: 39 NO: 61

16) Do you see NATO/ISAF as an occupier?
YES: 56 NO: 44

17) Would there be a renewed civil war after the pullout of NATO/ISAF?
YES: 60 NO: 40

18) Are you satisfied with the performance of Afghan security forces?
YES: 46 NO: 54

19) Do you see it as important, to intensify bilateral relations with Islamic Republic of Iran?
YES: 70 NO: 30

20) Do you see it as important, to intensify bilateral relations with Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
YES: 58 NO: 42

21) Do you see it as important, to intensify bilateral relations with USA?
YES: 64 NO: 36

22) Do you see it as important, to intensify bilateral relations with Republic of India?
YES: 76 NO: 24

23) Are you satisfied with the level of engagement of the international community?
YES: 47 NO: 53

************

By the way, Nangarhar and Khost are two provinces which border Pakistan, so it is understandable that the people there would be in favor of intensifying bilateral relations, especially as the border is porous! So even the 58% approval for Pakistan does not constitute a favorability rating!

[rohitvats]

Serious question. Assume the political will existed and diplomatic groundwork was done. Can the Northern Areas be taken back, independently of Ghulam Kashmir (Mirpur and Muzaffarabad?) Are there strategic/operational difficulties that preclude a campaign to take back Gilgit and Baltistan, while only maintaining a defensive posture along the southern LOC (or at the most, pre-emptively seizing and holding certain strategic spots like Haji Pir bulge to safeguard Punch?) Would the possession of any existing supply line through Ghulam Kashmir make an invasion of Northern Areas easier to support? Conversely, would TSPA having control of Ghulam Kashmir confer any military advantage on them in a battle for Northern Areas?

Short answer. NO.

Cannot be done in the timeline likely to be available to us. Nor do we have sufficient resources. Plus, fighting PA only in mountains in an isolated war zone - like Kargil - is a bad strategy. They can bear to bring enough troops to ensure we get superficial gains at the maximum.

In terms of connectivity - will look up and come back.

[ShauryaT]

Serious question. Assume the political will existed and diplomatic groundwork was done. Can the Northern Areas be taken back, independently of Ghulam Kashmir (Mirpur and Muzaffarabad?) Are there strategic/operational difficulties that preclude a campaign to take back Gilgit and Baltistan, while only maintaining a defensive posture along the southern LOC (or at the most, pre-emptively seizing and holding certain strategic spots like Haji Pir bulge to safeguard Punch?) Would the possession of any existing supply line through Ghulam Kashmir make an invasion of Northern Areas easier to support? Conversely, would TSPA having control of Ghulam Kashmir confer any military advantage on them in a battle for Northern Areas?

Even if we have every conceivable military power for such a venture, it will cross nuclear red lines. The way out is salami slicing, when opportunities are provided due to tactical brilliances of PA (such as Kargil). TSP's strategic depth can be its strategic waterloo also, if India works on the Pashtuns. Never forget the Durand line is not recognized on both sides of the border and 2/3 of Pashtuns live in TSP. The ANA should be our investment towards another partition of TSP. Either Pakjab or NWFP would be natural logistical bases into NA, especially NWFP for Gilgit. What can help India in the interim is to assert its sovereignty rights over NA through air power and raise a special forces division for short ops in the area.

[Lalmohan]

India should open recruitment for the Pashtun Scouts or Pashtun Rifles - as a new regiment in the IA

[Agnimitra]

What we can potentially offer to Iran is security guarantees and a strong defense and political relationship - against the Sunni world and a way to have a reasonable relationship with the west - under our protection.

Most Iranians i've met are hot headed.

India should get involved with them on a strategic level as they are rather unstable in their behavior and could land us in all kinds of quagmires.

Second they don't need protection. They are pretty formidable and have a population that, despite pounding of arab islam into their heads, are quite nationalistic. Invading their country Iraq style by the US would be no cake walk.

The biggest threat to their government are their own people who tend towards violent uprisings.

The only thing India needs from them are their hydrocarbons. Maybe they are common interests here and there but I would not go overboard with any alliance with these folks.

We would be fools to ignore systematic strategic engagement with Iran, because
(a) It is the emerging regional power in the ME,
(b) We want to prevent formation of an Iran-Pak-PRC axis,
(c) We can achieve very little power projection in AFG or W.Asia without dovetailing some objectives with Iran.

IMHO India's approach to Iran should be along the lines of our engagement with Myanmar. See the article 'India burnishes Myanmar ties'. This is based on
(a) A proven, reliable security guarantee and ability to balance against another potential hegemon,
(b) People-to-people contacts and ties in culture, education, and business,
(c) Acting as a benign medium to facilitate the tense political discourse between the regime and people, and the easing in of democratic culture by 'osmosis'.

The dictatorial rulers of these countries actually appreciate the space that engagement with India lends to the tense domestic political discourse and the cultural aspirations of the people. India is seen as a benign influence. Whereas all the preachy 'democracy' hollering of the US seen as a mask for a bullying, interfering, hypocritical hegemonistic agenda. India has to differentiate itself and use its soft power.

[ramana]

RajeshA, Try to group the survey answers into governance, intl relations, Taiban talks and such to make sense of it. The big picture is the Afghans want good governance and all that goes with it.

[RamaY]

The more important trends IMO

Recently there was a study conducted by the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation of Germany in Afghanistan. It polled 5000 Afghans from 5 provinces in Afghanistan, 1000 from each province (Kabul, Herat, Nangarhar, Khost and Balkh). 23 questions were put to them.

1) Are you satisfied with the democratic evolution of Afghanistan?
YES: 51 NO: 49

7) Would you vote in the next elections?
YES: 66 NO: 34

11) Can the Taliban be defeated militarily?
YES: 46 NO: 54

14) Does the terror organization Al Qaeda still pose a threat?
YES: 70 NO: 30

17) Would there be a renewed civil war after the pullout of NATO/ISAF?
YES: 60 NO: 40

18) Are you satisfied with the performance of Afghan security forces?
YES: 46 NO: 54

All the other questions will get similar (if not same) responses irrespective of the country. Even in USA it is possible that less percentage of people have 'belief' in govt structures and politicians.

Afghanistan is still an young nation from development perspective. I hope Govt. of Afghanistan and GoI are mindful of these common issues and instead focus on the issues that matter in strengthening the nation and stand on its own legs.

Added Later - just saw Ramanaji's post. Touche

[ShauryaT]

India should open recruitment for the Pashtun Scouts or Pashtun Rifles - as a new regiment in the IA

Idea is good but will have more teeth as a wing of ANA to oppose the 80,000 strong Frontier Force. When you pit one Pashtun against another strange things can happen. The quickest way for Pakistan to loose this region is if they cannot trust the loyalties of the frontier force.

Another thing to do is to fund and support the activities of groups such as the Balawaristan National Front (BNF), Gilgit-Baltistan Jamhoori Mahaz, Muttehada Quami Party and United Kashmir People's National Party (UKPNP).

At the political level, we should convince the US that Afghanistan is viable, only if it has access to the sea and that means Baluchistan. Baluchistan is the only way the geographic lock of TSP on Afghanistan can be broken, if Iran is counted out. Quetta is majority Pashtun.