fbpx

Blog

Left sidebar layout
 by Arman Sidhu

Indo-Afghan Ties and the Prospect of Peace

As one of several external stakeholders that have taken a keen interest in the affairs of Afghanistan, India ranks among one of the more reticent partners of the Afghan government. In spite of losing their shared border over 70 years ago, due to the results of the Partition of India and the subsequent First Kashmir War, Indo-Afghan ties remain strong. India’s steadfast support for Afghanistan’s state entities has evolved considerably, from recognizing and supporting Afghanistan’s contentious Cold War-era governments, to aiding the present-day Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

In return, India’s status as the largest regional donor and supporter of Afghan statecraft and reconstruction has endeared the country to numerous Afghan leaders. Beyond provisions of material support and developmental assistance, India’s higher education institutions, which counts former President Hamid Karzai as an alumnus, remains a popular destination for Afghan students, many of whom return to positions in the nascent public and private sectors. Two of India’s most prominent military academies, namely the Indian Military Academy, and the National Defence Academy, enroll a significant intake of Afghan soldiers, aiding in the capacity-building process of Afghanistan’s security forces.

Behind India’s soft power investment in Afghanistan is a desire to retain existing influence in Kabul, while curbing similar ambitions by arch-rival Pakistan. Unlike the other original sponsors of the Mujahideen, such as the United States and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s stake in Afghanistan did not wane at the conclusion of the Afghan Civil War.

Instead, the five-year period of Taliban rule from 1996-2001 showcased the potential potency of a Pakistan-friendly government in Afghanistan. Seminal events like the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight by a pro-Taliban group based in Kashmir, accelerated India’s coalition-building of anti-Taliban forces, which featured a mix of both internal and external entities.

In addition, throughout their tenure, the Taliban hosted numerous anti-Indian organizations, several of which have been linked to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (IS) agency. The most notable of these organizations was Lakshar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group that would later be responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Given the proximity of Kashmir to Afghanistan’s northeast borders, the notion of a contiguous corridor that could supply Indian Kashmiri separatists with training, safe haven, as well as material and logistical support from Pakistan and/or the Taliban is a crucial security concern for India.

Memories of the subsequent damage inflicted upon Indian interests during the Taliban’s tenure continues to inform New Delhi’s present-day objectives. While its contributions to the Afghan state have enlarged in scope, India still remains fixated on curtailing Pakistan’s influence, which is primarily wielded through the relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan’s security establishment.

Although portraying Afghanistan’s situation as a microcosm of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry may come off as a slight toward Afghan sovereignty, alignment between the goals of India and the Afghan government remain strong. India remains one of the more active participants in development and infrastructure projects designed to boost Afghanistan’s connectivity and increase its participation in the global economy. The Iranian port of Chabahar is one example, as the port remains a key conduit of trade between India, Afghanistan, and Iran, through a route that deliberately avoids Pakistan.

Furthermore, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sought a more vocal and active role for India’s engagement in foreign affairs, with developments in Afghanistan at the forefront of this initiative. Indian officials have been frequently sighted and quoted during pivotal moments in the Afghan peace process, including during the US-Taliban deal that was signed in Doha, Qatar earlier this year.

In its most recent observations of the Afghan peace process, India’s foreign policy establishment has tempered expectations, preferring to instead focus on the schematics of a deal signed between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

In particular, the unresolved question of how the Taliban will integrate into Afghanistan’s civil society is pertinent to India’s posturing. In the event that the Taliban and its members convert to willing democratic participants, India’s interests would then evolve into preventing radical elements and individuals from ascending to the highest levels of government. A scenario in which Afghan political parties begin to orient themselves as strictly pro-India or pro-Pakistan remains plausible and would likely fuel further competition between the two powers, with the concomitant effect of tainting Afghanistan’s political culture.

The spectrum of possibilities in a potential peace deal presents newfound challenges to the Indo-Afghan relationship. India’s reluctance to engage with the Taliban stems from its characterization of the group as a stalwart client of Pakistan, rather than an independent entity.

Thus, any peace deal outcome that grants some level of legitimate political authority to the Taliban would present the greatest threat to India’s strategic ambitions in Afghanistan, which includes fostering closer political and economic ties with Central Asia and the Gulf region. As a result, the next few phases of the intra-Afghan peace process, set to resume in Doha, will carry significant political, economic, and security ramifications for India’s broader foreign policy strategy.

– Arman Sidhu

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Arman Sidhu

A Road to Everywhere: Afghanistan’s Role in the Belt and Road Initiative

Nearly seven years after it was first announced, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) continues to endure a barrage of setbacks that have called into question the feasibility of President Xi Jingping’s signature economic plan. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, criticism of the BRI included accusations of “debt trap diplomacy”, environmental concerns, and the lack of benefits for local populations in the form of no-bid contracts and job opportunities.

Furthermore, among the defining moments of the BRI’s short history was the fallout associated with Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port, a maritime port that was largely constructed and financed by China. At a cost of nearly $1.5 billion USD, the port struggled to generate the level of financial return needed to service the debt to China. With few options available, the Sri Lankan government was compelled to enter an agreement with a partially state-owned Chinese firm, which granted the company a 99-year lease on the port, essentially ceding Sri Lanka’s control and day-to-day management of the port.

The Hambantota debacle has increased the level of scrutiny paid toward other BRI projects, which span parts of Asia, Africa, Europe, and South America. Yet, for many developing nations, the BRI presents an intriguing opportunity to access the requisite financing to establish and upgrade infrastructure networks.

For a landlocked country like Afghanistan, overland infrastructure remains a core priority within the government’s economic agenda. Incessant conflict has eroded what was once Afghanistan’s natural advantage: its geographic location. By constructing transportation networks, such as roads, railways, airports, etc., Afghanistan would be well-positioned to benefit as a conduit for transporting physical goods and natural resources in a region that features some of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Thus far, attempts to include Afghanistan in the BRI have been frustrated by the vagaries of the country’s internal conflicts. The results of the peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban will provide investors, donors, and state entities with the necessary signals and guidance needed before launching additional economic programs in or near territories contested or controlled by the Taliban.

In particular, the Sino-Afghan Special Railway Transportation project is one of a handful of infrastructure initiatives that could bolster Afghan exports of minerals and agricultural products to China, via Central Asia. The ability to transport high-value input commodities, such as copper and rare-earth elements, safely and securely, is crucial to China’s decision-calculus when choosing where to invest in Afghanistan.

Supplementing the BRI is the “Made in China 2025” plan, which envisions Chinese production evolving toward advanced industries like semiconductors, which necessitate consistent access to a specific set of raw materials, many of which Afghanistan is heavily endowed with.

A favorable outcome in the peace talks with the Taliban could also extend Afghanistan’s BRI participation to its southernmost regions, where it shares a border with Pakistan. As one of the more active nations in the BRI, Pakistan has pinned its hopes of economic revitalization through the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a microcosm of the broader BRI strategy.

Valued between $50-$60 billion USD, CPEC’s portfolio of massive infrastructure projects includes power and transport projects, the establishment of special economic zones (SEZs), and Gwadar Port, the deepest seaport in the world. Extending Afghanistan’s connectivity with CPEC projects would be pivotal to expanding export destinations for Afghan goods. This in turn could create a productive business climate in Afghanistan, one that is conducive for job creation and economic diversification away from subsistence agriculture.

However, reversing Afghanistan’s status from a bottleneck to a transit hub will involve far more than the accession of policymakers in Kabul or Beijing. The looming question regarding the prospect of lasting peace is still the greatest hurdle in Afghanistan’s reconstruction plans. The Taliban’s tendency to intentionally target infrastructure or other foreign projects has given pause to plenty of investors in sectors like oil & gas, construction, and mining.

Even if peace can be attained, the track record for foreign investment in Afghanistan is littered with corruption, graft, and cronyism as a consequence of poor institutional capacity. In addition, other stakeholders and key Afghan partners such as the United States and India continue to view the BRI with suspicion, and the prospect of a trilateral partnership between Afghanistan, China, and Pakistan is likely to arouse concern.

Lastly, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the appetite for Chinese-led investment has hit a significant snag. Local attitudes toward the BRI have become polarized, and vocal opposition has risen as a consequence of China’s lending practices, which are often characterized as predatory, and its management of projects on the ground, which have gained a reputation elsewhere for environmental destruction, forced relocation of residents, and an unwillingness to engage local contractors and/or labor.

In an optimal set of circumstances, Afghanistan’s BRI projects could help restart growth and diffuse benefits to the local population. Yet, given the murky track records of both the BRI and Afghan investment at-large, the consequences of overpromising and underdelivering could enable greater unrest, without providing tangible benefits for the broader Afghan population.

in Rise to Peace blog 1 comments
 by Rise to Peace

Unlocking Afghanistan’s Resource Wealth: Three Obstacles for the Mining Sector

Throughout its history, Afghanistan’s most notable advantage has been its geographically strategic location. The country’s proximity to trade routes and markets in the Middle East and throughout South, Central, and East Asia enabled an unparalleled level of connectivity in global commerce. However, decades of instability as a result of constant warfare, have disrupted many of Afghanistan’s naturally endowed advantages. Adding to this tragedy is the unfavorable timing of Afghanistan’s woes, which coincided with the era of globalization.

An alternative narrative of the country’s history in the past 40 years may have heavily favored Afghanistan as a transit hub for moving goods and fulfilling global energy demands between supply-rich states near Afghanistan’s north and eastern borders and booming emerging markets like India and China, both of which consume a considerable amount of commodities.

Yet, Afghanistan’s potential value to the global economy goes beyond just its geography. Among the sectors that could prove to be a catalyst for reconstructing the country’s economy is the nascent mining sector. The involvement of foreign actors in Afghanistan’s conflicts over the past 40 years, beginning with the Soviet Union in the late 1970s throughout the 1980s, began to unveil the extent of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.

Through geological surveying, and cutting-edge methods such as remote sensing, the Soviets, and later, NATO member-states, have added clarity to the staggering level of wealth residing in Afghanistan’s mines. Valuation attempts have resulted in estimates that range from $1-$3 trillion USD in untapped mineral deposits. In addition to standard precious metals (gold, silver, platinum, etc.), Afghanistan also contains vast reserves of high-quality gemstones, rare earth elements (REEs), and minerals that are critical for industrial inputs, such as copper, iron, lithium, and uranium, among others.

While such commodities offer considerable advantages for economic development, the number of case studies that exhibit the downsides to resource wealth are plentiful, particularly in the developing world. Afghanistan is no exception to this phenomenon, which is most often referred to as the “resource curse”. To ensure proper and equitable development of Afghanistan’s mining sector, a number of obstacles, each of which present their own unique set of challenges, must be resolved to encourage domestic and foreign investment in this sector.

Obstacle #1: Securing Peace & Stability in Resource-Rich Regions.

The need for establishing rule of law and implementing peacebuilding measures is an intuitive requirement for any nation’s economic development, especially when recovering from long bouts of violence. With nearly 46% of Afghan territory in contention, or controlled directly, by the Taliban, ensuring safe passage within resource-rich provinces takes precedence among the sector’s prerequisites.

Although peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban remain fragile, the past two years has featured gradual progress between both parties. In relation to the mining industry, these talks will necessitate bargaining on both sides.

The Taliban is believed to generate nearly $300 million USD in revenues through illegal mining, serving as a lucrative revenue stream for the group. Additional grievances cited by legitimate mining firms include extortion and theft by militants and local warlords. For its part, the government will likely need to cede some level of control over the mining industry, whether that includes awarding formal rights to the group, and/or designing a mechanism for how mining proceeds will be used in Taliban strongholds.

Obstacle #2: Accountability & Transparency from Stakeholders

At present, the Afghan government loses hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the status quo, which has dampened investor sentiment and discouraged local contractors from expanding mining operations. Assuming security assurances can be guaranteed, the next step would be to enact governance measures that bring much needed reform of existing mining laws and strengthen the oversight capacity of Afghanistan’s Ministry of Mines and Petroleum.

The tendency for corruption and graft to flourish within extractive industries is a recurring theme throughout resource-rich nations. To ensure adequate levels of oversight, the Afghan government will have to take further steps toward formalizing the sector. Doing so would ensure transparency during the auction and bidding process for mineral rights, providing a more leveled playing field for all participants, particularly local small and medium enterprises (SMEs). An emphasis on awarding tenders to SMEs would have the dual advantages of encouraging growth and competition, while minimizing the risks and liabilities associated with larger foreign mining firms.

In addition, greater accountability is required from the government with regard to how (and where) the proceeds from royalties and mining rights are funneled. One oft-cited solution toward this end includes providing an equity stake and royalties for local communities surrounding an active mine, which can be used toward developmental objectives in areas like infrastructure, education, and health.

Obstacle #3: Diversification and Avoiding the “Resource Curse”

In spite of its abundance of mineral wealth, the extractive industry is best understood as a catalyst toward nurturing growth throughout the Afghan economy. With over 70% of the population reliant on the fickle agricultural sector, job growth in mining is but one avenue for absorbing labor from rural communities. As exhibited by countries like South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, an overreliance on natural resources poses daunting challenges that subject such countries to the whims of the erratic global commodities market.

Thus, revenue generated from mining activity would be best allocated toward upgrading infrastructure and improving the provision of public services. In tandem, these efforts could jumpstart activity in the manufacturing and services sectors, fomenting the conditions for private sector-led growth while expanding government services in rural areas adjacent to the mines.

Resolving these concerns is critical for Afghanistan to harness their bountiful mineral wealth. While rare, successful case studies of resource-rich nations do exist, and an emphasis on transparency, fiscal prudence, and sound economic policy remain the critical components of successful natural resource management.

– Arman Sidhu

 

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Arman Sidhu

Eid Ceasefire Offers Cautious Optimism for Peace Process

After enduring a spate of violent attacks carried out by the Taliban over the past two months, Afghanistan received a much needed respite from conflict during the Eid al-Fitr holiday. In recognition of this sacred time, the Taliban announced a 3-day ceasefire, marking the third instance of a temporary truce since 2018.

In its announcement, the Taliban’s leadership commanded its fighters to refrain from launching any offensive operations, but did not rule out the possibility of needing to defend against assaults carried out by government forces. Such sentiments signal that the level of trust between both parties remains shaky, threatening any momentum that has been garnered over the past two years toward a substantive and inclusive peace deal.

Like previous periods of ceasefire, this round proved to be short-lived, with recent attacks attributed to the Taliban following the expiry of the ceasefire. Nevertheless, such measures are considered integral to facilitating the ongoing talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, who are currently meeting in Kabul while fighting continues unabated.

In spite of the challenging circumstances regarding the conflict, and the sudden emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Afghan peace process has shown resilience through 2020, with promising signs of headway emerging both between, and within, both parties.

For its part, the Afghan government responded to the Taliban’s unilateral declaration with its own peace offering, by promising to accelerate the release process for imprisoned Taliban fighters. The significance of such a move cannot be understated, given that terms for the prisoner release remain a contentious sticking point within the government. As well, the release of Taliban prisoners by the Afghan government has also been utilised as the primary tool for encouraging the Taliban’s initiation of a ceasefire, demonstrating that the Afghan government is willing to take the ‘next steps’ towards intra-Afghan dialogue.

Furthermore, a power-sharing arrangement cinched earlier this month between President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah will undoubtedly strengthen the government’s legitimacy, while improving its position of leverage during the reconciliation process. Prior to the deal, both Ghani and Abdullah had claimed victory in last year’s presidential election, even after an appeal process had declared Ghani as the victor.

The political feud and rivalry had even gone as far as encouraging Abdullah to form a parallel government, precisely at the time when the Trump administration had signed a conditional peace deal with the Taliban, putting the ball in Kabul’s court to advance the peace process. As a result of the difficulties associated with managing a pandemic and brokering a peace deal, resolving the internal crisis of leadership within the Afghan government has proven advantageous by presenting a united front between the two factions of leadership in their talks with the Taliban.

Having resolved their differences, the terms of the deal designate Abdullah as the government’s lead in talks with the Taliban, leaving administration of state affairs to Ghani. As a conservative politician of mixed heritage with historical ties to the Mujahideen movement, Abdullah has assiduously crafted an image and narrative of his willingness to negotiate with the Taliban.

In recent months, Abdullah has often critiqued Ghani’s approach as impractical, believing that the imposition of demands as a prerequisite to intra-Afghan dialogue has only dissuaded the Taliban’s participation.The Ghani-Abdullah rivalry had also been used to advance the Taliban’s rhetoric, by describing Ghani’s government as fractured and unrepresentative of the Afghan population.

Despite their previous discrepancies, both Afghan leaders can be seen to understand the importance of working together on behalf of taking the peace negotiations with the Taliban further. By agreeing to the ceasefire and to the subsequent release of an additional 2000 Taliban prisoners, the Afghan government has shown its willingness to continue peace talks with the Taliban.

However, it is not only the Afghan authorities who have taken significant steps towards satisfying the Doha Deal, but also the Taliban who have demonstrated their great commitment to the peace talks through the recent initiation of the ceasefire arrangement over the course of the Eid holiday period. Even though violent clashes continued directly after the ceasefire concluded, the hope for finally reaching peace has not entirely vanished, as both parties have clearly indicated a higher degree of willingness to move forward with the Doha Deal and collaborate towards establishing a more stable Afghanistan.

– Arman Sidhu and Anja Apfel

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Cameron Hoffman

Terrorism or Testing: Will COVID-19 Reduce Counterterrorism Efforts?

In the wake of the global pandemic, concerns about public health dominate the political sphere, enough so that issues related to public security and defense against terrorist activities no longer appear in the headlines. As government expenditures to divert economic damages and bolster public health measures increase, defense budgets are likely to experience cuts to balance the budget. Such a response makes sense given the scope of stimulus packages and widespread unemployment.

Countries like France, Spain, and the United Kingdom decided to withdraw all troops from Iraq because of the risks posed by COVID-19. This raises the question: Does there remain a need to combat terrorist activity in the same way in a post-quarantine world?

Government officials, researchers, and the Islamic State themselves say yes. Lawmakers and researchers warn that terrorist actors are increasingly threatening global security as they have exploited the pandemic not only to increase their operations, but also their influence in countries with weak governments struggling to confront the virus.

For instance, Gilles de Kerchove, the counterterrorism coordinator for the European Union, in stressing the importance of not detracting from security spending said that, “we must prevent the one crisis from producing another.” Additionally, terrorist activity and attacks in the Middle East and Africa increased in recent months despite the pandemic. ISIL is using the virus’ crippling impact on the West and its online newspaper “Al-Naba” as a method to recruit more fighters to its cause. Further, it is increasing its militant activities in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Likewise, Boko Haram has used the global focus on the pandemic to launch multiple attacks against government forces in recent months, killing well over a hundred soldiers in Nigeria alone.

To date, neither the United States nor European governments signaled that they plan to leave the Middle East entirely (though as previously mentioned some US partners are leaving Iraq), but the pandemic provides both an excuse and economic incentive to do so. States with large military expenditures like the US will likely be able to continue their operations and smaller countries may not be able to afford these expenses even if they wanted to remain engaged in the region.

US policymakers face a tough decision as the de-facto leader in military engagement in the Middle East. Will the US continue the strategy of deep engagement, utilizing drone strikes as they have in the past, for the purpose of countering Iranian influence and terrorism in the region? Or will the US pursue an “America First” policy that focuses on rebuilding the US economy, which has been President Trump’s major policy objective and source of support? While either outcome could be normally expected, the aftermath of COVID-19 is likely to be anything but normal.

Likely, the US will pursue a sort of middle ground.  The level of activity in the Middle East will decline in some areas (especially helpful to this goal is the US withdrawal from Afghanistan), but remain constant in areas deemed critical security threats.  For example, the US is unlikely to limit funding for countering Iranian aggression, but find other budgets to cut to focus on the economy.

While the retreat of foreign forces from the Middle East, like the US, is unlikely to be met, the future of military engagement in the region will undoubtedly change as world leaders confront the lack of resources to continue their past strategies. Countries with little to lose and smaller levels of commitment will be more incentivized to withdraw and benefit from the continued engagement of the world’s military leaders on some level.

– Cameron Hoffman

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
Rise to Peace