Foreign Affairs minister Peter MacKay is supposed to be visiting Afghanistan and Pakistan to support the former and remind the latter that it needs to crack down on Taliban fighters emanating from its country. However, while he has rebuked the Pakistani government's plan to plant land mines on the border, he is expressing public support for the construction of a fence - something the Afghan government opposes:Afghanistan opposes fencing and mining as the frontier is disputed and it argues that such steps would penalise tribal communities that straddle both sides of the border.
It seems MacKay would be wise to stay out of their border disputes while encouraging Pakistan's government to find other ways to resolve its differences over the disputed territory and the larger problem of stemming the tide of insurgents instead of offering Canadian approval of such a controversial plan which is even being opposed within Pakistan.
Nationalist groups in North West Frontier Province and Balochistan have termed the decision as "detrimental to the social and economic interests of the ethnic Pashtun tribes".
The idea is also being opposed by the larger political parties, including the six-party religious alliance, the MMA.
While such opposition is partly couched in domestic politics, much of it draws on the conditions prevailing in the tribal areas.
All seven tribal districts along the Afghan border are inhabited by tribes that live on both sides of the border.
Not only are their lands and businesses interconnected, they also share the same social mechanism - the jirga or tribal council - whereby each tribe runs its own affairs and adjudicates its own disputes.
There are also very serious doubts that such a plan would actually accomplish much of anything:
Fencing the border, especially areas of high intra-tribal interaction, would adversely affect the economic and public life of the people.
The United Nations fears that mining the border would also increase risk to human life in an area which is already littered with ordinance from nearly 30 years of war in Afghanistan.
The question is, can these measures prevent hostilities in Afghanistan?
And if so, what is the human cost of fencing the entire 2,640km length of border - and maintaining it? Most agree the price will be prohibitive.
No foreign funds are available for the project, and at the best of times, the Pakistani army only has 80,000 troops in the region.
Selective fencing might interfere with the movement of people and trade, but few expect it to prevent militants from shuttling between their sanctuaries and areas of operation.
"The Soviet Union, with more than 100,000 troops and massive air power, failed to prevent the infiltration of mujahideen that were sent in by Pakistan with international help," says Afrasiab Khattak, a political analyst and former human rights activist who is now a leader of the NWFP-based nationalist group, the ANP.
But the measures might help ease pressure on Pakistan from the US, Nato and the UN who want it to do more to curb militant attacks in Afghanistan, he says.
Yet, there's Canada's Foreign Affairs minister giving the thumbs up to fencing without any thought to the conditions on the ground or the possible human and political consequences.
He [MacKay] said a better solution lay with fencing, augmented with border patrols, aerial surveillance and increased use of technology.
“Fencing, I think, is part of that solution, particularly in high traffic areas, and there have been experiences with fencing that have been very effective,” Mr. MacKay told a joint news conference with his Pakistani counterpart.
Pressure on Pakistan should not be eased by accepting an ill-conceived plan that will cause tribal strife in a region with a very long history of conflict and MacKay should have read his Cliff Notes version of those disputes before he even left Canada. Instead, he has made a knee-jerk show of support that makes Canada look like an ignorant and naive player on the world stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment