Policy Alert #232 | July 1, 2021
On April 14, President Joe Biden’s policy review of the conflict in Afghanistan concluded with the decision to withdraw the remaining force of roughly 2,500 U.S. troops before September 11, 2021.[1] The withdrawal from Afghanistan means that Washington would need to find another location in the region to maintain U.S. military presence.[2] Potential replacement locations for U.S. military base include Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.[3] However, in a Washington Post op-ed published on June 21, Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan dismisses the possibility of hosting U.S. forces and argues that the presence of U.S. military base would increase the chance of terrorist attacks in Pakistan.[4]
After the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal, Taliban forces have made substantial gains in territories by seizing more than fifty districts, including the provincial capitals of Lashkar Gah, Kunduz, and Maimana.[5] On June 22, UN Security Council held an Open Debate to address the escalation of conflict in Afghanistan. During the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda-Thomas Greenfield promised that Washington would “use our full diplomatic, economic, and assistance toolkit to support the peaceful, stable future the Afghan people want and deserve. And we will continue to support the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces in securing their country.”[6] Three days later, President Biden hosted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah at the White House and assured President Ghani of Washington’s continued financial, humanitarian and security assistance, with the latter coming in the form of MQ-9 Reaper drones stationed in the Persian Gulf.[7]
Despite the efforts of the international community, the prospect of the peace process in Afghanistan remains stagnant, whereas the ongoing conflict could see further escalation. In a press conference at the NATO command in Kabul, coalition commander General Austin S. Miller warned that “civil war is certainly a path that can be visualized if it continues on the trajectory.”[8] At the moment, the Taliban is perceived to have the upper hand. A recent U.S. intelligence report has concluded that the government of Afghanistan could collapse as soon as six months after U.S. military withdrawal from the country is completed.[9]
In this Policy Alert, we will examine the rising powers’ considerations on the state of the Afghan peace process and what U.S. military withdrawal could mean for the future.
China
On June 3, Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi met with his Pakistani and Afghan counterparts, Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Mohammad Haneef Atmar, on Afghanistan’s peace and reconciliation process.[10] The meeting of the Foreign Ministers led to an eight-point consensus that “call on all parties in Afghanistan to cease fire, stop violence and substantively advance inter-Afghan negotiations, and welcome the Taliban back to the political mainstream.”[11] A joint statement of the meeting calls “for responsible and orderly withdrawal of foreign troops to avoid deterioration of the security situation in the region” while stating that the withdrawal would “provide opportunities for the Afghanistan and the region to truly take the future of their countries and nations into their own hands.”[12]
During the UN Security Council meeting on June 22, Zhang Jun, China’s permanent representative to the UN, expressed China’s “deep concern” about the deterioration of the peace process in Afghanistan and noted that the “international community should…contribute more positively to the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. No external forces shall be allowed to pursue narrow self-interests in Afghanistan and turn Afghanistan into an arena of a geopolitical game.”[13] In particular, Zhang commented on the U.S. withdrawal by stating that foreign troops “cannot come and go as they wish. China urges foreign forces to withdraw in a responsible and orderly manner…and enhance transparency with countries in the region to prevent the security situation from worsening, or even getting out of control.”[14]
- In an op-ed for state-owned nationalist tabloid Global Times, Niu Song, Professor of the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University, highlights Washington’s challenges in finding a new location for U.S. military base in the region: “Washington’s purpose is to ensure [a new military base] can still form a timely military deterrent against Afghanistan even if its troops are withdrawn from the war-torn country…Pakistan doesn’t want to be dragged into Afghan affairs and draw fire upon itself anymore… Central Asian countries have some security concerns… they need to take into account their relations with Moscow when coordinating their relations with Washington… If the US cannot find an appropriate alternative in Afghanistan’s periphery in time, the expected effects of its policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan will be significantly reduced.”[15]
- In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a newspaper based in Hong Kong, Raffaello Pantucci, Senior Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London and Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, questions China’s confidence in seeing the Taliban as a reliable partner: “China has received assurances that a Taliban government would be sure to insulate Beijing from problems that might emanate from Afghan territory…al-Qaeda has begun to champion a narrative of targeting China. It has praised Uygur militants for their battlefield actions and sought to harness some of the global anger against China for its treatment of Uygur minorities at home.…Beijing should be aware that there is little to show the Taliban has recanted or rejected al-Qaeda, or that al-Qaeda has been expelled from its territory.”[16]
India
In the beginning of June, in a significant reversal of the previous non-engagement policy, India for the first-time opened channels of communication with Taliban factions and leaders.[17] On June 21, Qatar’s Special Envoy for the Afghan peace process Mutlaq bin Majed al-Qahtani said that Indian officials made a “quiet visit” to Doha and spoke with Taliban leaders, but New Delhi declined to comment on al-Qahtani’s statement.[18]
On June 22, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar attended the UN Security Council meeting on Afghanistan and suggested that for “enduring peace in Afghanistan, terrorist safe havens and sanctuaries must be dismantled immediately, and terrorist supply chains disrupted.”[19] Without naming Pakistan, Jaishankar called for “zero tolerance for terrorism in all its forms and manifestations including its cross-border one” and suggested those “providing material and financial support to terrorist entities must be held accountable.”[20]
Two days later, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval met with his counterparts at a Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting and underlined the need to monitor new technologies used by terrorists.[21] Doval stated that India fully supports SCO Contact Group on Afghanistan while adding that top priority should also be given to the welfare of Afghans.[22] Doval also met with his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, on the sidelines and exchanged views on the situation in Afghanistan and the Asia-Pacific region.[23]
- In an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times, Avinash Paliwal, Lecturer in Diplomacy and Public Policy at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, outlines the benefits and risks of India’s outreach to the Taliban: “The Taliban acknowledges India’s constructive role in Afghanistan, and would not want a reduction in its diplomatic presence… Careful about not being caught between an India-Pakistan crossfire, the Taliban wants to distance itself from the Kashmir imbroglio… But the outreach is not risk-free…Taliban could go back on its promises and, with a nudge from Pakistan, target Indian interests… Taliban interlocutors India is engaging with (the same figures the US is talking to, such as Mullah Baradar) could be sidelined, or worse, replaced by pro-Pakistan hardliners such as the Haqqanis.”[24]
- In an op-ed for The Print, Davood Moradian , Director of the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies and former senior policy adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, proposes that India has three policy options for Afghanistan – perseverance, bandwagon, and abandonment: “Staying the course of its Kabul-centric post-2001 policy would compel Delhi to leave its safe corner that allowed India to have a comfortable ‘developmental partnership’ while paying lip service to a ‘strategic partnership’ with the Afghan State… Delhi can also succumb to the early temptation and bandwagon others in treating the Taliban as the ‘government-in-waiting’… Abandoning Afghanistan is also a policy option for New Delhi; similar to the Tibet situation when in December 1962, India closed its consulate general in Lhasa, in the aftermath of its war with China.”[25]
Russia
During the UN Security Council meeting on June 22, Russian Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Anna Yevstigneyeva expressed “regret that the peace process has stalled” amid “the withdrawal of foreign forces.”[26] Yevstigneyeva also added that “the degrading situation causes ever growing concerns” while “the balance of power today does not look promising.”[27] A day later, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov highlighted Russia’s concern over the unfolding of the situation in Afghanistan and the emergency of a new hotbed of tension at the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan.[28]
On June 24, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said that Russia expects “an intensification of international terrorism” in the aftermath of U.S. withdrawal. Patrushev believed that the “degradation of the situation in Afghanistan, which is progressing as the US and NATO military contingents are withdrawn, will contribute to an increase in the terrorist activity of ISIL and al-Qaeda in that country.”[29] Moreover, Patrushev stated that “it is unacceptable to use the Afghan issue for solving geopolitical problems, including for building up non-regional players’ military presence in Central Asia.”[30]
- In an op-ed for The Moscow Times, an independent newspaper based in Moscow, Temur Umarov, Consultant on China and Central Asia at Carnegie Moscow Center, predicts that Washington would face substantial challenge in relocating U.S. military base to Central Asia: “Washington, therefore, will have to prove to the Central Asian states that the financial and political benefits of cooperating with it would outweigh the inevitable losses that the host countries would sustain as a result of Moscow and Beijing’s displeasure… Beijing believes that Washington plans to destabilize the situation in Xinjiang, while Moscow suspects that the United States will keep sowing chaos around Russia’s borders. Russia and China will continue to fight against the U.S. presence—and will do so together and more actively than before.”[31]
- In an interview with state-owned Sputnik News, Raghav Sharma, Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for Afghanistan Studies at O. P. Jindal Global University in India, sees the military withdrawal as a strategic defeat for Washington and expects a prolonged period of uncertainty in the region: “There are new national security threats and priorities for Washington such as China for instance. The reality is Afghanistan is no longer a priority for the West…We are likely to witness a prolonged escalation of violence in the country with the number of IDPs [Internally displaced people] and refugees growing. This would have delimitating consequences for the region in the long run.”[32]
[1] https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-afghanistan-announcement/index.html
[2] https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2579584/us-plans-to-keep-threats-in-check-even-after-afghanistan-withdrawal/
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghan-pullout-leaves-u-s-looking-for-other-places-to-station-its-troops-11620482659
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/21/afghanistan-pakistan-imran-khan-peace-security-cooperation-us/
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/20/world/asia/afghanistan-kunduz-taliban.html
[6] https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-by-ambassador-linda-thomas-greenfield-at-a-un-security-council-open-debate-on-afghanistan-2/
[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/us/politics/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal.html
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/world/asia/afghanistan-civil-war-miller.html
[9] https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghan-government-could-collapse-six-months-after-u-s-withdrawal-new-intelligence-assessment-says-11624466743
[10] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1881347.shtml
[11] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1881351.shtml
[12] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1881308.shtml
[13] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-06/23/c_1310022303.htm
[14] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-06/23/c_1310022303.htm
[15] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1225915.shtml
[16] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3138926/why-china-cannot-afford-take-passive-role-post-us-afghanistan
[17] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-a-first-india-opens-communication-channels-with-afghan-taliban-factions-101623165405972.html
[18] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-delegation-met-taliban-in-doha-says-qatari-official/article34895560.ece
[19] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/terrorist-safe-havens-must-be-dismantled-for-enduring-peace-in-afghanistan-india-7371017/
[20] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/terrorist-safe-havens-must-be-dismantled-for-enduring-peace-in-afghanistan-india-7371017/
[21] https://www.livemint.com/news/world/sco-meet-ajit-doval-underlines-need-to-monitor-new-tech-used-by-terrorists-11624548086739.html
[22] https://www.livemint.com/news/world/sco-meet-ajit-doval-underlines-need-to-monitor-new-tech-used-by-terrorists-11624548086739.html
[23] https://www.livemint.com/news/world/sco-meet-ajit-doval-underlines-need-to-monitor-new-tech-used-by-terrorists-11624548086739.html
[24] https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/engaging-with-the-taliban-is-necessary-101624803847518.html
[25] https://theprint.in/opinion/to-be-or-not-to-be-in-afghanistan-is-not-an-easy-question-for-india/684170/
[26] https://tass.com/world/1305987
[27] https://tass.com/world/1305987
[28] https://tass.com/politics/1306243
[29] https://tass.com/world/1306701
[30] https://tass.com/world/1306701
[31] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/06/07/is-there-a-place-for-a-us-military-base-in-central-asia-a74127
[32] https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202106251083244301-afghanistan-no-longer-priority-for-west-so-us-troops-to-exit-despite-violence-reports-analysts-say/
