Tuesday, January 8, 2013

The Political Implications of the Durand Line


            The border conflicts in Pashtunistan have presented a uniquely troublesome scenario for how to address US foreign policy in a region that is still hotly disputed.  Pashtunistan, also referred to as FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) is home to countless US drone attacks that have occurred increasingly over the past few years, particularly on the Pakistani side of the Durand line.  The missions of these drone strikes have often blurred the line about what constitutes terrorist activity, and have sometimes resulted in a high incidence of casualties.  Because this area is mostly comprised of tribal groups who are not governed by any one country, the political backlash has been inherently diminished despite Pakistan’s growing resentment.  So understanding that the region is a hotbed for terrorist activity, and that this is in large part due to the lack of any government presence or security from either country, the question surrounding the issue now is how efforts working towards a diplomatic solution between the two countries might effectively reduce the violence that has supposedly forced our hand in intervening.  Considering that Pakistan and Afghanistan have been pitted against each other over the issue of controlling the territory near the Durand line, it is imperative that the motivations of each country are understood.  Both Afghanistan and Pakistan seek the geographical and commercial advantage of Pashtun control. 
I agree with Amin Tarzi that there must be a connection between communities across the Durand line that allows for a beneficial commercial relationship as well as his support of FATA being divided into several administrative districts.    Citing Maj. General M. Hayaud Din who promotes “the treatment of FATA as a buffer zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan”, Tarzi effectively provides a solution based on the history of the regional conflict that in turn could solve major problems for the United States.  For instance, if FATA were to be governed based on the split tribal presences, the ability for terrorists to use the cover of Pashtunistan for operation would be greatly reduced.  In turn, the amount of surgical strikes delivered to the area would decrease and stability would ideally return to the region.  Given the huge role this area plays in our counter-terrorist strategy, I think our first priority should be to work diplomatically to resolve the border conflict before resorting to military intervention.

5 comments:

  1. While I agree that it would be beneficial for the United States if the border conflict was resolved, I do not think it is an issue in our control to deal with. The countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan must be willing to negotiate on their own terms. If the United States chooses to take action they will likely create more enemies in these countries. In my opinion, it is best for the United States to worry about its own country instead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To piggyback on what Brittany said, if we were to 'solve' the problem what would we have to do? How can an outsider solve the problem? Is our power to put them in a room even all that useful. This is something that tends to be forgotten in US policy circles. We may be powerful but not everything is a problem that we can solve.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To go a step further, I think this concept can be drawn much larger. Why is it that when there is a problem in the world, the United States feels it must intervene. Yes, this region plays a particular importance for the West, as it houses many of our enemies, but these are two different problems. Just because we are (arguably) the most powerful nation, and we spend a great deal on our military budget, doesn't mean that it is our job to be the world police all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The United States should not intervene with the border conflict of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although, we may have good intentions on trying to resolve their issues; we are still the outsiders looking in and may not have all of the facts. Afghanistan and Pakistan have internal issues that they must be willing to resolve.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think I might not have been entirely clear in my position about what actions the United States should take. I am a firm believer that any sort of military intervention/ taking the global police route is a bad move. Rather, as we have done between the Israelis and Palestinians (though quite ineffectively) is work to strengthen relationships and mediate a resolution through purely diplomatic means.

    ReplyDelete