A Pakistani police officer escorting an alleged criminal

Politics

美国应当如何改变巴基斯坦的行为？

Jan 29, 2018 Brahma Chellaney

新德里——美国总统唐纳德·特朗普冻结约20亿美元对巴基斯坦的安全援助作为对该国拒绝镇压跨国恐怖集团的惩罚的最新决策是朝着正确的方向迈出的步骤。但还需要采取更多的举措。

美国有充分的动机对巴基斯坦施压，这个国家长期以来一直假装是美国的朋友，即使其继续为在邻国阿富汗与美军作战并杀害美军士兵的军事集团提供援助。事实上，恰恰因为美国对巴援助而部分导致阿富汗成为一个失败国家，导致美国陷入到其有史以来最漫长的战争当中。

在美国入侵阿富汗16年后，阿富汗首都喀布尔已经处在包围之中，最近在喀布尔洲际酒店发生的恐怖袭击和自杀性爆炸就是这方面的例证。近几个月，美国发动了大规模空袭，目的是阻止阿富汗塔利班快速推进。去年8月到现在美国实施的空袭行动已经超过了2015和2016年的总和。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Our latest event, What Economics is Missing, is now live.

Click the link below for opening remarks from Dani Rodrik, followed by a discussion among Ashwini Deshpande, Raquel Fernández, Minouche Shafik, and Vera Songwe on how to achieve inclusivity in economics.

Watch Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 Comments on this article

P. Kamath Jan 31, 2018

Are you saying anything new except what has been repeated so often by other writers? B. Chellaney after all is a reputed analyst sitting at very center of S.Asian political arena and resources to get his data. Why shoukd he skew the facts? How about you?
- P. Kamath Jan 31, 2018
  
  Sorŕy, this comment is directed to J.VH
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 30, 2018

Brahma Chellaney, obsessed with Pakistan bashing, is urging Trump to go further than freezing "some $2 billion in security assistance to Pakistan" over the country’s failure to crack down on terrorist networks - Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban - operating on its soil.
Whatever the author's grievances are against Pakistan and the pieces of advice he gives, the US will not change much of its strategy as long as it remains in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of America's war on terror right after the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan has allowed the use of its territory to supply international troops in landlocked Afghanistan, tacitly accepted American drones over its airspace, and co-operated with Western intelligence agencies against Al Qaeda.
The author has rightly recognised the problem with Pakistan’s powerful military and its influential Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which make life difficult for any civilian governments. The ISI has given shelter and support to Taliban insurgents from the 1970s to the present, including the especially virulent Haqqani network, which is seen as "a veritable arm" of Pakistani intelligence. Its aim has been to limit India's influence - but is also motivated by its disagreements with Kabul.
Ever since the 1947 partition of the Indian Subcontinent, Afghan governments of all stripes have rejected the border known as the Durand Line, laying claim to some Pashtun areas inside Pakistan. Critics say the ISI seeks to destabilise Afghanistan and "seems committed to protecting, and even nurturing" militant groups that do its bidding, whie fighting only those that pose a threat to Pakistan, like the Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP) and the Balochistan separatists.
Now the author says the US "must act soon, or an increasingly fragile Pakistan could well be transformed from a state sponsor of terrorism into a state sponsored by terrorists." He also claims that because of US aid to Pakistan that Afghanistan is "a failing state, leaving the US mired in the longest war in its history." The problem is that Afghan leaders and their American counterparts, they both agree that dealing with Pakistan is both vital, albeit difficult.
The US has relied on Pakistani air and ground routes for supplies to troops in Afghanistan. In the past when relations frayed, Pakistan blocked American access to its supply routes, such as the Khyber Pass. The US military opted for a more costly alternative that connects Baltic and Caspian ports through Russia and Central Asian countries. But that route is now vulnerable to Washington’s chilly relations with Russia, which has used its influence over Central Asian states to limit access. Due to decades long hostility between the US and Tehran, the route via Iran is out of question.
Pakistani Air Force suggested that it could block the airspace to the US and shoot down its drones. Islamabad might ramp up its support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, or halt intelligence co-operation. The US had sought to mediate between between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Pakistan fears that if such talks result in its Taliban allies sharing power in Afghanistan, this would reduce the militants' dependence on Pakistan. Taliban leaders who had explored peace talks independently of their Pakistani patrons had ended up arrested or dead.
It remains to be seen whether Pakistan continues to maintain influence over the Taliban, despite the death of tens of thousands over the past 15 years. Pakistan would have to consider the consequences, from losing out on IMF bailouts to missing aid - hardware and training - from the US, which had made Pakistan a military power. Pakistani elite is more integrated in the West - with houses, business, and bank accounts there - and thus more likely to feel the pressure of targeted sanctions.
Pakistan is increasingly confident in the support of Beijing, which is investing tens of billions of dollars in the country as part of the ambitious "Belt and Road" initiative. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor links western China to the deep-sea port situated on the Arabian Sea at Gwadar in the restive Balochistan province of Pakistan. it's not entirely clear how far China is willing to prop up Pakistan, financially or politically. Should China and India reconcile, Pakistan would stand to lose. Indeed, a permanent peace in the region must involve an rapprochement between India and Pakistan as well as India and China.
Last August Trump announced that US troops would remain in Afghanistan without a timetable for withdrawal. He accused Pakistan of duplicity: "We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting." He further infuriated Pakistan by lauding India's "important contributions to stability in Afghanistan", urging New Delhi to play a larger role. It shows how inept he is in handling sensitive issues.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
nymoom sakib Jan 30, 2018

While addressing Pakistan- a harbor of terrorism, the author deliberately overlook its own country's terror activity in J&K and in Afghanistan with the rapid partialism. Besides the stripping from the NATO is not the ultimate solution of- "to do more against terrorism" of Pak b'cause we already seen that tody's Pakistan is not alike the then Pakistan,"self called ally of US"! What we see now is Pakistan seems less feared with the global politics and also about the NUKE's politics of-course backed by China and Turky.
So to control Pak then is needed to hold a dialogue with China, it's the best solution.
- P. Kamath Jan 31, 2018
  
  Sìr: Do you know that Jammu & Kashmir are areas tgat constitute a state within Indian Union? And relationship betwen Afghaistan and India is a friendly one? India has spent some USD 2 billions to build ñedical hospitals , irrigation projects etc and has sent physicians, school teachers and technicians etc? Whereas Pakistan sent soldiers and Talibanis?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zeeshan G Jan 29, 2018

What else do you expect from an Indian writing about Pakistan? :)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Jan 29, 2018

It is highly unlikely that POTUS Trump will be able to do anything to Pakistan, now that Trump has problems right upto his kneck in domestic scene. In a recent interview Afghan President Mr. Ghani told Well known media US TV host Fareed Zakharia that his country would collapse like a deck of cards in six months , if US withdraws from Afghanistan.

Moreover China would do anything to support Pakistan from collapse since it it will be a slap in China's ambitious China Pakistan Economic Project costing 50 billion dollars in Pakistan. So , China would turn Pakistan a client state which in turn will help strategically encircle India.

So it is a great power game in Asia. In the mean time, poor Afghanistanis and Pakistanis will suffer! It is sad!
- Steve Hurst Jan 29, 2018
  
  So the US is there for keeps then PK. I thought it was madness going there. The British got a bloody nose in the 19th century with all the 'Great Game' stuff. The Russians didnt learn from that and got bloody nose in the 1980's. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great both went through Afghanistan and both had more sense than the British and Russians and did not fight a war but parlayed passage. No matter Bush and Blair thought they had more smarts than Genghis and Alexander. I heard an Army type on the tv saying it would be an afternoon job, quick in and out - this was before they went in, and I thought it was .. unlikely, shall we say. As for Pakistan I thought the fact Bin Laden was bunkered up by a Military Academy should tell anybody something. BTW when do they start extracting the mineral deposits in Afghanistan, rare earth and lithium, I thought that was part of the nutty game plan.
  
  Bob Dylan has a line in one of his songs about ... the orphan standing in the sun holding his gun ... and to me that sums up much of that area. As I have commented before infrastructure is what calmed the Wild West in the US and that is IMO the only thing which will calm the Wild East
  - P. Kamath Jan 30, 2018
    
    Steve Hurst:
    Sir, As a republican, I don't have the slightest love for any sort of imperial/colonial rule by any one. But then , I wish British Indian army had won and brought Afghanistan under its rule after its unlucky 19th. century wars. Let me give the case of British Raj first and see if similar things could have taken place in conquered land !.
    
    Here are my reasons: in the the last 500 years, the rise of the West and its contributions to the global civillization have been immense- notwithstanding its dark and brutal face - economic exploitation, death and misery of the innocents and racism .
    
    In India, there was great interaction between many sympathetic visionary English administrators and scholars with Indian intellectuals. With the British Raj came modern thinking: science, philosophy, party system ( the first political party - Indian national Congress party was confounded by British civil servant Sir. Alan O. Hume 1885), nationalism, modern education, courts to administer equality of law and so on. With it came the ability to criticise the Raj according to the very principles of the British system! Mind you, it wasn't one sided imposition by the Brits! It started with a handful of Indian intellectuals ( Raja Ram Manohar Roy 1772-1833) who saw this as the opportunity to reexamine strengths and flaws of their own civilisation, presence of abhorrent millennia old cultural practices such as Suttee system, child marriage, These intellectuals saw modern European culture not as a universal critical way of thinking, but a way of purify their traditions that were deformed by centuries of ignorance , intellectual stagnancy and superstition.
    
    They urged the British to ban these cursed practices . Their efforts were successful in banning some of these abhorrent cultural practices. Thus English rule established schools and colleges, libraries which changed the landscape from 19th century onwards! The list is quite long and I doubt there is enough spac,e!
    
    Now, let me pose the question. Had Afghanistan been ruled by the British , don't you think some of these changes wouldn't have struck firm roots over a century in that unfortunate country and protected the society from the savage brutal and psychopathic behaviour of murderous Talibani monsters?
    - Steve Hurst Jan 31, 2018
      
      PK. I think it is generally acknowledged that in the 19th century the British whilst wanting to secure potential trade routes through Afghanistan did not really have the capability to do this and the terrain was also a major tactical problem. For some considerable time the region has been dominated by illicit poppy production as a cash advantageous crop and that keeps a lot of it bandit country, currently 70% is effectively under Taliban control. My guess is it is poppy production that has more influence than who is administrating the country. You could also destroy the poppy production by giving free synthetic drugs out to anybody in the West and eliminating the demand but that doesnt look likely. You should not forget the Taliban were prepared to sit down and parlay with Rumsfeld and by implication deliver Bin Laden so there are indications there is an element of pragmatism. It was Rumsfeld who couldnt be bothered to talk and was dismissive of the Taliban and effectively escalated things. Where you have lawless domains fundamentalism easily prospers because there is no law to inhibit it. As a general comment my view is when a significant proportion of the resident local population support any guerilla type of activity then conventional forces cannot win - this opinion is not popular with seniors in conventional forces in my experience because it means they have lost before the start and they take affront at that. By definition that guerilla activity occurs due to the poppy industry. The obvious thing is to replace the poppy crop with a conventional crop and if necessary subsidise it so it is more valuable than poppies, cash return at source for poppies is not that high and the farmers are reported as mainly worried about having an income to survive. So this route doesnt actually need much money compared to what has gone on - however an attempt with substitute pomegranate production for example failed to get off the ground due to WTO issues with subsidy. The loop is the farmers want poppies to live and the Taliban also want poppies as they provide funds, and in the West stupid people also want illegal poppies. If the US had ,after the Russian - Taliban conflict (1990s) pumped in a relatively small development sums the chances are The Taliban would not have such a fundamentalist component, it looks in part to have developed in a power vacuum. There are suggestions Russia is covertly supplying the Taliban and a little goes a long way in that theatre and keeps the US locked in at considerable cost and US domestic political disadvantage. So no, I dont think the British could every have controlled Afghanistan, the critical point was post Russian - Taliban conflict - or dealing with the Western taste for illicit drugs. Just an opinion
      - P. Kamath Feb 1, 2018
        
        SH: Now, I get it! You are suggesting that my belief re: British colonisation of Afghanistan would have ushered elements of modernity , law and order ( as it happened in some other parts of the globe) , is based on inadequate knowledge! Perhaps you are right . You are certainly better informed about 19th century British politics and societal mindset!
        
        In the mean time, let us leave it to BBC to stretch history, for I watched in the recent movie 'Victoria' wherein they showed Dr. Brayden ( the surgeon who braved snow, tribesmen and hunger , riding from Jalalabad to Delhi!) being presented to Queen Victoria in her palace!. Cheers!
        
        P. Kamath Feb 1, 2018
        
        Sorry typo: it was Dr. Brydon who supposedly the sole survivor in the British retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad!
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Not a Jan 29, 2018

No need to discuss Pakistan as Pakistan is irrelevant because it is just providing shelter to unarmed Afghan refugees. Problem is with Afghanistan who provides shelter to Anti Pakistan terrorists who often work along with anti Afghanistan & US Militants. Afghanistan must stop distinguishing between good & bad terrorists or else it’s good ones will bite Afghanistan like a deadly snake
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rahul Nair Jan 29, 2018

While the authors suggestion are the need of the hour and unique, however such a pincer move would result in pushing pakistan into a corner. We must realise that pakistan is a state with nuclear weapons and when it finds itself cornered it will not hesitate in using these, including indulging in proliferation to maintain some sort of leverage. In my opinion the US could work out a possible quid pro quo arrangement with china. The arrangement could involve getting china to use its influence with pakistan to prevent them from continuing support to the haqqani network & other terrorist groups, in return the US can offer to not place offensive systems like THAAD in the vicinity of china. Such an arrangement is somewhat similar to what the kennedy administration did during the cuban missile crisis (withdrawing jupiter missiles from poland in exchange for soviets withdrawing all nuclear missiles from cuba)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/m71bAG3zh

美国应当如何改变巴基斯坦的行为？

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

The Pakistan Conundrum

Log in/Register

美国应当如何改变巴基斯坦的行为？

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification