Governments, Aid Organizations Look to Humanitarian Needs of 14 million Pakistani Flood Victims

The humanitarian needs of the victims of the floods are urgent and immediately obvious. Clean drinking water, food, shelter, clothing, and medicine to help maintain the dignity and capabilities of the tens of millions of people affected by the raging floods in the Khyber-Pahktankhwa Province. Unfortunately dense fog and a running forecast of heavier rain has stymied the efforts of numerous governments to provide much needed rescue and relief aid to the victims of this terrible deluge.  Indeed, the inability of public and private actors has a larger political and social consequence: militant organizations are reaching out the desperate people of the Northwest, thereby undercutting international efforts to build long-standing alliances with the more moderate people of the region.

The U.N. updated its estimate of the number affected by this disaster to upwards of 13 million. More than 1 million people have been displaced, while 1,500 or more individuals are dead.   Livestock have been destroyed, farmland submerged in polluted water and detritus.  However, even though fewer than 2000 people are known to have died, the number of people who require public and private assistance is much higher than the combined number of individuals who needed help after the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. Some estimates suggest 30,000 to 60,000 people remain stranded in far-flung villages.  It is a tall order to get to all these people in record time.  It remains to be seen whether the logistical obstacles that serve to explain the government’s slow response can also serve as excuses to the government’s failure to protects its citizens at its time of most dire need.

Consider that though many tens of thousands have been rescued and many hundreds of thousands meals have been delivered, the need on the ground has far outstripped the resources available to counter the crying demand.  Recent reports suggest that humanitarian groups and charities already on the ground are seen as more effective than government efforts to push into washed-away villages.   The U.S. commitment of $40 million in aid and financial assistance has not registered in barren stomachs; the raging waters have pushed back any attempts to reach victims further down river (all of Pakistan stands to be a river). Indeed, the Pakistani government’s military rescue and relief efforts seems to have stalled for the same reason.  Taking advantage of this opportunity, Islamist groups already present in the region have reached out to the victims of the floods and have bitingly declared that they were on the ground days before the Pakistani military reached the Northwest.

A recent Associated Press report helps lay out the problem from Pakistan’s perspective:

“Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Monday that the floods were a bigger crisis than the 2005 Kashmir earthquake that killed nearly 80,000 people and the army’s operation against the Taliban in the Swat Valley last spring that drove more than 2 million people from their homes.”

Reuters has reported that Islamic charities with ties to banned terrorist groups have rushed in to fill the gap left behind by the Pakistani government’s slow response.  By reaching out to the victims of the flood, Islamists seem to want to wash away the memory of their harsh crackdown on moderate Muslims in the region. The military’s tardiness thus plays against the government’s assessment of its duties to protect its people against the threat of Islamist co-optation.

Consider that groups like Jamaat-ud-Dawa, run by the leader of founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group held responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks have fed and clothed thousands of people long before the government were able to reach the victims of the flood.  These groups are surely placing bets that if their relief efforts pay off, they will gain a ready supply of recruits, who armed with their spiteful disdain for Islamabad, will fight what they perceive to be an ineffective central government and its international allies.

The people affected by the flood have some reason to hold such targeted views. To some extent the government’s explanation cannot excuse its broadly ineffective response to what is surely one of the most urgent public policy crises in Pakistan’s recent history.  That ineffective response undercuts any attempt that the U.S. and British governments might make to broaden their international security strategies to contain the growing threat of the migration of militant Islam throughout Pakistan.

Hence to cut off the militants’ reach and to bolster the claims of the international humanitarian project, it is very important that politically non-aligned groups help reach the frontiers of the flooding as soon as possible. There are aid groups on the ground that can help. The International Rescue Committee is a leading humanitarian organization that has mobilized its settled infrastructure to help all those left behind by the flood.  In country for over 30 years, IRC is singularly able to provide well-arranged, coordinated help in the areas most badly affected by the flood.  It has pledged to help provide clean water, shelter and essential supplies to the refugees of the flood.  

In the meantime millions of people have been evacuated in the South to make way for the devastation to come, without paying mounting costs in human lives. The price of food is sky rocketing and the mass migration of millions of hungry and desperate people into centrally located, shoddily constructed shelters is the perfect recipe for a public health disaster.  The worst is yet to come.  One hopes that the government will be better able to respond to that worsening crisis.

Faheem Haider is the Senior Blogger on Asia for the Foreign Policy Association.  This article originally appeared at pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com. 

What is the current relationship between al Qaeda and the Taliban?

By Juha Saarinen

Recent statements regarding a growing rift between al-Qaeda and Taliban by Omar bin Laden, son of Osama bin Laden, and Brigadier Sultan Amir Tarar, retired Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency officer, have brought into light the fundamental problems facing the relationship of the two Islamist movements.

Emerging rifts

Two important developments occurred recently. First, reports have emerged that Taliban militants in the Pakistani border region are refusing to collaborate with al-Qaeda fighters, by not providing shelter or assistance even in return for payment. As a result, al-Qaeda fighters are being increasingly excluded from local communities near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border which previously functioned as their sanctuary.

Second, there exists an increasing “online rift” between Hanafi “nationalist” Taliban and Salafi “universalist” al-Qaeda, which started when Mullah Omar emphasized the nationalist character of Taliban in a statement for Eid al-Fitr in September 2009, drawing aggressive criticism from Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, one of the most influential living Salafi jihadi ideologues. This debate has since set the online jihadi communities ablaze. In late 2006, early 2007, online discord over Iraq “foreshadowed the dramatic split in the Iraqi insurgency in which key insurgency factions flipped to the U.S. side and formed the backbone of the Awakenings/ Sons of Iraq.”

These two occurrences are reflected in a recent interview of Omar bin Laden, who stated “Although Al-Qaeda and the Taliban organizations band together when necessary, they do not love one another.” Indeed, it seems the relationship between al-Qaeda and Taliban, outside the personal bond between Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, is largely strategic. However, recent Taliban overtures might well suggest the relationship is strained, and as the strategic importance of the relationship declines, ideological differences are becoming pivotal.

An “ally” on the wane

In its quest to restore its presence in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has failed to make considerable strides and is on the wane while the Taliban insurgency is gaining momentum. According to U.S. intelligence officials, al-Qaeda has approximately a hundred fighters in Afghanistan, and its financial situation is dire. It seems to have lost the capability to launch large-scale coordinated attacks, and relies on Taliban for operational support. Although it retains contacts with insurgents and insurgency groups, its role in the insurgency is increasingly being questioned.

Indeed, al-Qaeda’s strategic utility to Taliban is diminishing, perhaps even to the point where Mullah Omar is contemplating severing ties with al-Qaeda, as suggested by his former mentor and retired ISI officer Tarar in late January 2010. Although such as split is highly improbable in the short term, there has been a notable shift in Taliban’s strategic communication following Mullah Omar’s statement in September 2009, and it now seeks to distance itself from al-Qaeda. Indeed, Taliban is focusing on moderating its image as part of its campaign to retake power in Afghanistan and its relationship with al-Qaeda presents a potential liability.

External pressure

While al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is relatively marginal, its presence in Pakistan is considerably larger. As a result of Taliban’s reassessment of its ties with al-Qaeda, it has drawn closer to other militant groups in Pakistan's tribal belt, like the Haqqani Network, and groups trying to overthrow the Pakistani government.

Facing a growing insurgency back home and al-Qaeda’s ambitions in Pakistan, Islamabad drew its own conclusions. At this point, it is uncertain whether the recent arrests of al-Qaeda operatives and senior Taliban leadership in Pakistan are a result of a significant policy reversal. However, it is likely to signal to Taliban that its relationship with al-Qaeda is not viewed positively by Islamabad, and it has its repercussions. Certainly, al-Qaeda’s operations in Pakistan complicate the Taliban’s strategic calculus, and will have repercussions to be mapped out in the coming months.

Differing opinions

Naturally, there are different views on the situation. The Obama administration still underlines the threat al-Qaeda presents in Afghanistan, and some regard the possibility of a split between al-Qaeda and Taliban, as speculated by Tarar, as little more than wishful thinking.

Certainly, there is very little evidence to suggest that Mullah Omar prefers cutting ties with bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. Likewise, a complete rupture remains unlikely, as al-Qaeda militants have formed social connections in the region during their stay, and the Pashtunwali demands unfailing hospitality towards guests. However, even Taliban hospitality has its limits, and the idiosyncratic bond between Mullah Omar and Osama is not beyond reconsideration.

Nevertheless, al-Qaeda has been important to Taliban in the past, and there is little benefit in ostracising them in the current strategic situation. Antagonising al-Qaeda would additionally eschew Taliban’s politico-religious legitimacy, which it can ill afford. However, al-Qaeda needs to continually prove its worth, providing contacts in the Gulf, equipment, funds, bomb expertise and propaganda advice. As long as its benefits are higher than the costs in Taliban’s strategic calculus, there are limits to how far Taliban can distance itself from al-Qaeda.

Prospects

While al-Qaeda and Taliban have a complex relationship that for now seems troubled, a split, at least in the current situation, is highly improbable. While Taliban has made overtures implying the ideological and strategic frictions have taken their toll on the relationship, they still have only little to achieve by ostracizing or antagonising al-Qaeda, and more to lose.

The role of Pakistan however, will be crucial in the coming months, and should the power balance in the region change, Taliban might find itself in a position where strategic interests trump ideological and idiosyncratic bonds. Indeed, common strategic interests, however limited they may be, are a sine qua non for the relationship. Otherwise ideological differences would no doubt prevail, and al-Qaeda could find itself marginalised.

Whether the recent refusal of the Taliban militants to assist al-Qaeda fighters is a result of a policy change in the Taliban leadership or an unsanctioned local development is unclear, but all the same signals troubled times for the relationship.

Juha Saarinen holds a Master of Letters in Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies from the University of St. Andrews, and he currently studies at LSE for a Master of Science in International Relations, with a research focus on Strategic Studies and Political Violence in the Middle East.

Next Week: Jordan’s Frustration with the Middle East Peace Process

Shifting Sands is the blog of the Middle East International Affairs Programme at LSE IDEAS, analysing current events in the Middle East and contributing to the ongoing deliberations over policy prescriptions.

Amber Holewinski, Editor

Obama and Afghanistan: Lessons from the Last War.

If President-elect Obama makes good on his campaign promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, it would be a serious mistake to ship them to Afghanistan. The situation there requires a more comprehensive approach that emphasizes politics and diplomacy. Mr. Obama could do worse than to draw some lessons from the Soviet effort to find a political solution in the late 1980s.

In its own entanglement, Moscow was supporting a quasi-communist government and fighting a counterinsurgency financed and supplied by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and a number of others, primarily through Pakistan. Soviet diplomats, military officers, and security officials worked tirelessly to find an international agreement as well as to win over mujahadeen leaders and convince them to join a coalition government.

The Soviets faced formidable challenges: the party they were supporting was internally divided, the opposition was well supplied for a variety of sources, and the U.S. drove a hard bargain by refusing to stop sending weapons until the Kabul government stepped down. While Moscow wanted to end the war that was a drain on resources, men, and morale, it had to so without leaving a vacuum or a hostile government on its southern border.

When the USSR invaded Afghanistan it did not expect to create a communist state there. Rather, the goal was to create a stable and friendly government in Kabul. The thousands of party advisors sent to assist in spreading government authority, however, often ignored local traditions; by 1986 Moscow realized they were doing more harm than good. Moscow ultimately concluded that even the generous amount of technical and political assistance it was providing would not end the civil war there if major opposition leaders could not be brought into the government.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to strike at the heart of Al-Qaeda; once there, it engaged in a massive democratization program. The results of its efforts have been mixed, but it is clear that the country is becoming less stable, and the distinctly anti-democratic Taliban are gaining the upper hand. Given the circumstances, it is time to recognize that the U.S. should devote its energies primarily to creating a potentially undemocratic but nevertheless stable Afghanistan, something Mr. Obama is reportedly considering.

Even this more limited goal will prove difficult to achieve. However, the Soviet experience suggests the following steps will be necessary. First, finding a strong leader who can unite enough of Afghanistan’s various forces to keep the country from spinning out of control. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in part to remove the erratic and bloody-minded Hafizullah Amin, then spent six years trying to prop up the ineffectual Babrak Karmal before overseeing his replacement with Mohammed Najibullah. For all his faults (and he had many) the new leader proved strong enough to hold his own party together while using his clan links to open dialogue with some opposition leaders.

Second, it will mean taking an active role in bringing former enemies into the fold. Moscow got into this game a little too late, and its efforts were hampered by internal divisions about which mujahadeen leaders would be acceptable partners for the the Kabul government. In this sense the U.S. is somewhat better positioned – it already has similar experience in Iraq, where General David Petraeus was able to reach out to Sunni leaders in the Anbar province.

Third, it will mean forging a regional consensus on Afghanistan which includes Iran, Pakistan, Russia and the Central Asian States. In general the U.S. has been able to cooperate with each of these countries to a greater or lesser degree from the start of the NATO operation there in 2001. However, the Bush administration’s failure to constructively engage Iran and Russia, as well as its miscalculations in Pakistan, have created a murky picture in the region. (Needless to say, improving relations with Iran is doubly important if Obama is serious about withdrawing from Iraq.)

The Harvard realist Stephen Walt argues that going through with a planned expansion of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan may not be the best idea because of the relative costs involved. I would add that it is unlikely the U.S. or its NATO allies will commit the numbers necessary to pacify all the regions where the Taliban is active. If NATO were to take a more active role on the Pakistani side of the Pushtun tribal belt, which serves as a refuge for Taliban fighters, it would likely do more harm than good. It is useful to remember that Moscow also experimented with increasing troop numbers even as it was looking for a way out of the conflict in 1985, but ultimately Soviet leaders saw that the “surge” was only deepening their involvement, not leading to a resolution. It is safe to say that Afghanistan will only become stable once enough Taliban are co-opted to make a central government viable and the Afghan military (and tribal militias) are able to fight the remainder with U.S. supplies.

Soviet leaders were aiming for a similar scenario as they sought a way to withdraw their troops between 1986 and 1991. Almost all of the former participants (both people on the ground and at the center of decision-making in Moscow) I have spoken with believe they came close to succeeding. When the Geneva Accords were signed in April 1988, it was far from clear whether the Soviet backed government in Kabul would last more than a few months after the withdrawal. Yet after February 1989 the Afghan army, which rarely took a leading role in battles while Soviet troops were there, proved able to face down mujahadeen offensives on its own. Not only did the Kabul government hold most of the territory previously held primarily by Soviet forces, but the regime actually outlasted the USSR by four months!

Many Soviet officers realized early in the war that the task of creating a stable Afghanistan could never be fulfilled through military means. Eventually their superiors in Moscow came to believe the same thing and began pursuing both international diplomacy and internal reconciliation. When I spoke to Nikolai Kozyrev, the chief Soviet negotiator at the Geneva Accords and a specialist on the region, he highlighted this as the main lesson to draw from the Soviet experience. “Diplomacy allowed us to withdraw our troops,” he said, and pointed out that talks with the Taliban were absolutely necessary. In the end, the reconciliation would be up to by the Afghans themselves.

Further Reading:
For the current situation in Afghanistan and how it developed, I highly recommend the work of Dr. Antonio Giustozzi at the Crisis States Research Centre, including this paper. The veteran journalist Ahmed Rashid recently released a useful book on the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan, pessimistically entitled Descent into Chaos. A number of useful reports are available from the International Crisis Group. Finally, there was an interesting discussion on Iraq and Afghanistan this weekend in the New York Times.