Daily Times

Should there be a glimmer of hope with Afghan leader Abdullah-Abdullah’s visit to Islamabad which he undertook last week after 12 years? As a Chairman of High Council for National Reconciliation (HCNR) he holds the most unenviable job of conducting peace talks from the government side with an interlocutor which has the upper hand and, after the Doha Agreement, the militant religious group has developed much better understanding with the Americans. Taliban’s refusal to reduce violence or agree to ceasefire has become a bone of contention in the ongoing intra-Afghan dialogue at Doha, which Abdullah-led HCNR delegation has been insisting from the day one. Still, there is no agreed agenda for the talks, at least this is the impression one got during Dr. Abdullah’s interaction with officials and think tanks.

Dr. Abdullah, who received an unprecedented welcome normally reserved for the heads of state,conveyed to hisinterlocutors in Islamabad that since Pakistan has been instrumental in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table with the Americans, it should also nudge the religious clerics to be reasonable at the intra-Afghan dialogue. In the meantime, he reminded his audience that if there was internecine war in Afghanistan then “no one will be a winner”. However, if there was an agreement for peace then “everyone will be a winner”, he argued. Dr. Abdullah assured Islamabad that “Afghan soil would never be allowed against its neighbours or beyond”. He also hinted at the tremendous potential in trade and transit opportunities between Pakistan and Central Asia via Afghanistan should peace returns to Afghanistan.

Pakistani officials were equally warm to Dr. Abdullah and his delegation, and assured him that peace in Afghanistan was of prime concern to Pakistan which immensely suffered during the past two decades for being part of the war against terrorism. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s advice to Dr. Abdullah was to forget about the past mistakes and look for the future. In his twitter message he said: “We had a very interesting conversation: theme being the past is an invaluable teacher to learn from but not to live in”.

Symptomatic of the future contours of Afghan scene, where after two decades of war and destruction, one can feel the change in the offing although full of uncertainties

Dr. Abdullah was also assured by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi that Islamabad had no favourites and that “Pakistan fully supported the demand for reduction of violence by all sides leading to ceasefire”. Hopefully, these words would have sounded music to Dr. Abdullah’s ears which was evident in his reiteration of Mr. Qureshi’s assurances to his other interlocutors, including Islamabad-based think tanks and international media.

Despite well wishes displayed by both sides during Dr. Abdullah’s visit, Afghan watchers were skeptical about the possible role Pakistan could play in the intra-Afghan dialogue which is purely an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process. It isaltogether a different matter to nudge the Taliban to sit with the Americans and thrash out withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, but it would be entirely a different matter to stick our neck out on an issue where Afghans would be suspicious of Pakistan’s role. We should not forget that Afghanistan is heading towards peace through a path strewn with landmines.

For Pakistan, an equally important issue has been the role of spoilers in the Afghan imbroglio during the past four decades, especially after the 9/11 when India got the opportunity to use Afghan soil against Pakistan with the help of Afghan intelligence, NDS, tocause death and destruction in Pakistan. It is no secret that Tehreek Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have been receiving financial assistance from the Indian intelligence agency, RAW, through the NDS and/or Afghan intermediaries. Dr. Abdullah would not directly address the issue of India’s spoiler role, but was emphatic that Afghan soil would not be allowed to be used against any of Afghanistan’s neighbours. It is yet to be seen how Dr. Abdullah conveys to India during his visit to New Delhi to “lie low”, as commented by prominent Indian journalist Jyoti Malhotra in her recent article in The Print.

While Dr. Abdullah was still in Islamabad, diplomatic circles were rife with speculations that Americans have reconciled to the idea of accepting lion’s share for the Taliban in the future dispensation in the country provided the Taliban stick to their assurances of denying sanctuaries to Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Reportedly, Taliban seem to have sounded out the requisite assurances to the Americans. The foregoing assumptionmay have merit due to ground situation but it does not augur well for a negotiated settlement through the intra-Afghan dialogue unless government interlocutors receive huge inducements or armed twisting to accept Taliban’s dominance. Articulating the American thinking, eminent Afghan expert from the US, Barnett Rubin, said in a twitter message: “Like it or not Afghans have to figure out how to live with each other and their neighbors without the US. US might stay engaged, but don’t count on it.”

Secondly, Americans also seem to have convinced themselves that a democratic order in Afghanistan is still a far cry given the tribal structure of the Afghan society which prefers tribal norms over democratic principles. Added to this complexity is the past nineteen years of rent seeking by the Afghan warlords, including those supposedly elected through a democratic process. While Americans found themselves clearing the muck, Afghan warlords continued to thrive under the war economy; poppy cultivation reached its peak making Afghanistan the largest poppy producing country (92%) in the world. Ironically, it all happened under the US-NATO watch.

Third, a positive development for the Americans is that since the signing of the agreement in February this year both the Taliban and US forces have avoided attacking each other, which has facilitated withdrawal of over 7000 American troops from the country during the past seven months. This should serve as a major confidence building measure for the US to negotiate future arrangements with the Taliban in case the US may want to keep its residual forces in the country. Naturally, other Afghan groups currently enjoying share in power are unlikely to look at the emerging scenario favourably.

Symptomatic of the future contours of Afghan scene, where after two decades of war and destruction,one can feel the change in the offing although full of uncertainties. There are lessons for Pakistan: having burnt its fingers during the past four decades, those dealing with Afghanistan in the power corridors of Pakistan would be well advised to tread carefully and stay clear of the intra-Afghan dialogue. Let the Afghans decide for themselves, good or bad. What we can doin the emerging scenario is to manage Afghanistan, facilitate Afghans in transit and trade, assist in reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts, and maintain a strict vigil along the borders. We should support any efforts, within Afghanistan or abroad, that may bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country.Chances are, if Pakistan plays no favourites Afghans would prefer Pakistan as a partner.

The writer is former ambassador and a Senior Research Fellow at IPRI