Following the Moscow conference and the Heart of Asia conference held in Dushanbe, the Istanbul peace initiative is scheduled to be held this month which will exclusively focus on the Afghan peace process. In the meantime, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is expected to reiterate his three-phase peace plan on Afghanistan which he presented at the Dushanbe conference and will try his utmost to seek support from the participants of Istanbul conference. 

The Afghan president used the Heart of Asia conference to present his three-pronged peace plan as a counter to the US peace initiative which had called for an interim government inclusive of Taliban. The core of his peace plan calls for a “sovereign, democratic, united, neutral and connected Afghanistan” which looks quite ambitious. According to the Reuters news agency, the first phase calls for “a consensus on a political settlement and an internationally monitored ceasefire”. Phase two of his peace plan centres on “holding a presidential election and the establishment of a government of peace and implementation of arrangements for moving towards the new political system”. The third and final phase calls for “building a constitutional framework, reintegration of refugees and development for Afghanistan moving forward”. Attended by the foreign ministers of 15 countries, the Heart of Asia conference is supported by 17 countries and 12 regional and international organisations with a purpose to give a ‘jump-start’ to the Afghan peace process which has a question mark because of Taliban’s refusal of adhering to the Afghan constitution and Ashraf Ghani’s call for an early presidential elections. 

Believing in multilateralism and in an inclusive approach unlike his predecessor Donald Trump, President Joseph Biden is committed to taking the world along with America and not the world without America. Therefore, he is focusing on taking on board the UN and other stakeholders to actively participate in Istanbul conference. Talking to CNN the other day, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said, “So, we’ve put some energy into the diplomatic effort in sharing some ideas with the Afghan government, with the Taliban, in bringing them together, including a conference that will take place in the weeks ahead in Turkey. Having the UN play a more prominent role in bringing people together and also, getting all the neighbors and other countries who have both an interest and an influence in Afghanistan to actually engage.”

Prudence and wisdom seem to be the difference between the US under Trump and Biden, as unlike the former, the latter is pursing multi-stakeholder approach to deal with impediments which are quite obvious in the Afghan peace process. Knowing that the Taliban will not agree to Ghani’s three-pronged peace plan and they have also warned of serious consequences if the US fails to withdraw militarily from Afghanistan by May 1, the Biden administration is now using diplomatic and political channels to seek support from other stakeholders including Russia, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, India and the Central Asian neighbours of Afghanistan to pre-empt a surge of violence. 

How the Istanbul conference will be different from the Moscow and Dushanbe events depends on how serious and committed the participants would be on bridging the gap in various positions and focusing on the future of Afghans who have been suffering from violence since 1973. Flexibility, prudence and statesmanship are three major requirements which must be taken into account by the participants of Istanbul conference so that the future of Afghanistan is different from the present and the past. It is yet to be seen if more peace plans will be presented by the participants or only Ghani’s peace proposal will be discussed during the conference. So far, the three-pronged peace plan presented by the Afghan President seems to be the only well-structured initiative which can be analysed from three different angles.

First, it is not only the Kabul regime that has a stake for remaining in power but there are other forces that are unwilling to give any space for the Taliban to seize the opportunity in the wake of the withdrawal of American forces. It is also possible that the Ghani’s peace plan has a tacit approval of the US as it cannot openly support the Kabul regime but can certainly approve a plan which calls for peace through dialogue and political process. The idea is to keep the Taliban at bay in the Istanbul conference and project their intransigent and undemocratic stance as a major impediment. 

Second, the pros and cons of Ghani’s peace plan seek a political and peaceful way to normalise situation in Afghanistan. There is nothing wrong when he calls for sovereign, democratic, united, neutral and connected Afghanistan provided enough political will is expressed by the concerned stakeholders for an internally supervised ceasefire, presidential elections and a new constitutional framework for a smooth transition from decades of violence and war to peace in Afghanistan. Earlier, President Ghani had not given a positive response to the ‘secret’ letter from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in which he called for an interim government to also comprise Taliban representatives. The biggest challenge for Ghani will be to convince Taliban about his peace plan because without their support such an initiative cannot take off. If the onus for a comprehensive peace settlement lies with the Taliban and the US, equally responsible should be the Kabul regime and other political forces in Afghanistan. External stakeholders also matter a lot for a possible breakthrough in Istanbul conference. In his peace plan, Ghani failed to mention how trust and confidence can be built among the various Afghan stakeholders. So far there is no headway in the intra-Afghan peace talks, and without seeking consensus and understanding between the Taliban and their Afghan stakeholders on the mechanism of peace and stability, it will be difficult to seek an innovative breakthrough.

Third, it depends on the Afghan government to engage other participants of the proposed Istanbul conference on seeking their input on the three-phase peace plan. So far there is no clear response from Pakistan whether it will support or oppose the peace plan. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had, in his speech at the Heart of Asia conference, made it clear that the Doha agreement should be the basis of any future peace agreement on Afghanistan. 

The perception in Washington and elsewhere that without the support of Taliban and Pakistan, no peace proposal may materialise is however devoid of truth. If some stakeholders in the Afghan peace process are trying to depict synergy between Pakistan and Taliban, they are not right because Islamabad unlike the past is not interested in siding with Taliban because of adverse repercussions of such a policy. Taliban’s fundamental weakness, which is also the strength of their opponents, is their consistent aversion to following a constitutional and political path for seeking power.

In order to prevent further bloodshed and violence in Afghanistan, it is imperative that the UN takes control of the country which can be mandated by the Security Council and supported by the upcoming Istanbul conference. 

Published in The Express Tribune, April 11th, 2021.

Also read with this above article: Afghanistan: a hard choice/9 April's Dawn

Governance in Pakistan has always been a work-in-progress project with many twists and turns. Muddling through a bureaucratic model to martial laws’ quick-fix solutions to half-civilian rule to judicial activism, governance has become a sporting game with winners and losers as a matter of ‘some critical moments’. Mostly, power wins and people lose. To keep skimming the cream, the public is indoctrinated with innovative slogans of plus-this and minus-that “individual” at fixed intervals. The core issue is never addressed — there is method in madness.

Instead of agreeing on a grand blueprint for development (economic, social, strategic) and working on institution building, most entrenched powers have sought to exploit the system’s weaknesses for their own advantage. For them, chaos pays higher dividends than order in the country. But when it becomes apparently difficult to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, they promise a new messiah to deliver the wretched people “the promised land” of happiness and peace. Since modern states abhor messiahs and derive strength from institutions, the cycle repeats itself perpetually with sharp rise, instant saturation, and quick decline.

This is our 73-year history and there seems no end to it. The first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated in public but we still do not know who did it and why. The palace intrigues afterwards, however, made it clear that it was the first “minus-one” to make more room for others. It worked for both the bureaucracy and military establishment to take the reins of power with blessing from the judiciary. This arrangement of “shared power” continues to date with civilians only making the facade of governance. When something goes wrong, the minus-one formula is applied with good short-term results. 

The second elected prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, met the same fate as his civilian predecessor but with a difference. This time, the religion card (Nizam-e-Mustafa) was introduced in a fashionable way to conceal facts from coming to the fore. The religious fervour continued under General Zia. Paradoxically, Islamic ethos and public morality (which he espoused and preached) drifted into collective hypocrisy. Maulvis, who had never been so powerful in the Muslim world’s history, came to realise their potential in making and breaking governments by colluding with the corridors of power. 

General Musharraf, contrary to his predecessor, projected himself as a staunch believer in liberalism (rebranded as enlightened moderation) to appease the West and win legitimacy at home. First, he experimented with a technocrat setup and then created another Muslim League to perpetuate his illegitimate rule. By waving fists in the air and using coercive measures, he alienated the Baloch, created insurgent groups in former FATA, and brought home the monster of terrorism with far-reaching consequences. Democracy lost its soul at the altar of NROs and diminishing public trust.

Misaq-e-Jamhuriat was supposed to give a new direction to politics in Pakistan. Civilian supremacy constituted the core of mutual understanding between PML-N and PPP (besides other political parties) and it was hoped that all state institutions would be truly made subservient to the parliament and Constitution but it did not yield the desired results thanks to sudden emergence of PTI on the political landscape. Even with a new arrangement of governance (hybrid system), the PTI seems to be reaching its level of incompetence with the invisible sword hanging again on its head. 

Despite all heinous plots and sponsored narratives against democracy, the people never lost fascination with the ideal of democracy and for good reason. The essence of democracy is rule of law, accountability, and participation which in turn translate into real socio-economic development besides creating social harmony and national integrity. The appointed people suffer from trained incapacity and are not accountable to public. Weak democracy, in the final analysis, is better than the best dictatorship. Dictatorship (direct and indirect) is a kind of pain killer, not a cure.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 11th, 2021.

Putin offers ‘blank cheque’ to Pakistan

If you [Pakistan] are interested in corridors, defence or any cooperation, Russia stands ready, says Russian president

Vladimir Putin and Imran Khan pose for a photo. PHOTO: AFP/FILE 

---

ISLAMABAD:

When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Islamabad last week after a gap of nine years, he had delivered an "important" message to the Pakistani leadership. The message was from President Vladimir Putin.

"I came with a message from my president that tell Pakistan we are open for any cooperation, whatever Pakistan needs Russia is ready for it," Lavrov was quoted by a senior Pakistani official, who attended the closed door meeting between the Russian foreign minister and Pakistani authorities, as saying.

"In other words, the Russian president offered us a blank cheque," said the official, who requested not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The official revealed that Putin had conveyed to Pakistan through his top diplomat that Moscow would help Islamabad in any manner. "If you're interested in gas pipelines, corridors, defence or any other cooperation, Russia stands ready for it," the official quoted FM Lavrov as saying when asked what he meant by "blank cheque".

Read more: Russia ready to supply ‘special military equipment’

Pakistan and Russia are already working on the North-South gas pipeline project. The two sides had entered into the agreement in 2015 to lay a pipeline from Karachi to Lahore. The project is estimated to cost $2 billion.

The work on the pipeline could not kick off because of possible American sanctions. The two sides, however, recently agreed to approve a new structure that would pave the way for the start of the work.

Russia is also keen to revive the Pakistan Steel Mills, which it originally built. Similarly, Moscow has interest in hydroelectric projects. Overall, Russia is thought to be willing to make $8 billion investment in different areas.

"It is now up to us to follow up this successful visit," the official said.

Russian FM is being received by his Pakistani counterpart upon arriving at the Foreign Office. PHOTO: TWITTER/@SMQureshiPTI

When asked the possibility of Pakistan acquiring Russian air defence systems, the official said he could not talk about the specifics but Russia had shown willingness to expand the cooperation with Pakistan.

At the joint news conference with his Pakistani counterpart, the Russian foreign minister had said Moscow was ready to supply Pakistan with "special military equipment" to enhance its anti-terrorists potential. He, however, did not provide further details.

Relations between Pakistan and Russia have undergone transformation in recent years thanks to the new alignments and strategic realities.

The rapprochement between the former Cold War rivals began in 2011 when Pakistan's relationship with the US hit the rock bottom. At that time, a decision was taken to bring a strategic shift in Pakistan’s foreign policy. The shift envisaged reaching out to Russia as part of Pakistan’s efforts to diversify its foreign policy options.

The two countries initially worked quietly to find common ground. The years-long efforts had resulted in the Russian decision to send its troops to Pakistan for the first time in history for joint exercises in 2016. Moscow even overruled the Indian objections over holding joint drills with Pakistan.

Since then, the two countries have been regularly holding these exercises and they are looking to further deepen that cooperation.

Pakistan is hoping that Russian President Vladimir Putin would visit the country, something that would complete the Pak-Russia ties from being Cold War foes to friends.

In contrast, Russian ties with once its solid ally India are heading in the opposite direction. The two still have good relationship but the usual warmth they expressed earlier have been missing.

It was rare that the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not give audience to a visiting Russian foreign minister. Russia is concerned that Indian tilt towards the US would pose threat to its interests.

It was because of these reasons, Lavrov, both in New Delhi and Islamabad, indirectly objected to the grouping of US, India, Japan and Australia.

These developments are bringing countries such as Russia, China and Pakistan together