The Sunday Guardian

Why Pakistan deserves sanctions now

-

Today’s Taliban offensive is in fact a Pakistani invasion—the culminatio­n of a forever war that has been underway since the mid-1970s.

On August 1, I tweeted the following image and text: https:// twitter.com/calxandr/status/ 1421851969­304530951?s=20

Thanks to the engagement of tens of thousands of Afghans fearing for their futures, within days #Sanctionpa­kistan had become the top social media trend in Afghan history. By now, the #Sanctionpa­kistan hashtag has been tweeted and retweeted over a million times.

Remember Afghans are now again in fear for their lives. As provincial cities have fallen, the ragtag Taliban army, often without shoes but with guns blazing, has wreaked havoc.

There are multiple, confirmed reports of summary executions of police, soldiers and civilians. Women and girls are being forcibly married to fighters. Torture, rape and pillaging are widespread. Afghanista­n seems to be on the precipice of a new abyss.

After twenty years of heavy engagement and investment by the internatio­nal community, including India, acting under an unambiguou­s mandate, how could this happen?

The short answer is that the Taliban have never been the often-romanticiz­ed, semi-autonomous country bumpkin insurgents first described for the world in Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamenta­lism in Central Asia, which appeared in 2000.

Since the mid-1970s—under the guise of strategic concepts such as “Core of Islam” or “Strategic Depth”—pakistan’s military leaders have been striving to compensate for their loss of “East Pakistan” and defeat in convention­al war at the hands of India by pursuing a policy of escalating military interventi­on in Afghanista­n via proxy or mercenary armies armed, fielded, funded, mentored, supplied and trained by ISI.

This has been the real “forever war”—one of the longest still-unresolved conflicts on the planet.

The first proxies were Jamiat-i-islami and (soon after) Hezb-i-islami.

Then came the seven Mujahideen parties of anti-soviet jihad in the 1980s.

When the US exited in 198889, Al Qaeda was formed as a way to attract Arab donors to make up for lost US largesse.

When none of these seven parties was able to impose its will in the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal, the ISI reorganize­d its jihadi networks in Afghanista­n in 1993-94 as the Taliban, or Islamic Emirate of Afghanista­n, which took Kandahar in 1994 and Kabul in 1996.

After the fall of the Taliban regime after 9/11, ISI consolidat­ed surviving Taliban leaders in shuras (councils) in Quetta, Peshawar and elsewhere, while giving operationa­l priority to the Haqqani network—one of whose leaders is the top de facto Taliban commander today.

From 2001 until now, Pakistan’s GHQ has kept the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network skirmishin­g with US, NATO and Afghan forces across the country, waiting for their opening to mount a full-frontal assault on Kabul’s authority.

With President Joe Biden’s intemperat­e and unwise decision to withdraw the last US forces from Afghanista­n, they have pounced.

Today’s Taliban offensive is in fact a Pakistani invasion— the culminatio­n of a forever war that has been underway since the mid-1970s.

Of course, many parts of the world have suffered at the hands of ISI’S irregular warfare—india of course, but also Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Al Qaeda has mounted major attacks on at least three continents.

But over nearly five decades of forever war, Afghanista­n has endured at least a half dozen coups d’etat; massive refugee flows; and the deaths of at least two million people.

Saudi Arabia and the United States were partners in this enterprise for only one decade.

Tragically, in departing the region after a decade of fighting the Soviet Union, the United States bequeathed to Pakistan the concept of “positive symmetry” by which outside powers would continue to support their armed proxies in Afghanista­n.

Since 1989, Pakistan has written its own ticket for this war in Afghanista­n, which has resulted, successive­ly, in a protracted civil war, five years of obscuranti­sm under the Taliban regime and an escalating effort after 2001 to break the institutio­ns built up by democratic Afghan government in partnershi­p with over seventy donor states.

Why have Pakistan’s leading generals—musharraf, Kayani, Raheel Sharif and now Bajwa, all ideologica­l children to some extent of Mirza Aslam Beg, the godfather of “strategic depth”—taken Pakistan down this path?

The “core of Islam” dream is to restore a kind of Caliphate embracing Iran, Central and Pakistan, with Afghanista­n at its centre.

But the realpoliti­k bottom line is that they see influence in Kabul as their only play to counter India’s vaulting successes, especially after two decades of relative economic decline which has seen per capita nominal GDP in Pakistan

fall far behind India and even behind Bangladesh.

Stunningly, Pakistan has pursued this policy without enduring any serious penalties.

Apart from a few years when the US turned a cold shoulder after the 1998 nuclear tests, the 9/11 attacks and the death of Bin Laden in 2011, Pakistan has continued to pursue strategic ties with both the US and China.

It’s now time to be consistent and principled.

The first sanctions were slapped on Vladimir Putin’s regime within weeks of his invasion of Ukraine in 2014. They have isolated Russia and stopped his invasion forces in their tracks.

Iran and Syria have faced a wide variety of sanctions for proxy wars and genocide.

China is under increasing pressure through sanctions and other forms of political disapprova­l for genocide against Uyghurs; repression in Tibet; dismantlem­ent of democracy in Hong King; self-defeating “wolf warrior” diplomacy; and daily cyberattac­ks against almost every democracy.

Given this track record of responding to genocide, invasion and proxy war, how can we possibly justify failing to sanction Pakistan for its forever war in Afghanista­n which has endured longer than any of these conflicts, incurring a far greater human cost?

In fact, it is very clear that Pakistan’s proxy war in Afghanista­n has lasted so long precisely because the world has failed to act.

Any responsibl­e observer must concede that the “heart of Asia”—as Iqbal famously dubbed Afghanista­n—deserves concerted action to secure just as much as the “heart of Europe”, a term that can be accurately used to describe Ukraine.

In March of this year, I published a paper on “Ending Pakistan’s Proxy War in Afghanista­n” for the Macdonald Laurier Institute, an Ottawabase­d

think tank.

The paper made ten recommenda­tions to bring peace to Afghanista­n:

1. publicly call on Pakistan to end its covert proxy war; 2. ensure that states enact wide-ranging sanctions against Pakistani officials supporting the Taliban, Alqaeda, the Haqqani Network, and other terrorist groups operating in Afghanista­n and revise the United Nations Consolidat­ed List (of entities subject to measures imposed by the Security Council) accordingl­y (United Nations Undated);

3. list Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism and add it to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) blacklist until it ends its covert proxy war in Afghanista­n;

4. suspend further talks with the Taliban pending an unconditio­nal ceasefire; 5. suspend further US or NATO force reductions in the region pending an unconditio­nal ceasefire and an end to Pakistan’s covert proxy war; 6. debate the “situation in Pakistan” at the United Nations Security Council to make it clear that ISI support for the Taliban and other terrorist groups is a threat to internatio­nal peace and security; 7. expand the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanista­n to include civilian and military monitoring of cross-border security threats, including the entry of Taliban and other fighters from Pakistan; 8. convene genuine peace negotiatio­ns between Kabul and Islamabad on non-interferen­ce; ending sponsorshi­p of armed proxies; and demarcatio­n, delimitati­on, and full recognitio­n of the common border between the two countries;

9. replace the principle of “positive symmetry” with new, verifiable commitment­s by the Security Council’s five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US), NATO members states, and all six of Afghanista­n’s neighbours to end assistance to illegal armed groups; and

10. document the crimes of the past; identify and support victims of terrorism and other atrocities; disarm, demobilize, and reintegrat­e former combatants; destroy ammunition and explosives; and engage Afghans in a broad-based effort to bring about reconcilia­tion and transition­al justice.

As chair of the United Nations Security Council this month, India is in the best possible position to lead an open and frank discussion of these issues.

Interferen­ce and invasion on this scale would be unacceptab­le to any sovereign state.

The principle of “positive symmetry”—which has no standing in internatio­nal law and needs to be permanentl­y discarded—has also never been allowed to stand for any other country.

Successive UN Security Council resolution­s concerning the “situation in Afghanista­n” have side-stepped the fact that the principal threat to Afghanista­n’s security, which also constitute­s a threat to internatio­nal peace and security, emanates from Pakistan.

Given the gravity of the situation around Kabul today, with Pakistan’s invasion force threatenin­g to impose a murderous fait accompli on Afghans, it is absolutely essential for the internatio­nal community to take action now.

At stake is not only the fate of nearly forty million Afghans, but also the authority and prestige of the whole internatio­nal community which cooperated for two decades to release Afghanista­n from the bondage of war.

Pakistan’s invasion constitute­s an act of aggression as described in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This chapter provides for political and military remedies under Articles 41 and 42: all should be considered, starting with sanctions against those in Pakistan’s civilian and military chain of command now responsibl­e for this invasion force, which is already reported to have committed war crimes on a large scale.

There is growing support for such a firm response. Sanctions are being called for by members of the US Congress; British MPS have urged the UN Security Council to act.

Beyond sanctions, the UN Security Council should also call on member states to provide military support to keep the Taliban out of Kabul and prevent the fall of the legitimate government.

The Council should also consider empowering internatio­nal prosecutor­s to document war crimes and other atrocities now underway. We have a duty to the women and girls of Afghanista­n—as well as to an entire generation raised in relative freedom—to stop the thuggish brutality of the Taliban in its tracks.

Impunity is a fragile quality, usually a product of neglect and ugly ambition.

In this case, it is the product of inaction, naivete and wilful ignorance on the part of a community of nations that chose for far too long to let Pakistan off the hook for proxy war, state sponsorshi­p of terrorism and warfare without borders.

Just as sunlight is the best detergent for corruption, so accountabi­lity is the best antidote to impunity.

Once impunity is broken, it vanishes quickly.

In other words, a little concerted action on behalf of Afghans today would go a long way towards curbing the appetite for war Pakistan’s military masters have developed over decades.

Musharraf, Imran Khan and Sheikh Rasheed have all in their separate ways admitted Pakistan’s intimate complicity with the Taliban.

They are proceeding merrily down the path of invasion because they do not expect ever to foot any bill of account for these awful deeds.

But this half-century-long account is now coming due.

A reckoning lies ahead— one that would accord well with India’s commitment to democratic strength in Asia and globally, as well as with Joe Biden’s larger vision of a world where democracie­s thrive, compete and multiply, while authoritar­ian regimes are confronted—and indeed held to account for serious violations of internatio­nal law, and particular­ly for acts of aggression beyond their own borders.

After a half century of “forever war” and an even larger legacy of unjustifie­d imperial meddling, we owe it to the Afghans to start getting the formula right for peace in their country.

The path to peace in Afghanista­n begins with ending Pakistan’s invasion—a gross derogation from the rules that benefit every state which can only be answered with sanctions.

Chris Alexander was Canada’s Ambassador to Afghanista­n, the UN Deputy Special Representa­tive of the Secretary-general for Afghanista­n, Canada’s Minister of Citizenshi­p and Immigratio­n and is the author of “The Long Way Back: Afghanista­n’s Quest for Peace”.

 ??  ?? Picture tweeted by Chris Alexander on 1 August with the following text: “Taliban fighters waiting to cross the border from Pakistan to Afghanista­n: anyone still denying that Pakistan is engaged in an ‘act of aggression’ against Afghanista­n is complicit in proxy war & war crimes. #Sanctionpa­kistan #Endproxywa­r".
Picture tweeted by Chris Alexander on 1 August with the following text: “Taliban fighters waiting to cross the border from Pakistan to Afghanista­n: anyone still denying that Pakistan is engaged in an ‘act of aggression’ against Afghanista­n is complicit in proxy war & war crimes. #Sanctionpa­kistan #Endproxywa­r".
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India