Improving Tense U.S.-Pakistan-Afghanistan relations

By Johan Galtung Reprint | | Print |

MANASSAS, Virginia, May 7 2012 (IPS) - Five long-term trends form the backdrop for this subject: the fall of the U.S. empire; the de-development of the West; the decline of the state system in favour of nationalisms from below and regionalisms from above; the rise of the rest of the world; and the rise of China.

At present, the U.S., Pakistan, and Afghanistan and many sub-actors are locked in a deadly embrace, well described by Ahmed Rashid in his book ‘Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan’. Here are some highlights:

Forty million Pashtuns are divided by a 2500-kilometre-long line between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was drawn in 1893 by Henri Mortimer Durand, an English imperialist and foreign secretary of “British India”. Thus, Pashtuns crossing the line are not entering a “safe haven”, as the U.S. claims; rather, they are at home. The “treaty” was in English, which Afghanistan’s emir did not understand.

Another signatory was sovereign Baluchistan, later annexed by Pakistan. The Pashtuns were not included.

The U.S. seeks to fortify conventional world maps of states, like the two mentioned. Yes, these states have governments more or less of, by, and for the people and not only the one percent. But these state borders ignore maps of nations which, given the decline of states, are more important. Moreover they ignore maps of civilisations, like the Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Jews. Muslims are not the only group that faces the dilemma of having to decide whether they belong to some secular state or to the ummah, the community of all followers of Islam.

Pakistan’s main concerns are internal divisions between nationalities and the conflict with India, which is mainly, though not entirely, over Kashmir.

Afghanistan’s concerns are foreign invasions, from Alexander the Great and the Mongols, to three English invasions, one by the Soviets and now U.S.-NATO presence in the country. Varying pretexts have been used to camouflage the real motivation for this latest occupation: though it was seeking a military base close to China (Bagram) and an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean, the U.S. cited 9/11 as its reason for entering the country, without delivering any public proof that it the terrorist attack came from Afghanistan in general and bin Laden in particular.

The U.S. keeps committing the same elementary error in judgment: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This may work well in some cases, but that “friend” may also have other agendas. The U.S. used bin Laden to beat the Soviets though he was against secularism in general, not only the Soviet variety. The U.S. can use Pakistan to beat Islamists on their own territory. But Pakistan’s ultimate goal may be to defeat India and prevent it from having influence in Afghanistan, which is why it protects the Pashtuns and the Taliban and housed bin Laden, which led to a de facto war in which the Pakistani secret service was taken by surprise when U.S. president Barack Obama ordered the extra-judicial execution of bin Laden by U.S. SEALs on Pakistan’s territory.

In the background, Pakistan’s Islamic bomb joins the Evangelical, Anglican, Catholic-secular, Orthodox, Confucian, Judaic, and Hindu bombs, competing for god-like omnipotence. Israel’s goals, to eliminate Pakistan’s bomb and stop one in Iran, become U.S. goals. The tail wagging the dog? Partly, but even more important is how the U.S. and Israel came into being –by taking over somebody else’s land in the name of their faith, killing inhabitants or pushing them into exile or onto reservations. The much longer history of India has similarities, which might provide a basis for the U.S.-Israel-India alliance.

How about U.S.-Pakistani relations? Agendas that coincide on some points but diverge wildly on others will drive the two sides from one conflict to the next as they have for a decade or two. But Afghanistan and Pakistan also use the U.S. as a milking cow –Pakistan to the tune of about three billion dollars a year.

The U.S.’s relationship with Pakistan is not a lasting one and its relationship with Afghanistan even less so. The U.S. military’s claim -“Give us only X more years and we’ll beat them”, with drones and SEALs– will not work. The U.S. and NATO will withdraw and bones of the U.S. empire will be buried on Afghan soil. Maybe NATO too.

We are back to the grand lines from the beginning: power is moving to the South and East, states yield to federations and regions. Pakistan can probably only survive as a federation with substantial autonomy for its regions and as part of a Central Asian community with eight Muslim neighbours. The more open the border is, the more will the Durand wound heal –not by Pakistan or Afghanistan yielding territory to the other, or creation of a new Pashtunistan, but more creatively. And that region will be more interested in good relations with China –already owner of enormous resources in Afghanistan– than with the U.S.

And the U.S.? Hopefully it will withdraw before the war with Pakistan becomes hotter.

Where love is missing, separation may be better. Or even divorce.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Johan Galtung, Rector of the TRANSCEND Peace University, is author of ‘The Fall of the US Empire – And Then What?’