This week’s Heart of Asia ministerial conference hosted by India in Amritsar was yet another missed opportunity for the region at large and specifically India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, to overcome hostility and join hands to calm Asia’s troubled ‘Heart’.
The meeting ended with the usual lofty commitments being made to defeat terrorism after it was initially stymied by disputes between Delhi/Kabul and Islamabad. It was, however, bereft of any clear roadmap on how the participating countries would work together to achieve this goal. Some progress was made on the proposed regional counter-terrorism cooperation front, something which had, incidentally, already been agreed upon at the HoA in Islamabad last year. This time round it included Afghanistan’s proposed strategy that was sent to experts to consider. Also noteworthy was the agreement to name the groups that threaten the region’s peace. They are: the Taliban, ISIL/Daish and its affiliates, the Haqqani Network, Al Qaida, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Jundullah and other foreign terrorist fighters.
The communiqué contained a reference to “the support that terrorism derives in our region” but it fell short of specifying these sponsors. No country was singled out even as the participants named terror groups and mentioned the patronage they clearly enjoyed. There was some give and take but the list notably only included outfits that posed a concern for all three participants—India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
There was hardly anything else substantive in the outcome document except for Pakistan bashing headlines that the media could extract from the day-long proceedings. “Counter-terrorism efforts at a regional level require intricate coordination efforts and hopefully the experts group will be able to make actionable recommendations,” Ambassador (retd) Aziz Ahmed Khan says, adding that progress on connectivity projects was being held back by Pakistan-India tensions.
Former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad, for one, was not surprised at the lack of substance in the outcome document. “No wonder there is no progress whatsoever to bringing normalcy in Afghanistan,” he says. “Continued chaos suits some of the dominant players in the region for their own geostrategic reasons.”
The meeting, the sixth in the series since the process started from Istanbul in 2011, took place under the shadows of heightened tensions between Pakistan and India and a raging Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan that has strained already fraught Pak-Afghan ties beyond hope of redemption in the near future. This context was naturally reflected at the ministerial meeting where Pakistan faced strong criticism from co-hosts Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani for what they said was its alleged sponsorship of terrorist organizations, leaving Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz to plead for “meaningful” and “constructive” deliberations to achieve the “shared objective” of peace and stability in Afghanistan. The cold shoulder Mr Aziz received in Amritsar from his Indian hosts and the inhospitable attitude of Indian officials is besides the point.
Since August, India has been using multilateral fora to lash out at Pakistan and has used colourful idiom such the “host to the Ivy League of terrorism” and the “mothership of terrorism” in an effort to isolate its neighbour. But more hurtful than this for Pakistanis was Mr Ghani’s tirade and his decision to snub $500 million pledged by Islamabad for his country’s reconstruction. This was not the first time that Mr Ghani had levelled these allegations, but what mattered was the forum at which he was speaking and the objective for which the 14 countries and other key players in the region had gathered there.
South Asia Associate at the Wilson Center, Michael Kugelman, interprets such an attitude as going against the spirit of regional cooperation. “It is a great shame that these important regional forums have started degenerating into Pakistan-bashing affairs. Countries certainly have a right to criticize Pakistan, but I don’t see regional forums as the right place to do so,” he says. He regrets that Heart of Asia, which he felt represented one of the few opportunities for countries in the region to come together and promote regional solidarity, was used as a mechanism to ostracize Pakistan.
Ambassador (retd) Aziz Ahmed Khan describes it as scapegoating. “Pakistan bashing is an easy way out for those who indulge in it to cover their own failures and incompetence,” he says. “Pakistan should remain steadfast in its resolve to help bring peace to Afghanistan.” This is precisely the policy line that Sartaj Aziz took. He described his decision to undertake the Amritsar trip despite a stand-off with India as proof of Pakistan’s “unflinching commitment for lasting peace in Afghanistan”. He even turned the other cheek on Mr Ghani’s allegations, which may have provided journalists some catchy sound bytes but in effect he damaged the prospects of the two countries overcoming their mistrust and collaborating to tackle common challenges. Speaking to journalists upon his return, Sartaj Aziz said that Mr Ghani’s comments were the outcome of rampaging terrorism at home and that he hoped that India would not be able to split the ‘conjoined twins’, as in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
This is why Pakistan is seen as making a wise decision to take part. “Pakistan is a key player in all efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan,” says Ambassador Khan. “Turmoil in Afghanistan adversely affects us in many ways. We have to make our contribution at such forums. Advisor Sartaj Aziz made a significant contribution, which was eloquently recognized by the Russian representative, Ambassador Kabulov.”
Pakistan’s goodwill aside, perhaps Sartaj Aziz was not the right person to have represented Pakistan at a time of such bitterness with India. Consider former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad’s view. “Given the recent ominous developments in the region, especially Modi’s belligerence and the declared policy of isolating and destabilizing Pakistan, Sartaj Aziz’s visit to Amritsar for the HoA moot was the most ill-advised decision,” he says. “Our presence at a lower level would have sufficed, and saved the indignity that Sartaj suffered. I understand the Foreign Office had suggested this but were overruled.” In his opinion, the Heart of Asia process has “neither any role nor relevance to the actual peacemaking in Afghanistan”.
Notwithstanding the negativity generated by Mr Ghani’s comments, it is also time for the Pakistan government to take a dispassionate look at some of his concerns, which may not be altogether baseless. Pakistan’s cooperation may be indispensable for Afghanistan to stand on its feet again, but Afghanistan too is important for Pakistan and cannot be allowed to slip away.
Border management could be a big step towards addressing those reservations, but it may not be the only thing that the Afghans need. “Quite frankly, there’s little that Pakistan can do to counter the allegations it faces from the likes of India and Afghanistan unless it takes some very dramatic, and highly unlikely, steps—[such as] denying sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani Network, and cracking down on the likes of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed,” Kugelman notes, adding that the outlook for Pakistan in the near future is not terribly positive. “Given the dreadful state of relations between Islamabad and its neighbors to its east and west, and given that Pakistan is unlikely to adjust its policies, we’re likely in for an extended period of bellicose rhetoric and ample saber-rattling.”
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad and can be reached at mamoonarubab@gmail.com and @bokhari_mr
The meeting ended with the usual lofty commitments being made to defeat terrorism after it was initially stymied by disputes between Delhi/Kabul and Islamabad. It was, however, bereft of any clear roadmap on how the participating countries would work together to achieve this goal. Some progress was made on the proposed regional counter-terrorism cooperation front, something which had, incidentally, already been agreed upon at the HoA in Islamabad last year. This time round it included Afghanistan’s proposed strategy that was sent to experts to consider. Also noteworthy was the agreement to name the groups that threaten the region’s peace. They are: the Taliban, ISIL/Daish and its affiliates, the Haqqani Network, Al Qaida, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Jundullah and other foreign terrorist fighters.
The communiqué contained a reference to “the support that terrorism derives in our region” but it fell short of specifying these sponsors. No country was singled out even as the participants named terror groups and mentioned the patronage they clearly enjoyed. There was some give and take but the list notably only included outfits that posed a concern for all three participants—India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
It is a great shame that these important regional forums have started degenerating into Pakistan-bashing affairs. Countries certainly have a right to criticize Pakistan, but I don't see regional forums as the right place to do so, says Michael Kugelman
There was hardly anything else substantive in the outcome document except for Pakistan bashing headlines that the media could extract from the day-long proceedings. “Counter-terrorism efforts at a regional level require intricate coordination efforts and hopefully the experts group will be able to make actionable recommendations,” Ambassador (retd) Aziz Ahmed Khan says, adding that progress on connectivity projects was being held back by Pakistan-India tensions.
Former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad, for one, was not surprised at the lack of substance in the outcome document. “No wonder there is no progress whatsoever to bringing normalcy in Afghanistan,” he says. “Continued chaos suits some of the dominant players in the region for their own geostrategic reasons.”
The meeting, the sixth in the series since the process started from Istanbul in 2011, took place under the shadows of heightened tensions between Pakistan and India and a raging Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan that has strained already fraught Pak-Afghan ties beyond hope of redemption in the near future. This context was naturally reflected at the ministerial meeting where Pakistan faced strong criticism from co-hosts Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani for what they said was its alleged sponsorship of terrorist organizations, leaving Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz to plead for “meaningful” and “constructive” deliberations to achieve the “shared objective” of peace and stability in Afghanistan. The cold shoulder Mr Aziz received in Amritsar from his Indian hosts and the inhospitable attitude of Indian officials is besides the point.
Since August, India has been using multilateral fora to lash out at Pakistan and has used colourful idiom such the “host to the Ivy League of terrorism” and the “mothership of terrorism” in an effort to isolate its neighbour. But more hurtful than this for Pakistanis was Mr Ghani’s tirade and his decision to snub $500 million pledged by Islamabad for his country’s reconstruction. This was not the first time that Mr Ghani had levelled these allegations, but what mattered was the forum at which he was speaking and the objective for which the 14 countries and other key players in the region had gathered there.
South Asia Associate at the Wilson Center, Michael Kugelman, interprets such an attitude as going against the spirit of regional cooperation. “It is a great shame that these important regional forums have started degenerating into Pakistan-bashing affairs. Countries certainly have a right to criticize Pakistan, but I don’t see regional forums as the right place to do so,” he says. He regrets that Heart of Asia, which he felt represented one of the few opportunities for countries in the region to come together and promote regional solidarity, was used as a mechanism to ostracize Pakistan.
Ambassador (retd) Aziz Ahmed Khan describes it as scapegoating. “Pakistan bashing is an easy way out for those who indulge in it to cover their own failures and incompetence,” he says. “Pakistan should remain steadfast in its resolve to help bring peace to Afghanistan.” This is precisely the policy line that Sartaj Aziz took. He described his decision to undertake the Amritsar trip despite a stand-off with India as proof of Pakistan’s “unflinching commitment for lasting peace in Afghanistan”. He even turned the other cheek on Mr Ghani’s allegations, which may have provided journalists some catchy sound bytes but in effect he damaged the prospects of the two countries overcoming their mistrust and collaborating to tackle common challenges. Speaking to journalists upon his return, Sartaj Aziz said that Mr Ghani’s comments were the outcome of rampaging terrorism at home and that he hoped that India would not be able to split the ‘conjoined twins’, as in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
This is why Pakistan is seen as making a wise decision to take part. “Pakistan is a key player in all efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan,” says Ambassador Khan. “Turmoil in Afghanistan adversely affects us in many ways. We have to make our contribution at such forums. Advisor Sartaj Aziz made a significant contribution, which was eloquently recognized by the Russian representative, Ambassador Kabulov.”
Pakistan’s goodwill aside, perhaps Sartaj Aziz was not the right person to have represented Pakistan at a time of such bitterness with India. Consider former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad’s view. “Given the recent ominous developments in the region, especially Modi’s belligerence and the declared policy of isolating and destabilizing Pakistan, Sartaj Aziz’s visit to Amritsar for the HoA moot was the most ill-advised decision,” he says. “Our presence at a lower level would have sufficed, and saved the indignity that Sartaj suffered. I understand the Foreign Office had suggested this but were overruled.” In his opinion, the Heart of Asia process has “neither any role nor relevance to the actual peacemaking in Afghanistan”.
Notwithstanding the negativity generated by Mr Ghani’s comments, it is also time for the Pakistan government to take a dispassionate look at some of his concerns, which may not be altogether baseless. Pakistan’s cooperation may be indispensable for Afghanistan to stand on its feet again, but Afghanistan too is important for Pakistan and cannot be allowed to slip away.
Border management could be a big step towards addressing those reservations, but it may not be the only thing that the Afghans need. “Quite frankly, there’s little that Pakistan can do to counter the allegations it faces from the likes of India and Afghanistan unless it takes some very dramatic, and highly unlikely, steps—[such as] denying sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani Network, and cracking down on the likes of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed,” Kugelman notes, adding that the outlook for Pakistan in the near future is not terribly positive. “Given the dreadful state of relations between Islamabad and its neighbors to its east and west, and given that Pakistan is unlikely to adjust its policies, we’re likely in for an extended period of bellicose rhetoric and ample saber-rattling.”
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad and can be reached at mamoonarubab@gmail.com and @bokhari_mr