Conflict or cooperation? The role of India and Pakistan in post-2014 Afghanistan
AbstractAs the coalition forces prepare to exit Afghanistan, concerns regarding peace and stability in the country and future power balance after their departure are becoming paramount. While there will be a considerable American presence, focus has now shifted to local infrastructure and services - civil, military and political and their ability to further peace and progress in the country. Owing to the geostrategic landscape of Afghanistan, in addition to its long conflict ridden history with a significant presence of the Taliban, concerns regarding revival of conflict and violence are coming to the fore - particularly from traditional South Asian rivals i.e. India and Pakistan. Through an in-depth study of the political, economic, cultural and regional dimensions of this tri-lateral relationship, the following paper examines how there is a significant clash of interests and how there can cooperation between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan.Key Words: Afghanistan, Taliban, India-Pakistan relations, US withdrawal, new Great Game, Strategic DepthIntroductionDealing with the situation unfolding in Afghanistan and its ramifications present a formidable challenge, both for Afghanistan as well as regional and international players who have a stake in its future and have contributed significantly to efforts towards reconstruction of the war-torn nation. On May 27, 2014, US President Barack Obama announced that the last American troops would withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2016. However, this announcement needs to be further clarified. A Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) would permit a residual American military presence, some 9,800 US troops will remain in the country after 2014, with half of them slated to depart by the end of 2015. From 2015 onward, the remaining troops will train the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) for two more years, eventually leaving only a token force to protect the American embassy in Kabul (Grare, 2010). Nonetheless, the international community is willing to continue engagements in both civilians and military matters for ensuring economic development, security and political stability in Afghanistan (Yuasa, 2014, p.285).The decision of the US and its allies to withdraw troops from Afghanistan is a reflection of domestic political concerns and the large number of casualties. From 2001 until February 2012, the US-led coalition troops lost 2,884 soldiers, including 1,895 from the US alone (Chesser 2012, p.1-4). Based on this data, 2010 and 2011 were the deadliest years in Afghanistan. The Afghan Army and Police have also suffered the loss of roughly 4,000 members (Caldwell 2011 online). In addition to military casualties, the conflict has also claimed the lives of 2,080 civilians just in the year 2010. Even though American forces are preparing for withdrawal, the conflict in Afghanistan is far from over. There is overwhelming evidence of the resurgence of the Taliban and attacks on civilians and state infrastructure are on a rise. In addition, the political and military structure of Afghanistan continues to be weakened by factionalism and tribal rivalries, further clouding prospects for a peaceful transition after the withdrawal of foreign troops. According to Saghafi-Ameri (Saghafi-Ameri, 2012, p.1), "the main causes of the present situation in Afghanistan include lack of proper planning, shifting policies, inattention to geopolitical realities and over-reliance on military power without the necessary attention to development and civilian assistance plans".In such an environment, the involvement of local actors becomes preeminent in shaping the course of future events in Afghanistan. A key ally in the US led military action in Afghanistan is neighbouring Pakistan. A former ally of the Taliban and a country, which faces direct repercussions of conflict in Afghanistan owing to a large number of refugees, Pakistan has been at the forefront of reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. …
Dynamics of Trust and Mistrust in the Afghanistan–Pakistan Relationship
ABSTRACT Following its independence from Britain in 1947, Pakistan inherited territorial disputes with Afghanistan and India. The conflicts over the Durand Line demarcation and Pashtunistan became guiding factors in Afghanistan’s opposition to Pakistan’s membership of the United Nations. Since then, relations have been more conflictual than cooperative. The nature of the bilateral relationship has been overshadowed by mutual mistrust, despite the two nations’ cultural links and Pakistan being home to the world’s largest number of Afghan refugees. This article employs trust theory to explain why the two states continue to have less cooperative, more conflictual relations. Based on the analysis, this paper accepts that bilateral interactions between the two states are dominated more by the long legacy of mistrust than by a perceived need for cooperation, but argues that they act more “rationally” when they interact with each other in negotiations involving other countries (e.g., trustworthy hegemons), whether in connection with trade or security matters. This article argues that the manifestations of strategic trust in multi-party negotiations are largely due to the fear of losing enormous economic and geopolitical benefits from other actors, such as China and India, in case of non-cooperation.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.