IN a presidential decree issued on August 13, President Karzai changed the governors of the provinces of Kandahar, Wardak and Zabool, transferred the security chiefs of six provinces and fired six of the 14 security chiefs in the districts of Kabul. In the days that followed the decree has actually been implemented. Agha Gul Sherzai handed over his office to Yusuf Pashtoon and after initially maintaining that he would stay on in Kandahar has now indicated that he would, as desired by Karzai, move to Kabul and take over the ministerial portfolio vacated by his successor. Equally smooth changeovers appear to be under way in the other two provinces.

In a separate but related move President Karzai has also stripped Ismail Khan of the command of the military in Herat while allowing him to remain Governor of Herat. This change is said to be part of the administrative reform under which no official will be allowed to hold two assignments. This change has also apparently been accepted.

Clearly these moves have been made with the approval of the United States. In a statement issued on the August 14 the American state department said “The United States remains deeply committed to working with President Karzai as he rebuilds the institutions of government and seeks to bring the benefits of peace and stability to every region of Afghanistan. The United States endorses President Karzai’s reforms designed to assert the legitimate authority of the central government and to improve provincial governance. We share President Karzai’s view that improving security and governance in the provinces is essential to achieving our common goals of creating a moderate and stable Afghanistan”.

This ringing endorsement of the steps that President Karzai has taken may represent, one hopes, the first in a series of steps to cut the umbilical cord between the warlords and the US military and intelligence in Afghanistan. Perhaps even more hopefully, it will also be a message to the remaining warlords, (and they are numerous) that their past or present assistance against the Taliban will no longer be a licence for defying the writ of the central government in their areas of influence.

This is a hopeful step but is far from indicative of smooth transfers of power everywhere or of growing stability. In the remote district of Kajran in Uruzgan province, fighting between the supporters of the newly appointed district chief, Abdul Rahman Khan, and his predecessor claimed 25 lives on August 12. This incident was part of what Afghan officials termed the “bloodiest 24 hours of violence” in Afghanistan in more than a year. It included the explosion of a bomb in a bus in Helmand province in which 25 people including women and children were killed, and a clash in Khost province with Taliban, allegedly commanded by Jalaluddin Haqqani, in which 16 Taliban and five government soldiers are said to have died. The havoc wreaked prompted a call from the Afghan interior minister, Mr. Jalali, for more international help to combat the violence.

The question is whether such assistance will be forthcoming. On the American side efforts are being made to find perhaps from the Pentagon’s Iraq budget an additional $1 billion which could be spent in Afghanistan on highly visible projects that would yield jobs and immediate economic benefits to the general populace. A new director for USAID is being appointed and there is speculation that the defence department will try and play, since the money is coming from its budget, a more active role in developmental activity.

A new coordinator for Afghanistan has been appointed in the state department and he is apparently proposing the appointment of some 70-75 American advisers in the key Afghan ministries to hasten the pace of decision making and to ensure that local rivalries do not prevent activity. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, hitherto point-man for the White House for both Iraq and Afghanistan, is now being appointed ambassador to Afghanistan and will be given powers comparable to those enjoyed by Paul Bremer in Iraq.

There is talk of another international conference at Petersburg, the venue of the Bonn conference, to persuade the donors, who had pledged some $4.5 billion assistance at the Tokyo conference, but have so far provided only $1 billion to be more forthcoming on old pledges and to make new pledges. It is now estimated that Afghan reconstruction would require some $15-20 billion over the next 7-8 years and that currently Afghanistan’s gross national product is less than half of what is used to be in 1978. In all probability, however, there will be no special conference on Afghanistan and instead the Americans will try and get people together on the margins of the WTO in September and try to raise another $600 million in immediately disbursable assistance to supplement the $1 billion they intend putting in themselves.

But the key question of how such developmental activity can be undertaken in the absence of security has yet to be satisfactorily answered. NATO has taken over command of the ISAF forces. In the West the significance of this move lies in the fact that NATO is for the first time assuming responsibilities beyond Europe. For Afghanistan perhaps the more significant facet is that there will not now be every six months a search for a country to take command. Will NATO be prepared to extend its mandate beyond Kabul and try to provide security in the warlord dominated provinces so that development work can go forward? So far the answer seems to be a categorical “no”. Both the new commander and the commander of the Canadian contingent — now the largest contingent in ISAF — have said that NATO will need time to accustom itself to the currently mandated duties — providing security in Kabul — and it will be sometime before an expansion of the mandate can be considered.

Mr. Brahimi Lakdar, the UN secretary-general’s representative for Afghanistan, speaking to the Security Council made an impassioned plea for the expansion of the ISAF mandate to the provinces pointing out that he was not asking even for the 40,000 troops NATO had deployed in Kosovo but a much more modest 10 to 12 thousand. The UN secretary-general’s report presented earlier to the Security Council had pointed out that in Kosovo and Bosnia there had been one peacekeeper for 48 and 58 inhabitants respectively while in Afghanistan the ratio was one peacekeeper for 5,380 Afghans. Indications are that his plea fell on unresponsive ears.

The Afghan Army remains in its infancy. The prospects of it becoming a viable force in the next few years are remote even in the best of circumstances. Currently, however, the situation is made much worse by Marshal Fahim’s stranglehold on the defence ministry and his unwillingness to surrender positions in that ministry to Pushtuns or for that matter to any ethnic group other than the Panjsheri Tajiks. In these circumstances the warlords have the best possible pretext for refusing to disarm and the UN has, in fact, stated that it will not even attempt to start the Japanese financed disarmament project until there is an ethnic balance in the defence ministry.

So how will development work proceed? Apparently ISAF and the Americans both want to rely on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), comprising both construction and development experts and a contingent of soldiers to undertake developmental work in the provinces. A number of such teams have been formed and reports suggest that in addition to the teams already operating under British and American aegis there will be others formed by the New Zealanders, the Germans and the Canadians. It is unlikely however that these teams — the largest among them is the British and has 70 people — will be tough enough and equipped enough to venture into the provinces of South and East Afghanistan.

It is in these provinces that the deterioration in the security situation has been most marked. Aid work has been suspended by the UN in most of them. Aid agencies are withdrawing their personnel fearing with good reason that aid workers are being targeted perhaps as much as the clerics who support President Karzai. The perpetrators of the attacks are said to be the Taliban but there are suspicions that local influential leaders too may also be involved. Trouble will continue in these provinces and elements in the Afghan government will find it convenient to blame the Taliban hidden in the remote reaches but also those allegedly in Pakistan. This is something we can ill afford as we seek to build a relationship of trust and cooperation with Afghanistan.

Our foreign minister, during his forthcoming visit to Kabul must, of course discuss, with his counterpart and others in the Karzai government, the areas in which cooperation with Afghanistan can be expanded. But he must spend equal time with the commanders of ISAF and the American contingent to reinforce, from Pakistan perspective, the plea of the UN and President Karzai’s government for an expansion of the ISAF mandate.

Separately he should also press that a logical corollary to the new policy of unequivocally supporting Karzai’s efforts to control provincial officials must be support for his efforts to control his own government. The debt owed to the Northern Alliance and particularly to the Panjsheris, has long been paid. Stability in Afghanistan now requires that their share in political power and in the military be reduced to what Afghanistan’s demography dictates. This, more than any other military or political or economic measure, will contribute to the restoration of peace and stability in Afghanistan.

The writer is a former foreign secretary of Pakistan.

THE bon-homie witnessed between visiting delegates from India and their counterparts from Pakistan generally gives one a good feeling. Last week was one such occasion when 34 Indian parliamentarians who were in Islamabad on the umpteenth round of Track-II diplomacy received a rousing welcome.

The star of the occasion was of course the inimitable Laloo Prasad Yadav, the former chief minister of Bihar, whose simple and rustic ways won the hearts of the people here — who according to The Economist of London are used to politicians being invariably patrician, bearded or in uniform. The fact that Laloo Prasad faces corruption charges in his own country made little difference to his image in a country where few politicians can boast of a clean bill as far as integrity is concerned.

The South Asia Free Media Association (SAFMA) conference in Islamabad produced the same outpourings of appeals for peace, dialogue and good neighbourliness as has been the wont of such meetings in recent years. It is a fact that when the two governments are locked in a stand-off, the greater is the desire for peace expressed by the people of the two countries. This is a clear indication that the policies of those in power on the two sides of the border have not really been reflecting the wishes of their people.

This is indeed regrettable. More so, because when they adopt a hard line on the disputes which divide them, the governments of India and Pakistan take shelter behind what they describe as the will of their people. Track-II diplomacy has proved beyond doubt that the people are now keen to explore new options for peace as political fatigue has set in. They no longer want to be stuck in the same rhetorical groove which reflects the official line adopted ad nauseam by the spokemen of the two sides. While India never tires of demanding an end to cross-border terrorism, Pakistan’s persistent demand has been for a settlement of the ‘core issue’ of Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people.

Some recent interviews and statements by key leaders in this context carry much weight and should be taken note of by the governments. The head of the unofficial Indian Kashmir Committee, Ram Jethmalani, who is a member of the Indian parliament and a highly respected figure, made some telling points in an interview he gave to a local newspaper in Islamabad.

First, he pointed out that India is now willing to discuss extra-constitutional options in Kashmir which are good for the people of that state. This is a major departure from the traditional Indian line that Kashmir is an integral part of India. But it would be unrealistic to expect India to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan. This is not to be expected even when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is making friendly overtures to Islamabad and inviting President Musharraf to walk the bumpy road to peace with him. Why?

Mr Jethmalani provided the answer in very rational terms. “If you cannot solve the issue through war or terrorism, then you must understand that you cannot get 100 per cent results in your favour on the negotiating table,” he explained while appealing to Pakistan to understand the realities.

This is such an obvious fact that one wonders why it has not been understood in Islamabad. The armed struggle in the Indian- held state is now proving to be counter productive. True the Indian army continues to be tied down in the Valley and in the process New Delhi gets a poor international image in terms of its human rights record as the authorities attempt to suppress the insurgency brutally. But the violence and the casualties that come in the wake of the Indian approach are alienating the people from not only the Indian army but also the militants. Recent internal developments in Kashmir provide enough evidence of this.

The government of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, which has sensed the mood of the people, is now working to restore normality in the state. Had it not been succeeding in its mission, it would not have been possible to revive tourism in the Valley which is described as a ‘paradise on earth’. According to prime minister Vajpayee 100,000 tourists have so far visited Kashmir this year and 6,000 students from all over India are studying in the educational institutions of the state.

More importantly, a dialogue is under way in the disputed state which could sideline Pakistan. Oddly these developments have not been taken note of in Islamabad. This policy of self- denial does not mean that nothing is happening in the Indian-held Kashmir. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference is now actively engaged in talking with various political elements in New Delhi and the message its chairman, Maulana Abbas Ansari, is sending to the world is that the APHC wants a peaceful resolution of the dispute. In fact, the Hurriyat is working for a ceasefire and has offered to persuade the militants to call a truce if New Delhi also agrees to hold fire.

But unlike the ceasefire in 2000, this time the truce should be monitored to ensure that it is really observed. With the political process receiving more attention and the indigenous leadership taking the initiative, Pakistan’s role will not remain the same as before. Small wonder Maulana Ansari said recently that he and his colleagues were in no hurry to visit Pakistan. He seems to be keen about resolving the differences between some of the constituent members of the Hurriyat. The Jama’at-i-Islami’s militancy is now becoming unacceptable to the others because the people are tired of violence.

Where does all this leave Pakistan? A confrontation between the Islamic militants and the politically oriented APHC, and the parties in the political mainstream in Kashmir is something which Pakistan would not find in its interest. On the one hand a split in the Valley would weaken Islamabad’s position on the matter. On the other hand, it would make a solution more difficult.

All this calls for a major shift in stance on both sides. Is this forthcoming? With India as the party actually holding a substantial part of the territory under dispute, it is under no compulsion to relinquish its control. As for Pakistan, being the smaller power it has more to gain from peace than from this no- war-no-peace state which teeters towards a war every few years. It is a positive and significant development that the people of the two countries have begun to understand the peace dividend and its implications. The SAFMA conference in Islamabad last week left one in no doubt about the direction in which the wind is blowing. But the two governments will have to move faster on the “bumpy road to peace”, to use Mr Vajpayee’s words, if they are to keep pace with their people’s aspirations.