Middle East & North Africa

Given the present situation in the Middle East and the connected problems in adjoining regions, this timely initiative to bring focus firmly on Afghanistan was badly needed. Efforts to revive the stalled Afghan peace talks between the Afghan govt and Taliban group must be encouraged.  

Seven foreign ministers are participants, including all the four neighbouring countries of Pakistan.  Visiting Islamabad for the second time this year, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, by Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani and unusually upbeat on arrival, India’s Minister for External Affairs Ms Sushma Swaraj with Iran’s Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif making his third visit in about four months.  High-ranking delegations from 14 participating countries, 17 supporting countries and 12 international and regional organisations included the former US Ambassador to Pakistan Richard Olson (now US Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan), with senior representatives coming from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the UAE. 

An Afghanistan and Turkey joint initiative, the “Istanbul Process” provides a fresh agenda for regional cooperation by engaging the ‘Heart of Asia’ countries in sincere and result-oriented cooperation to secure a peaceful, stable and prosperous Afghanistan.  Political initiatives between land-locked Afghanistan and its near and extended neighbours will include a continuous and effective dialogue concerning all issues of common interest and importance. “Confidence Building Measures” (CBMs)  identified in the “Istanbul Process” document enhances the building of trust and confidence among the regional countries.  Existing regional organisations have an important role in strengthening and promoting of economic cooperation and integration, improved security and enhanced people-to-people relations. Not a substitute for existing efforts, this process complements the work of regional organisations, particularly relating to Afghanistan.

Following his inauguration, Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani had made a courageous outreach to Pakistan, this included a historic visit to Pakistan’s GHQ.  Hopes were raised very high, to quote my article of Nov 20, 2014, “The Making of History”, “Throwing aside diplomatic norms, the Afghanistan’s President visited GHQ immediately after landing at Islamabad. A foreign Head of State heading straight towards a military HQ on arrival carries a lot more than ceremonial importance, the Afghan President means business because he well understands where the real power concerning national security rests. Subsequently Ashraf Ghani described his discussions the next day with the Pakistani PM as “a shared vision to serve as the heart of Asia, ensuring economic integration by enhancing connectivity between South and Central Asia through energy, gas and oil pipelines becoming a reality and not remaining a dream. The narrative for the future must include the most neglected of our people becoming stakeholders in a prosperous economy in stable and peaceful countries, our faiths are linked because terror knows no boundaries. We have overcome obstacles of 13 years in three days, we will not permit the past to destroy the future,” unquote. 

The past came to haunt us when the last minute news of the death of Mullah Omar, the former spiritual head of the Taliban, was deliberately leaked, motivated by “spoilers” to not only derail the talks but raise serious doubts about Pakistan’s intentions.  With this huge setback the talks failed and Kabul witnessed several major terrorist attacks, forcing Ashraf Ghani to backtrack on his peace initiative, deciding to only resume talks when Pakistan was ready to talk “honestly” about peace in Afghanistan.  This week’s conference is a real opportunity for the two countries to work out their differences and negotiate a settlement. To quote former Afghan govt official (and now Consultant) Habib Wayand, “This Conference is a chance to out-flank the “spoilers” on both sides and produce a far-sighted vision for the region, producing strategies for achieving lasting peace and prosperity.” For its part Afghanistan needs to avoid pursuing irresponsible and irrational anti-Pakistan agendas, blaming Pakistan for every terrorist incident.  Kabul needs to concentrate on job-creation to prevent the exodus of young Afghans from the country and/or their being recruited by insurgent groups.

Peace in Afghanistan will create opportunities for greater economic links between Central Asia and South Asia.  Afghanistan has been conducting its foreign trade largely through Pakistan and could facilitate Pakistan for its trade with Central Asia and, more importantly, for bringing electricity and gas from Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan into South Asia. To quote my article of Dec 12, 2014 a year ago, “Reconnecting Afghanistan”, “Economic resurgence for land-locked countries requires facilitating trade to and through their territory.  The EastWest Institute (EWI), a New York-based leading US think tank, headed by Ross Perot Jr, initiated the “Abu Dhabi Process” — a cross-border trade dialogue co-funded by Abu Dhabi and Germany — between Afghanistan and the countries on its periphery. Hosted by the EWI, the recent Istanbul conference encouraged businesses in South and Central Asia to themselves take necessary initiatives to unlock trade and kick-start the war-ravaged Afghan economy.” 

Welcoming Ms Sushma Swaraj to Islamabad, Advisor to the PM Sartaj Aziz said that beyond the confines of the Conference itself, bi-lateral discussions between India and Pakistan focussed on resumption of composite dialogue between the two countries but included various matters.  He had earlier said, “The visit is part of efforts to restart peace dialogue plagued by militant attacks and distrust. This is a good beginning. The deadlock has eased to some extent.” Modi’s Govt seems set on a “course correction”, maybe PCB Chairman Shahryar Khan will not have to bend on his knees begging India anymore for resumption of cricket ties.

For Pakistan it was important to showcase the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), an economic force-multiplier for peace and stability in the region.  With its vast pool of skilled manpower to go with its enormous raw material reserves, this country has the potential of becoming one of the most powerful economic engines in the region.

Whether it is Paris, Mali, San Bernardino, Yemen, Libya or the Iraq/Syria virtual cauldron, the world is in a state close to undeclared world war where borders are of least (or even no) consequence given the rise of the “Islamic State” in the areas adjacent to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey (with Kurdistan, a State that is not a State thrown in).  Every small step to contain such destructive and brutal forces is a giant step towards peace and stability in the world.  The “Heart of Asia” initiative is an appropriate epitaph for our brave soldiers who have selflessly shed blood giving the ultimate sacrifice securing Pakistan and making it peaceful.

Click here to read Ikram Sehgal's article "Reconnecting Afghanistan".

Click here to read EWI's report on "Afghanistan Reconnected: Advocacy and Outreach Mission to Tajikistan".

Hassan was quoted in The Christian Science Monitor's November 3 article, "Are Kurds closer to realizing their dream of an independent state?"

As quoted in this article: “Regionally, the biggest challenges facing the Kurds is first internal division and fragmentation,” says Kawa Hassan, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the EastWest Institute in Brussels. “If the Kurdish house is not in order they cannot achieve independence.”

“Second is the opposition from neighboring countries and the United States against Kurdish independence. Third is the lack of economic infrastructure that could be the basis of economic independence.”

“Of course things change very quickly in the Middle East,” adds Mr. Hassan. “Syria is crumbling. Iraq is crumbling.... The most feasible scenario is federations or Kurdish confederations.”

To read the full article at The Christian Science Monitor, click here.

To read the article on El Universal, click here. (Spanish)

Iraqi Kurdistan — officially known as the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) — is the country’s only autonomous region. Compared to the rest of Iraq, Kurdistan enjoys more stability, security, political pluralism, and freedom for civil society. From 2003 until 2013, the region witnessed an unprecedented economic boom. During the U.S.-led war to depose Saddam Hussein, the Kurds were some of the United States’ most reliable allies, and today they are playing a pivotal role in the fight against the Islamic State. These stark differences from the chaotic rest of the country have led many to describe the KRI as the “Other Iraq.”

But today, this nascent democracy faces its most severe and probably decisive crisis since the end of its civil war in 1998, which had pitted the region’s two main political camps against each other. Today’s crisis touches upon two core democratic principles: the peaceful transfer of power and government accountability. It is the outcome of this crisis — and not just the fight against the Islamic State — that will determine the development of democracy in Kurdistan. 

Iraqi Kurdistan’s president since 2005 has been Masoud Barzani, whose family has ruled the conservative Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) since its establishment in 1946. Barzani was originally supposed to serve for eight years, as stipulated by the draft constitution. But a 2013 deal between the KDP and its erstwhile rival, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), extended his term for an additional two years. This deal was pushed through the regional parliament despite fierce resistance from the opposition and civil society, who called the extension unconstitutional. But, as of August 19, even this two-year extension has now passed — and the KDP has refused to respect the agreement. Barzani still clings to the presidency. His recalcitrance has plunged Iraqi Kurdistan into a deep constitutional crisis.

The region is now deeply divided. Four main parties – Gorran (the Movement for Change), the PUK, the Kurdistan Islamic Union, and the Kurdistan Islamic Group — are calling on Barzani to step down. These four parties, who might be described as the “constitutional camp,” are calling for a genuine parliamentary system in which the president is elected by parliament and is therefore accountable to it. In contrast, Barzani’s KDP and some of its smaller allies (locally known as “political shops” since they were either created or supported by KDP and PUK) want Barzani to get an additional two-year extension. They also argue for a presidential system that would give the president immense power. Only Barzani, they argue, can lead Iraqi Kurdistan in the fight against the Islamic State and thus win the Kurds an independent state — the latter being something that all Kurds, regardless of political persuasion, wholeheartedly favor.

Barzani appears determined to hang on. In a recent interview, his nephew (and current prime minister), Nechirvan Barzani, said that even the president himself acknowledges that his term has expired, and that his staying in power is therefore illegal. But he wants to remain in power until 2017, when the new election is scheduled, to lead the fight against the Islamic State.

Meanwhile, due to the stark decline in oil prices (as well as endemic corruption, general mismanagement, discord with Baghdad, and the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State), Kurdistan is facing a severe economic crisis after years of positive growth. The crisis has delayed payment of salaries to civil servants, led to shortages of fuel and electricity, and prompted growing social protests. The constitutional crisis compounds these problems and has fragmented Kurdish society to the core.

Instead of becoming the president of all Kurds, Barzani has remained the president of his own party only. He has been unwilling to take the serious steps necessary to address Kurdistan’s many challenges. He has failed to tackle high-level corruption. He has neglected to implement urgently needed reform of the military and the intelligence and security forces. He has balked at creating an independent judiciary — or, for that matter, any of the institutions required for a democratic statehood. And he has done nothing to bring perpetrators of human rights violations — from his party and others — to justice.

Rather than the unifying leader Kurds so desperately need, Barzani has become a source of division. Instead of relying on internal legitimacy, he has turned to regional and international sponsors to remain in power: the three most influential players in Kurdistan — the United States, Turkey, and Iran — support the unconstitutional extension of Barzani’s term. These countries claim that this bolsters the fight against the Islamic State and will provide stability in Kurdistan and Iraq. For them, it seems, “stability” is more important than democracy.

In its bid to keep Barzani in power, the KDP has resorted to intimidation, violence, threats to re-establish separate governments (which would essentially amount to partition of the region), the manipulation of judicial institutions, and the co-optation and coercion of intellectuals and journalists.

In an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully, the four parties that oppose extending Barzani’s presidency have presented the KDP with two options they can accept. In the first, parliament will choose a new president, granting him extensive powers. In the second, the people will elect him directly, but as a largely symbolic leader with mostly ceremonial powers. But at an October 8 meeting, the opposing sides failed to reach an agreement. The “constitutional camp” is under immense pressure from its increasingly frustrated supporters to stick to its demand that Barzani should leave power peacefully. But the KDP seems in no mood to compromise, leaving everyone in a bind. The political stalemate has resulted in demonstrations by protesters calling for jobs, payment of back wages, and resignation of Barzani. Five people were killed, reportedly by the KDP security forces.

The KDP has accused Gorran of surreptitiously organizing attacks by protesters on his offices, and physically prevented the speaker of parliament (who is from Gorran) from entering Erbil. (The party has also withdrawn its recognition of his position as speaker.) In addition, Prime Minister Nechiravan Barzani sacked Gorran ministers and replaced them with KDP officials. Gorran says the government is no longer legitimate. The political polarization has reached a climax and no resolution to the stalemate is in sight.

Barzani had a unique opportunity to enter history as the first Kurdish president to abide by democratic rules and step down. Sadly, he has chosen to do the opposite. By so doing, he is critically endangering Kurdistan’s fledgling democracy and the unity the Kurds so badly need to achieve independence.

As the Arab Spring has shown, however, sham internal stability supported by external powers provides neither security to a people nor legitimacy to their aspirations for statehood. Defeating the Islamic State and democratizing Kurdistan are the only ways to ensure long-term genuine stability and prosperity in a crucial region that is at the forefront of the fight against violent religious extremism. In the photo, anti-Barzani protesters challenge security forces during clashes in Sulaimaniyah, in Iraq’s Kurdistan region, on October 10, 2015. 

To read this piece at Foreign Policy, click here.