An international conference in London attended by officials of 70 countries early this month (February) ended with aid pledges of $10.5 billion spread over the next five years for Afghanistan. The amount may not be sufficient considering that the country has to be virtually rebuilt after more than a quarter century of civil unrest. The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, thinks his country needs at least $4 billion a year. Still, the money pledged was a reassuring gesture that Kabul is not off the radar of donors. One of the ideas underlying the London meeting was to tell the proud Afghans that the international community will continue to help them in rebuilding their economy.

It has been almost five years since the US forces bombed out the medieval outfit called the Taliban, which had ravaged Afghanistan, and most of the problems of Afghanistan like poverty and inadequate infrastructure remain in acute forms. The Taliban, created by a former Brigadier of the Pakistani army called Nasrullah Babar who was a minister in the Benazir Bhutto government, now threatens to be as destructive as in the past.

The prospects for Afghanistan’s future, despite being painted rosy by US officials, do not look very good at the moment. The statement of US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, that Afghanistan has seen a ‘remarkable transformation’ is probably meant for domestic audiences, which are getting louder in the criticism of the ‘interventionist’ policies of their government.

The Afghan security forces are inadequate in numbers and training to bring about the necessary order or fight the terrorists and the drug lords. Maybe, the absence of alternatives rules out sufficient political will at the moment to eradicate poppy cultivation. The successful election of the president and parliament may have accelerated the ‘political process’, but the process of internal rule and good governance remains far.

Afghanistan is struggling, not apparently with much success, to reduce its poppy cultivation that breeds drug lords and narcotic traffickers many of whom with roots in Pakistan, and, are in cahoots with terrorists. The success in this battle will not come easily because 40 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP is said to come from this illegal trade—against 2 percent in Colombia, another state that has a large heroin problem. Afghanistan is the source of nearly 90 percent of world opium and accounts for nearly a third of the country’s economy.

No less lethal for recovery is the virus of terrorism that has travelled to southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan unchecked from the neighbourhood and is spreading in the country. The Kunar province in the east close to the Pakistan border, for instance, is now described as a ‘symbol’ of the difficulties that US troops are facing in the country. Also, witness the increase in suicide bombings and the number of attacks on civilians, security personnel and foreign aid workers in Afghanistan. In 2005, more than 1400 Afghans were killed in terrorist attacks, the highest number since the demise of the Taliban regime. Western media reports say that the international aid community loses more people in Afghanistan than in the war-torn Iraq.

So, is enough being done to eliminate the scourge of terrorism?

The answer will be in the negative as long as terrorism continues to thrive in Pakistan and the Americans, who are the de facto masters in Afghanistan, refuse to even mention the word ‘Pakistan’ when talking about terrorism in Afghanistan. Despite many pointers to the contrary, the US continues to see Pakistan as a crucial ally in the so-called war on terror. The US has not been effective fighting this ‘war’ and stopping the Pak-backed terrorists from running over Afghanistan even though it is aggravating the miseries of the people there.

Afghan officials no longer find it possible to restrain themselves and speak out against the role of Pakistan. The governor of Kandahar, an Afghan province bordering Pakistan, has been particularly severe in his comments against the neighbouring country’s role in shielding terrorists. Even President Hamid Karzai, normally a bit restraint while talking openly about Pakistan’s role in protecting Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists, seems to be losing his patience, if some of the comments he made in a recent BBC interview ( since repeated on a visit to Islamabad) are to be believed. He, of course, did not mention Pakistan by name but gave more than sufficient hints that Pakistan continued to be soft on terrorists who find easy refuge and shelter in its territories. Most of these terrorists who go on Afghan ‘missions’ operate from areas inside Pakistan on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Karzai said in the BBC interview that these terrorists should be pursued ‘wherever’ they were, meaning that he supported the policy of attacking their hideouts inside the Pakistani territories.

After the recent uproar in Pakistan after the US attack on a tribal village inside Waziristan in pursuit of Al Qaeda’s number 2 it is doubtful if the Americans would be ‘more daring’ in sending their military or planes inside Pakistan. Washington is unlikely to execute that kind of ‘active’ plan to wipe out the remnants of Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan for a different reason.

It may sound odd but the US will not want to see the end of its ‘war’ on terror in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region end immediately with all the key fugitives killed or arrested as its logical corollary will be the pull back of US troops from Pakistan. Perhaps it is a bit complicated, but consider why the US will not like to see its military in Pakistan withdrawn in the near future.

Though it is no secret that the Pakistani establishment lends considerable support to the terror machine, Islamabad cannot be more open in its support as long as US or other foreign troops are stationed in the country or in the neighbourhood (Afghanistan). The Americans know this only too well and would therefore not like to create an opportunity that justifies a formal request from Pakistan to withdraw its military.

On the other hand, the Pakistanis do not make too much of a noise about the US troops in their country because it also gives them an elevated status in the American policy makers’ calculus, not to mention the dollars that it brings.

Afghanistan has become a poor pawn in this game being played by the US and Pakistan.


Courtesy : Syndicate Features

Printer-Friendly Version