Session IV: Case Study: Afghanistan and Its Neighbourhood

Chair: Amb. Phunchok Stobdan

Participants:

Dr. Sandra Destradi, Emerging and Established Powers: Regional and Global Approaches to the Transition in Afghanistan

Dr. Meena Singh Roy, India, Iran, Russia and Central Asian States and their Approach to Afghanistan

Dr. des. Nadine Godehardt, China in Central Asia: Implications for Afghanistan

Mr. Vishal Chandra, Transition in Afghanistan

The fourth session of the IDSA-GIGA bilateral workshop provided a range of perspectives on Afghanistan and its neighbourhood.

Dr Sandra Destradi, Research Fellow, GIGA called for an analytical perspective to approach the situation in Afghanistan. She pointed out that even as the international community was gearing up to leave Afghanistan after 2014, they have made efforts to reach regional solutions: be it the New Silk Road initiative or the ‘Heart of Asia’ Istanbul process. Among the many countries involved in Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) for Afghanistan, she noted that India was active in the field of commerce. However, she pointed out that there is no significant working mechanism on conflict management involving regional actors.

Taking note of the multiplicity of regional and extra-regional actors who have interests in Afghanistan due to its geostrategic location, Dr Destradi said that most accounts explain the lack of a regional solution for stabilising Afghanistan by assessing diverging preferences of actors individually. She pointed out the need to take into account regional dimensions: actors embedded in regions with their own distinctive security dynamics. Dr Destradi noted the example of the influence of India-Pakistan relations on India or Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy.

Drawing on Buzan and Wæver’s work on regional security complexes where they had positioned Afghanistan as an ‘insulator’ or ‘core’ of overlapping regions that keeps the security dynamics of different regions apart, Dr Destradi argued that such a formulation was not relevant any more. She noted that there were indicators of interactions among the security dynamics of different regions in and through Afghanistan, through projects like the TAPI pipeline, Delaram-Zaranj highway that tie South Asia to other regions like the Middle East. She also pointed out that linking Central and South Asia through tangible projects has security repercussions.

Dr Destradi stressed on the need to address regional contexts, not just preferences of single actors, by examining the mechanisms and practices of security governance in regions that overlap in Afghanistan. Thus, while South Asia might be functioning in a Balance of Power system, Central Asia faces a situation where the traditional Balance of Power formulation is shifting to an emerging security community

Dr Meena Singh Roy, Research Fellow, IDSA presented her paper on seeking a new regional approach towards Afghanistan. Dr Roy began by noting that while regional actors had provided help to US/NATO forces in Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, the long stay of coalition forces has been widely viewed as leading to the deterioration of the condition in Afghanistan. She pointed out that while there have been a lot of discussions on regional mechanisms and cooperation, there have been few concrete results out of this deliberation. She stressed on the need to address the hard ground realities of Afghanistan, while taking into account regional complexities.

Dr Roy said that there were two prevailing views in Afghanistan:

1. An optimistic view that the Afghanistan of today is a free and transforming society that seeks to be a democratic country, a ‘land bridge’ and strategic partner of the West. This view holds that a strategic partnership with the US is crucial for the future of Afghanistan and calls for regional, international cooperation to secure Afghanistan’s future.
2. The other view bases itself on the hard realities of Afghanistan, questioning the safety of areas outside Government control and the increase in Taliban insurgency. It holds that the efforts of US-led forces to defeat Taliban and bring peace to the country appear weak, while the process of reconciliation with Taliban and rebuilding political, social institutions is not promising.

Dr Roy noted that there was however, was consensus that there was no military solution to the Afghan problem and the focus instead should be on providing substantial aid to Kabul and strengthening the Afghan economy. She said there was also a realisation that there can be no solution without the involvement of neighbouring actors.

Discussing ways to tackle the situation in Afghanistan, she noted that regional complexities were entrenched and rooted in the historical experience of colonialism, Partition that affected relations between countries like India and Pakistan.

Dr Roy discussed Iran’s approach towards Afghanistan and pointed out Iran’s belief that the solution of the Afghan problem lies in its regionalisation. She stressed that Iran sees Afghanistan as a strategic issue, It has a cultural interest in the country and desires a stable Afghanistan that acts as a bridge between South, Central and West Asia. Noting that Iran’s main interests were in development, she pointed out Iran’s two pronged approach to Afghanistan that involved the establishment of a stable government in Afghanistan and withdrawal of US troops. She pointed out Iran’s belief that stability and peace in Afghanistan should be taken care of in the regional level, while developmental activity should also be a concern of the international community.

With the US unwilling to acknowledge the constructive role of Iran in Afghanistan, Iran sees Afghanistan issue as a question of national pride. She argued that international mechanisms can be put in place to placate the suspicions of Iran and noted Iran’s suggestion that reducing the US rhetoric of hitting out at Iran through the media would be the first step of building such cooperation.

Dr Roy pointed out that Afghanistan, on its part, wants to take into account Iran’s legitimate interests while working on a strategic partnership with US. She said that Afghanistan was also fully willing to facilitate negotiation between Iran and the West and pointed out the argument made by some Afghan scholars that Herat could be a ‘Helsinki of the region’.

Discussing the current Russian stance on Afghanistan, Dr Roy quoted the Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement that Russia will never involve itself in another Afghanistan situation. She pointed out that while NATO and Russia might have a dialogue on Afghanistan, there was not much scope for any involvement beyond that. Noting concerns that problems will aggravate post 2014, Dr Roy said that President Putin had proposed an action program through the CSTO to minimize possible risks after 2014. Reiterating that there would be no Russian military involvement, she pointed out that Russia supports the role of regional players and sees India as a partner playing a role in Afghanistan after 2014.

According to Dr Roy, Afghanistan is an issue of major concern for the Central Asian countries, but due to their lack of sufficient military/economic capabilities, they are dependent on major powers like US, China and work through regional organisations.

While she was sceptical that a regional mechanism can be evolved, Dr Roy stressed that a vision for a new Afghanistan is necessary and pointed out that developmental approaches must be the key strategy for regional countries be it through bilateral or trilateral mechanisms. She suggested the possibility of creating a regional development bank for Afghanistan and reviving old trade with regional partners. She also suggested that there could an agreement among regional countries through the UN for non-interference in Afghanistan and called for annual meetings, sustained dialogue on Afghanistan between them. She concluded that Afghanistan cannot accommodate hegemonic interests of its neighbours, but legitimate interests can be accommodated.

Vishal Chandra, Associate Fellow at IDSA, said that one cannot look at Afghanistan independent of developments taking place in its neighbourhood and argued that there are countries that have come to have stakes in the instability of Afghanistan. According to Mr Chandra, the political fate of Afghanistan was uncertain and the transition was not likely to deliver intended results. If history is any guide, he noted, ISAF troops will come under attack even as they withdraw, the position of Kabul would be further weakened as areas in the south and east come under Taliban control and there would be a bigger spurt in drug production. Mr Chandra stressed that there was a divide between the large parts of population that have benefitted from international engagement and have stakes in western powers remaining and those who have been negatively impacted by the internationalisation of the Afghan problem.

Mr Chandra outlined the following as factors that will pose challenges for stability in Afghanistan post 2014:

1. The absence of a functional state, lack of institutions, proper bureaucracy, administrative mechanisms and the presence of a weak central authority.
2. The lack of a pan-Afghan leadership going beyond sectarian divides.
3. The non-inclusive nature of Taliban ideology.

Mr Chandra said that there was not much clarity on US/NATO strategy post 2014 and pointed out that while there was news of talks going on in Afghanistan, it was hard to identify what they are talking about or agreeing to. He said the question remained if the Taliban was willing to accept a negotiated political settlement at a time when Western troops were drawing down, especially when the Taliban has not reconciled itself to the social, political diversity of the country. Mr Chandra argued that the supposed nationwide reconciliation process was more about tactical short-term deals and stressed that a genuine reconciliation process must have a strong social dimension to it. He raised concerns that even a Pakistan-mediated deal with the Taliban may not be sustainable in the longer run.

Mr Chandra noted that there was a lot of disagreement about what should be the nature of the Afghan state and the distribution of power to the provinces. While some believe in the centralised Presidential system, groups especially from the North argue for a more federalised set-up. He noted that arguments about the revision of the Afghan Constitution could further complicate issues.

According to him, the following steps were important for the future of Afghanistan:

1. Protecting the current political system and constitution .
2. Reviving the fundamentals of the Bonn 1 process that helped civilianising the role of various militia commanders/warlords who have now taken up civilian political roles.
3. International participation and a broad-based multi-ethnic government are crucial.
4. Deemphasising the current focus on 2014, since the conflict is part of a long history of 30 years of war and is likely to continue after 2014.

According to Mr Chandra, the response of neighbouring countries to Afghanistan was dependent on their perceptions of US presence in Afghanistan and their individual relations with the US. He raised the question of whether the ‘regional approach’ would be in terms of supporting Western presence or was independent of Western presence.

On the issue of India’s policy towards Afghanistan, he noted that some have argued that India must keep out of the internal politics of Afghanistan while calling for an internationally-guaranteed neutral Afghan state, while some have argued that India must reach out to all groups in Afghanistan. He stressed that very few people have argued for Indian military involvement in Afghanistan. He noted that the following factors were critical for India’s post-2014 engagement with Afghanistan:

1. Sustainability of current political system, institutions, constitution.
2. Nature and level of Western engagement post-transition.
3. Role of Pakistan.
4. The new Afghan government’s perception of India and the role it could play.

Mr Chandra noted that the process of rebuilding Afghan capacities must go on despite widespread corruption, violence plaguing the country, since abandoning Afghanistan again was not a possibility.

Points raised in the interaction:

Dr. Michael Brzoska noted that the German and British governments see their involvement in Afghanistan after 9/11 as an activity showing solidarity with the US and thus European involvement, especially militarily, is closely linked with US strategy. He pointed out that the popular idea that a modern state can be created in Afghanistan in two decades has proven to be an illusion, especially with the resurgence of the Taliban. He noted that state-building cannot be a goal in Afghanistan, since there were no social foundations right now to accomplish such a goal.

According to Dr Brzoska, a process including decentralisation and a less ambitious plan for the future has more chances of success, rather than trying to modernise the country forcibly. He stressed the need to keep outside powers out of Afghanistan, while continuing to support Afghanistan, especially economically.

Col Rajeev Agarwal stressed that an artificially imposed political system and security provided externally cannot work in the longer term. He argued that individual regional/extra-regional actors are unlikely not change their perspective on utilising Afghanistan for individual strategic interests and called on Afghanistan to seek a solution within its boundaries. Noting that the Taliban must now be made part of the solution, he added that a federal structure to incorporate all actors and give all communities near-equal representation was needed.

Dr Meena Singh Roy argued that it was tough for Afghanistan to come up with a solution on its own, unless it received support from the international community. She reiterated that the challenge that Pakistan will not stop interfering in Afghanistan was the harsh reality.

Mr Vishal Chandra pointed out that the problem was in coming to terms with how much, if at all, the Taliban was willing to be part of participatory politics where people have a huge stake and involvement. Noting that Iran was a major political and cultural force within Afghanistan while Pakistan was a crucial political force, he argued that the way these countries interact between themselves and with the US would help shape post-2014 Afghanistan.

Dr Cord Jakobeit noted that 2014 was likely to provide an economic shock for Afghanistan due to a reduction in the cash flowing into the country. He argued that while there would be initial military commitment, there was no support in the US for long-term engagement with Afghanistan. He cautioned that ‘regionalisation’ was simply a euphemism for the fact that regional countries expected to play out their bilateral agendas in Afghanistan.

Dr Arvind Gupta stressed that solutions manufactured outside will not work for Afghanistan in the long-term. He noted that while India has a good bilateral relationship with Afghanistan, it was more or less a bystander in terms of regional mechanisms. According to Dr Gupta, China was likely to be next country to enter Afghanistan due to its increasing stakes in the country. While US troops will remain initially, he said that the task of providing security largely falls on the Afghan government and security forces. He argued that the conduct of elections and the results it provides were more important for Afghanistan than the US withdrawal itself, since it will be the new Afghan government that deals with security, economic challenges.

Report prepared by Ms Kalathmika Natarajan