Neighbours' game plan

Published : Nov 24, 2001 00:00 IST

India is pleased with the dramatic developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan's consequent discomfiture, but the equations in Kabul show signs of changing again.

THE speedy takeover of important Afghan cities like Kabul, Jalalabad, Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif by the Northern Alliance in the middle of November has dramatically changed the political situation in the region. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee received the news of the Taliban retreat at the fag end of his long foreign tour. The fact that the Northern Alliance now controls more than half of the country seems to have brought the smile back on the faces of Indian officials.

The Northern Alliance has had strong links with the Indian government since the mid-1990s. A few weeks before he was assassinated, Ahmad Shah Masood, the former military head of the Alliance, was in Delhi on a secret visit. Although Russia and Iran were the main backers of the Alliance, India is known to have provided logistical help to its forces when they were fighting with their backs to the wall. The joint Russian, Iranian and Indian efforts to bolster the Alliance in the last year or so had the covert support of the United States.

New Delhi's glee stems from the discomfiture in Islamabad. Both Washington and Islamabad had shown a preference for the return of former King Zahir Shah to head an interim government in Afghanistan after the ouster of the Taliban. The pro-Western King would have not only retained Pashtun dominance in Afghanistan but seen to it that Pakistani interests in the region were safeguarded. The Pakistani establishment has always claimed that a friendly regime in Kabul will give it the strategic depth needed vis-a-vis India. All of a sudden Islamabad finds itself bereft of the strategic depth that it feels is crucial in the event of a military conflict with India.

But then these are early days. Washington, which had facilitated the speedy entry of the opposition forces by carpet-bombing Taliban controlled-areas with the most lethal bombs in its arsenal such as "daisy cutters", has also been seemingly caught on the wrong foot by the dizzy pace of events. According to some experts on the region, one reason why the Taliban abandoned Kabul without a fight was to prevent the installation of a broad-based multi-ethnic government led by Zahir Shah. The vacuum left by the withdrawing Taliban has been quickly filled by the Tajiks in Kabul, the Hazaras in Herat and the Uzbeks in Mazar-e-Sharif. This, according to many observers, is a recipe for a future inter-ethnic war. The signs of resurgent warlordism are already evident. According to observers, the Taliban also wants to divide the country into two zones before the winter, keeping the southern part under its influence and leaving the northeast to the ethnic minorities.

Burhanuddin Rabbani, recognised as the President of Afghanistan by many countries in the region, is already ensconced in Kabul. This has not been appreciated by Washington and Islamabad. The Pakistani media, perhaps reflecting the official view, are full of reports that forces close to Moscow, Teheran and Delhi are in control in Kabul as a result of the American military action. Rabbani, however, has indicated that he would like to continue as President only until such time as a more widely accepted leader is found. The Northern Alliance leadership has now started showing signs of disunity. Besides, with troops from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries pouring in without even informing the Northern Alliance, the military equation could once again change with the installation of a leader chosen by the West in Kabul.

Countries in the region, especially Iran and China, are deeply worried about the growing presence of Western troops in their backyard. Russian officials, however, claim that they have been assured by Washington that the presence of U.S. and NATO troops will be temporary. The U.S. has also been using bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in its war against Afghanistan. Russian officials give the impression that Washington had consulted Moscow on this and that the troops' presence in the Central Asian republics would be coterminus with the duration of the war. Moscow has also been assured that there will be no new map-making by the U.S. and its allies.

New Delhi has not publicly voiced its concerns about these and other issues that are of relevance to the region. It is still focussing on the single-point issue of terrorism. India is naturally not happy that Pakistan has re-emerged as a staunch and trusted ally of the West, and that too in a war against terrorism following the September 11 events.

The unifocal approach of New Delhi on global terrorism is useful to Washington. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz has been quoted as saying that the war will continue even after the present conflict in Afghanistan ends. He said that even countries like Indonesia could be targeted by the U.S. for allegedly harbouring Al Qaeda activists and sympathisers.

Wolfowitz said after September 11 that he was not averse to see the end of some countries as they exist at present. He and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld want to expand the war to Iraq and possibly Syria. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is clearly against such adventurism.

THERE are still no signs of the United States-backed multinational peace force landing in Afghanistan. Pakistan would like the peace-keepers to come from moderate Islamic countries like Turkey and Bangladesh. Pakistani officials are reconciled to the fact that they will not enjoy the kind of influence they had earlier in Afghan affairs but they know that geography is on their side. The U.S. knows that Pakistan's cooperation is absolutely essential if the war has to be fought to its logical end. Pakistan's views may be accommodated to an extent and this could be reflected in the composition of the international peace-keeping force.

The Northern Alliance leadership has signalled that it is not keen on the idea of having U.N. peace-keepers. In fact, its "foreign minister", Abdullah Abdullah, wants the number of British paratroopers at present in and around Kabul to be reduced considerably. Indian officials are also not comfortable with the idea of a peace-keeping force comprising countries politically close to Islamabad. India supports the claim of the Northern Alliance that the Afghans should be allowed to sort out their problems. It hopes to have more diplomatic clout in Afghanistan as long as the Northern Alliance retains the upper hand. Indications are that Iran and Russia are not averse to the status quo continuing. Moscow has refused to send either troops or peace-keepers to Afghanistan.

In the third week of November, India was formally accommodated in the Group of 21 countries that will advise the U.N. Secretariat on the post-conflict scenario. Other prominent members in the Group are Britain, France, Japan and Germany. New Delhi would have preferred to have been part of the more prestigious six plus two grouping, which has the capacity to influence events in Afghanistan. This group includes Afghanistan's immediate neighbours like Pakistan, China, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Iran and the U.S. and Russia. Washington and Moscow do not want this compact group enlarged despite high-level lobbying by New Delhi.

India is for a "strong and stable" government in Afghanistan. There is a growing realisation that the Northern Alliance by itself cannot provide the desired stability in the strife-torn country. So a broad-based government is an inevitability. It is hoped that the new regime in Kabul would be friendly to all the countries in the region.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment