Istanbul Conference – A Partial Focus On Afghan Stability by Bassam Javed

The year 2011 has opened new vistas for Afghanistan as concerted efforts being put in by all stake holders have provided a glimmer of hope to achieve what has eluded Afghans for too long: stability, peace, development and prosperity. The year not only marks the end of the decade of foreign intervention in Afghanistan after eviction of Taliban from Kabul but is also turning out to be a decisive year wherein strategic accords are being worked upon to create Afghan peace and stability by the time US-led forces are withdrawn.

Two conferences are coming up in this regard; one in Istanbul on 2 November and the other in Bonn on 5 December to augment and support Afghan efforts in building peace, developmental infrastructure and prosperity in Afghanistan. Here, we will be focusing on Istanbul Conference that will be attended by regional countries comprising ‘Heart of Asia’ and some other members of the international community. The aim of the Istanbul Conference as projected in the preparatory conferences held elsewhere in Oslo and Kabul was to define a vision for regional peace and development through participants’ commitments for a stable and independent Afghanistan and to discuss regional economic cooperation.

Notwithstanding the urgent need to stabilize Afghanistan, the half hearted and un-coordinated peace efforts undertaken by various stake holders independently have failed. Also, the withdrawal time line of the foreign forces has not been worked out. With these two major shortcomings, holding of Istanbul Conference does not appear to be in consonance with other dynamics required for Afghan stability. More so, instead of articulating modus operandi to extract solemn and formal pledges from participating countries the draft declaration focuses on erecting a new architecture to oversee peace process, stability, development and prosperity in Afghanistan. This architecture will be composed of fourteen countries from South and Central Asian and the Middle East. The selection of the countries is liable to be challenged by countries bordering Afghanistan at the very start of the conference as some of these countries do not share borders with Afghanistan.

The conflicting objectives of Istanbul Conference i.e. one relating to Afghanistan and the other on the regional countries dilute the importance of each other. The draft document projects that the internal stability of Afghanistan can be achieved utilizing external initiatives through a regional architecture tantamount to give an impression that all of Afghanistan’s problems are external. Going by Istanbul document will mean that focus on progress and reconciliation, resurrection of Afghan governance, return of refugees from Iran and Pakistan, endorsement of peace process and Afghan sovereignty by the countries bordering Afghanistan, has been over ridden by focus on corroboration and support by a larger group of countries on regional agreements that would derive out of the Conference. Not only this, there is a move by the US to create a ‘contact group’ of countries to consult on Afghan security. The original agenda may also be hijacked by the US as it is feared that the Conference will be utilized to devise a mechanism for speedy withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan. The forums of purported regional architecture and creation of the contact group will not deliver on Afghanistan since bilateral strategic issues between some of the countries forming the core groups will spoil the Afghan peace stabilization process.

The critical issue faced by Pakistan and also by Iran has been completely side lined in the draft Istanbul Conference prepared is the presence of millions of Afghan refugees that has tremendously burdened the respective economies. The draft declaration has no mention about the fate of those refugees. Also, to the detriment of both Pakistan’s and Iran’s security interests, the document also equates immediate neighbors like Pakistan and Iran with distant neighbors like India. The document also enhances the role of India in Afghan affairs.

Pakistan shares 2560 Kms long border with Afghanistan and its security gets affected by events in Afghanistan. The Istanbul Conference will do well by focusing only on an all acceptable declaration that establishes principles accompanied by an implemental plan for a sustained economic assistance from international community to built and develop Afghan infrastructure. In the context of Pakistan’s interests, the draft document prepared by Turks for Istanbul Conference does not cater for them. Pakistan has always been proud of its decades old relationship with the Turks. Both the countries have been of great strength to each other in times of crises. What compelled Turkey to off-set Pakistan’s interest in the draft document is not known. May be Turkey wanted to win back the West’s confidence that spiraled down for its firm and moral stand on Palestinian issue and the Middle East through extra regional agenda on Afghanistan. But then should it be done in complete disregard of the interests of its age old friend, Pakistan?

South Asian Fake Nuclear Power

India's nuclear tests shocked the world

Ishaal Zehra

Every now and then, in the democratic entity called India, something unusual happens which keeps one amused for so many days. The feeling is almost the same as some magician waves his wand and ‘woof’……. here comes a surprise (which eventually turns out to be a shock at the end of the day) and then another and another and the story goes on.

Some time back Mr. P. K. Iyengar, former head of India's main nuclear body, told the BBC that he made it clear in 2002 that India's nuclear tests were inconclusive and ambiguous and that the 1998 nuclear test was not a deterrent against China, though it was against Pakistan. His comments came as atomic scientist K Santhanam, who was associated with India's 1998 nuclear tests, said they were not as successful as claimed. Meaning, the yield of the thermonuclear explosions was actually much below expectations and the tests were perhaps more a fizzle. Now if his statement is accurate then it points to a massive cover-up by India and also confirms what many in the West suspected at that time - that the nuclear devices India tested were not as powerful as had been thought. Revising history, Pakistan was forced to test her nuclear capability and declare itself a nuclear state after India made this dramatic presentation in front of the world boasting her fake strength in 1998 which actually disturbed the balance of power in the region.

Sometimes it is believed that countries exaggerate their achievements for political posturing against their enemies. Realistically, this is the part of the global game but this insanity of India in 98 unfortunately accelerated the arms race in the region and saying this would not be wrong that it is actually India who pushed the region towards an unending nuclear race.

This time the surprise came when the former US president Bill Clinton made it public that in the event of a nuclear war with Pakistan, Indian leaders had predicted a bizarre victory. Surprisingly the Indian officials had calculated that while 300 million to 500 million of their countrymen would die if Pakistani nukes hit India, all 120 million Pakistanis would be annihilated in a tit-for-tat Indian strike. What is more amazing is the Indian government’s willingness to play fast and loose with its citizens lives to notch up a bizarre win against Pakistan. Now this is actually called the height of enmity. In the heart of their hearts such is the hatred for Pakistan that they simply assumed their 500 million people dead just for the wish to see Pakistan dead and gone. Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Taylor Branch's new book, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, which goes on sale in early October, has an unguarded Clinton venting about Indian leaders' so-called willingness to threaten the death of millions in their standoff over nuclear arms.

India-Pakistan relations do not move at a comfortable pace. They zigzag from crisis to crisis. In the interregnum the two countries either engage in negotiations or struggle to revive an interrupted dialogue. And in such scenario keeping nuclear weapons free from risk is a mad fantasy. There is always a fatal risk that sooner or later, in a situation of political tension and panic, someone somewhere will err and millions may die.

Today many a brilliant writers including Mr. Iyengar himself stress upon conducting further tests to prove Indian nuclear capability. While talking to the BBC Mr. Iyengar said that If India wants to declare itself as a nuclear power and confirm to the military (read “Pakistan” instead) that it has all the means of designing a thermo-nuclear device which can go into a missile, which can be dropped from an aircraft or can be launched from a submarine, it needs many more tests. Humbly, for all such statements of conducting further nuclear tests just to establish India as a true nuclear power, I would suggest them to spend that money helping its gigantic rock bottom poverty rather then experiencing again a global embarrassment while raising their so-called ego by doing another fake test, provided someone cares to listen.