World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article
 

AfPak

AfPak (or Af-Pak) was a neologism used within US foreign policy circles to designate Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single theater of operations. The neologism reflects the policy approach introduced by the Obama administration, which regarded the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan as having a single, dominant political and military situation that required a joint policy in the War on Terror.[1]

Following sharp criticism from Pakistan, condemning the perceived comparison of their country with Afghanistan, the US Government stopped using the term in 2010.

Contents

  • Origin 1
  • Impact 2
  • Criticism 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5

Origin

Michael Quinion writes that the term began appearing in newspaper articles in February 2009.[2] The term was popularized, and possibly coined, by Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.[3][4] In March 2008 (a year before he assumed that post) Holbrooke explained the motivation behind the term:

First of all, we often call the problem AfPak, as in Afghanistan Pakistan. This is not just an effort to save eight syllables. It is an attempt to indicate and imprint in our DNA the fact that there is one theater of war, straddling an ill-defined border, the Durand Line, and that on the western side of that border, NATO and other forces are able to operate. On the eastern side, it’s the sovereign territory of Pakistan. But it is on the eastern side of this ill-defined border that the international terrorist movement is located.[2]

According to the US government, the common policy objective was to disrupt, dismantle, and prevent Al Qaeda and its affiliates from having a safe haven from which it can continue to operate and plot attacks against the U.S and its allies.[5] This policy decision represented a shift from previous ways of thinking about Afghanistan as an independent problem that required a military solution. The AfPak strategy was an attempt to win the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

Impact

The term AfPak has entered the lexicon of geopolitics, and has made clear to the world that the primary fronts for the global war on terrorism lie in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has reinforced the message that the threat to US from Islamic religious policy, and the resulting fear infrastructure and problems in the two countries are intertwined.[1]

Official use of the term within the Obama administration has been echoed by the media, as in The Washington Post series The AfPak War[6] and The Af-Pak Channel, a joint project of the New America Foundation and Foreign Policy magazine launched in August 2009.[7][8]

Criticism

The term has been widely criticized in Pakistan.[9] Amir Taheri writes that Holbrooke's use of the term has been resented by many Pakistanis, who see Pakistan as "in a different league than the much smaller and devastated Afghanistan."[10] Clifford May writes that it is disliked by Afghans as well.[11]

Pakistani journalist Saeed Shah who is a contributor to The Guardian newspaper mentioned that the international community have always had Pakistan and India bracketed together, and Pakistan always had, and still in some ways, compares itself with India. This is due to the fact that Pakistan was a part of India before 1947. Pakistanis have never compared themselves with Afghans. He mentions that the United States has lumped Pakistan with Afghanistan under "Af-Pak", a diplomatic relegation, while India is lauded as a growing power. This is a key reason why Pakistan is seeking a nuclear deal with the US as "parity" with India.[12]

In June 2009 former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf criticized the term in an interview with Der Spiegel:

I am totally against the term AfPak. I do not support the word itself for two reasons: First, the strategy puts Pakistan on the same level as Afghanistan. We are not. Afghanistan has no government and the country is completely destabilized. Pakistan is not. Second, and this is much more important, is that there is an Indian element in the whole game. We have the Kashmir struggle, without which extremist elements like Lashkar-e-Taiba would not exist.[13]

As seen by Pakistan, India "should have been" part of a wide regional strategy including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir. However, the Indian government disposed of this proposition with ease.[14] Answering questions at a June 2009 press conference in Islamabad, Holbrooke "said the term 'Afpak' was not meant to demean Pakistan, but was 'bureaucratic shorthand' intended to convey that the situation in the border areas on both sides was linked and one side could not be resolved without the other."[15] In January 2010 Holbrooke said that the administration had stopped using the term: "We can't use it anymore because it does not please people in Pakistan, for understandable reasons."[9]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_afpak_paradox
  2. ^ a b Quinion, Michael (2009-04-18). "Afpak". World Wide Words. Retrieved 2009-08-27. 
  3. ^  
  4. ^ Cooper, Helene (2009-02-26). "Obama reaps diplomatic windfall as goodwill lingers". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-27. 
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ "Obama's War". The Washington Post. 
  7. ^ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/afpak
  8. ^ Ricchiardi, Sherry (August–September 2009). "Assignment AfPak".  
  9. ^ a b Rogin, Josh (20 January 2010). """Team Obama scuttles the term "AfPak.  
  10. ^  
  11. ^ http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxYWMzMGMzMzFmNmZmNTBjMzIzY2IyNjYwNzQ5YmQ=
  12. ^ Shah, Saeed (2010-03-22). "Pakistan pushes US for nuclear technology deal". The Guardian (London). Archived from the original on 30 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-04-23. 
  13. ^ "'"SPIEGEL Interview with Pervez Musharraf: Obama 'Is Aiming at the Right Things. Der Spiegel. 2009-06-07. Retrieved 2009-08-27. 
  14. ^ India’s stealth lobbying against Holbrooke's brief
  15. ^ "India has role to play in Afghanistan: Holbrooke". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 2009-06-06. 
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.