The collapse of negotiations on solving bilateral issues between Pakistan and Afghanistan and powerful terrorist attacks, first in New Delhi and next in Islamabad, reflect the difficulty of stabilizing the situation in the South Asian subregion in the near future.
Vladimir Terehov
Therefore, any Afghan government, whether secular or clerical, will never recognize the aforementioned Durand Line as a legitimate border with Pakistan. This is also why the support provided by the Pakistani intelligence services to the Taliban movement during its struggle for power in Kabul proved to be ineffective. For the same reason, the current leadership of Afghanistan will not be particularly zealous in fulfilling its own promises not to allow “terrorists” the opportunity to carry out various operations on Pakistani territory. For the Pakistani leadership, the situation is further complicated by the coordination between Pashtun organizations and the separatist movement of another ethnic group, the Baloch. It should be noted that the province of Balochistan occupies more than a third of Pakistan’s territory.
The author was not surprised by the week-long cross-border armed conflict that began on October 9 between the two countries sharing the same religion, during which the Pakistani Air Force struck “terrorist camps” on Afghan territory. However, the emergence of another danger zone in the broader region, including the countries of South Asia and the Greater Middle East, is unacceptable to everyone there. Consequently, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Doha, Qatar, on October 17.
At the same time, one cannot deny the significance of certain external factors that contribute to destabilizing the situation in the region
At the same time, it has been reported that there is a desire to “immediately continue” negotiations aimed at creating an environment conducive to “achieving security and stability in both countries.” Such negotiations began at the end of October in Istanbul but concluded without result. This is also unsurprising, given the fundamental nature of the problems in bilateral relations. This fundamental nature was manifested, as claimed by the Pakistani delegation, in the very refusal of Kabul’s representatives to guarantee an end to “incursions by terrorist groups” from Afghan territory. Let us add that it is unlikely the latter’s government even possesses the capability to implement guarantees of this kind, even if it wished to provide them.
A mutual exchange of warnings, which were essentially threats voiced after the failed Istanbul negotiations, was to be expected. Such warnings were already issued by Kabul on November 8. Naturally, Islamabad responded to them a few days later.
Terrorist attacks in New Delhi and Islamabad
The situation in the region was undoubtedly exacerbated by two consecutive and rather bloody terrorist attacks in the capitals of India and Pakistan, which occurred a few days after the Pakistan-Afghan negotiations broke down. That is all that can be said regarding this series of events for the time being. At the time of writing this article, investigations concerning the terrorist attacks were still ongoing, and nothing yet links them to the failure of the Istanbul negotiations.
The car explosion that occurred on November 10 in New Delhi near the Red Fort was most likely accidental. Nevertheless, it resulted in the deaths of 11 people, including three passengers of the car, and 20 others suffered various degrees of injury. Suspicion immediately fell on certain Islamist groups, whose target was unlikely to be a monumental structure from the period of the Great Mughals, who professed Islam. Apparently, explosives were being transported in the car to somewhere, and for some reason they exploded in the “wrong place and at the wrong time.”
The same cannot be said for the terrorist attack that took place the very next day in Islamabad, carried out by a suicide bomber who detonated himself next to a police car, which was in turn parked near a courthouse. The consequences of this incident were similar to those following the terrorist attack in New Delhi. The Pakistani leadership paid particular attention to the terrorist attack in Islamabad, even though bloody attacks of this kind occur in the country almost every week, and often more than once. At the same time, attempts are being made by the Pakistani prime minister to link both mentioned terrorist attacks into a single event, which is in turn connected to the “Afghanistan-India” tandem.
Foreign proxies in the South Asian subregion
In light of the troubling events in the South Asian subregion discussed in this article, it seems appropriate to once again mention the role of certain external factors, including those inherited from recent history, for example, the Mountbatten Plan from 1947 for the partition of British India. It is often – one might say habitually – invoked. In reality, this plan merely formalized the definitive schism along religious lines within what was once a unified independence movement for this “jewel in the British crown,” a schism that had occurred ten years earlier.
Let us add two more factors for those who appreciate the particular role of external influence on local events. The current prime ministers of Pakistan and Bangladesh – countries that were once part of British India – Shehbaz Sharif and Muhammad Yunus, returned directly from lengthy stays in London to their countries to assume their current high offices.
The fact that Yunus’ predecessor is on the run in India, while Sharif’s predecessor is imprisoned in Pakistan, is not at all related to this. To explain this, as well as other similar circumstances, it is sufficient to refer to “local reasons” (that is, of course, if one proceeds from the principle known as Occam’s razor).
At the same time, one cannot deny the significance of certain external factors that contribute to destabilizing the situation in the region. This is natural, as we live in a world where players are always in competition with one another. However, any external “color revolutions” or other provocations are only successful when conditions within the country have already become intolerable.
One has to remind people of such elementary things considering the seemingly endless stream of consciousness from propaganda warriors, who cry that “the Anglo-Saxons are to blame for everything.” That is, 70 million rather pleasant people who are currently living on their own island in a state almost like occupation. A whole trainload of them were recently stabbed near London by two “migrants.”
Isn’t this to be expected when a strategy of “population replacement” is being implemented everywhere in Europe, and the principle of “positive discrimination” is in effect? The authors of the latter term, however, did not shy away from the semantic abracadabra it contains. Any words and actions can be expected from an “elite” that is saving its own skin from the anger of the subjugated peoples, an elite that is ready to set the whole world on fire to this end.
Finally, let us note once again that while we should not oversimplify the evaluation of tragic episodes of the past and no less ominous current events, e.g., in South Asia, we should not unnecessarily complicate it either. This is the essence of the aforementioned principle formulated by the late Medieval monk William of Ockham – an Anglo-Saxon, by the way.
Vladimir Terekhov, Expert on Asia-Pacific Issues
No comments:
Post a Comment