En route to a game in Lahore, Pakistan, on Mar. 3, 2009, the Sri Lankan national cricket team was ambushed and attacked by some 14 armed militants. The gunmen killed six police officers and one driver. An umpire, assistant coach and seven of the players on the Sri Lankan team were injured. Chris Broad, a British referee raveling with the Sri Lankan team, accused the Pakistani police of negligence, stating, “there was not a sign of a policeman anywhere…. They had clearly left the scene and left us to be sitting ducks.” The police commissioner of Lahore conceded that “the vehicles used for escorting the Sri Lankan convoy were not adequate” and that “the gunmen were meant to be combated by backup police support, which didn't arrive.” However, Pakistan's cricket chief challenged Broad's claims, saying they were “totally fabricated.” The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, declared, “we have identified the people who did the operation,” but he did not reveal the names of the individuals or the group with which they are affiliated. The Economist (London) states that Sri Lanka's decision to send its cricket players to Pakistan, despite security fears, was an act of South Asian solidarity. The symbolic fallout from the attack is the shattering of such expressions of regional cohesion; Bangladesh has since postponed the Pakistani cricket team's tour of its country for security reasons and Pakistan's hope to cohost the 2011 Cricket World Cup now seems virtually unattainable.
The ambush of the cricket team highlights the increasing level of security risk and general instability in Pakistan. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband recently stated that Pakistan is facing a “mortal threat” and that politicians must unite to face a “very grave situation.” Richard Holbrooke, President Barack Obama's new special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, has described the situation as “dire.” The fate of cricket, the nation's favorite game and one of its few unifying forces, seems to mirror the turmoil of the Pakistani nation.
In late February 2009, the leader of the Taliban in the Swat region of Pakistan, an area 100 miles north of the capital of Islamabad, announced a long-term cease-fire, giving the Pakistani military respite from fighting and raising faint hopes for peace. After fighting the Pakistani army for over a year, and gaining control of about 70% of the region, a spokesman for the Taliban said the cease-fire would exist for an “indefinite period.” The New York Times states that many politicians fear the cessation of hostilities will only bolster the Taliban's cause by enabling the militants to gather strength and recruits.
In January 2009, Afghanistan's chairman of the Independent Election Commission, Azizullah Ludin, announced his office's plans to postpone presidential elections until Aug. 20, 2009. The election's delay is technically unconstitutional; the Afghan constitution states that elections must occur 30 to 60 days before the end of the presidential term, which expires on May 22. Saying, “We are not in a normal situation in Afghanistan,” Ludin attempted to justify the unconstitutional nature of the postponement by stating that delaying the vote would allow election workers more time to register candidates and set up voting machinery, as well as provide soldiers with more time to bring order to unsafe and chaotic districts. So far only 4.3 million voters have registered out of a potential electorate of 16 million; 84 out of the 364 electoral districts are deemed not safe enough to hold an election, largely due to the Taliban insurgency in these areas. Ludin also noted that weather conditions are more favorable in August than in April.
Both the UN and Western officials have expressed support for the voting delay. The U.S. Department of State concluded that August elections were “the best means to assure every Afghan citizen would be able to express his or her political preference in a secure environment.” Western officials also said that the election would benefit from the presence of the additional 17,000 troops President Obama plans to send to Afghanistan in the coming months.
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai issued a decree opposing the Election Commission's plan and said that the presidential election must be moved forward to April or May to comply with the constitution. Ludin responded by stating, “We fully respect President Karzai's order of moving the election forward…. However, we need more time for voters' registration in some areas.” He also claimed the need for an additional $223 million to run the election. Many members of Karzai's political opposition are suspicious of his push for April elections, especially since he has declared his intent to run for a second term. His opponents say that an earlier election gives him a great advantage over any presidential challengers, who will not have enough time to prepare for a spring vote. The BBC identifies three possible solutions to the election dilemma. First, a loya jirga, a meeting of tribal elders and leaders, could determine who would run the country after Karzai's term ends. Second, Karzai could ask Parliament to declare a state of emergency, allowing him to stay on as interim president until August. Third, the chairman of the upper house of Parliament could take over the presidency temporarily until the August elections.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the U.S. plan to hold regular three-way meetings with top officials from Afghanistan and Pakistan. The first meeting, extending over three days, was held in late February 2009. Officials from both Pakistan and Afghanistan voiced concern about civilian casualties resulting from American military operations.
Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, the Afghan foreign minister, emphasized his worry that in its effort to focus on security, the U.S. would scale back its development aid and help in nurturing democracy in Afghanistan. Secretary of State Clinton responded by assuring him that “we're committed to the Afghan government and people.” The next meeting is scheduled for late April or early May. In addition to the three-way talks, the U.S. has proposed a major conference on Afghanistan, to be hosted by the Netherlands, on Mar. 31, 2009, with the UN acting as chairman, to which Iran is expected to be invited “as a neighbor of Afghanistan.” If Iran attends, it will be the Obama Administration's first face-to-face interaction with Iran.
As the Obama administration continues its formation of Afghanistan policy, the NYTimes.com wrote on Mar. 7, 2009, that “a central point is hovering above all the strategic reviewing of ‘Afpak' (Afghanistan-Pakistan) that is going on in Washington….
‘I think it is clear that you have to have a political solution to Afghanistan, and I wouldn't rule anything off the table, including some aspects of the Taliban,' said Reuben Brigety, an Afghanistan expert at the Center for American Progress. It is a point that European—particularly British—officials have pressed on the Americans for some time…. Indeed, [on Mar. 6], in an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Obama opened the door to approaching elements of the Taliban, if his Administration's review recommends it.”
A new route for the transport of goods to American and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in Afghanistan was opened up in early March 2009. About 500 containers a month will now enter Afghanistan from Uzbekistan, after traveling through Russian territory. The new route provides an alternative to the primary transport path, which enters Afghanistan through the troubled border with Pakistan, but has been increasingly threatened over the past couple of months.