Pakistan’s Support the Taliban and its link to the ever increasing Rift in Pakistan’s internal political system rooted in Pakistan’s current and future geopolitical dilemma. PART 1 of 2

One often cited issue in the current Afghanistan war is the support given to the Taliban by various elements within Pakistan's governmental and military structures.   The underlying questions that have been attempted to be answered lie within the framework of the regional geopolitics that encapsulates the current Afghan-Pakistan dilemma.  One of those questions and the answer to that question that is predicated within the geopolitical dynamic of the region is.  Pakistan’s lack of territorial strategic depth: 

India has courted the Afghan government since its inception in 2001, providing it with financial and infrastructural support.  Pakistan’s fear is that Afghanistan will serve as a hinge of India’s grand strategy of encircling Pakistan.  Thus, Pakistan’s mission in Afghanistan is to subvert Indian influence by creating an atmosphere of instability via the promotion and or tacit consent of Taliban infiltration from its bases in Pakistan across the border. 

However, there are other factors that require analysis so that a more comprehensive understanding of Pakistan’s intentions in Afghanistan can be well understood.   One element which has garnered little attention but has played a significant role in Pakistan’s strategy in Afghanistan is the great rift that is currently taking place within the internal political dynamic of the country.   Pakistan is undertaking a decade’s long internal political struggle that has manifested itself in the current schizophrenic policy towards Afghanistan.

Dislocation within the political and military elite of Pakistan is a manifestation of the changing geopolitical landscape of South Asia. Pakistan is caught between the crosswinds of two significant and interrelated geopolitical forces which have ostensibly transmuted its policy towards Afghanistan and even more significantly will circumscribe the future course of its foreign policy.  The First force at play is the sustained meteoric rise of China as a significant force in Central Asia, corresponding with the rise of China as a global power and the relative weakening of American power regionally and internationally.  The second interrelated force at play is the diminution of Pakistan’s once significant position as the bulwark against Russian encroachment into Asia, resulting in the slow but systematic post Cold War realignment of the Unites States strategic interests away from Pakistan and closer to India.   India has now emerged as the United State key strategic ally blocking the rise of China as a world superpower.  Thus, India has subverted the role Pakistan once played for the United States; as a barrier against the rise of a world power in Asia.

What have emerged from the geopolitical crosswinds discussed above are two contradictory and often conflicting geostrategic viewpoints in Pakistan leading to a cleavage within the governmental and military structure of the Nation.

The first option is to remain within the geopolitical alliance with the United States.  This course of action would predictably entail entering into closer and more peaceful relations with India the United States most vital post cold war strategic partner in the region.  Under this course of action United States power, economic political and military, would provide the needed lubricant to maintain the regional pact between the two South Asian rivals.  Significant to Pakistan’s internal political discord, a US facilitated detent with India will mostly likely impose a South Asian geopolitical framework in which Indian controlled Kashmir will remain under Indian suzerainty.   Thus the maintenance of a strategic partnership with a United States entails Pakistan’s acquiescence of India’s control over a territory that the two nations have fought many wars since the partition of South Asia sixty years ago.  Thus, a cleavage is or will naturally form within Pakistan’s political and military elite between those who wish to remain within the strategic partnership with the US and those who would rather maintain hostile relations with India in the hopes of eventually incorporating Kashmir into an enlarged Pakistan.


The second option is a decoupling Pakistan’s strategic alliance with the United States and the establishment of a closer geostrategic partnership with China.  The prevailing argument is that Chinas long rivalry with India will facilitate and sustain Pakistan’s quest for the absorption of Kashmir; while an American strategic partner with ever increasing alliance with India will be less likely to tolerate Pakistan’s bellicose stance.  Thus, closer relations which China will lead a higher probability of conflict with India, likely entering a new arc of increased tension perhaps manifesting themselves in border skirmishes that may lead to outright war. 


Jingoistic forces in Pakistan see the decoupling of Pakistan’s alliance with the United States and closer strategic alliance with China as favorable factors in maintaining their long favored position of increased tension in South Asia as the appropriate strategy towards the recapture of Kashmir.   Often it is Islamist elements, historically sponsored by the military and governmental structure of Pakistan, which support such a strategy.   This is the key to understanding Pakistans pro Taliban and corresponding anti US-Indian stance in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has and will always view its foreign policy via the prism of checking India, its South Asian arch rival.  In the next chapter I will attempt to provide an explanation of Pakistan’s Schizophrenic policy towards Afghanistan by examining the regions changing geopolitical landscape.

The Andorra Plan: Another road toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The Andorra Plan:  Another road toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

In the Judgment of Solomon, then King of Israel was asked to judge which of the woman who claimed to be the mother of a child was its true mother.  Solomon declared that there is only one fair solution “the live child must be split in two, each woman receiving half of the child.  But the true mother, stated. "Please, My Lord, give her the live child—do not kill him!" In turn the other female exclaimed, "It shall be neither mine nor yours—divide it!"  

The child had only one true mother, the mother that loved the child to such a degree that she was willing to give the child away to another mother so that the child would not be cut in half.  Jerusalem, the city that lies at the heart of the passions of both sides national consciousness, and thus at the core of the current deadlock in the peace process, is the child that negotiators and the international community are demanding to be split between two mothers; both of whom claim sole ownership. 

Here lies the unbridgeable dilemma.  The international community’s diplomacy during the past 30 years has predicated upon a two state solution, with Jerusalem eventually being Split between the two states.  After 30 years both side have been unwilling to make the ultimate decision that will solve the conflict.

However, there is another way in which Solomon could have resolved child dilemma; joint custody over the child.  The mother would agree with it since the ulterior choice was the loss of the child (by death through cutting in halve or complete custodial loss to the other mother.  Israeli and Palestinian negotiators can also benefit by the Joint Custody over Jerusalem.  The plan to achieve this is to create a third entity one that has sovereignty over Jerusalem; sovereignty that is shared both parties.      

 I refer to it as “the Andorra plan”.  The framework of the sovereignty for this small principality and its   relationship with its neighbor, France and Spain, can serve as a new roadmap towards a resolution of the Jerusalem issue.    Andorra is a small nation state perched high up in the Pyrenees range that form the boundary between Spain and France.  Andorra is co-principality that has dual sovereigns.  The president of France (whoever is the president at that time) and the Bishop of Urgell (Catalonia, Spain) act as the dual princes of Andorra.  The country has two post office and two postage stamps, one from France and the other from Spain.  Yet it also retains some aspect of independence, having it own executive and legislative framework.    

A way forward in the peace process is to create a third entity that possesses two seemingly contradictory elements.  Jerusalem will be eternally linked  to  Israel in that its sovereign will be the head of Israel;  It will also be part of Palestine in that the head of state of Palestine is also the sovereign of Jerusalem.   Separating Jerusalem from the two warring parties has been attempted before.  The United Nations called for Jerusalem to be an “an international city”; an entity which not be a part of either country. 

But the Andorra plan is different from the previously attempted approach in one significant way.  Under this regime, the City would remain linked to both countries; while maintaining its geographic integrity as a united city that is the corner stone of three of the world great religions. 

The geographic dimensions of this third entity can be negotiated and discussed based.  It can encompass on the inner walled city while the eastern half as part of Palestine and West Jerusalem remaining within Israel.  Or, the third entity can encompass only the Temple mount and the structures that stand on the property. 

The specifics of the plan can be discussed by both parties but the cornerstone of the framework would be the creation of a third entity, comprising of the Inner Walled City.  This nation would have a dual sovereign in perpetuity, each tying the nation through its head of state to two parties.

Administration of the City itself can be negotiated; below is but one attempt to imagine what it may encompass.  The executive of the nation comprises of seven members, one prime minister post and six cabinet post.  The post of president is rotated every six months between the current prime minster and the other six members of the cabinet.  Three of its members are chosen by Israel and three are chosen by Palestine.  A seventh and final post is chosen via direct election by the citizens of the city.  These posts are for a period of five years; and come up for re-appointment every two years.  Thus, every two years a Palestinian post and an Israeli post will be required to be replaced by a new member.  This seven member executive will be responsible to the people to Jerusalem and be given general policing powers.