Category Archives: GLOBAL

Interview with National Herald

Posted on by
Reply

18 August, 2021

logo

India was short-sighted in Afghanistan, should have seen it coming: Former Ambassador Rakesh Sood

‘I have no idea why the govt did not see this coming. It has been clear for a number of years that the Taliban were coming back’, former Ambassador to Afghanistan Rakesh Sood said in an interview

India was short-sighted in Afghanistan, should have seen it coming: Former Ambassador Rakesh Sood

Ashlin Mathew

Published: 18 Aug 2021, 11:32 AMEngagement: 156

One of India’s former Ambassadors to Afghanistan and currently Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, Rakesh Sood said the implications for India are negative with the fall of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the rise of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan under Taliban.

Sood, who has also served as the ambassador to Nepal and France, said India was short-sighted and could have explored other options instead of putting all its eggs in one basket.

Edited excerpts of an interview with Rakesh Sood:

Former Ambassador Rakesh Sood
Former Ambassador Rakesh Sood

India’s neighbourhood has just become unstable with Taliban having taken over. What kind of government is likely to be formed?

I think it is difficult to predict the shape of the government that will be formed. However, the statements have indicated that it will be an Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Their statements have been ambiguous about the rights of minorities, the rights of women and many other aspects too.

The kind of government cannot be foreseen as there are different groups amongst the Taliban. For the last few years, we have been seeing the group that has been negotiating with the rest of the world from Doha. Then there is Quetta Shura, and they are located in Quetta.

We know that one of the deputy leaders is Sirajuddin Haqqani, who heads the Haqqani network. He is particularly influential in the Eastern part of Afghanistan. Another of the deputy leaders is Mullah Omar’s son, Mohammad Yaqoob, who heads their military operations particularly in the south of the country.

Then there are the foreign terrorist groupings – The Islamic State or Daesh, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), IMU, Tajik Groups and groupings of Syria-returned fighters. Most of these groups are in the North. The power sharing between all of these groups will determine the kind of governance.

What are the implications of the Taliban takeover for India?

The implications for India are certainly negative. There are two ways of looking at it and both unfortunately carry negative implications. First is an increasing influence of Pakistan in the region and what it means for us given that we have hostile relationship with Pakistan. The Pakistan PM Imran Khan commented that Taliban coming to power in Afghanistan meant they have shaken off the shackles and have embraced freedom. Clearly, Pakistan is not exhibiting any concern about the current environment in Afghanistan.

Secondly, if there is instability in Afghanistan that is also a negative development for regional security as far as India is concerned.

Was the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan inevitable?

It could not have been avoided. In some ways, the US had accepted it. After all, last year when an agreement was signed between the United States of America and Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan, which was not recognised by the US, and is known as the Taliban, it nevertheless accords the entity a tacit legitimacy. This is the most clear indication by the US that it had more or less accepted the coming into being of the Islamic Emirate and in doing so, had handed over the Afghan project to the Pakistan ISI.

It was done at the expense of the government in Kabul. Rubbing salt in the wounds was getting the government in Kabul to release 5,000 Taliban fighters who were held in custody in Afghanistan prisons.

By 2020, it was clear that the days of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan were numbered.

After having interfered in Afghanistan’s affairs and enabled Taliban for 19-20 years, the US abandoned Afghanistan. There is no help forthcoming from the UN. What does the future hold for the citizens of the country?

Unfortunately, the future looks particularly bleak for the Afghans. Afghanistan is a young country. At least 70% of its population is below the age of 30. Taliban were ousted from power 20 years ago, so nearly 70% of the population has either come of age or were born in a post-Taliban world. They have lived their lives in a conservative society, but an open society. Therefore, there is enormous amount of consternation and concern in Afghanistan especially among the younger population as to what the future holds for them.

India is the president of UNSC for the month of August. What could have India done to help the Afghanistan citizens?

India could have done nothing. If India had explored other options instead of putting all its eggs in one basket, then India could have planned better. Instead, now we have a situation in Kabul where we are trying to ensure the safety of Indian nationals who are working for other companies as well as the Indian Embassy, in a highly volatile atmosphere. We are yet to get them out.

If we had planned better, we could have evacuated them earlier while the airport was still functional before August 16. What have we achieved by delaying this process as it would take a couple of days more to get people out?

If we had foreseen the writing on the wall, we would not have lost anything. If the US could not have prevented it, then we do not have the resources to prevent it. But, we could have planned better for it.

Is it policy paralysis or lack of concerted strategy on the neighbourhood by India that delayed our response?

I have no idea why the government did not see this coming. It has been clear for a number of years that the Taliban were coming back. The process of legitimisation of Taliban became public knowledge when they opened an international office in Doha, in Qatar. It was step one towards legitimisation as they were no longer hiding in Pakistan or the border areas. They were travelling to international conferences, meeting journalists and it was a gradual process of gaining acceptance.

Various peace conferences such the Heart of Asia process, the Istanbul process, the quadrilateral process and Moscow process had them. In 2018, the US opened direct talks with the Taliban, further legitimising it, and signed an agreement last year, which I have already mentioned. So, how much more evidence did we need that the US has accepted the idea the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s days were numbered and would get replaced?

I do not know whether it was analysed as such by the government and if it was, what the government planned for it.

Should India engage with a fundamentalist organisation like Taliban?

If you look at the statements given by the Ministry of External Affairs, it has stated that we are engaging with all stakeholders. We have participated in meetings where the Taliban was present. So, it is not a question of engaging with ‘fundamentalists’ as these are all labels. We have certain interests in Afghanistan and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the safety of the Indian citizens and the safety of those in the Indian Embassy.

Was India being impractical by not engaging with them?

India was short-sighted. We are not engaging with them to change their behavior or create a split between them and Pakistan. We should have engaged only to have our own judgment, but so that we are not left suddenly without options because we are part of this region.

Right now, it is a situation in which we were left unprepared when the Americans began to withdraw rapidly. This is the general perception. If we had engaged and come to our own conclusion on Taliban, then perhaps we could have taken a few steps to mitigate the adverse effect.

Has this given Pakistan and China an edge in the region?

Certainly. When Pakistan’s position improves, so does China’s.

Taliban seemed to take taken over cities clinically, with a plan. Could it have happened without the assistance from Pakistan’s Army?

I would think that they had assistance from Pakistan’s ISI. At first they went for the police or Army posts in remote areas. These kinds of posts are manned by a maximum of 15 persons. A Taliban group of around 50 armed men would surround them and they would be informed that their lives would be safe if they surrendered. They usually surrendered and whatever arms and ammunition they would have at the post would be taken by the Taliban.

This is how they began to move from the month of May. Even in the third week of June, Taliban had the control of about 81 districts out of 421 districts in the country. In the next four weeks, the Taliban had expanded their hold to more than 220 districts, which is more than half. By this time, they were targeting districts with customs checkpoints, from where they could gain revenue. From there they began moving to provincial capitals.

The first provincial capital (Zaranj) fell on August 6. From August 6 to August 15, they had the entire country. So, it was a fairly well planned military strategy that was put into operation taking into account that it was more important to demoralise the security forces that actually fight with them. That was the strategy that was adopted.

How do you compare the first coming of the Taliban in 1990s to the second coming of Taliban now?

The difference between 1990s and now is that when the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996 to 2001, it was an uphill task for the Taliban to gain legitimacy. In 2001, there were only three countries that recognized Taliban – Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

This time they start with an advantage because they already enjoy a higher degree of legitimacy. They have a deal with the US, have travelled to China, Russia, Turkey, Iran and several other countries. That is the key difference.

Withdrawal Symptoms

Posted on by
1

Published in Economic Times on August 17, 2021

On August 15, as India celebrated its 75th Independence Day, Kabul fell to the Taliban. Later in the day, former President Ashraf Ghani, accompanied by his aides, left the country. Current reports indicate that he may be in Uzbekistan. Meanwhile, Taliban fighters roam the streets of Kabul, awaiting the arrival of the Taliban leaders to take charge.

The return of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion when on February 29 last year, US Special Envoy for Afghanistan Reconciliation Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad signed an agreement with the Taliban Deputy Leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Barader in Doha, following 18 months of negotiations. The document bore a strange title – “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognised by the U.S. as a state and is known as the Taliban and the United States of America”. This rather clunky phrase was repeated more than a dozen times in the text of the Agreement, a clear indication that the days of the Islamic Republic, established after the Taliban were ousted in 2001, were numbered.

In a collective suspension of disbelief, the U.S. withdrawal deal in return for safe passage was unanimously endorsed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as a “peace deal”. Nobody questioned the rather strange agreement that was signed between two entities that didn’t recognise each other.

Perhaps, it is just as well that the deal was signed on 29 February because by the time its anniversary comes around in 2024, the Doha Agreement would be consigned to the dustbin of history and the ignominy of the U.S. misadventure forgotten.

When Khalilzad began direct talks, he had outlined four issues – an end to violence or a ceasefire, intra-Afghan talks leading to a durable peace and reconciliation, Taliban cutting all links with international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, and a withdrawal of all U.S. and foreign forces, while also emphasising that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.

Clearly the Taliban turned out to have a better appreciation of U.S. compulsions and eventually got what they had been seeking – an unconditional U.S. withdrawal. In fact, Taliban even got U.S. to persuade the Afghan government to release 5000 Taliban fighters held in custody. Intra-Afghan talks got off to a slow start and after reaching agreement of procedural issues, have remained stalled on the ‘agenda’ since last December.

No shock, only awe

President Joe Biden took charge in February and after an internal review, announced on 14th April that U.S. would complete the withdrawal by the anniversary of 9/11. As U.S. drawdown proceeded, Taliban executed a well-planned military strategy, beginning early May. Remote police and army posts were targeted and, in most cases, the 10-15 soldiers or policemen outnumbered by groups of 40-50 Taliban fighters, realising that reinforcements were not forthcoming, surrendered, handing over the arsenal to the Taliban.

In the third week of June, Taliban controlled 80 districts out of a total of 421 districts. A month later, Taliban had expanded their hold to cover more than half the districts. On August 6, they took over Zaranj, the first of the 34 provincial capitals and in less than 10 days, they were in Kabul.

Gaming the Great Game 3.0

At present, there are nearly 6000 American soldiers in Kabul, sent in by the Biden administration to ensure an orderly evacuation of U.S. citizens amid reports that the embassy is being closed down. Other western countries are downsizing or also closing down their missions by sending in military aircraft to evacuate their nationals. While there have not been reports of violence from Kabul, the current vacuum does create uncertainty and risk.

It is likely that Pakistan, Russia, Iran and China will retain their presence in Kabul and may even take a lead in recognising the new regime once the Taliban leaders reach Kabul. These countries have been actively engaging the Taliban and in recent weeks, have welcomed Taliban delegations in their capitals. It is possible that this helped them to obtain certain assurances about the security of their personnel in Kabul.

A perception has been generated that today’s Taliban have evolved into a less hard-line Taliban 2.0 though there is little evidence to support it. Reports from some of the areas where Taliban commanders have taken control are hardly reassuring and statements by its leaders remain vague and ambiguous.

India had remained wedded to the mantra of supporting “an Afghan led, Afghan owned and Afghan controlled” peace process, in both letter and spirit. While Indian officials have participated in events where Taliban have been present, India has been content to let others take the lead. We have therefore been unable to plan options for ensuring security of both the Indian nationals working in Afghanistan as well the diplomats at our embassy in Kabul and this remains the primary responsibility at the moment.

Under the circumstances, the Indian government needs to urgently undertake an evacuation operation. When some kind of order is restored and the nature of the regime becomes clearer, the government can take a call on how to engage with the new dispensation.

*****

The Return of the Taliban

Posted on by
Reply

Published in India Today issue dt 26 July, 2021

The American exit from Bagram, their Afghan airbase, on July 2 is the enduring symbol of the US withdrawal from its ‘longest war’. The very next day, 13 districts fell to the Taliban, and the momentum hasn’t slowed. Yet the process of US disengagement was set in motion nearly a decade ago. In February 2011, addressing the Asia Society, Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State) reflected the policy shift when the preconditions for talks with the Taliban – renouncing violence and laying down arms, accepting the Afghan constitution and breaking ties with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, were converted into talk outcomes.

Pakistan’s decade long investment in providing safe haven and sanctuary to the Taliban was finally paying off. The next goal was ensuring Taliban’s legitimacy, something the regime had lacked in the 1990s because only three countries (Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia) recognised it. Legitimisation process began with the establishment of the Doha office in 2013, followed by the Pakistan-initiated Quadrilateral Coordination Group talks (the US, Afghanistan, China, Pakistan and Taliban) and the Kabul, Heart of Asia and Moscow processes. All through, the US limited its role to a facilitator for the ‘Afghan led and owned’ peace process.

The breakthrough came when the Trump administration initiated direct talks with the Taliban, appointing ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad as Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation. He began by setting out four objectives – a ceasefire, cutting links with Al Qaeda, IS and other terrorist groups, intra-Afghan peace talks and withdrawal of foreign forces, underlining that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. However, he had no Plan B, and the Taliban called Khalilzad’s bluff. Eventually, the US accepted the Taliban/ISI Plan A – a timebound unconditional US withdrawal in return for safe passage. Further, Taliban also enhanced their legitimacy at the expense of the Kabul government which was pressured by the US into releasing some 5,000 Taliban insurgents in its custody.

The 2020 Doha Agreement was neither Afghan-led or owned but received unanimous endorsement of the UN Security Council. Perhaps just as well that it was signed on February 29 for by the time its anniversary comes around in 2024, its ignominious end will be history.

President Joe Biden had long believed that US needed to extricate itself from the unending counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, limiting its role to counter-terrorism. On April 14, when he declared 9/11 as the deadline for completing the US withdrawal, the Taliban controlled 76 districts; today, the number stands closer to 220. Even after these Taliban gains, Biden has maintained that ‘US is not into nation-building’ and “it is the Afghan peoples’ right and responsibility to decide their future”.

Factions in the Taliban

Now that the US exit is a reality, Pakistan, Iran, Russia and China may be recalling the old saying – be careful what you wish for – as they gear up to a new challenge of how to persuade the Taliban against overplaying their military hand and to accept power sharing?

Whether or not they succeed depends on the Taliban – how much they have changed and whether they are as cohesive and unified as they were under Mullah Omar in the 1990s. The disclosure in 2015 that Mullah Omar was dead (he had died in 2013) led to an internal power tussle. Mullah Akhtar Mansour (Alizai Pashtun) won out over Mullah Omar’s son Mullah Yaqub (Hotaki Pashtun). Mansour brought in a couple of Tajik and Uzbek faces to broadbase the Rehbari Shura while stepping-up attacks in Afghanistan to gain acceptance by the local commanders. However, within a year, he was killed in a US drone attack.

In 2016, Mullah Haibatullah (a Noorzai from Panjwai) took over, this time with two deputies, ISI favourite Sirajuddin Haqqani (a Zadran from Paktia and son of Jalaluddin Haqqani), managing the Peshawar shura and Mullah Yaqub who was backed by Qayyum Zakir, involved with the drug trade, and Ibrahim Sadar, the Helmand based commander carrying more weight in the southern provinces. Reports indicate that he is favourably inclined for talks.  

Opposition comes from Haqqani who has linkages with the other groups operating in the northern provinces. These include 500 strong Al Qaeda in Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). Other elements include the IS-Khorasan and the Pakistan based groups (TTP, LeT, JeM, al-Badr, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Lashkar-e-Islam). How the loyalties and allegiances of these groups function on the ground is unclear.

In addition, Iran has a battle hardened Hazara Shia unit constituting the Syria-returned Fatemiyoun brigade, built up by Gen Ismail Qaani who has succeeded Qasim Soleimani as the Al Quds commander to defend Hazarajat, if necessary.

A third grouping that has gained prominence is the Doha based Taliban under Mullah Abdul Ghani Barader, co-founder of the Taliban and married to Mullah Omar’s sister. The Doha group has managed to get their families over and as the public face of the Taliban, are more inclined to a negotiated settlement.

All groups are happy as long as the military option keeps yielding results but who will call the shots when it comes to establishing governance structures and negotiating a power sharing arrangement? The latter also depends on whether the Kabul regime can present a unified front and whether Pakistan, Iran, Russia and China can prevail upon the Taliban’s fighting units. Estimates of Taliban strength run to around 60,000 whereas the Afghan security forces are over 300,000. However, whether the latter can keep their morale and maintain the integrity of their chain of command are questions that depend on the Kabul leadership which has spent last two years sniping at each other.

The last meeting of the extended-troika (US, China, Russia and Pakistan) in Moscow on March 18 recalled the UN Security Council resolution of last March that they “do not support the return of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, though they have been displayed no initiative since. However, recent visits by Taliban delegations to Tehran and Moscow and the meetings in Dushanbe and Tashkent appear to be attempts at judging how receptive the Taliban are to resuming the intra-Afghan talks that have been in limbo for months and lowering the violence levels in Afghanistan. In a June 22 op-ed in the Washington Post, Pakistan PM Imran Khan wrote, “We oppose any military takeover of Afghanistan, which will lead only to decades of civil war, as the Taliban cannot win over whole of the country, and yet must be included in any government for it to succeed”.

Compared to other external actors, India’s leverage is limited. There are three reasons – geography, in not sharing a border; limited resources, both financial and military; and third, India was late in realising that since 2013, the mainstreaming of Taliban was letting Pakistan expand its security space in the region. Instead of sending out feelers to the Taliban, India chose to find comfort in the mantra of ‘Afghan-led Afghan-owned peace process’.  

According to senior Qatari official Mutlaq bin Majed al Qahtani, Indian officials have recently been in discreet contact with Taliban. However, as the old saying goes, one doesn’t learn swimming by jumping into a flooded river. Also, FOMO cannot drive strategy. India’s strength is that it is perceived as a benign power with an influence that cuts across ethnic groups. But it lacks coercive power of the other actors.

The Taliban may or may not have changed, Pakistan may or may not exert the same influence, but Afghanistan has certainly changed in the last two decades. Nearly three-fourths of Afghan population is below 30 and used to living in a conservative but open society; 60% of the population enjoy internet access.

Developing options demands patient and sustained engagement across the board; putting all eggs in one basket is not a good position to be in. Distance can provide America the luxury of non-engagement but our history and geography dictate otherwise for us, especially given our hostile relations with Pakistan. Just as water finds its own level, the natural political dynamics of the region will assert itself gradually provided India chooses its partners well and is responsive to the changing dynamics.

During the 1990s, Taliban fighters aggravated the situation in Kashmir. Will they do it again? It depends on the degree of ISI control. If India develops direct links, we could explore an assurance like the Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen provided China regarding the ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement). How credible such an assurance might be is an open question. The answer is to replace episodic engagement because the neighbourhood merits it.

The underlying strategic logic of the Zaranj-Delaram highway, Chahbahar port and the connectivity provided by the INSTC (International North-South Transport Corridor) to Afghanistan and Central Asia still holds and together with our natural partners, can help us navigate the uncertainties that lie ahead.

******

Troubling Prospects In Afghanistan

Posted on by
Reply

Published in the Hindu on July 8, 2021

Last week, on Friday, USA handed over the Bagram airbase to the Afghan authorities, marking a symbolic end to its military presence, as US forces complete their withdrawal well ahead of the September 11 deadline, announced by American President Joe Biden on April 14. A familiar air of uncertainty surrounds Kabul as the Afghans ponder over the future of their land, ravaged by conflict for nearly 50 years. Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours are now faced with a new challenge – how to persuade the Taliban against overplaying their military hand?

A costly misadventure

Could anyone have predicted when the US commenced its military intervention in Afghanistan in October 2001 that it would get embroiled in an endless war for 20 years and to exit safely, it would have to negotiate with the Taliban, the same entity that it went in to punish?

It has been a costly lesson. The war effort has cost $ 980 billion, over 2400 US soldiers (plus 1144 allied troops) and 3800 private military contractors have lost their lives. It also spent $143 billion on reconstruction; about $90 billion went for the Afghan army, police and other security forces, $36 billion for governance and economic development activities (the rest of the international community contributed an equivalent amount) and the balance on counter-narcotics and humanitarian relief works.

Yet, the real price has been paid by the Afghans. The 20-year war has claimed the lives of nearly 50000 Afghan civilians and nearly 70000 Afghan security forces (a majority during last seven years); add to it another 60000 Afghan Taliban, and the scale of the Afghan human loss becomes evident.

There have been gains too. In 2001, there were 900000 boys in school. Today, eight million children attend school and one-third are girls. Literacy is up from 12% in 2002 to 35%; life expectancy from 40 to 63 years. Urbanisation is 26% and 70% of the population watch TV. From 320 miles of paved roads in 2002, today tarred roads cover 10000 miles. Infant mortality rates are down from 20% by over half. With a median age of 18.5 years, a majority of Afghans have grown up in a post-Taliban era. Today, they bear the brunt of 130 daily Taliban/IS-Khorasan (IS-K) attacks, the highest since the US ended combat operations in end-2014. Tomorrow, even these limited gains are at risk.

Taliban gains legitimacy

For US President George Bush, the objective was “to build a stable, strong, effectively governed Afghanistan that won’t degenerate into chaos”. As US shifted from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency, shades of Vietnam began to emerge. To Hamid Karzai’s credit, he saw the writing on the wall when he protested about the night-raids and warned the Americans “to either take the fight to the safe havens and sanctuaries across the Durand Line or make peace with the Taliban” but it only soured his relations with the US.

Eventually, US President Barack Obama diluted the objective to “preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for global terrorism”. He oversaw a successful operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden in 2011, implemented an unsuccessful military surge concluding with an end to combat operations in end-2014 and Taliban opened the Doha office in 2013.  

US President Donald Trump saw himself as a deal-maker and in 2018, initiated direct negotiations with the Taliban. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad (US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation) began by setting out four elements – a ceasefire, cutting ties with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, intra-Afghan peace talks, and, a withdrawal of all foreign military forces, declaring that “nothing is agreed till everything is agreed”. Within months, Taliban had whittled down the US demands till it got what it wanted – a withdrawal timeline not linked to the other factors. In addition, Taliban managed to get the US to push the Kabul government to releasing over 5000 Taliban cadres in custody. In short, the US ended up legitimising the Taliban at the expense of the government in Kabul that they had worked to create and support.

US President Joe Biden was no stranger to the Afghan dossier. He was convinced that US had to exit from its quagmire of “forever wars”. US may have decided that it had no military options but Taliban are still pushing ahead militarily.

From less than a fifth, today, over a third of Afghanistan’s over 400 districts are under Taliban control. The day after the exit from Bagram, 13 districts, in Badakshan, Takhar, Paktia and Kandahar fell to the Taliban, adding to the fifty that have fallen since May. In many cases, the locals manning the security posts and checkpoints have just surrendered. From villages and towns, there is already a move towards the cities. Intra-Afghan talks in Doha have been in limbo for months.

Questions about the future

Gen Austin Miller, the US commander in Afghanistan, indicated in a recent press conference, “Civil war is certainly a path that can be visualised if it continues on this trajectory”. Dr Abdullah Abdullah, Chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation warned on June 30, “Today, the survival, security and unity of Afghanistan is in danger…”

Ironically, the most vocal critics of US overstaying in Afghanistan and hinting that US would never leave are the ones now blaming the US for a hasty and irresponsible withdrawal.

In coming months, as uncertainties mount, there will be increasing Taliban presence in the countryside as the Kabul government concentrates on ensuring security in urban areas and of the road networks. Taliban military strategy has been to target districts that enable them to surround provincial capitals. The clutch in the northeast including Badakshan, Takhar, Kunduz and Baghlan enable them to control the Afghanistan-Tajikistan border and the Wakhan corridor that links to China. In the east, they exert control in Ghazni, Zabul and Paktia while Haqqani network is active in Khost and Paktika, and IS-K in Nangarhar, Kunar and Laghman. Further south, Taliban control large parts of Kandahar, Helmand and Farah (bordering Iran).

As the reality of the US withdrawal takes hold, how events unfold by end-2021 depends on three factors. First, have the Taliban changed their ideological colours? The US in recent years, and Pakistan for much longer, have been pushing this line but Taliban leadership have given no clues about it. Related to this is the question of Taliban unity. Distances have grown between the Quetta shura, the Doha negotiators and the fighters who want to guard their individual preserves. This works as long as everyone is pursuing the military option but when it comes to power sharing, who calls the shots? Or does it lead to no power sharing?

Second, can the Kabul regime present a unified front? If the leaders in Kabul and the government continue sniping at each other, it will adversely impact the integrity of the chain of command of the Afghan security forces. If opportunistic leaders are tempted to strike their own deals with the Taliban, it will only hasten the collapse and even Western funding will dry up.

The Pakistan factor

Finally, is Pakistan still seeking strategic depth in Afghanistan or has it realised that a Taliban-dominated Kabul will be a magnet for its own home-grown extremists as well as those from the neighbourhood? Can they persuade the Taliban that its legitimacy will be at risk unless it shares power? Pakistan’s influence will weaken once the Rehbari Shura decides to move back from Quetta to Afghanistan.

History tells us that in Afghanistan, there have only been winners and losers, seldom any lasting compromises.

*****

Theocracy and Polls: The Iran Way

Posted on by
Reply

Published in the Hindustan Times on June 24, 2021

Last Friday, Iran elected its eighth president since the 1979 Islamic revolution that ended the Pahlavi dynasty. As expected, Ebrahim Raisi, the chief of the judiciary since 2019, is set to take over from President Hassan Rouhani on August 3. Given Iran’s complex governance structure of a theocracy with partial elective democracy, the elections are pre-determined, though sometimes surprisingly competitive. This time, a low turnout of less than 50% after extending the voting deadline, showed that even by Iranian standards, the non-contest failed to generate interest.

Iran’s governance structure

At the top of Iran’s governance structure is the supreme leader, currently 82-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in power since Ayatollah Khomeini’s death in 1989. He is the commander-in-chief of all armed forces and security services, appoints the heads of radio and TV networks and judiciary, and half the 12 member Guardian Council (GC). The GC members need parliamentary approval and in turn, vet candidatures for all elected positions – 290-member parliament, 88-member Assembly of Experts and the President. In addition, GC also examines all legislation to ensure its conformity with Sharia. In case of differences, matter is referred to the 45-member Expediency Council, chosen by the supreme leader. The principal task of the Experts’ Assembly is to approve the new supreme leader.

While the supreme leader is there for life (or till he chooses to retire), the president is limited to two 4-year terms, defining where the balance of power rests between them. Speculation that a new supreme leader is likely to be appointed in coming years made this election critical as Khamenei has to ensure a smooth transition while ensuring preservation of his legacy.

Raisi, a hardliner, owes much of his career progression to the supreme leader and is also seen as a potential successor to the supreme leader. Incidentally, Khamenei too was president from 1981-89 and shortly before Khomeini died, he anointed Khamenei as his successor.

Consolidation by conservatives

Born in 1960, Raisi was a theology student in the holy city of Qom and joined the anti-Shah movement as a teenager. After the Islamic revolution, he embarked on a legal career as prosecutor and during the 1980s, moved to Tehran. Following the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, thousands of political prisoners (declared anti-national and supporters of Saddam Hussein), were sentenced to death by a four-member committee that included Raisi. Later he was deputy chief of the judiciary (2004-14) and the prosecutor-general. In 2017, he was runner-up when Rouhani won his second term in a 73 percent turnout, and appointed judiciary chief later. In 2019, both US and EU imposed sanctions on Raisi on account of his human rights record, for 1980s executions and lethal crackdowns on anti-government protestors, in 2009 and 2019.

Raisi’s victory was clear on 25 May when the GC disqualified strong contenders such as the former speaker Ali Larijani and current vice-president Ishaq Jahangiri, setting the stage for him. Many civil society leaders launched calls for a boycott that reduced the turnout to below 49%, and a record 3.7 million votes cast were blank and void. As an Iranian explained, “How do you pick an orange when all that is on offer are five bananas”? Conservatives already enjoy over two-thirds majority in parliament after the 2020 election.

Setting the stage

Rouhani’s eight-year tenure has been dominated by the nuclear issue and relations with the US. Talks began in 2013 but it was Rouhani’s moderate credentials together with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s diplomatic skills that enabled progress. Secret talks with the US in Oman proved invaluable and in July 2015, the nuclear deal (JCPOA) was concluded between Iran and P5+1 (US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany and the EU). Iran accepted certain constraints on its nuclear programme, especially the uranium enrichment activities, in return for sanctions relief.

Iran’s economy, hurting under the sanctions registered a 12% growth in 2016 only to start shrinking after Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018 and adopted a policy of ‘maximum pressure’ to coerce Iran back to the negotiating table. Iran responded with a policy of ‘maximum resistance’.  The economy has been in recession for three years now, amid rising unemployment and inflation running at 40%. Since 2019, Iran began to step up certain nuclear activities, while emphasising that its actions were reversible if sanctions relief was restored, balancing hardliners at home while putting pressure on the EU.

With Joe Biden in the White House, prospects for reviving JCPOA improved. Six rounds of talks in Vienna registered limited progress. However, Rouhani’s hands were tied. Khamenei clearly wanted that a deal, even partial, only be concluded after the elections, in remaining six weeks of his tenure. Rouhani will be responsible for any shortcomings while any relief credit will accrue to Raisi.

Given the situation, the US has played along but the hard negotiation begins now. US will only offer partial relief in return for some Iranian roll-back, holding back to engage the new regime in Tehran. With hardliners now dominant, US expects that internal bickering will end.

Meanwhile, talks last month between Saudis and Iranians in Iraq have raised hopes of movement on Yemen. A change of guard in Israel may provide breathing space in Lebanon and Gaza. The sands in West Asia may be shifting, though ever so slightly.

*****