Borderlands: Pakistan and Afghanistan and How They are Applied to the Durand Line - Thesis Example

BORDERLANDS: PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN AND HOW THEY ARE APPLIED TO THE DURAND LINE Abstract: The present paper aims to explore the nature and reasons of conflict between two South Asian states, including Pakistan and Afghanistan, on the issue of borderline, connecting the two, by paying special concentration upon the historical and geographical backgrounds of the disputed matter. The paper also looks for elucidating the significance of the Durand Line at its impact upon the development of diplomatic relationships between both these countries. The paper will also discuss the nature and scope of negotiations held on the conflict between the two countries at different diplomatic levels, and will explore the raising of the issue at international platforms including the UNO, OIC, SAARC and others, if any, and their subsequent outcomes. The study has been supported with Traditional and Realism theories of international relations in order to explain the topic under examination in the light of these theoretical frameworks. Hence, the paper will present a comprehensive research on the region considered to be one of the most dangerous and insecure zones of the entire globe, which has earned the reputation of the safest haven of the terrorists belonging to the Al Qaeda and Taliban Movement. CONTENTS Abstract Introduction 4 Historical Background 5 Statement of the Problem 7 Theoretical Framework 9 Validity of the Agreement of 1893 12 Insurgence of Extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan 13 Move towards Regional Co-operation 15 Conclusion 16 End notes and references Introduction: Situated at the extreme northern boundary of South Asia, Durand line is a long permeable border line carrying almost 2640 square kilometers, which separates two Muslim countries of Asia i.e. Pakistan and Afghanistan, from each other as independent states. The line was determined in the wake of the agreement made between the United Kingdom, the then British imperialist government of Indian sub-continent, through its foreign secretary Sir Henry Mortimer Durand on the one side, and the then Amir or ruler of Afghanistan Abdur Rahman Khan on the other. (Mahmood, T, 1-2).i Article 1 of the 1893 Agreement manifestly and unconditionally acknowledges the sovereignty of Afghanistan, which would, as Article 2 states, not be interfered or challenged by the Government of British India altogether.ii Similarly, Articles 3 & 5 of the agreement also binds the Afghan Amir to respect the areas under the control of British India Government in the same manner as the latter is going to observe in respect of the Afghan regions.iii In addition, the agreement appears to be restricting both the parties to the contract on permanent basis in order to escape any bitterness in future. Thus, the agreement was not signed on temporary basis; on the contrary, it provides an absolute recognition of the Indian and Afghan administered areas on the principles of the execution of international agreements. However, the line has been a bone of contention between the two countries for the future years to come, resulting into disturbances in the countries created by the extremists in the name of community and ethno-racism. Hence, the stubborn and obstinate behavior of the voracious Afghan rulers did not let them comply with the 1893 Agreement, as they have a ravenous appetite of devouring the areas of the neighboring Pakistan with the help of terrorists on the one hand, and their ally and Pakistan’s common enemy i.e. India. Historical Background: The Durand Line Agreement of 1893 was not the outcome of one single day; rather, it took long time in entering into consensus by both the parties to the agreement. It was the time when Britain and Russia used to be rivals to each other during the Great Game Era (Rome 6).iv Since Britain has already set its foot in southern and southeastern parts of Asia, by capturing their wealth, resources and political domination, it did not tolerate the Russian interference in the region already turned to be British dominions. As a result, at first, Britain entered into Treaty of Tehran with Iran in 1873, and then signed Durand Line Agreement with Afghanistan in 1893. Both these contracts were entered into just to ensure barricade on the way to the Russian advancements in the British-captured regions of Asia. Though both British government and Afghan rulers had developed consensus over the border issue by the end of 19th century, and no conflict ever aroused during the stay and control of the British rulers in the region, the dispute rose its awkward face after the birth of Pakistan in August 1947, where Afghanistan refused to accept Durand Line as the boundary wall between her and her newly established neighboring state of Pakistan. The Afghan King took the plea that the contract signed in 1893 was entered into between Afghanistan and India, which had turned out to be null and void after the partition of India in 1947. Since both partition of India and subsequent establishment of Pakistan were the outcome of plebiscite, the same developments should have been arranged in the Pashtun areas for the establishment of the purported Pashtunistan with the annexing of north western frontier province or NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan) with Afghanistan, as these areas, they argued, historically belonged to Afghanistan (Butt & Schofield 49-54).v The Afghans not only raised the same issue from the platform of the United Nations, but also objected to granting Pakistan the status of the member state of the UN at the eve of the latter’s application to the UN seeking its membership in September 1947 (Talbot, I 96).vi Consequently, Afghanistan was determined not to let Pakistan become the member of the most effective global organization, so that it could not be in a position to get its international disputes resolved from an international platform at any cost. It clearly reveals that Afghanistan did not accept the existence of Pakistan at heart, and displayed extreme kind of enmity and hatred for the brother Muslim country existing in her neighborhood through practical opposition (Smith 3).vii Another important argument aptly made by the Afghans is this that since line stands for a temporary or provisional arrangements, it has lost its status after the occurrence of tremendous d alterations in the political and geographical scenarios (Sheikh, K M, 2007 99-101)viii. Moreover, the Afghans also claim the determination of Duran line for hundred years, date of which was expired in 1993. Similarly, the Afghans also take the plea, similar to that adopted by the Indians, that the people sharing the same ideologies and following one and the same social, cultural and ethnic norms, values and traditions, could not be separated from one another by applying a weak demarcation. Since the ideologies, cultural backgrounds and ethno-racial identities are same, how can political authorities force the people to live separate from one another. Hence, many preposterous claims are made from the Afghan side in order to justify the false notion that the Durand Line does not serve as the border demarcating separation between the Pashtuns. Somehow, by making these false claims regarding the invalidity of Durand Line, the Afghans deliberately ignore the very point that the British colonial government had transferred all its rights and privileges to Pakistan; it is therefore, Pakistan is not only under obligation to observe all the agreements entered into by the British rulers in the present-day Pakistan before the partition of India, but also Pakistan maintains every right to get its privileges implemented in a peaceful manner through a neutral international forum including the UN. If Afghanistan is not ready to accept the pashtun areas of Pakistan as the geographically Pakistani regions, the latter also has the right to refuse the pashtun speaking regions of Afghanistan as the part of it. Consequently, an unending war could begin, which may cost heavy losses in men and material from both sides. Statement of the Problem: By looking into the history of the world at large, it becomes evident that almost all nations of the world have been in conflict with at least one of their neighboring states on some specific issue, which keeps them foe and enemy on permanent basis instead of giving the status of respectable neighbor. The European history reveals the relics of deep rooted antagonism between England and France on the one hand, and between France and Germany on the other. Similarly, Russia had been threatening towards Poland, the Ottoman Empire and other neighbors till the beginning of twentieth century. Furthermore, the USA had also exhibited aggressive attitude towards the weak nations including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and others in the name of peace. The same was the situation with the European powers during sixteenth century onward, which invaded, captured and enslaved many nations of Africa and Asia by dint of their military might and aggression. Moreover, Argentina and Brazil have also deep feelings of antagonism against one another; the same remained the case with India and China on the one side, and Pakistan and India on the other. Similar nature of conflict has also been in practice between Afghanistan and Pakistan on the issue of Durand Line. The Durand Line dispute is also valid due to the very reason that the pashtuns from both sides of the borders seek their ancestry in common. It is therefore they inter-marry with one another, and thus have developed strong ties of friendships and blood relations with each other. It is therefore they consider the area in both sides of the border as one and the same. It is particularly the case with the extremist tribes, who were not only against the establishment of Pakistan, but also voted in favor of united India in the elections held in 1946-47 in all parts of the sub-continents for deciding the fate of the country under British Empire (Low, M 594).ix Nevertheless, Pakistan neglected such type of antagonism adopted by the Afghans, and provided the air travel and marine roots to this land-locked small country. Consequently, Afghanistan used the Pakistani airports for travelling and navigation purposes. Somehow, instead of becoming grateful to the Pakistani authorities for such favors, the Afghans also considered it to be their right for surrendering their geographical region to Pakistan in the form of the parts of KP Province, adjacent to the Afghan-Pakistan border. Afghanistan has also supported India during the three Indo-Pakistan Wars taken place in 1948, 1965 and 1971. Hence, it has also proved itself as India’s natural ally, which should stand by it through thick and thin, which aggravated the bitterness between Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, the bitterness between these neighboring states has created uncertain state of affairs in the region, particularly at the eve when the border area sharing by the two has become the safest haven for the AL Qaeda and Taliban terrorists on the one hand, and the playground of the US military adventures on the other; it is therefore, the US commits drone attacks on the region without any resistance, by taking the plea that it is determined to kill the terrorists, though hundreds of innocent Pakistani and Afghan citizens lose their life or turn disable in the aftermath of every drone attack on the ill-fated region, which serves as the sandwich between the desires of the rulers of Pakistan and Afghanistan. KEYWORDS: Pakistan, Afghanistan, pashtuns, Pak-Afghan Relations, Durand line, Terrorism, India, USA, Mortimer Durand, Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, regional conflict. Theoretical Framework: The present chapter discusses the international theories related to the topic under analysis, which elucidates various aspects of the nature of relations between two or more sovereign states. Traditional Theory of International Relations: Bull (1966)x has presented traditional theory of international relations, which submits to state that diplomatic relations between the countries are reflection of the nature of traditional and historic association between the countries. If the countries and their people have been friends of one another, in past, there are bright chances of their cordial relations in future. On the contrary, the countries have been hostile to one another in past, would remain at least in the state of cold war if they do not wage war against each other. The theory maintains some validity in its scope due to the very reality that Germany and England were conventional enemies till the end of nineteenth centuries. As a result, they inflicted hostilities on each other during the two Great Wars took place in 1914-18 and 1939-45 respectively, resulting into death, destruction, defoliation and turmoil subsequentlyxi. Similarly, the US and UK have been strategic partners since long, and the former protected the latter from the German wrath in both the Great Wars; as a result, they appear to be supporting each other one every international issue. While taking the Pak-Afghan relations in this perspective, it becomes evident that the regions included in the present day Pakistan, had frequently been the prey to the adventures of Afghan rulers, where Mehmood of Ghazna (Tate, G 21)xii, Sultan Muhammad Ghori, Ahmed Shah Abdali and many other Afghan kings and commanders invades on these regions, and plundered the areas in the name of peace and religionxiii. The same tradition of hatred and hostility has been in vogue between the two, where the states exchange bitter words against each other, sometimes on the issue of Durand line, and sometimes in the name of terrorism and violence. Somehow, it is not a hard and fast rule partially due to very reality that Russia and France had also been the two important conventional rivals of England, though both of them fought World Wars against Germany from the British side. In addition, Soviet Russia had signed to stand by the USA in August 1941, though both the countries witnessed great enmity and rivalry on every international matter in the aftermath of WWII onward. Moreover, Russia and Turkey on the one side, and Poland and Austria on the other, have also put aside their age-old enmity, and live like peaceful neighbors in the contemporary era. Furthermore, Germany and England had joined hands with one another against Napoleon Bonaparte in 1814, but their relations observed decline with the course of time. Thus, the theory appears to be valid just partially, and observes criticism according to the changes taking place at the international arena. Realist Theory of International Relations: Attributed to illustrious philosopher John Locke, the realist theory submits to state that the nations are always alarmed and fearful regarding the external threats and foreign invasions; consequently, the sovereign states must be well alert and well-prepared to defend their borders. The countries unaware of the external threats are sure to surrender their sovereignty at the hands of the hostile neighbors and rivals. By looking into the history of the globe at large, the theory appears to be extremely valid and carries weight in it. Taking the example of European countries, it becomes crystal clear that the weak and hapless Poland was invaded and plundered time and again by its powerful and greedy neighbors including Austria, Prussia and Russia during eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Similarly, France, Denmark and Switzerland were invaded and humiliated by Germany during both the World Wars due to their inability to stop the advancements of German might. Moreover, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded by the US-led allied forces in 2002 and 2003 respectively, and both the countries were turned into ruins after the foreign attacks for not being capable of defend their national boundaries. On the contrary, the Pakistanis and Vietnamese successfully defended their borders against the Indian and American aggressions respectively, and did not let their powerful enemies to overcome them at any cost. On the other hand, though Israel and Kuwait were not in a position to defend themselves, their patrons and political allies came to their rescue in 1973 and 1990, and provided them with shield and protection from the external threats. Thus, it endorses the significance of the Realist theory that the states must make plans to become powerful and strong with political, financial and strategic viewpoint. Validity of the Agreement of 1893: The agreement between the then British Foreign Minister Sir Mortimer Durand and the Afghan Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, determining the Durand line as the India-Afghan Border had been supported with the drawing out of the map depicting the boundary lines separating both the states from one another. Consists of one single page, the clauses of the 1893 Agreement clearly state that both the countries have entered into the agreement out of free will, and are bound to observe all its clauses for the future years to come. Clause 6 of the agreement manifestly states that the agreement serves as a satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion, which had arisen between the two regarding the determination of borders before the signing of the agreement.xiv The diplomatic relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have been somewhat unpleasant ones because of the conflicting interests of both the countries, even the former’s desire of developing brotherly ties between the two. Somehow, the two have been at daggers drawn because of the presence of deep suspicions in the bilateral policies pursued by their governments (Iqbal H. 2-3)xv. Being the atomic power as well as the leader of Islamic World, Pakistan not only has tried sustenance of amicable relations with the neighboring Afghanistan, but also has longed for establishment of a friendly government in Afghanistan. However, Pakistan has always received negative feedback across its western border; and the goes to the stubborn, obstinate and opportunist Afghans, who constantly demonstrate hostility and hatred towards Pakistan just to snatch its western regions with the help of Pakistan’s eastern neighbor-cum-rival India. Hence, Durand line looks the most challenging hurdle on the Afghanistan’s way to entering into cordial relations with the neighboring Pakistan. The main reason behind Afghanistan’s opposing Pakistan since the day the latter came into being was the presence of cordial relations between India and Afghanistan. It is therefore the Afghan government encouraged the status of India in the UN, though the Afghans adopted very awkward, hostile and harsh attitude towards Pakistan by making protest against its independence from the British India. Consequently, the Afghan government preferred the British and Indians to Pakistan for developing cordial diplomatic relations. Another formidable reason behind the Afghanistan’s hostile attitude towards Pakistan includes the culture of the country. Since the country consists of the population from divergent racial, ethnic and social backgrounds, they remain at war against one another on one issue or the other. Moreover, the relics of history prove Afghans as the warring community, which always tried to invade over the neighboring states in the name of peace, religion or justice. However, there records reveal the bitter reality that they seldom implemented justice and equality after their invasions, and just plundered the wealth and sources of the vanquished nations by declaring them to be perverts, pagans and oppressors. Their attitude and thinking could be assessed by looking into their backing out from the agreement they had signed in 1991 in Mecca, the holiest city for the Muslim community, after the final exit of the Russian troops from the country. The agreement had been signed in the presence of the Saudi, Pakistani and Afghan delegations, where the Afghan leaders, belonging to various factions and racial groups, had taken oath for not waging wars and hostilities on one another in future. However, they backed out their words and the agreement signed in Mecca, and involved into civil war, which paved the way for the Talibanization of the country (Crews & Tarzi 22)xvi. Consequently, a cruel and ruthless militant regime took control over Kabul and other areas of the country in 1995, which dragged the country at the horrible state of destruction, ruination and turmoil, where there is still chaos and disorder, and no elected government could capture the control of the entire country altogether (Crews & Tarzi 43).xvii Insurgence of Extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan: The Afghans have always made big claims to be the followers of Islam; nevertheless, their acts are strictly contrary to the faith they claim to follow. Islam strictly forbids attacking on the elderly, women, and children, and even on unarmed men seeking peace and mercy; somehow, exploitation of women is an essential part of the lives of Afghans, who inflict various kinds of restrictions and shameful punishments on their female folk on petty matters even. Similarly, taking avenge from the culprit and announcing of various sentences is the duty of the state; though, the Afghans, and even Pakistani pashtuns regard revengeful activities as a thing of pride for them. While describing the religious condition of the Afghans, it becomes evident that they demonstrate hatred towards women, while get indulged in homosexual practices,xviii which are strictly forbidden in Abrahamic faiths including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Consequently, the people living at both the sides of Durand Line, practice molestation of women and children, and kill the fellow beings on petty matters on the other. Since violence and antagonism appear to be essential parts of everyday life of the pashtuns, they seldom apply brain in respect of resolving the matters inviting conflicts. It is therefore mullah Omer of Afghanistan had demonstrated their delight over 9/11 catastrophe, which had given birth to the death and destruction in Afghanistan and Iraq (Jenkins & Godges 4).xix On the one side, they prtend to be the followers of the religion of peace, and one the other side, they are committed to create chaos and disturbance in Pakistan and Afghanistan by patronizing the terrorists by aiding them in the form of financial support, ammunition and safe haven. Thus, they are just exploiting the religion in order to fry their own fish, and take maximum personal benefits out of the perturbed state of affairs at large. Move towards Regional Co-operation: The age-old enmity and bitterness between the countries witnessed many turns and fluctuations during the course of time. The two states underwent uncertainty particularly during the Bhutto regime (1971-77), when Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto supported the rebel elements of Afghanistan in order to divert the Afghan attention from the Durand dispute. However, the Russian invasion in Afghanistan in 1979 proved to be turning point, where Pakistan helped the Afghan migrants by providing them with shelter, food, employment and moral support. It was the era when the USA did not want the Russian advancement and influence in the region; consequently, America provided millions of dollars in the name of so-called holy war of the Afghans against their rival i.e. Russia.xx The USA, a purported champion of democracy projected and promoted the cruel and dictatorial Zia-government of Pakistan just to destroy its own enemy i.e. Russia, and planted the crop of terrorists in the person of Osama Ben Laden and his nefarious Al Qaeda, which ruined the peace of the entire world under its chariot wheels. Thus, the war started adjacent to the Duran Line, encompassed the entire world into its obnoxious fold, which is still intact in full swing, causing the heavy losses of men and material in Pakistan and Afghanistan, turning both the countries into a virtual inferno in its wake. Conclusion: To conclude, it becomes evident that the age-old disputed issue of Duran Line has attained the status of global conflict because of the universal significance of this very dangerous zone of the world. Signed during the last decade of nineteenth century, the Durand Line Agreement still appears to be very challenging and risky for all peace-seeking nations and individuals, which look for the complete and unconditional solution of the dispute, so that the region could turn into a peaceful, prosperous and non-violent zone, where no terrorist could dare to exercise his nefarious designs at any cost. The Afghan and Pakistani governments and masses would have to demonstrate generosity and kindness towards one another in order to reach the conclusion on the principles of justice and fair play. Developing of the cordial relations between both these countries is also essential for the peace and progress of their nations, as the people can observe more stability in the region on the one hand, and can promote trade, commerce and tourism between the states on the other. In addition, the existence of friendly ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan could also be supportive and beneficial in respect of combating with the terrorism mania with mutual co-operation and with an iron hand, where there would be no space for any terrorist to inflict atrocities and mercilessness upon the hapless masses belonging to the region under examination. References Ali, K A New History of Indo-Pakistan 4th Edition (Aziz Publications 1978), 31 Butt, Usama & Schofield, Julian Pakistan: The US, Geopolitics and Grand Strategies (Pluto Press, 2012), 49-54. Chander, Parkash & Arora, Prem International Relations (Bookhives 2003), 52-66 Crews, Robert D. & Tarzi, Amin The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), 22 Durani, Mohib Ullah & Ashraf, Muhammad Pakistan - Afghan Relations: Historic Mirror Department of IR & Political Science, Qurtuba University of Science & IT, Peshawar Campus Retrieved in Accessed on November 02, 2012 Edwardes, Allen The Jewel in the Lotus New York: (Julian Press, 1959). 33 Iqbal, Humera Pak-Afghan Ties in the Light of Pak-Us Strategic Dialogue Jenkins, Brian Michael & Godges, John Paul Long Shadow of 9/11: America’s Response to Terrorism (RAND Corporation 2011), 4 Lowe, Norman Mastering Modern British History Second Edition (Macmillan 1989), 594 Mahajan, V D International Relations since 1900 (S. Chand & Company Limited 2004), 21-24 Mahmood, Tariq The Durand Line: South Asia’s Next Trouble Spot (Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California, June 2005), 1 Rome, Sultan-i- The Durand Line Agreement (1893): — Its Pros and Cons (J.R.S.P. Vol. XXXXI, No.1, 2004), 1-21 Retrieved in Accessed on 01 November 2012 Sheikh, Khalid Mehmood Foreign Policy of Pakistan (Emporium Publishers Lahore Pakistan 2007), 93-104 Smith, Cynthia Selection of Historical Maps of Afghanistan - The Durand Line 2004 Talbot, Ian Pakistan: A Modern History (Palgrave Macmillan 1998), 97-105 Tate, George Passman The Kingdom of Afghanistan: a Historical Sketch (Asian Educational Services 1911), 21 Khyber.org Durand Line Agreement (November 12, 1893) Accessed on 02-11-2012 Read More