by Manoj Kumar Mishra 30 July 2018
Contrary to the Trump Administration’s initial attempts at escalating Afghan war efforts, it is alleged that now the Administration has made a turnaround and is willing to invigorate the peace process in Afghanistan by opening up space for direct talks with the Taliban. A report related to this has been published in some of the leading newspapers of the world that a top US envoy for South Asia met the Taliban to discuss the peace process. Even though the Americans might be desperate to clinch a peace deal and finish off their Afghan misadventure, it is not going to be that easy viewing from a geopolitical perspective as it is not America or the Taliban which have stakes in Afghanistan; there are other actors with their respective geopolitical concerns in the country. Unless their concerns are mitigated, the peace process will become elusive. They may sabotage peace by either strengthening the Taliban to the point of making conflicting demands, or they may try to destabilize Afghanistan through other measures.
The Cold War ended with the disintegration of the Soviet Union which not only put an end to the world-wide struggle for influence between the global powers, it witnessed a steady rise in the influence of regional powers like Iran and Pakistan as they began to carve out independent roles for themselves in the absence of the Cold War constraints. The Central Asian states which emerged as sovereign states following the Soviet disintegration aspired to play an independent and active role in international politics. Several radical religious groups have also emerged as powerful non-state actors in world politics because the seeds which were sown as part of the American jostle to remove the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan following the Soviet intervention in 1979 became full-fledged trees with American withdrawal from Afghanistan. The lone superpower – the US began to face stiff resistance from assertive regional powers once the overarching Soviet threat was removed from their perception. The regional powers have not hesitated to put their weight behind radical religious groups with the objective of fostering their geopolitical interests and undercutting American interest in the regions under their influence.
Although many countries expressed their concerns, sympathies and joined the American drive to forge a global war on terror following the 9/11 terrorist attack on twin-towers, they pursued different geopolitical objectives in Afghanistan in their apparent unity to fight terrorism as they began to perceive a more significant threat from the American presence and role not only in Afghanistan but also in the adjacent regions as well. For example, while Pakistan seems to be more inclined to spread its influence in Afghanistan as part of its strategy of acquiring strategic depth against India and supports its enhanced role as attempts at securing its legitimate interests which sought to undermine Indian influence, Russia harbored the desire to spread its geopolitical sway into the Central Asian region by presenting itself as the only security provider which could defend its backyard from the onslaught of terrorism while simultaneously prohibiting that space to the US. Russia also considered The ‘War on Terror’ would strengthen its position in Chechnya.
Iran saw its interests expanding from the West to the Central Asian region and wished to supply Central Asian natural resources to the world market by laying down the shortest and cheapest pipeline route and continued its strategy of maintaining its traditional sphere of influence in western Afghanistan. Central Asian states with large Muslim population but under secular leaderships perceived looming threats from the growing possibilities in the export of Islamic fundamentalism into their territory from Afghanistan. Although these states did not wish to move out of the Russian orbit of influence, nonetheless in a bid to get rid of the Russian monopoly over energy politics in the region they invited an American presence in the security sphere. India seems to have joined the War on Terror with objectives like securing a stable and democratic Afghanistan which could be used by India as a bridge to Central Asia, an all-out fight against terrorism under the rubric of ‘War on Terror’ would also mean reduction of cross-border terrorism and militancy in Kashmir. However, India has been alleged by Pakistan in promoting anti-Pakistani elements in Afghanistan to undercut Pakistani influence.
The continuing geopolitical gambits in Afghanistan can be traced to the emergence of resource-rich Central Asian region as an alternative to the turbulent West Asian region. The resource potential of the Caspian Sea region was projected very high to sustain the growing needs of the global economy. In a move to reach out to the Central Asian region, the US Congress started passing bills that called for diversification of energy supplies from the Central Asian and Caspian region beginning from the late 1990s. The Bush Administration soon after it formed the government released an energy policy report indicating that the exploitation of Caspian energy resources could not only benefit the economies of the region but also help mitigate possible world supply disruptions which were considered a primary US security goal. Post-2001, the US stopped harping on the ideas of human rights and democracy in Central Asia and called for all sorts of assistance from the Central Asian states to meet the common enemy to secure a firm foothold in Central Asia. The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline project, which was put to a halt because of growing instabilities caused by the Taliban, was again pushed forward in 2002. The American proposal to create a Greater Central Asia in the first decade of 2000 to move Central Asia away from Russian orbit of influence towards Afghanistan and Pakistan was a clear US geopolitical gambit. The American military involvement in Central Asia included not only temporary forward basing in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, access to airspace and restricted use of bases in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan were also part of its strategic engagement in the region. Apart from these, high-level official visits to Central Asia, intelligence sharing, improved coordination within the US Central Command also characterized American involvement in Central Asia.
Operation Enduring Freedom brought the Central Asian states to the frontlines of the campaign in the anti-terror war. In the first half of 2009, the US established several new transit corridors to deliver goods to its forces in Afghanistan which are known as Northern Distribution Network. Many US officials perceived the potential of this network being transformed into Modern Silk Route. The US made efforts at shaping the Afghan war unilaterally according to its geopolitical interests while engaging Pakistan with massive military and economic aid as the country was not only vital to prosecute war in Afghanistan given its geographical proximity and links with radical religious groups, it was also perceived as a geopolitical partner in the execution of the TAPI and the Greater Central Asia project and more importantly helped in obviating the need to allow Iran and Russia significant roles in developing Afghan war strategy.
Russia while enjoyed dominant influence in Central Asia due to its monopoly over oil supplies, it was apprehensive of American efforts at forging close ties with the states of the region in the security sphere following 9/11. Russia was well aware of the American ambition of diversification of oil supplies by laying down many alternative pipelines – an instance of which was witnessed in the US attempts at recognizing the Taliban to prop up Afghanistan as a conduit to transfer Central Asian oil to the world market. Reflecting on the geopolitical jostle for influence between America and Russia, Dmitri Rogozin, a Russian envoy to NATO remarked that Russia wanted to help the US and Afghanistan as part of the international community but on its terms. He said: Russia wanted to “negotiate from a position of strength” on Afghanistan. Russia did not contribute its troops to Afghanistan although the US requested for the same as it might have believed that loss of American resources would rob it of its energy to project its power in Central Asia – a region vital to Russian interest and Russia considered the region as its strategic backyard. In response to the American military bases in different parts of Central Asia, Russia established its bases, and their direct contacts were surprisingly limited. In response to the more significant role of the US in the region, Russia called for a more substantial role of the regional organizations like Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in securing security and stability in Afghanistan.
Perhaps because of Russia’s main influence due to its monopoly over oil supplies, the Central Asian states agreed to strengthen CSTO as an alternative to NATO. In one of the important summit meetings, the CSTO leaders unanimously agreed that countries outside the regional security bloc would only be able to establish military bases on the territory of a member-state with the consent of all member-states. Russia restricted the use of Northern Distribution Network only for supplies of non-lethal goods to Afghanistan. While Russia was earlier lending support to the Northern Alliance to strengthen its Afghan role, as the group began to fragment Russia is allegedly channelizing its support towards the Taliban as a hedge against growing American influence in the region – an allegation that Russia denies. However, Russia has admitted to the fact that it has opened up channels of communication with the Taliban with objectives like protection of Russian citizens in Afghanistan, promotion of peace in Afghanistan and on the top all, containing the influence of ISIS -which is considered by Russia a more dangerous threat to the Central Asian region because of its transnational objectives and role. Moreover, Russian officials argue that the radical group has been able to recruit many people to the group from the Central Asian region posing a serious threat to Russian security concerns. Russia has also praised the Taliban’s efforts at containing drug-trafficking into the Russian backyard. The US State Department officials, however, expressed their concerns over Russia’s failure to work with the US in Afghanistan and US military officials on the ground have not hesitated to accuse Russia of providing arms to and sharing sensitive intelligence with the Afghan Taliban.
So far as Iran is concerned, it took concerted efforts at enhancing its connectivity with the Central Asian region using western Afghanistan as a bridge. It pushed for the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline to supply Central Asian energy resources from the Caspian Sea region to the world market while the US pursued its plan for an alternative pipeline – TAPI pipeline to undercut Iranian influence in the region which spurred the geopolitical struggle between the two powers. Iran along with India began to develop Chabahar port and connecting roads to enhance its accessibility to the Central Asian region. To counter American influence in the region, it was vociferous in stating its opposition from the beginning to any arrangement that would allow the US to position itself firmly in Afghanistan with which it shares a 936-kilometre-long border. Iran’s former Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar was categorical in stating that a strategic treaty between the US and Afghanistan would pose a threat to Iranian interests. Iran resorted to the mass expulsion of Afghan refugees to show that it could indirectly put pressure on the US in Afghanistan by precipitating an economic crisis. Iran considered western Afghanistan as its sphere of influence and invested a huge sum towards the reconstruction projects in the region. Iranian road building companies built the highway connecting Herat with the border town of Taybad covering a distance of 120 kilometers. Also, a new transit route between Afghanistan and the Iranian harbor of Bandar-i Abbas was established, and in summer 2006 the construction of a railway connecting Herat with Mashhad and Tehran started on both sides of the border. Iran expressed its desire to establish a land corridor that would link it with the Persian speaking populations of Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
Much of the Iranian aid to Afghanistan has been spent on infrastructure projects mainly with the objectives of establishing transportation links between Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asian states. Some of the collaborative efforts between Iran and Central Asian states in western Afghanistan were witnessed when Iran and Turkmenistan guaranteed the supply of electricity to Herat and parts of the northwestern provinces and Iran, and Tajikistan planned a joint dam project for the production of hydroelectric power which could free Afghanistan from its energy crisis. Iran was instrumental in forging a treaty on Persian Speaking Union between Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan exemplifying its interests in fostering closer connections with the Central Asian region. In the 2010 parliamentary elections, Iran provided monetary support to the Hazaras who gained considerable prominence and clout in the Afghan political scene. They won disproportionately far more seats in relation to their population.
Apart from its support for Shiite religious groups, Iran has allegedly stepped up its efforts to train, arm and aid the Afghan Taliban in a bid to bring more instability in Afghanistan with the objective of building more pressure on the American government forcing it to roll back its policy of containment, give a more significant role in Afghanistan, abandon its plan for laying down alternative pipeline route. It is noteworthy that the Trump Administration has already started working on the Trans-Afghan pipeline project (part of the Tajikistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India or TAPI pipeline project) in an effort to marginalize Iran in energy politics. This would further destabilize Afghanistan with Iran reinvigorating its efforts to undermine the ongoing peace process.
Though the concept of ‘Strategic Depth’ has been defined primarily in military terms by different experts on military and strategic affairs from India, it seems to have a broader connotation as Pakistan has been pursuing proactive policies towards Afghanistan not only to secure a pliable government in Kabul to acquire military depth against India, but its actions also point to its persistent interests in expanding sway into the resource-rich Central Asian region to acquire economic depth against India using Afghanistan as a bridge. Economic depth was intended to allow Islamabad natural resources of Central Asia at the expense of India. Pakistan has used the Afghan Trade and Transit Agreement of 1965 to acquire economic depth by denying overland route to India to supply goods to Afghanistan let alone Central Asia. Pakistan has overemphasised its cultural links with the Central Asian region in its bid to reach out to the region while overlooking the South Asian continental ethos.
Instead of adopting peaceful Sufi tradition, it promoted radical teachings in madrasas in the Saudi Arabic Deobandi tradition. Many radical religious groups including the Afghan Taliban were allegedly trained in Pakistan either to enhance connectivity or to destabilize the Central Asian States. For instance, the government of Benazir Bhutto, under its Interior Minister General Naseerullah Babur prepared the groundwork to utilize the Taliban to bring stability to southern and eastern Afghanistan as he saw high stakes involved in Afghanistan for Pakistan through which trade routes could be opened and linked to different resource-rich Central Asian states. In the Tajik civil war, Pakistan tried to strengthen the opposition groups and caused instability. The fact that Karachi is the nearest port city for Central Asia and by air Islamabad is closer to Tashkent than it is to Karachi points to the geo-strategic advantage that Pakistan enjoys in relation to the Central Asian region and taking advantage of the location Pakistan and China are engaged in the development of Gwadar port. At the diplomatic level, Pakistan sponsored the membership of the Central Asian states in the OIC to bring them into the Ummah. It has taken help of various multilateral bodies like Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO), Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to enhance its relations with the Central Asian states.
India, to contain Pakistan’s influence in Central Asia and Afghanistan, tried to strengthen the relationship with each of the Central Asian states and with Iran, and it supported the Northern Alliance as an antidote to the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, with the rising influence of the Taliban, India’s dependence on the US has increased manifold. India seems to have failed to engage Iran and Russia to an extent which would have enabled India to defend its interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Pakistan alleges India with the charge of inciting insurgency Baluchistan to weaken Pakistan and undercutting Pakistani influence in Afghanistan by enhancing diplomatic presence, using its intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and anti-Pakistani elements to undercut Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. India to enhance connectivity with the Central Asian region joined with the Iranian effort in developing Chabahar port and building connecting roads but with the Trump Administration’s decision to roll back American nuclear deal with Iran not only put import constraints on India in terms of securing oil from Iran, it has also led the Iranian leaders to accuse India of failing from its commitment to developing the Chabahar port. India’s sluggish and erratic efforts at developing the port are the collateral damage that the US did to India by pulling itself out of the nuclear deal. India shied away from taking steps that would offend the Trump Administration and sour the strategic relationship between the countries. It is likely that India may have to engage in a tough bargain with the Trump Administration to secure its long-term interests in Afghanistan and thereby in Central Asia.
A geopolitical perspective on the Afghan issue points to the fact that all these countries have significant stakes in Afghanistan and the peace process to reap results must aim at addressing their concerns.