Shuja Nawaz, director of the Council’s South Asia Center, has an interesting post at Foreign Policy‘s new The Argument blog, entitled “Panic Stations in Kabul. Is Islamabad next?”

The setup:

The coordinated attacks by the Taliban in Kabul on the eve of U.S. Amb. Richard Holbrooke’s arrival were no coincidence. Apart from ratcheting up fear among the citizens of Kabul, these attacks may well reflect a sense of desperation on the part of the Taliban. They fear that the impending arrival of additional troops in Afghanistan and simultaneous attempts to begin a dialogue with elements of the Afghan insurgency could leave them isolated. Hence the need to show their strength and ability to penetrate and attack the government in Kabul at will. Apart from showing off their military prowess, the Taliban wish to highlight President Hamid Karzai’s inability to control even his own capital. There may be a regional strategy behind this approach.

The complex interrelationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, especially in the fluid border regions, is something with which the West has become suddenly and painfully familiar with in recent years.  Shuja’s essay focuses on a Comparative Politics 101 issue that we International Relations types often overlook: the key role that good governance plays.  It’s something in short supply in South Asia and, indeed, most of the developing world.  And it would be worth more than all the Predator drones and provincial reconstruction teams in the world in ridding the region of extremists.

James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council.

Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s new South Asia Center, commented today for an NPR piece on President Obama’s use of unmanned drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal regions.

  Other commentators included Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy Studies program; Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international affairs at Boston University; and Seth Jones, a South Asia expert at RAND Corporation.

Read Article

Listen to Audio (5:16)

Photo credit: Maya Alleruzzo, AP, NPR.

Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s new South Asia Center, was interviewed today with Hisham Melhem by Michel Martin for NPR’s Tell Me More.  They discussed the significance and impact of President Obama’s decision to conduct his first interview with Al-Arabiya, a news channel based in Dubai.

Read Article

Read Transcript

Listen to Audio (13:18 minutes)

Photo credit: AP Photo.

Although it may surprise many insular people in the United States, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and the region they inhabit want nothing more than what most Americans dream of. They want peace, a chance to raise their children with good healthcare and education, and an ability to earn a decent living. They do not want to be invaded or occupied, nor ruled with an iron fist. Decades of war have damaged Afghanistan and Iraq and destroyed the fabric of their societies. Their intellectuals and middle class have either been targeted by internal militancy or have left to seek a better life, ironically in the United States and the West, the occupying force and source of their current discomfiture.

The best hope for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan from the new US administration that took office yesterday is that it will set in motion plans for a military exit but launch a sustained assault on poverty and help inoculate both countries against the rise of autocratic systems of rule. Both are tribal societies with centuries-old traditions and mores. Devolving power to the provinces and districts and to local councils and encouraging the formation of a national consensus along the lines of the previously stable “Meesak-i-milli” (People’s Concord) of Afghanistan will be one way to assure stability. Start rebuilding socio-political structures from the bottom up not top downward.

But a US military withdrawal must not mean a political or economic exit from both countries, the worst nightmare of the people of both war-torn lands. The US abandoned Afghanistan once before, after the Soviets left in 1989. In the words of General Brent Scowcroft, it had to go back in 2001 to complete the job that it ought to have done at that time. It also left Iraq to its own devices after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. It cannot risk making the same mistake again. For there are broader implications of such actions.

To enhance regional harmony, the new US President will also need to build better and longer relationships with both countries’ neighbors: re-open dialog with Iran instead of painting it into a hostile corner, and build a longer-term relationship with the people of Pakistan rather than with any single ruler or autocrat. This will restore stability in the region and allow Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan to contribute towards peace rather than war in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods of the world today. If they could, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan would vote for a US president who waged peace not war.

Shuja Nawaz is director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council.  An edited and translated version of this piece ran in Foreign Policy Edición Española.

Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, published a piece in Foreign Policy Edición Española entitled “AFGANISTÁN E IRAK NECESITAN UNA OFENSIVA CONTRA LA POBREZA.”  A longer, English language version appears in New Atlanticist as “Fulfilling Iraqi and Afghan Dreams and Wishes.”

The full text of the original appears below as a courtesy to Council members.

El nuevo presidente estadounidense tendrá que forjar unas relaciones mejores y más duraderas con los vecinos de Irak y Afganistán [1], así como llevar acabo una retirada militar que no implique un abandono económico y político de unos países destrozados por la guerra.

Aunque quizá sorprenda a mucha gente que se aísla en Estados Unidos, los habitantes de Irak y Afganistán, así como de la región en la que se encuentran, no quieren más que lo que anhelan la mayoría de los estadounidenses: paz, una oportunidad para criar a sus hijos con buena sanidad y buena educación, y la capacidad de ganarse la vida decentemente. No quieren ser invadidos ni ocupados, ni que los gobiernen con mano de hierro. Decenios de guerra han hecho daño a Afganistán e Irak y han destruido el tejido de sus sociedades (sus intelectuales y su clase media han sido blancos de la militancia interna o se han ido en busca de una vida mejor, irónicamente a EE UU y Occidente, la fuerza ocupante y fuente de su turbación actual).

La esperanza que pueden tener los pueblos iraquí y afgano respecto al nuevo inquilino de la Casa Blanca es que ponga en marcha planes para una salida militar pero que emprenda una ofensiva sostenida contra la pobreza y ayude a vacunar a los dos países contra el ascenso de sistemas de gobierno autocráticos. Ambos países son sociedades tribales con tradiciones y costumbres que se remontan siglos atrás: una forma de asegurar la estabilidad será traspasar el poder a provincias y distritos y a los consejos locales, y fomentar la formación de un consenso nacional del tipo del antes estable Meesak-i-milli (Concordia del pueblo) de Afganistán. Habrá que empezar a reconstruir las estructuras sociopolíticas de abajo a arriba, no de arriba a abajo.

			Construir una relación a largo plazo con el pueblo de Pakistán, y no con un gobernante o autócrata específico

Ahora bien, una retirada militar de Estados Unidos no debe significar una salida política ni económica, la peor pesadilla para la gente de estos dos países desgarrados por la guerra. Estados Unidos ya abandonó Afganistán una vez, después de que se fueran los soviéticos en 1989. En palabras del general Brent Scowcroft, Washington tuvo que volver en 2001 para completar la tarea que debería haber hecho entonces. Asimismo, dejó que los iraquíes se las arreglaran solos tras la liberación de Kuwait en 1991. No puede arriesgarse a volver a cometer el mismo error porque esas acciones tienen repercusiones más amplias.

Para aumentar la armonía nacional, el nuevo presidente estadounidense también tendrá que forjar unas relaciones mejores y más duraderas con los vecinos de ambos Estados: reabrir el diálogo con Irán en vez de arrinconarlo de forma hostil y construir una relación a largo plazo con el pueblo de Pakistán, y no con un gobernante o autócrata específico. Estas medidas restaurarán la estabilidad en la región y permitirán que Irak, Afganistán, Irán y Pakistán contribuyan a la paz, en vez de a la guerra, en una de las zonas más peligrosas del mundo actual. Si pudieran, iraquíes y afganos votarían a un presidente estadounidense que haga la paz, y no la guerra.

Shuja Nawaz, the director of the Atlantic Council’s brand new South Asia Center, appeared on Indian television network NDTV’s 24 x 7 broadcast “The Big Fight” on the subject “What will President Obama mean for India?“

Other participants included Amb. Frank Wisner, Indian fund raiser for Hillary Bal G. Das in New York and Congressman Jim McDermott. The host was NDTV’s CEO Vikram Chandra.