fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
opinion: Border problems —Brian Cloughley
President Karzai will continue to oppose erection of even a modest length of international fencing that might possibly reduce the movement of militants — and drugs and other goods as might be important to people like his vice-presidential candidate
Last week I gave a talk at a meeting of the Pakistan Society in London. It was about the army and Pakistan’s security, and although all present hoped that the situation would improve, there was not a great deal of optimism. It appeared to be agreed that the chaotic violence in the NWFP was caused essentially by the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and its allies in 2001-2002, and that there could only be gloomy predictions about the future in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
This is not to say that conditions in the NWFP, and especially the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, resembled those of a tranquil garden before the beginning of the Afghanistan debacle in which so many soldiers are dying for nothing. For centuries, the tribes have resisted attempts to bring them into the mainstream of society. Successive administrations in Islamabad, Kabul and Peshawar have been unable to persuade tribal leaders that their way of life is not only a bizarre anachronism but is downright detrimental to the health and well-being of the vast majority of people.
But the majority do not matter to the dominant minority, save as puppets and cannon-fodder. Life expectancy in FATA and in Afghanistan as a whole is disgracefully, criminally low, and literacy rates are among the smallest in the world. But that is irrelevant to the people who now wield power over those who have been deliberately deprived of such benefits of modernity as might be available to the rest of the inhabitants of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Which, alas, isn’t saying much.
Most tribals in both countries are locked in the eighteenth century. Their lives are basic, bleak and grim. Some few of their leaders seek the betterment of their peoples, but in the main the tribespeople are in thrall to vicious barbarians who are either semi-literate, bigoted, self-appointed clerics or amoral tyrants who exercise despotic power while enriching themselves at the expense of their vassals and the country at large.
The main economic occupation is smuggling and the rate of unemployment is staggeringly high. The attraction for young men of joining the Taliban or becoming involved in lucrative criminality is obvious — on both sides of the border.
And it is the border that is becoming an ever more critical cause of disagreement and chaos in the region.
The division between Afghanistan and what is now Pakistan was delineated in 1893. It has been claimed by many Afghans that in some way the original agreement lapsed after a century, but there is no legal basis for this argument. The border is well-established and physically evident for much of its 2640 kilometres.
And Kabul is utterly opposed to a border barrier.
In September 2005, President Musharraf proposed that the border be fenced to whatever degree might be practicable. The practical difficulties include the difficulty of policing the obstacle itself, because a fence can’t be left on its own. It must be covered, in military terms, “by observation and fire.” It isn’t much good having a barrier if the nasties can cut holes in it and pop through when you aren’t looking. (Unlike the concrete obscenities erected by the Israelis to make the lives of the Palestinian people even more hellish.) President Bush said he supported the proposal, but nothing happened. Surprise, surprise.
In 2006, Pakistan again suggested building a fence, but President Karzai objected strongly, declaring that “barbed wire is a symbol of hatred, not friendship and hence it cannot stop terrorism”, which is pretty funny when we consider that his palace and government offices are enclosed by miles of razor wire, erected, presumably, to deter terrorist attacks.
But the real reason for his opposition was evident in his nationalistic statement that “fencing is separation” of the “inseparable” peoples living on either side of the border. So everyone saw from where he was coming, even if nobody could determine where he was going.
In 2007, Karzai declared that fencing the “Frontier” (as he called it) would not prevent terrorism (nobody claimed that it would) but “will have deadly human consequences”.
He said, “Afghanistan is asking for other means [to prevent terrorism]. Let us work against places where training and funding for terrorism is taking place and where supplies are given... The fencing or mining of the border separates families, communities and people rather than ending terrorism.”
In other words, he wants to “work against” Pakistan where, indubitably, there are bases for militants who cross into Afghanistan to assist in the insurgency against the government.
Just as there are bases in Afghanistan for militants who cross into Pakistan to assist in the insurgency against the government.
Early this month, Prime Minister Gilani met in Islamabad with the US Secretary for Homeland Security, Ms Janet Napolitano, who previously had been Governor of Arizona, abutting Mexico. Mr Gilani echoed past proposals in suggesting there be a Pakistan-Afghanistan “pattern of fencing” akin to that between America and Mexico.
Nobody has asked Mr Karzai what he thinks of this latest version of the original initiative, and of course no US official is going to put him on the spot. After Washington worked hard against Karzai in his initial efforts to be re-elected (using bizarrely devious tactics that showed dismal ignorance of Afghanistan and its peoples), it was eventually realised that alternatives to him would be even worse.
So Karzai will continue as president, courtesy of Washington, powerless in almost all spheres of governance in his country and at the mercy of such as the almost certain-to-be-”elected” next vice president, Mohammad Qasim Fahim — “a notorious warlord” as Associated Press had it on Monday.
President Karzai will continue to oppose erection of even a modest length of international fencing that might possibly reduce the movement of militants — and drugs and other goods as might be important to people like his vice-presidential candidate.
What a good result that will be for Afghan democracy: no more border problems.
The writer can be found on the web at Brian Cloughley
President Karzai will continue to oppose erection of even a modest length of international fencing that might possibly reduce the movement of militants — and drugs and other goods as might be important to people like his vice-presidential candidate
Last week I gave a talk at a meeting of the Pakistan Society in London. It was about the army and Pakistan’s security, and although all present hoped that the situation would improve, there was not a great deal of optimism. It appeared to be agreed that the chaotic violence in the NWFP was caused essentially by the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and its allies in 2001-2002, and that there could only be gloomy predictions about the future in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
This is not to say that conditions in the NWFP, and especially the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, resembled those of a tranquil garden before the beginning of the Afghanistan debacle in which so many soldiers are dying for nothing. For centuries, the tribes have resisted attempts to bring them into the mainstream of society. Successive administrations in Islamabad, Kabul and Peshawar have been unable to persuade tribal leaders that their way of life is not only a bizarre anachronism but is downright detrimental to the health and well-being of the vast majority of people.
But the majority do not matter to the dominant minority, save as puppets and cannon-fodder. Life expectancy in FATA and in Afghanistan as a whole is disgracefully, criminally low, and literacy rates are among the smallest in the world. But that is irrelevant to the people who now wield power over those who have been deliberately deprived of such benefits of modernity as might be available to the rest of the inhabitants of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Which, alas, isn’t saying much.
Most tribals in both countries are locked in the eighteenth century. Their lives are basic, bleak and grim. Some few of their leaders seek the betterment of their peoples, but in the main the tribespeople are in thrall to vicious barbarians who are either semi-literate, bigoted, self-appointed clerics or amoral tyrants who exercise despotic power while enriching themselves at the expense of their vassals and the country at large.
The main economic occupation is smuggling and the rate of unemployment is staggeringly high. The attraction for young men of joining the Taliban or becoming involved in lucrative criminality is obvious — on both sides of the border.
And it is the border that is becoming an ever more critical cause of disagreement and chaos in the region.
The division between Afghanistan and what is now Pakistan was delineated in 1893. It has been claimed by many Afghans that in some way the original agreement lapsed after a century, but there is no legal basis for this argument. The border is well-established and physically evident for much of its 2640 kilometres.
And Kabul is utterly opposed to a border barrier.
In September 2005, President Musharraf proposed that the border be fenced to whatever degree might be practicable. The practical difficulties include the difficulty of policing the obstacle itself, because a fence can’t be left on its own. It must be covered, in military terms, “by observation and fire.” It isn’t much good having a barrier if the nasties can cut holes in it and pop through when you aren’t looking. (Unlike the concrete obscenities erected by the Israelis to make the lives of the Palestinian people even more hellish.) President Bush said he supported the proposal, but nothing happened. Surprise, surprise.
In 2006, Pakistan again suggested building a fence, but President Karzai objected strongly, declaring that “barbed wire is a symbol of hatred, not friendship and hence it cannot stop terrorism”, which is pretty funny when we consider that his palace and government offices are enclosed by miles of razor wire, erected, presumably, to deter terrorist attacks.
But the real reason for his opposition was evident in his nationalistic statement that “fencing is separation” of the “inseparable” peoples living on either side of the border. So everyone saw from where he was coming, even if nobody could determine where he was going.
In 2007, Karzai declared that fencing the “Frontier” (as he called it) would not prevent terrorism (nobody claimed that it would) but “will have deadly human consequences”.
He said, “Afghanistan is asking for other means [to prevent terrorism]. Let us work against places where training and funding for terrorism is taking place and where supplies are given... The fencing or mining of the border separates families, communities and people rather than ending terrorism.”
In other words, he wants to “work against” Pakistan where, indubitably, there are bases for militants who cross into Afghanistan to assist in the insurgency against the government.
Just as there are bases in Afghanistan for militants who cross into Pakistan to assist in the insurgency against the government.
Early this month, Prime Minister Gilani met in Islamabad with the US Secretary for Homeland Security, Ms Janet Napolitano, who previously had been Governor of Arizona, abutting Mexico. Mr Gilani echoed past proposals in suggesting there be a Pakistan-Afghanistan “pattern of fencing” akin to that between America and Mexico.
Nobody has asked Mr Karzai what he thinks of this latest version of the original initiative, and of course no US official is going to put him on the spot. After Washington worked hard against Karzai in his initial efforts to be re-elected (using bizarrely devious tactics that showed dismal ignorance of Afghanistan and its peoples), it was eventually realised that alternatives to him would be even worse.
So Karzai will continue as president, courtesy of Washington, powerless in almost all spheres of governance in his country and at the mercy of such as the almost certain-to-be-”elected” next vice president, Mohammad Qasim Fahim — “a notorious warlord” as Associated Press had it on Monday.
President Karzai will continue to oppose erection of even a modest length of international fencing that might possibly reduce the movement of militants — and drugs and other goods as might be important to people like his vice-presidential candidate.
What a good result that will be for Afghan democracy: no more border problems.
The writer can be found on the web at Brian Cloughley