Best Drupal HostingBest Joomla HostingBest Wordpress Hosting
WORLD POLICY ON AIR

World Policy Journal is proud to share our weekly podcast, World Policy On Air, featuring former Newsweek On Air host David Alpern with timely insights from global affairs analyst Michael Moran of Transformative.io, risk and geostrategy consultants. Click here to subscribe on iTunes!

THE LATEST

AddToAny
Share/Save

Blood Line: Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Unspoken Border Dispute

By Amir Ramin and Nadia Siddiqui

Afghanistan and Pakistan are in talks to sign a strategic agreement by the end of 2013. This is the first time Afghanistan and Pakistan have agreed to discuss a strategic partnership with the aim of creating a blueprint for long-term, binding cooperation on areas of mutual concern. Stability in Afghanistan, and the region as a whole, depends directly on cooperation from Pakistan. This dependence will only increase as NATO troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014. A strategic agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with a framework aimed at resolving key differences between the two, would be a major step in improving stability and security within and between both countries, while at the same time bolstering existing agreements Afghanistan has with other international and regional partners. 

This is easier said than done, considering how strained Afghanistan-Pakistan relations have been since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Despite a string of government-to-government talks that produced few tangible results, there is reason to be hopeful that the new round of talks may yield a viable agreement. Recent bilateral meetings held in Pakistan in November 2012 included agreement on the importance of close and consistent cooperation between the two countries. To ensure the process does not stall, as other attempts at negotiations have, both parties must address complex issues including security, insurgency and safe havens, trade, transit, and water rights, which remain unresolved. None of this can occur without open and honest discussion of the main point of contention underpinning all other issues: the Durand Line.

A colonial-era relic, the Durand Line is the 2,640-kilometer border separating Afghanistan from what is now Pakistan and dividing the homeland of the Pashtuns, Afghanistan’s largest ethnic group. British Envoy Sir Mortimer Durand and the Amir of Afghanistan Abdur Rahman Khan agreed to this boundary in November 1893. But no Afghan government has recognized this border since 1947, after the partition of India and the establishment of the state of Pakistan. The decades-long standoff between the two countries has its roots in the so-called “Pashtunistan” territory that starts in southern Afghanistan, straddles the Durand Line and cuts a vertical swath over nearly half of modern Pakistan, including the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to the east, Federally Administered Tribal Areas to the northwest, Baluchistan to the south and its coastline on the Arabian Sea.

Much tension has come from the large disputed territory, along with the fact that the Afghan government, in not recognizing the Durand Line, did not originally recognize the Pakistani state. Historically, the Afghan government’s stance has led Pakistan to view Afghanistan as an enemy that could threaten its territorial sovereignty, especially with India’s history of maintaining strong diplomatic ties to most Afghan regimes. Thus, Pakistan could see a weak and destabilized Afghanistan as in its best interests and even critical to its survival. At the same time, neither Afghan diplomacy nor government actions have been effective in allaying these concerns. A recent example of this was the Afghan government’s strong reaction to U.S. Envoy Mark Grossman’s statements recognizing the Durand Line as an international border, which only served to further substantiate Pakistan’s fears.

The dispute over the Durand Line then has become the subtext for nearly every other disagreement between the two neighbors. Despite this, the Durand Line has never been explicitly discussed in negotiations. Past talks and confidence-building measures have focused on specific issues rather than underlying tensions, yielding little in the way of necessary action toward peace and stability in both countries.

A strategic agreement putting this issue forward will be the first and most important step to genuinely improving relations between the neighboring countries and developing a long-term road map for cooperation. The biggest barrier for both Afghanistan and Pakistan will be overcoming the pervasive culture of silence concerning the Durand Line and openly recognizing that it is central to most other disputes between the countries. While it is unlikely that Afghanistan will recognize this border or that Pakistan will give up any disputed territory, a discussion of the Durand Line within the setting of a partnership agreement could help re-contextualize the issue from an ingrained cultural and historical stance on both sides to a more proactive understanding of sources of tension.  This could incite a process of collaboration that would enable both parties to approach other issues of mutual concern with more confidence.

The process to reach and, most importantly, implement such an agreement will not be easy and will require the leadership of both countries to take decisive, courageous action in the name of peace and stability. This is imperative not only for Afghanistan and Pakistan but for the region as a whole, especially with the 2014 deadline for U.S. departure from Afghanistan fast approaching and an uncertain political and security situation looming beyond. While no war has previously been fought over the territory and the chances of either side going to war now are very slim (as Afghanistan is not strong enough to do so on its own and Pakistan is not likely to invade a country that has proved a quagmire for countless others including the U.S.), continued silence on this issue is a commitment to the status quo in Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. 

This in and of itself is a major threat to political stability and security in the region. The recent assassination attempt against the chief of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security and President Karzai’s implication that the plot had some connection with Pakistani intelligence attests to this and follows a regular pattern of attacks in Afghanistan with official statements leveled at Pakistan for attempting to destabilize the country.  To prevent further cycles of retaliation and to keep negotiations on track, the two parties must come to an understanding on ways to move forward over their major sources of conflict and tension.

The Durand Line must be broached in a way that demonstrates to officials on both sides that their entrenched views are hindering prospects for peace and security. One way to begin is to assemble a mutually agreed upon working group of relevant government and non-governmental stakeholders tasked with researching and analyzing root causes of tension on a range of issues the two nations face. This joint process of data collection could create a mutually understood factual framework and thus a stable foundation for strategic partnership. The working group’s findings could then serve as roadmap to more frank and open discussion of the key issues that need to be included in a strategic agreement and recommendations for how to begin to resolve them. 

Current Afghanistan-Pakistan negotiations have gotten off to a promising start; however, if they are to truly succeed and break this cycle of mistrust, instability, and violence, the unspoken must be spoken. And it must happen soon.

*****

*****

Amir Ramin is currently a fellow at the East-West Center and political adviser to the Afghan High Peace Council.

Nadia Siddiqui has previously worked on both Afghanistan and international policy relations programming at the International Center for Transitional Justice.

Share/Save

Anonymous's picture
I don't know why Pakistan


I don't know why Pakistan wants those areas that they can't even control, because the people don't accept the army since they claim they're Afghans, which means Pashtuns. The reason it makes sense that this land belongs to its rightful owner, Afghanistan, because the land of Afghans(Pashtuns)have same culture, language, Pashtunwali etc. Even the Pakistani brought to you by Taliban government didn't recognize this illegal border separating blood.

Anonymous's picture
Dear Afghan Anonymous,If you


Dear Afghan Anonymous, If you happen to be an Afghan - don't be anonymous! In case, you don't happen to be an Afghan, then,I wouldn't waste my words to counter argue as you Really don't know about the area and its people!

Anonymous's picture
Bloodline/Durand Line


Dear Nadia and Amir, In general, I agree with your overall assessment but after all it is a bloodline as you two rightfully put it. The Afghan claim is irredentist based on cultural, historical, and cultural ties. Pashtuns are human beings too you know and have the of self-determination. Unification or independence from Pakistan is their right. Although a legitimate international territorial dispute, the problem however lies in southern Punjab of Pakistan; an epicenter of global religious extremism and terrorism. The problem is Pakistan's Cold War era Afghan policy that needs to be reformed. The problem is Pakistan's military and ISI; a state within a state, that is preventing a democratically elected government from improving relations with India and Afghanistan. It is not the Pashtuns and please do not attempt to slip things into your assessment. You are basically suggesting that Afghanistan should bow down to Pakistan's military and ISI and recognize the Durand line as legitimate international border ignoring the fact that Pakistan is a State sponsor of international terrorism. The world must come together and confront those in Pakistan who sponsor terrorism. Enough is enough, Pakistan must no longer be permitted to blackmail the world especially poor Afghans. Afghans should also take the issue seriously and drop all rhetoric regarding the Durand Line. Why? A Pashtun from Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, FATA, and Baluchistan in Kabul is referred to as 'Pakistani' and likewise a Pashtun from the Afghan side in Peshawar or Quetta is called 'Kabulai'. This by in itself is direct contradiction of the Afghan government's claim and those Pashtuns living in Pashtunistan that support secession or independence. First, recognize each other as Afghans then initiate your dispute on international platform. The titles of Afghan and Pashtun are synonymous. All Pashtuns are Afghans but not all Afghans are Pashtun. India and Iran too must stop from meddling in Afghan affairs.
Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account, used to display your avatar.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.
FALL FUNDRAISER

 

Around WPI

Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa 

This paper, “Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenging the Narratives of the War on Terror,” examines the history of Islamic movements in Africa's Sahel region to contextualize current conflicts.

World Economic Roundtable with Vicente Fox 

In this World Economic Roundtable, former Mexican President Vicente Fox discusses his current quest to make his country a hub for technology. 

Intern at World Policy


Want to join our team? Looking for an experience at one of the most highly sought-after internships for ambitious students? Application details here.

 

Al Gore presides over Arctic Roundtable 

As the United States prepares to assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, this inaugural convening of the Arctic Deeply Roundtables launches a vital conversation for our times. 

SPONSORED

When the Senate Worked for Us:
New book offers untold stories of how activist staffers countered corporate lobbies in the U.S.


Are the U.S. and China on a collision course?
Get the facts from Amitai Etzioni in “Avoiding War with China.”


MA in International Policy and Development
Middlebury Institute (Monterey, CA): Put theory into practice through client-based coursework. Apply by Nov. 30.

WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

To learn about the latest in media, programming, and fellowship, subscribe to the World Policy Weekly Newsletter and read through our archives.

World Policy on Facebook

FOLLOW US