South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz writes for Foreign Policy on the mass protests in Pakistan demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Shar

With thousands of young Pakistanis besieging their capital to demand the ouster of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan — a key element in the United States’ plan to withdraw from neighboring Afghanistan by the end of 2016 — is slipping into political anarchy. Only one year after the country’s first-ever democratic transfer of power, the elected government in Pakistan is at risk of another military takeover. Yet Washington is showing little sign that it is paying the situation the urgent attention it requires.

The youthful horde in Islamabad — led by former cricket player and current leader of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf (Movement for Justice) party Imran Khan, and a religious teacher from Canada named Tahir ul Qadri –demands electoral reforms, and Sharif’s removal from office for corruption and alleged fraud in the May 2013 election, which gave him a huge plurality in the parliament. From its headquarters in Rawalpindi, adjacent to the capital, the powerful army waits, calculating its next moves.

South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz is quoted by the Washington Examiner on President Obama’s Afghanistan withdrawal strategy: 

Shuja Nawaz, a native of Pakistan and the director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, said the biggest lesson the White House can take from the rapid disintegration of security in Iraq is that “the nature and speed of withdrawal from any country has repercussions.”

“The conditions have changed dramatically in the region” since Obama’s speech at West Point and “it may be time to rethink some marginal changes in that draw-down strategy that will allow Afghanistan a little more breathing room to get its political and military act together,” he told theWashington Examiner.

ABC News quotes South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz on Secretary John Kerry’s visit to Afghanistan to discuss the country’s runoff presidential election:

Even if the candidates agree in principle to a power-sharing agreement, they won’t be able to put it into practice until the new president is inaugurated, meaning there could be continued uncertainty until that point, said Shuja Nawaz, the director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

“The candidates may agree in principle on the division of ministries, for instance, but the relationship between the two candidates is going to be left up in the air until the final result is announced and agreed upon,” he said.

The National Journal quotes South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz on upcoming peace talks between India and Pakistan:

“A discussion of tactical weapons and replenishment of stocks of older missiles will probably come up,” Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, said in response to emailed questions. “A potential source of progress might be retirement of older missiles by both sides. That may help reduce overall numbers.”

However, he said, he does “not expect any breakthrough proposals.”

[…]

Sharif and Modi each “face a huge challenge from entrenched interests at home: the military in Pakistan and the bureaucracy in India,” Nawaz said. But, he added, “they both have an opportunity to show their leadership by being bold and bringing along civil society and businesses to bolster their efforts at creating détente, followed by entente.”

South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz joins BBC World News to discuss Secretary Kerry’s trip to Kabul and efforts to resolve the issues surrounding the presidential election in Afghanistan:

Zalmay Khalilzad, David Sedney Analyze Hopes for Resolving a Dangerous Dispute

This weekend’s visit to Afghanistan by Secretary of State John Kerry will be a critical opportunity to defuse the dispute over Afghanistan’s presidential election that threatens the country’s stability, two former US top officials said. Kerry is to travel to Kabul as presidential candidates Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani dispute the still-incomplete results of last week’s voting – a crisis that if left unresolved could lead to ethnic splintering and civil war, according to former diplomats Zalmay Khalilzad and David Sedney.

Abdullah, the former foreign minister and a candidate heavily supported by ethnic Tajiks of Afghanistan’s northeast, rejected the preliminary vote count announced Monday by Afghanistan’s Independent Electoral Commission, which showed him trailing former finance minister Ghani by twelve percentage points. In the election’s first round of voting, Abdullah led Ghani by fourteen percentage points, and he accuses President Hamid Karzai of having helped tilt the second round of voting in Ghani’s favor. Karzai, like Ghani, is a member of the Pashtun ethnic group, the country’s largest.

Abdullah lost confidence in the formal election process when the election commission included 7,000 disputed ballots in the preliminary announcement of results, Khalilzad and Sedney said at a forum hosted by the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. The ensuing distrust in Abdullah’s camp of the Ghani campaign, the Karzai government, and the electoral commissions caused his supporters to respond with protests and demands for the formation of a parallel government. Still, Khalilzad noted, Abdullah has reiterated the importance of Afghan national unity and has urged his supporters to remain patient as he waits to hold formal talks with Kerry, who press reports say will arrive in Kabul on Friday.

A Basis for Hope: The Political Maturity of Ghani and Abdullah

Alongside the formal negotiations with election officials, an informal track of communication between the two political campaigns should be maintained as part of calming the conflict, Khalilzad said. He urged the elaboration of political formulas to keep the loser of the election engaged in the political process.

Sedney identified the Obama administration’s involvement in resolving the dispute as a vital demonstration of continued international support to the Afghan people. Abdullah’s campaign is facing tremendous internal political pressure to harden his stance, as “the margin of fraud is larger than the margin of error.” Sedney reminded the audience that “disentangling the web of conflict is something that only Afghans can do.” However, like Khalilzad, Sedney said Abdullah and Ghani share a broad congruence on the major political issues facing Afghanistan. Both candidates are politically mature and committed to a progressive vision for Afghanistan. Responding to fears that a compromise will not be reached, Khalilzad stressed that “both candidates do not believe in the philosophy of winner take all,” and reminded the audience that no political position is more important than the future stability of the country itself.

Sedney rejected the suggestion that Karzai is trying to use the dispute to extend his term in office. While it is known that Karzai wants a political role in Afghanistan’s future, Karzai “does not want to be president anymore,” Sedney said. If the crisis is not resolved and Karzai stays in office, Sedney argued, it will cost him the biggest accomplishment of his twelve-year term in office: Afghanistan’s first-ever democratic and peaceful transfer of power from one leader to another.

Highlights of the discussion included these:

• On the insurgency: Both speakers were concerned that the Taliban and other armed rebel groups may take advantage of the political crisis in Kabul by escalating their summer offensive. If the two candidates fail to reach a compromise and ethnic divisions begin to resurface across the political spectrum, the Taliban and their supporters in Pakistan will perceive the continuation of armed conflict as the best way forward, Sedney said. It is in the Taliban’s interest to see political divisions in Kabul that could weaken the Afghan National Security Forces.

• On Afghanistan’s political future: Although his view of the Obama administration’s policy in Afghanistan is generally favorable, Khalilzad said, he hopes that the United States and the future government of Afghanistan will reassess the decision to withdraw all US combat forces by 2016. Sedney criticized the tendency of US governments to heavily engage foreign policy issues only when they erupt in crises. “When the crisis is resolved, the US must stay involved,” he said. Sedney stressed that “power-sharing” formulas of the past — with their distribution of senior government positions to the heads of competing factions — are not the solution to Afghanistan’s political problem. Instead, the country needs a government that provides “inclusive, progressive, performing, young, and uncorrupt” leadership, he said.

• On Afghanistan’s broad progress: Khalilzad noted the development of Afghanistan’s education system, the growth of civil society, the recognition of women’s rights, the increase in Afghanistan’s connectivity with the world, and the operational successes of the Afghan National Security Forces. These, he said, are indicators of a relatively successful coalition effort in Afghanistan during the past twelve years. Referring to the political fatigue that characterizes the views of America’s political class towards Afghanistan, Sedney stressed that the “American people and American leadership cannot make good decisions on Afghanistan because they don’t know the facts” of this progress.

Afghanistan has made enormous progress in reconstruction, development, and lifting per capita income. This progress, including steadily rising per capita income, has occurred despite security challenges and decreasing donor commitments from 2002-2013. Paul Ross, head of the International Monetary Fund’s Afghanistan mission, reported these findings at an Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center discussion on Afghanistan’s economic outlook. Ross recently returned from Afghanistan, where the IMF just completed its Article IV Consultation, an annual review the Afghan economy. “The outlook is positive,” the IMF concluded, “assuming smooth political and security transitions and continued reform and donor financing.” Moreover the IMF will “continue its close engagement” by discussing economic policies with the Afghan government and Central bank, and providing technical assistance to help build and strengthen economic institutions.

With unwavering optimistic, Ross addressed audience concerns regarding governance and corruption. “It’s a long term process,” he said, suggesting the region generally suffers from weak governance, “improving the legal infrastructure and key economic laws” will set a clear framework for the rules and penalties associated with breaking those rules. These could address banking, tax administration, money laundering, and terrorism financing. “Corruption is a two-way street. It’s the public sector and private sector.”

Fiscal sustainability also presents major immediate challenges to Afghanistan, particularly with donor and military spending on a rapid decline. Currently domestic revenue remains almost 10% below Afghanistan’s operating expenditure, and the IMF estimates this gap to remain and even increase before 2030. However, Ross suggested the need to maintain low inflation through a reserve buffer and flexible exchange rate policy. Moreover, new laws to strengthening the banking sector and promote lending will build a business-friendly environment, and area where Afghanistan has already made progress. A continued focus is necessary on inclusive growth, including structural reforms, female inclusion, and pro-poor spending, to ensure wages and livelihood of Afghans continue to rise.

Ross remained hesitant to suggest the impact of political changes on the country’s economic outlook, given the current uncertainty regarding the presidential elections. He suggested that the IMF “partners” with host country governments and central banks, with other financial institutions, to promote governance improvements alongside economic reforms. Ross extended his optimism for Afghanistan’s economic potential, through continued macroeconomic efforts, but also considering the potential increase in regional trade and growth of the agriculture and the natural resources sectors.

Afghanistan: Economic Transition and Transformation(PDF)

TIME Magazine quotes South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz on Pakistani refugees in Afghanistan:

The exodus has also ignited fears that the polio epidemic rampant in North Waziristan for two years could spread to other parts of the region.

Meanwhile, analysts have already begun to criticize the new military campaign for not being part of a broader vision of Pakistan’s future.

“There isn’t yet a clear national strategy,” says Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council. That means “operations are going to be tactical at best.” He adds: “The civilians were not brought in at the planning stage. And they’re not prepared in any way to take over from the military once the clearing has taken place.”

Please join us on June 26, 2014 from 2:30 p.m to 4:00 p.m for a conversation with The Hon. Ronald E. Neumann and Mr. David S. Sedney on the recent allegations of fraud during the presidential elections and the potential impact on the Afghan and international community.

What seemed to be Afghanistan’s first peaceful democratic transfer of power following the 2001 ousting of the Taliban is now in jeopardy. Allegations of fraud at the ballot box during the second round of presidential elections by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, aimed at his opponent Dr. Ashraf Ghani and President Hamid Karzai have cast a pall on the whole process. A peaceful transfer of power is essential for the security and prosperity of the Afghan people, the region, and the international community. However, a protracted struggle in the political arena will raise doubts about the future of Afghanistan. Decision-making could stagnate and prevent the essential signing of the bilateral security agreement and the continuation of essential aid flows from the United States and its coalition partners. Such an outcome is not one that the Afghan people can afford. At this pivotal moment in the election process, the speakers will discuss the stakes in the lead-up to the final outcome.

Ronald E. Neumann served three times as ambassador; to Algeria, Bahrain and finally to Afghanistan from July 2005 to April 2007. Before Afghanistan, Amb. Neumann, a career member of the senior foreign service, served in Baghdad from February 2004 with the Coalition Provisional Authority and then as Embassy Baghdad’s principal liaison with the Multinational Command, where he was deeply involved in coordinating the political part of military actions. Amb. Neumann is the author of The Other War: Winning and Losing in Afghanistan (Potomac Press, 2009), a book on his time in Afghanistan. He has returned to Afghanistan repeatedly and is the author of a number of monographs, articles, and editorials. His writings have focused most heavily on Afghanistan, stabilization, and Bahrain. At the Academy he has focused particularly on efforts to expand State and USAID personnel and upgrade their professional formation to enable these insti tutions to carry out their responsibilities. Amb. Neumann is on the Advisory Committee of two non-profits working in Afghanistan; the Global Partnership for Afghanistan (GPFA) and for the School of Leadership, Afghanistan (SOLA). Ambassador Neumann arned a BA in history and an MA in political science from the University of California at Riverside.

David Sedney was deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs from 2009-2013 and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia from 2007-2009. He served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Beijing from 2004-2007. From 2003-2004 Sedney was Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Kabul, where he was Charge d’Affaires from August-November 2003. Sedney was also Deputy Chief of Mission in Kabul in 2002, after the re-opening of the embassy. He is a graduate of Princeton University and Suffolk University School of Law. He has received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, the Department of State’s Superior Honor Award six times, and Department of State’s Meritorious Honor Award twice. He attended Louisiana State University’ s School of Law where he studied Law of the Sea and International Law. Sedney is a distinguished graduate of the National War College.

South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz writes for Foreign Policy‘s South Asia Channel on the Pakistani military offensive on Taliban and allied Islamist forces in North Waziristan:

istan’s military is in the midst of an assault on Taliban and allied Islamist fighters in the rugged mountains of North Waziristan — an offensive that the U.S. government has been urging it to undertake for at least a decade. The conventional wisdom in Washington has been that a North Waziristan sweep would clean out the last and strongest bastion of armed Islamic militancy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre — most critically, the so-called Haqqani network of guerrillas fighting the U.S.-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan. 

 But even though this offensive seems likely to be the most ambitious Pakistani attempt in the past decade to control North Waziristan, it will, at best, fall far short of what Washington and Islamabad hope for.