Chessboard Afghanistan
Published in die Zeit
(Germany) on 30 June 2011
by Ulrich Ladurner (link to original)
(Germany) on 30 June 2011
by Ulrich Ladurner (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Alex Brewer.
NATO wants to have no troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014. But does that mean we no longer have to be involved in the country? No, because Afghanistan will remain a chessboard for international powers, and Pakistan will be the major player.
What significance does the attack on the Hotel Intercontinental have?
The attack on the hotel shows two things. First, the Taliban hasn’t been defeated, but remains in a position to carry out spectacular attacks in downtown Kabul, the most secure city in the country; it was a show of strength. At the same time, the attack was a message for the West: No negotiations as long as your troops occupy our country. The Hotel Intercontinental was to have been the location for the first preliminary talks between the government and the Taliban. Finally, the attack was a foreshadowing of what may come after NATO has withdrawn from Afghanistan. The burning hotel is the handwriting on the wall that civil war may follow.
Will the Afghans be in a position to secure their country without outside help?
It’s possible, but it would require massive financial aid from the international community. Afghanistan would never be able to finance the gigantic security apparatus of 130,000 soldiers and 100,000 police personnel by themselves. The effort would take billions of dollars that would presumably have to come from the West, but not totally. The withdrawal of NATO in 2014 would certainly see increased involvement by other nations such as Iran. In any case, many foreign powers would try to gain a client in Afghanistan that would represent their own interests. Afghanistan’s own interests would retreat into the background and it would remain what it has been for most of its history: a chessboard on which greater powers would move its own pieces back and forth.
What would Pakistan’s role be?
There can be no Afghan peace without Pakistan; its influence is too great. The Pakistani military has always seen Afghanistan purely in the context of its own conflict with India. Afghanistan serves to provide Pakistan with “strategic depth,” namely, to ensure a secure border at Pakistan’s back in case of hostilities with India. Pakistan will stick to that concept, especially since its relations with India have not changed appreciably over the past ten years. The Kashmir conflict remains unresolved. The cold shoulder that exists between Pakistan and India could turn into a hot war at any time.
The decision to withdraw from Afghanistan has been made, but what about Pakistan?
When Barack Obama took office in 2008 he quickly developed a new strategy for the Afghan war in which he changed the basic principles. He no longer spoke only of Afghanistan, but of a theater of war he called AFPAK – Afghanistan plus Pakistan. Now that Obama had decided to withdraw from Afghanistan we’re left with the question of what policies will follow concerning Pakistan.
It’s certain that Pakistan is potentially more dangerous. It is a huge country with nuclear weapons where religious extremists have a great deal of influence. Then there’s the fact that a part of the Pakistani government protected Osama bin Laden, America’s most wanted enemy.
There are many reasons that would justify cutting all connections with Pakistan. Washington is, in fact, reducing its billions of dollars in military assistance to Pakistan and has begun to express increasing criticism of its partner. But it probably won’t come to a complete break in relations, as possible as that may be. Until now, in any case, Pakistan remains a significant part of U.S. security policy, and withdrawal from Afghanistan isn’t likely to change that.
And Pakistan has few friends. An alternative to the United States may be China, with whom Pakistan has worked closely since the 1950s. But China’s interest in Pakistan is chiefly economic — at least until now. It’s possible that in the future, China will begin competing more strongly with the United States not only economically, but also militarily and politically as well. In that case, Pakistan will then become a more important piece on the chessboard.
What significance does the attack on the Hotel Intercontinental have?
The attack on the hotel shows two things. First, the Taliban hasn’t been defeated, but remains in a position to carry out spectacular attacks in downtown Kabul, the most secure city in the country; it was a show of strength. At the same time, the attack was a message for the West: No negotiations as long as your troops occupy our country. The Hotel Intercontinental was to have been the location for the first preliminary talks between the government and the Taliban. Finally, the attack was a foreshadowing of what may come after NATO has withdrawn from Afghanistan. The burning hotel is the handwriting on the wall that civil war may follow.
Will the Afghans be in a position to secure their country without outside help?
It’s possible, but it would require massive financial aid from the international community. Afghanistan would never be able to finance the gigantic security apparatus of 130,000 soldiers and 100,000 police personnel by themselves. The effort would take billions of dollars that would presumably have to come from the West, but not totally. The withdrawal of NATO in 2014 would certainly see increased involvement by other nations such as Iran. In any case, many foreign powers would try to gain a client in Afghanistan that would represent their own interests. Afghanistan’s own interests would retreat into the background and it would remain what it has been for most of its history: a chessboard on which greater powers would move its own pieces back and forth.
What would Pakistan’s role be?
There can be no Afghan peace without Pakistan; its influence is too great. The Pakistani military has always seen Afghanistan purely in the context of its own conflict with India. Afghanistan serves to provide Pakistan with “strategic depth,” namely, to ensure a secure border at Pakistan’s back in case of hostilities with India. Pakistan will stick to that concept, especially since its relations with India have not changed appreciably over the past ten years. The Kashmir conflict remains unresolved. The cold shoulder that exists between Pakistan and India could turn into a hot war at any time.
The decision to withdraw from Afghanistan has been made, but what about Pakistan?
When Barack Obama took office in 2008 he quickly developed a new strategy for the Afghan war in which he changed the basic principles. He no longer spoke only of Afghanistan, but of a theater of war he called AFPAK – Afghanistan plus Pakistan. Now that Obama had decided to withdraw from Afghanistan we’re left with the question of what policies will follow concerning Pakistan.
It’s certain that Pakistan is potentially more dangerous. It is a huge country with nuclear weapons where religious extremists have a great deal of influence. Then there’s the fact that a part of the Pakistani government protected Osama bin Laden, America’s most wanted enemy.
There are many reasons that would justify cutting all connections with Pakistan. Washington is, in fact, reducing its billions of dollars in military assistance to Pakistan and has begun to express increasing criticism of its partner. But it probably won’t come to a complete break in relations, as possible as that may be. Until now, in any case, Pakistan remains a significant part of U.S. security policy, and withdrawal from Afghanistan isn’t likely to change that.
And Pakistan has few friends. An alternative to the United States may be China, with whom Pakistan has worked closely since the 1950s. But China’s interest in Pakistan is chiefly economic — at least until now. It’s possible that in the future, China will begin competing more strongly with the United States not only economically, but also militarily and politically as well. In that case, Pakistan will then become a more important piece on the chessboard.