Home Contact Us
Search :
   

Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#2817, 26 February 2009
 
Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Holbrooke Visit: Reviewing the Messy Inheritance
Salma Malik
Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad
 

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s newly-appointed special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, faces an uphill task. He is expected to implement an integrated strategy in the US policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan. These steps are seen as a new engagement in global affairs by the Obama administration, a marked departure from the policy of former president George W Bush. Holbrooke was candid and precise when he recently commented in Munich that he had “never seen anything like the mess we have inherited.” Will he succeed in his task?

Unfortunately, most of this mess has been America’s creation. While this certainly does not absolve the countries in question from complicity, the US has to realize that its policies of external engagements, regime change, and its eight year-long global war on terror requires a major policy review, besides a change in strategy to deal with allied states. 

With a change of administration, the US has undergone a major policy shift. In order to prevent a repeat of Vietnam, the administration has announced a phased withdrawal from Iraq, is re-evaluating its strategy in Afghanistan and is extremely conscious of the increasing global anti-American sentiment due to its past policies. However, its military engagement in Afghanistan, an issue already worrisome for the Afghan government, will continue with an increase in troop deployment. Years of Allied presence have failed to establish the Karzai government’s legitimacy and control beyond Kabul and the security situation in Afghanistan remains unsustainable. In fact, relations between the Karzai government and its one time supporters in the US administration have soured. 

For Pakistan the spill-over effect of the war on terror, and a history of troubled alliance relations, makes both the public as well as the civil-military administration wary of American intentions. However, in spite of reservations, the new overtures have been greatly welcomed, especially Obama’s stance regarding the need to tackle Kashmir as it is the most important issue in South Asia. It is highly unfortunate that the security managers in New Delhi, once again, successfully de-linked Kashmir from the larger picture. Indian National Security Adviser MK Narayanan’s statement that the US would be barking up the wrong tree, and then lobbying hard to get India excluded from the proposed regional approach to solve the problems affecting the two neighbours, serves no purpose. If the idea was to prevent internationalising the Kashmir issue and opening doors to third party intervention, then it is imperative to mention that nearly all peace overtures in the region have been successful only through third party facilitation. Ironically, whenever it suits the parties concerned, issues, even as intractable as Kashmir, have been internationalised to garner favourable support. Moreover, if India does not want to be party to any US-backed regional framework, then seeking Holbrooke’s attention to discuss alleged Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is not appropriate. 

Regional security dynamics over the years have become so complex and integrated that countries of the region must get together and iron out difficulties. Resolution of the Kashmir dispute is very important and is not merely a question of whether it suits Islamabad or New Delhi, but one of a better future of the region. Interestingly, Holbrooke is not mandated to discuss Kashmir, nor will former President Bill Clinton be coming to the region as a special envoy. In this regard, British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband’s views that settling Kashmir would mean one less war zone and sanctuary for extremist elements is pertinent. However, the centre of the storm is the war on terror and Pakistan is ground zero, both as an affectee and alleged perpetrator. 

Holbrooke’s maiden visit to the troubled region became all the more dramatic with the imposition of Sharia in Swat. Though Holbrooke was welcomed in Pakistan, issues of increased drone attacks and the negative fallout of the war effort being borne by Pakistan remain alive. The demands from the US stand; greater effort in the war, but a shift in strategy towards more appeasement for its disgruntled ally. Adding to the complexity are questions surrounding Afghanistan; the US would like to see the borders drawn by the British made permanent and swifter action to tackle increased warlordism and drug trafficking. Holbrooke’s recently-concluded trip was a mere initiation into the troubles of the region. The conclusions he will draw will not only set the tone of the US administration’s strategy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also affect the future course of US security policy.


Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary

D Suba Chandran
Across the Durand Line: Who is in Control Now? Will That Change?
Taliban Talks and the Four Horsemen: Between Peace and Apocalypse
Pakistan: Talks about Talks with the Taliban, Again
Dateline Islamabad

Salma Malik
Pakistan and TTP: Dialogue or Military Action?
The Musharraf Trial & Beyond

Dateline Kabul

Mariam Safi
Afghanistan, US and the Peace Process: A Deal with the Taliban in 2014?
Dhaka Discourse

Prof Delwar Hossain
Bangladesh: Domestic Politics and External Actors
Bangladesh Post Elections 2014: Redefining Domestic Politics?

Eagle Eye

Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
US in Asia: A 'Non-Alignment' Strategy?
Indo-US Strategic Partnership Post Khobragade: The Long Shadow
East Asia Compass

Dr Sandip Mishra
North Korean Peace Gestures and Inter-Korea Relations
Japan: Implications of Indiscriminate Assertiveness
China, Japan, Korea and the US: Region at Crossroads

Himalayan Frontier

Pramod Jaiswal
Chinese Inroads to Nepal
Constituent Assembly-II: Rifts Emerging
Nepal: The Crisis over Proportional Representation and the RPP Divide
Maritime Matters

Vijay Sakhuja
Increasing Maritime Competition: IORA, IONS, Milan and the Indian Ocean Networks
China in the Indian Ocean: Deep Sea Forays
Iran Navy: Developing Long Sea Legs

Middle Kingdom

DS Rajan
China in the Indian Ocean: Competing Priorities
China-Japan Friction: How can India Respond?
Nuke Street

Amb Sheelkant Sharma
Nuclear Security Summit 2014 and the NTI Index
Nuclear Power: An Annual Report Card

Red Affairs

Bibhu Prasad
Maoists in the Northeast: Reality and Myth-Making
Surrender of Gudsa Usendi: Ominous beginning for the Naxals?
South Asian Dialectic

PR Chari
Federalism: Centre as Coordinator and Adjudicator
Limits of Federalism

Spotlight West Asia

Amb Ranjit Gupta
Saudi Arabia-US Estrangement: Implications for the Indian Subcontinent
Syria Today: Is Regime Change the Answer?
The Arab World: Trying Times Ahead
Strategic Space

Manpreet Sethi
US, China and the South Asian Nuclear Construct
Responding to Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: A Strategy for India

The Strategist

Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Strategic Non-Nuclear Weapons: An Essential Consort to a Doctrine of No First Use
 

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee


 
Related Articles
Aryaman Bhatnagar,
"Iranís American 'Problem' in Afghanistan," 14 February 2012
Monika Pawar,
"Russiaís Afghan Strategy: What are its Interests?," 28 December 2011
Mariam Safi,
"Bonn II: From Transition to Transformation in Afghanistan," 22 December 2011
D Suba Chandran,
"Af-Pak Diary: Exporting Sectarianism?," 14 December 2011
Janosch Jerman,
"Afghan Local Police: A Threat to Civilian Security?," 8 December 2011
Aryaman Bhatnagar,
"In search of a Peace Process: The Problems of Engagement between Pakistan and Afghanistan," 18 November 2011
Farhod Mirzabaev,
"Istanbul 2011: On Afghanistan," 15 November 2011
Anindya Batabyal,
"Pakistan and the Haqqani Network," 2 November 2011
Aryaman Bhatnagar,
"Indo-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement: Potential Problems," 24 October 2011
D Suba Chandran,
"Ten Years After: Al Qaedaís Game Plan," 12 September 2011

Browse by Publications

Commentaries 
Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 
China 
Myanmar 
Afghanistan 
Iran 
Pakistan 
India 
J&K  

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Indo-Pak 
Military 
Terrorism 
Naxalite Violence 
Nuclear 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Zarb-e-Azb: The Decisive Strike

India-Pakistan: Faces in the Sand

India-Pakistan: Nuclear Weapons and Crisis Diplomacy

Elections in India and Afghanistan: Perspective from Pakistan

Afghanistan and Pakistan: Consequences of the American Exit

Pakistan and TTP: Dialogue or Military Action?

The Musharraf Trial & Beyond

Ten Years of Ceasefire along the LoC: Through Elections and Media Ratings

The Failed State Index and South Asia: Revisiting the White Manís Burden

India, Pakistan and the Nuclear Race: Strengthening the Risk Reduction Measures

Pakistan-India Peace Process: Cautious Optimism

ADD TO:
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
Facebook
 
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2014
 January  February  March  April  May  June  July
 2013  2012  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007  2006
 2005  2004  2003  2002  2001  2000  1999  1998
 1997
 
 

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

 
Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map | IPCS Email
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
Email:
© Copyright 2014, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
        Web Design by http://www.indiainternets.com