WITH an eye on the Nov 3 US presidential election, Donald Trump has announced that the remainder of American troops in Afghanistan should be “home by Christmas”. With approval ratings sagging compared to his Democratic challenger Joe Biden, the US president has in all likelihood made this announcement to rally his support base, and assure them he will deliver on his campaign promise made before he won the White House race in the last election.
However, while the exit of foreign troops from Afghanistan is a desirable aim, the process must be orderly and not leave the country in further chaos. If foreign soldiers cut and run without a proper Afghan peace pact in place, the government in Kabul will be vulnerable to attacks and the country may once more plunge into an anarchic state.
The Afghan Taliban reaction to Mr Trump’s announcement has been positive, with a spokesman for the armed group tweeting that the ‘Islamic Emirate’ welcomes the move.
The fact is that the Afghan peace process is too sensitive an issue to be used as a tool to boost approval ratings for US presidential candidates. The Afghan government and the Taliban are currently trying to hammer out a peace deal, while senior American officials are making frequent trips to this region to ensure a workable agreement emerges that would allow an orderly exit of foreign troops. Zalmay Khalilzad, America’s point man for Afghanistan, was in Pakistan on Thursday to meet the army chief and discuss the Afghan peace process.
This is the second time the American envoy has visited this country in less than a month. These negotiations and shuttle diplomacy show that the Americans want to get out of Afghanistan soon, which is understandable. Over 2,400 American troops have been killed since the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, while more than 20,000 have been injured. Washington has pumped $975bn into the war effort, with little to show by way of success.
In fact, the signing of the peace agreement with the Afghan Taliban by the US earlier this year is proof that the war is unwinnable. Considering these points, the Afghan war, even if it is a hot-button issue in American politics, should not be used to burnish struggling electoral campaigns.
Instead of giving unrealistic deadlines, the US administration must work with the Kabul government and regional stakeholders to ensure that the final withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan is an orderly affair. In fact, the Ashraf Ghani-led administration must take the lead in mapping out the peace process.
Ultimately, foreign forces must leave Afghanistan; but this should ideally only happen when a peace agreement involving the Kabul government, Afghan Taliban and all other stakeholders in that country is a done deal. History tells us that leaving Afghanistan in a state of chaos — as the Soviets did — will only add to internal and regional instability.
Resignation talk
KHAWAJA Asif’s disclosure that the PML-N will resign from the 84 seats it has in the National Assembly has set off a flurry of speculation. While it echoes what Nawaz Sharif proposed at the multiparty conference last month, a lot must be unpacked and decided before this step is taken. No doubt in the past, the mass resignation option has been used by Benazir Bhutto in 1993 and more recently by Imran Khan in 2014. While this political tool has seen varying degrees of success by opposition parties who want to up the ante against an incumbent government, at this moment such a move might be called premature, even senseless.
The PDM is barely a month old. It is also the product of a marriage between various stakeholders whose agendas vary. Even though the platform is united in calling out the alleged interference of the military establishment in politics, since the alliance’s inception it has been apparent that each political party has individual grievances and proposals — some of which have been publicly aired. The PML-N has the largest share of opposition seats in the Assembly; yet to maintain the tone of resistance and defiance set by Mr Sharif, it has continued to talk of resignation. Then comes the JUI-F, with some 15 seats, but none for its leader and PDM chief who is also amenable to the idea of resignation. The PPP, however, appears unsure about the resignation of its 55 legislators in the Assembly at this stage, with Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari communicating the same to Mr Sharif at the MPC. With such lack of consensus, if just one major opposition party takes this extreme step, it will expose cracks in the movement. In fact, by being the only one to resign, the PML-N would hurt itself by forgoing the power of quorum to requisition a session, something no other opposition party has. While the PDM sorts out its differences, there is an opportunity for the government to reach out and engage opposition parties — something it has hardly attempted so far. One of the biggest setbacks is the unhealthy relationship between the opposition and government in parliament, which has resulted in the passing of ordinances and much wheeling and dealing for even key legislation. This stubbornness cannot continue as a political storm gathers before our eyes, ready to push the country into further turmoil.
Against capital punishment
ON the World Day against the Death Penalty (Oct 10), Pakistan presents a chilling picture. It is a land where the chorus for sending individuals to the gallows, which is the most favoured deterrent against crime, is on the increase. There is no question of analysing the facts; anger simply spills over and is channelled in never-ending demands for exemplary retributive justice. There are several examples of how this anger builds up. The voices demanding the public hanging of little Zainab’s rapist-murderer in Kasur a couple of years go rose to a crescendo as investigators, the epitome of incompetence, irresponsibility and insensitivity, fumbled like lost souls in search for clues. More recently, when the motorway gang rape case was reported, it was their utter mistrust in the criminal justice system that compelled people to call for capital punishment — a penalty this paper firmly stands against — as well as a summary trial and public execution. The most worrying part was the government’s approval of such sentiments. Indeed, it appeared to be trying to gain political capital out of it all by claiming that it was in favour of not just capital punishment but also carrying out the sentence in public.
This country is no stranger to botched trials extinguishing innocent lives. We are all aware of the number of instances where those declared killers turned out to be innocent when their case was appealed in the higher courts. Only yesterday, an article on these pages informed us that 80 times out of 100, a prisoner on death row is acquitted by the Supreme Court during the appeals process. This number itself should settle the issue about death penalty in a country which is reported to have some 4,000 condemned prisoners. There is no justification for taking a fellow human’s life. To facilitate a process that takes the accused to the gallows is even more difficult to justify when the criminal justice system is flawed at so many levels. A single wrong conviction is one too many.
