23 Nov 2024
Publish Date
Thursday 24 December 2020 - 10:40
recommended
0
What will be Biden's possible policy in AFPAK?
From a geopolitical point of view, Pakistan is the geographical gateway of Mackinder's "Heartland" in South Asia. Located on the southern tip of Eurasia, Pakistan is considered as the shortest sea route towards the central regions of the Heartland. But where is Afghanistan’s position in this equation? In response, we can say that Afghanistan has a closed geopolitical position which can be opened only through Pakistan. In fact, Afghanistan and Pakistan are geopolitically complementary but Pakistan plays a more decisive role. Pakistan is the first land for naval power and the last land for land power. Without Pakistan, access to and passage through Afghanistan will be difficult. Accordingly, the United States will always need Pakistan and will do nothing to upset the country, and US president-elect Joe Biden is well aware of this fact.
By: Abdulshakoor Salangi
Following Donald Trump’s inauguration, the situation was portrayed as if he is determined to cut off Pakistan's hand in Afghanistan. Trump's ambitious policy in South Asia was designed in a way that, in addition to punitive measures against Pakistan, could give India a free hand in fight against terrorism in Afghanistan. In the first two years of his administration, Trump's up and down policy towards Pakistan, which was initially pursued in the form of whiplash approach, not only failed to mitigate the war and reduce the terrorist activities in Afghanistan, but also worsened the country’s security situation. But, in an unimaginable turnaround, Trump entered into one-sided talks with the Taliban by appointing Zalmay Khalilzad and signed an agreement with the Taliban - in consultation with and even possibly with guidance of Pakistan - to determine both the fate of his own administration and the Afghan government. In general, however, it can be said that the US-Taliban agreement had only one winner: Pakistan!
Now, the question is that how did Pakistan manage to defeat a powerful country like the United States? And can Biden’s presidency nullify Pakistan's victory? The answer to the latter is negative due to several variables.
The first variable depends on the macro orientations of the United States across Eurasia. According to all the geopolitical estimates, Eurasia is a region that all major powers are trying to dominate it. In the past, the classical powers such as Russia, Great Britain, and Germany pursued such a goal. After World War II, the two major world powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, competed over the same goal: one in the defensive position and the other in the offensive front.
According to the experts, the United States used Pakistan to penetrate the thick walls of the Iron Curtain through its southern side, and even managed to push back the Soviet Union over the steppes of Central Asia and Heartland. In fact, Pakistan helped the US more than any other country to achieve this goal. According to the geopolitical analysis, Pakistan's location in Asia is like the gateway of Mackinder’ Heartland. Given that Pakistan is located on the southern tip of Eurasia - or as Nicholas J. Spykman puts it, is one of the Rimland codes-, it is considered as the shortest sea route towards Central regions of the Heartland.
But where is Afghanistan’s position in this equation?
Afghanistan has a closed geopolitical position. In fact, the geopolitical situation of Afghanistan is in a way that it can be opened or highlighted only when it has Pakistan’s support. It can be said that Afghanistan and Pakistan are geopolitically complementary. But, it should be noted that Pakistan plays a more significant role. Pakistan is the first land for naval power and the last land for land power. Without Pakistan, access to Afghanistan is difficult and it would be difficult to cross Afghanistan (only Iran has such a geopolitical advantage too). Accordingly, the United States always needs Pakistan and will never do anything to upset it. Perhaps Joe Biden had understood this fact more than any other politician in the US when he addressed the former Afghan President Hamid Karzai and said: "Mr. President … Pakistan is fifty times more important than Afghanistan for the United States.”
The second variable, which is somehow overlapping with the abovementioned issue, is related to fight against terrorism which was created by the United States itself and imposed on Pakistan during the Cold War against the Soviet Union and the ideology of communism. The prevailing analysis regarding the presence and activities of ideological groups is that the United States is still using them, like the Cold War era, against its major rival. Perhaps the main difference is in the increase in the number of cases that these groups are currently being used against.What, however, has still remained unchanged is the joint use of such groups by Pakistan and the United States. The only difference that exists between the two countries in terms of using the terrorist groups is that the United States uses them as a pretext to justify its presence in a part of the region that Brzezinski called as the “arc of Crisis,” while Pakistan uses these groups as a tool to achieve its regional goals, besides receiving money from the United States and perhaps a number of other countries. It is clear that the United States desperately needs Pakistan, both for a long-term presence in Afghanistan in a bid to achieve its goals in Eurasia and for its fight against terrorism.
The third variable is subject to Joe Biden's views towards Pakistan and Afghanistan. By investigating Biden’s comments about Afghanistan, one can clearly understand that Biden considers Afghanistan a worthless country for which the United States should not sacrifice Pakistan. Perhaps he maintains that if the United States can make an ally out Pakistan, then it (US) will definitely have Afghanistan in its own camp. In Biden’s views, Afghanistan is not a country that can be interacted independently, but a ruin in which the United States should act based on Pakistan’s guidance. There may be no doubt that all the US presidents have had such an attitude towards Afghanistan, but the Democrats' behavioral tradition in this regard is more prominent and Biden is perhaps the most democratic of them all.
In the meantime, however, there is a variable, as an intervening factor, that can slightly affect the Democrats' views towards the two countries. During Trump's presidency, it was the Democrats who criticized Trump's rapprochement with the Taliban (which was done with the guidance of Pakistan). Along with this idealistic tradition, the Democrats have always shown themselves to be more concerned about human rights, freedom, and democracy. This variable may affect Biden's approach towards Afghanistan and Pakistan if we assume that Trump intended to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan through the Taliban. Maybe Biden, under Democrats’ pressure, support part of the US’s 19 year achievements in Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the position of Afghanistan and Pakistan would change in Biden’s foreign policy.
Conclusion
Due to several important variables, Washington is obliged to satisfy Pakistan, and this policy will lead to a win-win game. The United States will always need Pakistan to achieve its macro and micro objectives. In particular, this need would be greater when it comes to fight against terrorism. Therefore, Biden's strategy towards these two countries will be more in line with the former behavioral tradition, and also he may pay more ransom to Pakistan to curb terrorism.
Following Donald Trump’s inauguration, the situation was portrayed as if he is determined to cut off Pakistan's hand in Afghanistan. Trump's ambitious policy in South Asia was designed in a way that, in addition to punitive measures against Pakistan, could give India a free hand in fight against terrorism in Afghanistan. In the first two years of his administration, Trump's up and down policy towards Pakistan, which was initially pursued in the form of whiplash approach, not only failed to mitigate the war and reduce the terrorist activities in Afghanistan, but also worsened the country’s security situation. But, in an unimaginable turnaround, Trump entered into one-sided talks with the Taliban by appointing Zalmay Khalilzad and signed an agreement with the Taliban - in consultation with and even possibly with guidance of Pakistan - to determine both the fate of his own administration and the Afghan government. In general, however, it can be said that the US-Taliban agreement had only one winner: Pakistan!
Now, the question is that how did Pakistan manage to defeat a powerful country like the United States? And can Biden’s presidency nullify Pakistan's victory? The answer to the latter is negative due to several variables.
The first variable depends on the macro orientations of the United States across Eurasia. According to all the geopolitical estimates, Eurasia is a region that all major powers are trying to dominate it. In the past, the classical powers such as Russia, Great Britain, and Germany pursued such a goal. After World War II, the two major world powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, competed over the same goal: one in the defensive position and the other in the offensive front.
According to the experts, the United States used Pakistan to penetrate the thick walls of the Iron Curtain through its southern side, and even managed to push back the Soviet Union over the steppes of Central Asia and Heartland. In fact, Pakistan helped the US more than any other country to achieve this goal. According to the geopolitical analysis, Pakistan's location in Asia is like the gateway of Mackinder’ Heartland. Given that Pakistan is located on the southern tip of Eurasia - or as Nicholas J. Spykman puts it, is one of the Rimland codes-, it is considered as the shortest sea route towards Central regions of the Heartland.
But where is Afghanistan’s position in this equation?
Afghanistan has a closed geopolitical position. In fact, the geopolitical situation of Afghanistan is in a way that it can be opened or highlighted only when it has Pakistan’s support. It can be said that Afghanistan and Pakistan are geopolitically complementary. But, it should be noted that Pakistan plays a more significant role. Pakistan is the first land for naval power and the last land for land power. Without Pakistan, access to Afghanistan is difficult and it would be difficult to cross Afghanistan (only Iran has such a geopolitical advantage too). Accordingly, the United States always needs Pakistan and will never do anything to upset it. Perhaps Joe Biden had understood this fact more than any other politician in the US when he addressed the former Afghan President Hamid Karzai and said: "Mr. President … Pakistan is fifty times more important than Afghanistan for the United States.”
The second variable, which is somehow overlapping with the abovementioned issue, is related to fight against terrorism which was created by the United States itself and imposed on Pakistan during the Cold War against the Soviet Union and the ideology of communism. The prevailing analysis regarding the presence and activities of ideological groups is that the United States is still using them, like the Cold War era, against its major rival. Perhaps the main difference is in the increase in the number of cases that these groups are currently being used against.What, however, has still remained unchanged is the joint use of such groups by Pakistan and the United States. The only difference that exists between the two countries in terms of using the terrorist groups is that the United States uses them as a pretext to justify its presence in a part of the region that Brzezinski called as the “arc of Crisis,” while Pakistan uses these groups as a tool to achieve its regional goals, besides receiving money from the United States and perhaps a number of other countries. It is clear that the United States desperately needs Pakistan, both for a long-term presence in Afghanistan in a bid to achieve its goals in Eurasia and for its fight against terrorism.
The third variable is subject to Joe Biden's views towards Pakistan and Afghanistan. By investigating Biden’s comments about Afghanistan, one can clearly understand that Biden considers Afghanistan a worthless country for which the United States should not sacrifice Pakistan. Perhaps he maintains that if the United States can make an ally out Pakistan, then it (US) will definitely have Afghanistan in its own camp. In Biden’s views, Afghanistan is not a country that can be interacted independently, but a ruin in which the United States should act based on Pakistan’s guidance. There may be no doubt that all the US presidents have had such an attitude towards Afghanistan, but the Democrats' behavioral tradition in this regard is more prominent and Biden is perhaps the most democratic of them all.
In the meantime, however, there is a variable, as an intervening factor, that can slightly affect the Democrats' views towards the two countries. During Trump's presidency, it was the Democrats who criticized Trump's rapprochement with the Taliban (which was done with the guidance of Pakistan). Along with this idealistic tradition, the Democrats have always shown themselves to be more concerned about human rights, freedom, and democracy. This variable may affect Biden's approach towards Afghanistan and Pakistan if we assume that Trump intended to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan through the Taliban. Maybe Biden, under Democrats’ pressure, support part of the US’s 19 year achievements in Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the position of Afghanistan and Pakistan would change in Biden’s foreign policy.
Conclusion
Due to several important variables, Washington is obliged to satisfy Pakistan, and this policy will lead to a win-win game. The United States will always need Pakistan to achieve its macro and micro objectives. In particular, this need would be greater when it comes to fight against terrorism. Therefore, Biden's strategy towards these two countries will be more in line with the former behavioral tradition, and also he may pay more ransom to Pakistan to curb terrorism.
Abdulshakoor Salangi is an Afghan researcher based in Kabul
News code:2490
