Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan remain at a tipping point with needless disputes being the order of the day as the recent slandering match over Pakistan reconstructing an old border gate being the latest in a range of verbal disputes between the two neighbours. What both countries appear not to realize is that their relations are crucial as the NATO troops plan to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year, leaving the Afghan government as the de facto ruling authority across the border.

The media hype created in Afghanistan over the reconstruction of an old border gate in Mohmand Agency by the Pakistani authorities. Kabul dropped its objections after it was told that no new military construction was being carried out by Islamabad along the shared frontier and the issue was only a renovation of an old gate. But for that a delegation of Afghan army officials, led by Afghan National Army Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Major General Afzal Aman, had to visit the General Headquarters (GHQ), Rawalpindi for talks on border coordination. A military spokesman later revealed that “all ongoing cross-border coordination issues including border post construction in Mohmand Agency were discussed and amicably resolved.” The important statement was that the two “sides agreed on continuation of such bilateral interactions to enhance bilateral border coordination and reduce space for detractors.” a military spokesman said. That an issue of everyday border coordination becoming an issue that could ignite the Afghan side to the extent of spurring on student protests in Jalalabad does not bode well as a mirror of the degree of mistrust between the two countries. The Afghan Defence Ministry Spokesman Gen Zahir Azimi claimed that the recent construction of a gate and other facilities along the border took place without any coordination with Afghanistan and President Karzai was reported to have ordered his defence and interior ministries to take immediate action to remove a newly constructed gate, checkpoints and other installations recently built by Pakistan.

The point here is that the issue at hand was not important, where a particular gate is created or not, should be an issue of easy resolution between the two neighbours purported to be fighting a war against the same enemy for over a decade. At this point, with the impending withdrawal of the US and NATO troops, the exact reverse is needed. However, the ease with which the issue was resolved eventually reflects the petty nature of actual disputes between them. There was no need for unnecessary hype and irresponsible statements from the Afghan President Karzai. It must be realized that an escalation of tensions from either side would only help the Taliban and other militants waiting for the NATO troop withdrawal to up the stakes in the conflict in the region.

- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013....5KEEknD1.dpuf

April 17, 2013


The visit by an Afghan military delegation to Pakistan to hold consultations with its counterparts here “to reduce space for detractors”, may seem routine. However, after the strained ties between the two as a result of a cross-border shelling incident that the Afghans not only blamed on the Pakistani military, but the incident also led to the cancellation of a visit by an Afghan military team to Quetta for a joint training exercise, this represents a considerable advance by the Afghan military and the Afghan government. This indicates that the Afghan military is having second thoughts about its accusation. It also shows that the main sponsor of the Afghan army, the US, has realised that, with its own withdrawal due in 2014 and with future troop levels not yet certain, the survival of that force will depend on support from Pakistan. That support cannot come from India, even though both the government and a disproportionate number of senior officers hail from the pro-Indian Northern Alliance. The backing needed has to come from Pakistan, thus it was necessary for both the USA and Afghanistan to get outstanding issues out of the way, specially when the latest incident had been created by Afghanistan out of nothing, and was meant to throw the blame for its own failures on the Pakistan military in the eyes of the US forces.

However, it should also be noticed that the Afghan Army has only reconciled with the Pakistan Army because it wished to discuss a subject of interest to the USA: border coordination. Pakistan should know that so long as there are foreign forces in the region, there will be issues of this sort. Pakistan should not be ready to turn its cooperation on and off, just as there was when US gunship helicopters attacked the Pakistani border check post at Salala. The issue was partly resolved because the northern distribution network proved prohibitively expensive.

The best way of handling the situation is for Pakistan to concert measures with Iran and Turkey to bring peace to Afghanistan and to persuade occupying troops to leave the region on schedule. Unless the neighbours of Afghanistan are allowed to play their due role, Pakistan will find to its cost that improvements in relations with Afghanistan are not to be turned on or off like water in taps.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials

| Najmuddin A Shaikh |

IN what was termed a routine meeting of the Afghan National Security Council on Sunday President Hamid Karzai instructed his ministers of defence, interior and foreign affairs to take “immediate action” to see to the removal of the border gate, checkpost and other installations built by Pakistan along the Durand Line. He alleged these had been built without coordination.

These instructions followed a verbal protest that had been lodged by Afghanistan’s deputy foreign minister with our ambassador in Kabul on April 1.

In issuing these instructions, Karzai had clearly chosen to ignore the rejoinder to the April 1 protest by the Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman who said the post in question — Gursal in Mohmand Agency bordering Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province — was well within Pakistan territory. The spokesman said it had existed for many years and was only being renovated, and that an Afghan military delegation visiting Mohmand in January had been briefed on the nature of the renovation work.

While media reports seem to suggest that better sense has prevailed and that the Afghans have conceded that the Pakistan Army was indeed renovating the post and was not involved in the construction of a new one, the incident has been distasteful. With accusations coming from the office of the Afghan president himself, there could have been grim consequences. This only shows how fraught Pak-Afghan relations continue to be, with distrust and suspicions taking precedent over any sincere move to remove tensions. And there are several questions to ponder regarding this latest incident in the saga of bad blood.

Why, for instance, was this verbal attack launched in April when the Afghans had known of the renovation at least since January? Why was there no attempt to counter the statement of facts relating to the post provided by the Pakistani officials and presumably communicated to the Afghans formally by our ambassador in Kabul or the Afghan envoy in Islamabad?

It is difficult to find a logical explanation. Did this serve any purpose other than to further strain Pak-Afghan ties at a time when Pakistan has a caretaker government charged only with ensuring free and fair elections, not with undertaking new initiatives in foreign or domestic policy?

Whatever the purpose of Karzai’s outburst one hopes that our interim government will not respond harshly but confine itself to reiterating the facts and then hold further discussions at the next border coordination meeting or at the ministerial meeting of the Istanbul Process in Almaty on April 26. Hopefully before that time the prime minister would have assigned the foreign affairs portfolio to one of his cabinet colleagues since it is important for us to be represented at that level in Almaty.

But Karzai is not taking on Pakistan alone. Karzai recently issued a statement, based on the report of the team he had sent to Kunar to investigate the air attack by US planes on insurgent houses that resulted apparently in the death of 17 civilians including 12 children.

His statement condemned “the use of civilians and their homes as shields by the Taliban” but added that air strikes on residential areas are not acceptable “under any name and for any purpose whatsoever”. While the investigation team suggested that this was an incident triggered by an Afghan intelligence operation to capture two Taliban insurgents there are plausible reports that this was in fact a CIA operation mounted by irregular Afghan forces led by a CIA operative who was killed while retreating from the area.

Nato has completed its own report on the incident but has not released it since it was still under review.

For the moment though what is important is the disclosure in Karzai’s statement that, in a telephonic conversation with President Obama earlier in the week, he had said that such incidents could jeopardise the conclusion of the US-Afghan security pact that would govern the residual US military presence in Afghanistan after 2014.

Karzai thus appears to be at loggerheads with both his principal supporter and his most important neighbour. Hopefully, both benefactor and neighbour will avoid an intemperate public response. Today, Afghanistan has only one legitimate leader and therefore only one legitimate enunciator of Afghan policy. He, despite a belief to the contrary, is, at this time, the only person who can carry forward the currently stalled process of reconciliation.

We have to remember that Afghanistan’s descent into chaos will cause enormous damage to US prestige but will be devastating for Pakistan and its own struggle against terrorist elements within the country as is evident from the ongoing campaign in the Khyber Agency.

Other costs to Pakistan have never been computed accurately but I was struck by a recently released report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime which concluded that in 2013 the area in Afghanistan devoted to opium cultivation would increase substantially — especially in Helmand province.

According to a UNODC official, Afghanistan is in danger of becoming “the world’s first true narco-state” because it is poised to once again become the producer of 90 per cent of the world’s opium. Long considered only a producer rather than a consumer of opium, it now has more than a million users. Warlords flourish on the proceeds of opium production and trafficking.

We are not better off. In 1979, we had 30,000 registered addicts and perhaps an equal number of unregistered users. As production increased in Afghanistan so did our user population. Today in Pakistan, according to the US annual report on Narcotics Control Strategy released in March this year, “there are an estimated 500,000 addicts and over five million habitual drug users”.

Pakistan was also the world’s foremost heroin transit country in 2012. UNODC estimates that 40pc of the world supply traversed the country en route to China, the Gulf States, Africa, and Europe.

We need peace in Afghanistan to have peace in Pakistan and, under the circumstances, must work with whoever is in power in Kabul.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

http://dawn.com/

Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have registered another low as both countries have again resorted to blame game. Last week, the Afghan Foreign Ministry announced cancellation of the visit of an eleven-member group of Afghan National Army, which was scheduled to take part in joint military exercise with Pakistan Army in Balochistan. Similarly, Pakistani Foreign Ministry Spokesman Aizaz Chaudhry alleged that hideouts of Pakistani Taliban were present in Kunar and Nuristan provinces of Afghanistan.

The present chill in bilateral relations between the two neighbours comes in the wake of the recent upward trend, not only in relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also in Pakistan’s relations with the United States and its NATO allies, characterizing melting of snow emanating from the Salala incident. As the US State Department regretted the Salala occurring - in which a number of Pakistani solders were killed and injured - Pakistan opened NATO supply and a number of interactions ensued between the United States and Pakistan. It was after these exchanges that Pakistan released a number of Afghan Taliban leaders and announced to play role in talks between the Afghan government and Taliban.

Later, British Prime Minister David Cameron hosted talks between President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai in London last month. Addressing a joint press conference after the trilateral summit, Zardari and Karzai promised to work for restoration of the peace in Afghanistan within six months. Both sides pledged to take all necessary steps for the purpose. They announced their support for opening of Taliban office in Doha and urged the Taliban to take steps for holding talks with Afghan government.
President Zardari and President Karzai also announced that they would soon sign an agreement to bolster their mutual economic and security relations. David Cameron said that during the meeting, he witnessed an ‘unprecedented level of cooperation.’ The British prime minister also made a phone call to both the presidents late last month discussing the follow-up of the London meeting and urging both countries to take steps for improving bilateral relations and restoration of peace in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has always experienced the bitter spillover impact of the turmoil in Afghanistan and it fully understands that it cannot escape the aftermath of turbulence in Afghanistan once the US-NATO forces are withdrawn from the country. However, its proclaimed position is that it supports an ‘Afghan-led’ and ‘Afghan-owned’ peace process in Afghanistan. For their part, neither the Afghan government nor the United States and NATO have ever made any objection to Pakistan’ stated position. Despite that, suspicions prevail between the two sides.

While the Afghan side smells a lackluster response from Pakistan with regard to the Afghan peace process, the Pakistani side is complaining about presence of the hideouts of Swat Taliban leaders in southeastern Afghanistan. When the Kabul government announced the arrest of Moulvi Faqir Muhammad, the chief of Bajaur Agency-based Pakistani Taliban, Islamabad earnestly demanded his hand over to Pakistan. The demand appeared plausible, particularly in the wake of its gesture of releasing Afghan Taliban detainees on the demand of the US and the Afghan governments. However, the Afghan government is yet to give any response to the demand.

It is against this background that General Joseph Dunford, the ISAF commander in Afghanistan, visited Pakistan last week and held talks with Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani discussing issues pertaining to military relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan and restoring their trust. General Kayani reiterated Pakistan’s call for ending border violations from Afghanistan side.

As regards the border violations and rocket attacks along the Kunar-Bajaur border point, both Kabul and Islamabad have been accusing each other for them. Pakistan has since long been complaining that Kunar and Nuristan-based Swat Taliban are entering Pakistan’s Bajaur Agency and attacking and abducting Pakistani security personnel. Similarly, Fazlullah Wahidi, the governor of Afghanistan’s Kunar Province, alleged last week that 50 rockets had been fired from across the Pakistani border.

Earlier, Afghan officials had claimed that people in the border areas of Kunar Province had migrated from their houses due to heavy rocket and mortar firing from across the Pakistani border. While none of the two countries can have any point to make through such attacks, the militants on both sides of the border can have a real stake in these activities. Just recently, an article appearing in a Peshawar-based Pashto newspaper blamed such activities on Indian agents. It will be biased if any wrong doing of the sort is linked with India without any proof, the suspicion makes sense that militants operating in border regions might wish to keep relations between the two countries troubled.

Although these skirmishes appear minor in the broad spectrum of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations, yet they have caused sufficient dint to bilateral trust between the two countries, which is essential, not only for a lasting peace in Afghanistan but also for better relations between the peoples and governments of the two countries, because, as leaders of both countries have repeatedly said, one can choose his relatives, but not his neighbors.

Pakistan and Afghanistan can both understand the point that they have to rise above petty considerations and narrow vested interests because the experiences of the last three decades have shown that any misery afflicting the region will have equal dividends for both countries. President Hamid Karzai was not wrong when, during a visit to Islamabad some time back, he announced that Pakistan and Afghanistan were conjoined twins. Both nations have so deep intertwined roots that any blow to either side equally harms the other.

Besides their common interests, the people and leaders of both countries know that regional peace and tranquility is a demand of history. If one looks into the sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe, all countries in the region had passed through such rivalries and bloodbaths but eventually they had to realize that no nation can persist with such animosities forever. Asia has to follow Europe and America in the evolution of history and defiance of history would only further bleed and harm the region.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

Recently tension arose between Pakistan and Afghanistan when a spokesman of Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs blamed Islamabad for continuation of mortar attacks and construction of security wall inside Afghanistan including deployment of Pakistani soldiers across the Pak-Afghan border.

While, hundreds of Afghan university students in Jalalabad took to the streets on April 15, this year and protested incursions from Pakistani side, as demonstration was sparked by a statement of Afghan President Hamid Karzai who ordered his top officials on April 14 to take immediate action to remove the gate and other “Pakistani military installations near the Durand Line.”

On the other side, Pakistan's Foreign Affairs Office strongly rejected Afghan allegations regarding any intrusion near the Pak-Afghan border. Pak army spokesman also refuted these false accusations.

Karzai's allegations are not new ones because he has always followed the US blame game against Pakistan. While ignoring the responsibilities of the US-led NATO countries, in the past few years, especially US civil and military high officials have repeatedly been emphasizing Pakistan to 'do-more' against the militancy in the tribal regions in order to stop cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan.

In this regard, the then US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta allegedly said on June 7, last year that the US was reaching the limits of its patience with Pakistan due to safe havens, “the country offered to insurgents in neighbouring Afghanistan.”

In fact, having failed in coping with the Afghan Taliban and to pacify their public, particularly, US has shifted the blame game towards Pakistan for infiltration of militants in Afghanistan. So, we need to prove, whether Pakistan is responsible for cross-border incursions in Afghanistan or the latter in Pakistan.

In this respect, around 400 heavily-armed Taliban who entered from Afghanistan side attacked two security posts outside Peshawar on December 27, 2012. They killed 2 soldiers and kidnapped 22 Levies personnel whose dumped bodies were found. On June 24, more than hundred militants, entered Pakistan's region of Dir, and attacked two check posts of the security forces, while bloody clashes between the intruders and Pak Army continued for two days, which resulted in martyrdom of 12 Pakistani troops, beheaded by the Afghan terrorists.

However, Pakistan's civil and military leadership lodged a strong protest on June 25 with their counterparts in Afghanistan and NATO, also informing the UN Security Council, saying that the Afghan and NATO forces were doing nothing to check the activities of the Afghan militants nor were acting against the safe havens of the terrorists inside Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in his meetings with the then US commander General John Allen on June 27, 2012 and with the new NATO/ISAF commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Joseph F Dunford on April 1, this year, Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani asked them to stop cross-border incursions from the Afghanistan. Again, on April 24, in his meeting with the Afghan President Karzai, hosted by the U S Secretary of State John Kerry at Brussels, Gen. Kayani raised the question of infiltration of the militants from Afghan side.

It is notable that since April, 2011, some 200 to 300 heavily-armed insurgents from Afghanistan's side entered Pakistan's region intermittently, targeting the security check posts and other infrastructure. On October 9, hundreds of insurgents attacked the Kakar check post in Upper Dir. During the assault, around 15 insurgents were killed and a soldier also lost his life. On August 27, some 300 militants attacked seven paramilitary check posts in Pakistan's district of Chitral, killing more than 30 personnel of the security forces.
In one of such major attacks, on June 1, more than 500 armed militants who came into Dir area killed more than 30 police and paramilitary soldiers. Police said that well-trained terrorists, who targeted a check post, also destroyed two schools and several houses with rocket and gunfire attacks, while killing a number of innocent people. On June 3, 400 militants besieged the Pakistani area. Sources suggested that after a three-day gun battle, Pakistani security forces killed 71 Afghan Taliban.

Notably, on October 17, 2011, the former army spokesman, Major-General Athar Abbas disclosed, “The attacks in which terrorists loyal to Maulvi Fazlullah, leader of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) who fled to Afghanistan during Swat military operation, killed more than 100 personnel of Pakistan's security forces.” He explained, “Pakistani Taliban insurgency is based in Kunar and Nuristan provinces in Afghanistan…we have given locations and information about these groups to the US-led forces” which had failed to hunt down a spate of cross-border raids.

This cross-border penetration which started in April, 2011 so far killed several troops and civilians in Pakistan. From time to time, ground shelling inside Pakistan and violation of its border by US helicopters and drone attacks have also kept on going. In this context, the Salala incident which killed 24 soldiers by the US deliberate air strikes on Pakistan's army outpost in 2011 might be cited as the worse example.

Nevertheless, these are organized military type operations which one cannot imagine by a stray group of militants and it is also totally unacceptable that they have the capability to fight for long hours or capture Pakistani posts by challenging the capacity of Pak Army.

The way the Afghan militants are challenging a highly professional Pak Army by cross- border attacks is enough to prove that US with the assistance of secret agencies such as American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad which have well-established their collective network in Afghanistan is fully backing these incursions with a view to destabilizing Pakistan which is the only nuclear country in the Islamic World.

There is also another kind of incursion from Afghanistan. In this connection, in a religious Madrassa of Wakhan, located in Afghanistan, is functioning under the patronage of Indian officials-with the consent of CIA.

It is being used for brainwashing of very young boys who are Indian Muslims, Afghans, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Caucasians. They have also been made to learn Pashto and traditions of Pathans. Posing as volunteers, they have joined the ranks and files of the TTP, Lashkar-e-Janghvi and other militant outfits. In the recent years, especially TTP's insurgents and its affiliated banned groups conducted many terror-activities like suicide attacks, ruthless beheadings of tribesmen, assaults on security personnel and prominent figures including Shias, Ahmadis, Sufis, Christians and Sikhs. TTP has accelerated subversive activities so as to sabotage the forthcoming elections in Pakistan, as recent terror-attacks in Karachi and especially Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are part of the scheme. During election campaign, Awami National Party which decided to cope with the TTP's undemocratic practices has become special target of its militants.

In fact, Afghanistan has become a hub of anti-Pakistan activities from where foreign secret agencies are also sending logistic support to Baloch separatists like Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), Jundollah (God's soldiers) and other similar outfits to dismember Pakistan in order to obtain the secret strategic designs of the US, India and Israel against China and Iran. Besides martyring several personnel of security agencies in Balochistan, these foreign-backed elements kidnapped and massacred many innocent people who include teachers, professors, lawyers, Shias etc. On a number of occasions, these insurgent groups claimed responsibility for their heinous acts.

Pakistan's civil and military leadership has repeatedly revealed that militants along with huge cache of arms are being sent to various areas of Pakistan from Afghanistan. In the recent past, Rehman Malik pointed out that during his trip to Afghanistan, he emphasized upon President Karzai to close training camps of the insurgents.


Here question arises as to why US-led NATO forces which are equipped with modern surveillance system do not stop the Taliban insurgents when they go into Pakistani territory? Second question is as to why these foreign forces based in Afghanistan did not attack the Al Qaeda or Afghan Taliban, while in some cases, fighting with Pak security forces have continued for two or three days?

Notably, Afghanistan shares a common border with the Central Asian Republics. And all the foreign insurgents enter Pakistan through Afghanistan which has become a gateway. So, as to why US and NATO forces do not capture these foreign terrorists when they enter Afghanistan. Nonetheless, it shows planned incursions in Pakistan from Afghanistan.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

Pak-Afghan relations have an interesting dynamics; just when there is a feeler of improvement, they nosedive into another crisis. Nonetheless, it is encouraging that soon after each crisis, both Islamabad and Kabul resume taking measured steps to bring the ties back on track.

Latest rupture came last month when Afghanistan’s presidential spokesperson Aimal Faizi said that Pakistan had abandoned the peace process and imposed “impossible” preconditions on any further discussions. A day prior to Brussels talks, Faizi further said: “Our message to Pakistan is enough is enough...This time we will tell Pakistan that our people’s patience is running out and we can’t wait for Pakistan to deliver on Afghan peace promises.” On the same day Pakistan’s foreign ministry said: “Pakistan remains committed to continue its positive and constructive role towards a durable peace in Afghanistan”.

Afghanistan has grown increasingly frustrated with Pakistan over its efforts to pursue a peace process involving the Taliban, suggesting that Islamabad intends to keep Afghanistan unstable until after foreign combat forces have left at the end of 2014. However, Pakistan is convinced that a peaceful, stable, prosperous and united Afghanistan is in the interest of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region.

The US hosted talks in Brussels between Afghan President Karzai and Pakistani officials with the aim to re-rail the stalled Afghan peace process. The participants included Afghanistan’s defence minister, Bismillah Khan Mohammadi, Pakistan’s army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, and Pakistan’s foreign secretary, Jalil Jilani. The marathon session spread over three hours was chaired by the US Secretary of State John Kerry. Diplomats had hoped that Kerry, who enjoys a good rapport with Karzai, could bring the parties back to the negotiating table. Things did not move beyond photo session and a stroll in the lawn.

After the talks, the US Secretary of State John Kerry said: “We had a very extensive and,... productive and constructive dialogue... but we have all agreed that results are what will tell the story, not statements at press conferences...We have a lot of homework to do...it was better to under-promise but deliver.” The three parties would “continue a very specific dialogue on both the political track as well as the security track,” said Kerry. “We have a commitment to do that in the interests of Afghanistan, Pakistan and peace in the region,” he added. There were no statements by President Karzai and General Kayani.

These trilateral talks come a day after Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment that Pakistan must crack down on militants who use the country as a sanctuary to launch attacks in Afghanistan. Rasmussen said, “If we are to ensure long-term peace and stability in Afghanistan we also need a positive engagement of Afghanistan’s neighbours, including Pakistan.”

Since the last quarter of 2012, Western diplomats have acknowledged a tangible effort by Pakistan to promote the peace process in Afghanistan. This impression was reinforced by Ambassador Richard Olson during his Senate confirmation hearing in August 2012, when he stated that “the Pakistani military and the Pakistani government have moved away” from the strategic depth doctrine.

Pakistan has released at least 26 Afghan Taliban prisoners during recent months in the hope that it could help persuade Taliban to enter into peace talks. But there is little evidence of any forward movement. Although there have been several meetings in the Western capitals over the past few months in which representatives of the Taliban have met Afghan peace negotiators, there have been no signs of a breakthrough.

In a run-up to Brussels meet, the US acting Special Representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, David Pearce, had visited Pakistan for discussions with General Kayani; both discussed the issue threadbare. The brief announcement of the ISPR said, “The two sides discussed matters of mutual interest with particular focus on Afghanistan reconciliation process.” Both sides felt that their approach, with its main focus on bringing the Taliban on board in the negotiation process, was similar. The US administration sees Pakistan as a key player in brokering peace with Taliban insurgents.

Even though the erratic Afghan president is known to engage in public tirades against friends and foes, his close associates, too, pick up the cues and go ballistic. Recent outburst by Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin took observers by surprise. Accusing Pakistan of “shifting” its position on the peace talks and of “changing the goal posts”, he threatened to go it alone on the peace process without Pakistan’s assistance. President Karzai by his periodic critical views of US and Pakistan policies in the context of Afghan peace has been spoiling the show. The Afghan President is, perhaps under compulsion to indulge in this kind of mud-slinging in an attempt to regain the Pashtun’s sympathies whom he had alienated during his two terms in office. No less important are Karzai’s growing fears about his own future when his term ends in 2014.

Pakistan has all along extended cooperation to Afghanistan for peace and stability, but the repeated rhetoric of Karzai and associates accusing Islamabad of facilitating the extremist elements have been muddying the atmosphere. The Afghan President does not realize that relationship between the two neighbours has to be tension free, and for this purpose, each side must address the concerns of the other. Karzai has refused to hand-over terrorists from Swat and Balochistan who are being hosted by Afghanistan as special guests. These terrorists are encouraged and facilitated to launch cross border attacks into Chitral, Malakand and Balochistan.

Despite all the goodwill gestures by Pakistan, the Afghan leader is not reciprocating in kind. Just a handshake in Brussels by President Karzai and General Kayani would not be enough and the Afghan President would have to change his mindset of blaming Pakistan.

Afghanistan is currently in a critical transformational period. Question of Afghan reconciliation to make for peace in the country is acquiring an enhanced focus. Without internal harmony in Afghanistan, Pakistan will also not be able to get rid of ongoing menace of militancy. Moreover, in case Afghanistan slides down into a civil war after 2014, the US would lose its claim about an honourable exit. The effectiveness of future negotiations in the region hinges upon forging better relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan is convinced that a peaceful, stable, prosperous and united Afghanistan is in the interest of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region.

(Writer is Consultant, Policy & Strategic Response, IPRI)

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

The tension between the Pakistan and Afghanistan has failed to abate, while the United States has renewed efforts to reconcile the two neighbours; however, no concrete outcome can still be seen. Recently, the US Secretary of State John Kerry hosted Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani in the Belgium capital, Brussels, to ease tension between the two countries. The joint communiqué issued at the end of the Brussels meeting said that "productive" talks took place between the two sides. However, significantly the US Secretary of State Kerry said, after the tripartite talks, that the success or failure of the talks would be measured by their results.

In other words, the talks were a means towards an end, and not themselves the end. The details of the talks were not made public but the participation of Karzai and COAS Kayani reveals that they were of great significance. The participation of Gen. Kayani in the talks with the Afghan political leadership demonstrates the extent to which Islamabad is ready to go to restore peace in Afghanistan. In the last few months, Kabul, specifically Karzai, has been consistently complaining regarding what it thinks is Pakistan's insincerity towards the Afghan peace process. However, Kabul could not substantiate, despite unceasing allegations, the nature and measure of the insincerity of Islamabad. The latest point of friction between Islamabad and Kabul regardsthe nature of the peace process in Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that the US and its European allies have found Kabul's stance more credible than Pakistan's. This can be gauged from the fact that the NATO foreign ministers meeting, which preceded the Pakistan-Afghanistan talks in Brussels, called upon Pakistan to crack down on militants who allegedly use the country as a sanctuary to launch attacks in Afghanistan. This is, indeed, an ominous situation for Pakistan because on the other hand, NATO failed to ask Afghanistan to sort out the issue of sanctuaries of Pakistani Taliban on its soil, which the insurgents use to launch attacks inside Pakistan.

It is important to note that Kabul has been accusing Pakistan of sponsoring the Afghan Taliban insurgency. Earlier Karzai and his cohorts used to accuse Pakistan of holding Afghan Taliban commanders, so that no peace talks between them and the Afghan government could take place.

Therefore, Kabul then asked Pakistan to release Afghan Taliban commanders so that the peace process led by the Afghan High Peace Council could be facilitated. In response, Pakistan started releasing Afghan Taliban commanders and at various points set free 25 of them. However, their release did not curtail the level of the Afghan insurgency nor facilitated talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. In fact, the incompetent Afghan government could not take advantage of the situation. To shield his own failure, Karzai started alleging that the commanders, who were released by Pakistan, rejoined the Taliban ranks. The Afghan Taliban have been waging an insurgency on Afghan soil so it means the Taliban commanders released by Pakistan must have joined the Taliban inside Pakistan. Then, who is responsible for that? Obviously, the Karzai administration because if they failed to engage with the released commanders and could not track them, it means that the Afghan government does not have control over its territory. This also establishes beyond doubt the fact that Kabul's lack of control over its territory has also helped Pakistani Taliban to cultivate its sanctuaries on Afghan soil so as to use it to foment trouble inside Pakistan. In such an atmosphere and environment, created by the extremely inept handling of matters by President Karzai, no meaningful peace process is possible inside Afghanistan and there can be no improvement in the relations between Kabul and Pakistan. A close look at the latest anti-Pakistan tirade by Afghan President Karzai would reveal that it has emerged at a time when the US and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are increasingly drawing down their forces in Afghanistan. Karzai wants to use the opportunity to build pressure on Pakistan to meet the illogical demands of Kabul, regarding the influence of Pakistan inside Afghanistan. In other words, Karzai and the entire Afghan officialdom think that Pakistan has a dominating influence on the Afghan Taliban. Whereas, the fact of the matter is that Pakistan only has a working relationship with the Afghan Taliban. So how can Pakistan use its good offices to influence the Afghan Taliban to give up fighting against the Afghan government? A very important aspect of the issue is that the very premise of the official view of Afghanistan that the Taliban from Pakistan are responsible for the continued civil war in the country is simplistic and fallacious. How can a rag-tag army of a few thousand ill-equipped and ill-trained fighters engage the hundreds of thousands of well-equipped foreign forces? Afghan officials know that Pakistan does not have a controlling influence on the Taliban, but at the same time use it as a propaganda tool to cover the incapacity and incompetency of Kabul and to put Pakistan at the receiving end.

President Karzai started levelling increasingly serious charges against Pakistan as part of a well-orchestrated strategy. The foremost motive of this strategy is that Karzai is desirous of winning the hearts and minds of his countrymen. Pakistan-bashing has been an attractive slogan inside Afghanistan for politicians and rulers to rally public support, particularly at a time of a lack of legitimacy. Afghan president Sardar Daud in the 1970s, also resorted to unprecedented anti-Pakistan propaganda and launched the Pakhtoonistan stunt in order to get political legitimacy inside Afghanistan. Because Daud had dethroned the legitimate Afghan King Zahir Shah and had usurped power. So, in order to cultivate a political constituency and to get legitimacy, he adopted a profoundly anti-Pakistan stance. Karzai seemingly is replicating Daud's tested strategy for internal consumption. Karzai would have to relinquish power at the end of his second presidential stint early next year. Although under the Afghan constitution he cannot be elected for a third term, but to be known as a "successful" president and "architect of a new Afghanistan" he needs to do something and the soft target, as always, is Pakistan. This does not mean that Pakistan has never been negatively engaged in Afghanistan. However, accusing Islamabad for Kabul's own incapacity and failure has been an important tactic and feature of Afghan rulers.

To be known as a "successful" leader inside Afghanistan is also important for the extended members of Karzai's clan to have any fair chances of introducing another presidential candidate in the Afghan political arena. On its part, Pakistan has been coming up with plans and strategies to bring peace to the war-ravaged country, but the Afghan rulers never allow Islamabad to implement it effectively, while at the same time considering Pakistan as a key to the Afghan peace process. For instance, in 2006, Pakistan had successfully negotiated a peace plan with Mustapha Zahir Shah, the grandson of the late King Zahir Shah. According to the peace plan, Mustapha would have had to play an instrumental role in a newly launched peace initiative. He would also have had to occupy a key place in the new dispensation comprising all ethnic groups of Afghanistan. The plan envisaged that Pakistan would help bring a consensus political dispensation in Kabul, comprising all ethnic groups, simultaneously ensuring its stability, dismantling the feared militant infrastructure and carefully combing its security apparatus to avert the risk of radicalism. However, the vested interests of Karzai, threw a spanner in Islamabad's works.

Now the irrational accusation from Karzai and Kabul will also torpedo the understanding reached between Pakistan and Afghanistan a few months back, of forging an unprecedented level of cooperation which would have culminated in the signing of a strategic partnership between their two countries in six months, or next autumn.

The situation today in Afghanistan is so adverse that Karzai and his administration have to be careful in dealing with Pakistan; instead of personal and vested interests they will have to enter into a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan and the Afghan insurgent groups. Otherwise the situation in Afghanistan will get worse; the immediate and ultimate sufferers will be the common Afghans, instead of Karzai or his intelligence chief, and hangers-on.

http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/

Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said the other day that his government would never recognize Durand Line as international border between the two countries. He said that the government of Pakistan was pressurizing Afghanistan into accepting Durand Line as the formal border by creating issues like construction of border gates and other military installations. In apparent reference to Pakistan, and what he called, ‘as a reminder to the Taliban’, Karzai said: “Instead of destroying their own country, they should turn their weapons against places where plots are made against Afghan prosperity”.

Such provocative remarks by Karzai could exacerbate the already uneasy relationship with Pakistan. Since Pakistan came into being, one of the fundamental reasons for strained relations with Afghanistan has been non-acceptance of Durand Line by the latter as an international border between the two countries. Afghanistan was the last country to recognize Pakistan because of its leadership’s perception that Pushtuns on both sides were inseparable. Barring the Taliban era, invariably all Afghan governments had raised the issue of Pakhtunistan.

It is worth mentioning that in NWFP a referendum was held in July 1947 in which 289244 votes were cast in favor of the NWFP’s union with Pakistan and only 2,874 votes for union with India, a close ally of Afghanistan at that time. Afghanistan, nevertheless, does not have the right or justification to raise the Durand Line issue, as after two Afghan wars, the British and Afghanistan had come to the negotiating table and in 1893 both sides agreed to the Durand Line as the border between Afghanistan and the then British India. Sir Mortimer Durand, Foreign Secretary of British India and Emir of Afghanistan Abdur Rahman had signed the agreement. In July 1947, a month before the partition and independence of the subcontinent, Afghan government informed the British government that the tribesmen in the tribal areas wanted to dissociate themselves from India - meaning Pakistan but the governor of the NWFP, Sir George Cunningham after touring the tribal areas and meeting the tribal chiefs declared that the people wanted to retain the same ties with the new state of Pakistan, as they had with the British India.

After the establishment of Pakistan in August 1947, Kabul argued that Pakistan was not a successor state to Britain but a new state that was carved out of British India, and as such it could not inherit the rights which British India had. It is a matter of record that the world courts have universally upheld the binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers, and declared that these are passed down to successor independent states, as was the case with most of Africa. A unilateral declaration by one party is of no consequence in this regard. Various Pakistan governments failed to understand that by giving them the same rights as enjoyed by people living in other parts of Pakistan, the people of FATA would have proved bulwark against any conspiracy or illegitimate demand from across the border. In April 2011, President Asif Ali Zardari had signed two orders regarding Amendments in the FCR (2011) and Extension of the Political Parties Order 2002 to the Tribal Areas. FCRs being legacy of the British Raj should be done away with completely.

The FATA region merits a provincial status.. Bring up any criterion and the region emphatically makes for a compact province area-wise, population-wise, resources-wise, administration-wise, as well as ethnically and linguistically.
The position of creating FATA province is different, and can be created through presidential order, whereas carving out a province from the existing province like Punjab or Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which requires a resolution passed by 2/3rd majority of provincial legislature. Had the government made FATA a separate province, it would have been calm and tranquil part of the country, as more than 10 million people would have had their own governor, chief minister and a representative cabinet, giving them a sense of being equal partners in progress. The fact remains that people of tribal areas are entitled to the same rights and privileges that are enjoyed by the people of other provinces. Had they been part of mainstream politics, religious, fanatics would not have had the influence to aid and abet the foreign militants to create problems for Pakistan. By doing so, moderate trends would have flourished and moderate elements prevailed over the extremist elements.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/46/

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has started saying strange things, not for the first time, but this time these appear very calculated – albeit untimely for cross border relations. With a caretaker government in place in Pakistan and all political parties campaigning, Karzai has chosen to call on the “Taliban to attack external enemies” (read: Pakistan) and spoken of rekindling the Durand Line border dispute with Pakistan. Experts and political opponents have pointed to these as attempts by Karzai to extend his tenure – by hook or by crook – as his second and last constitutionally mandated term is set to come to an end in 2014.

The withdrawal of US troops appears to be all the more reason to make Afghanistan appear a goldmine to the current Afghan president – against whose office the New York Times only recently published allegations that the CIA “dumps bags of money” there. The question of who all shall contest the next presidential elections is being asked and the name of former foreign minister – and now Karzai opponent – Abdullah Abdullah has been propped up. But Abdullah does not believe Karzai will step down without a fight — despite the constitutional bar on him. If Abdullah’s suggestion that, “the president’s best option is to create an emergency security situation so everyone says ‘under these circumstances how can we have elections?” is true, then Karzai’s recent rants against Pakistan appear to fit. What has been heartening is to see the coalition parties in Afghanistan come out with a strong criticism of Karzai’s remarks on the Durand Line. “If Karzai was quiet about the Durand Line for the last decade, why has he chosen to speak at the end of the term?” is the question they have asked – and rightly so.

Karzai appears to want to cast himself as a ‘hero’ to the Afghan people, at a time when a statesman is required. There is nothing to be gained from slogan mongering – claims that Pakistan moved 11 outposts to the Goshta district near the Durand Line, “distributed Pakistani identity cards” and that Afghanistan has “never recognised the Durand Line” could spark unnecessary conflict between two countries facing the same threat: the Taliban. The next Afghan election will be as important for the future of the region as the current general election in Pakistan. A new political landscape could be carved out between the two neighbours in 2014, and the task of the current Afghan government should be to ensure that the next governments have a smooth playing field. President Karzai needs to be told to restrain himself – or he risks further antagonizing the tense relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Border clashes like the recent one are a part and parcel of the reconciliation process, they need not become more than that.

- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013....rTgXEPez.dpuf

Last month at a meeting in Brussels, US Secretary of State had tried to remove misunderstanding and mistrust among key players that had floundered peace in Afghanistan. War of words by President Hamid Karzai further spoiled the atmosphere while in the face of tough realities, it was imperative that the key players should remain on the same page.
The US has pinned hopes on John Kerry to bring the parties back to negotiating table, using his good relationship with President Karzai. But in a recent salvo Karzai pointing out to the Taliban said: “Instead of destroying their own country, they should turn their weapons against places where plots are made against Afghan prosperity”. Such provocative remarks could exacerbate the already testy relationship with Pakistan. In fact, Hamid Karzai suffers from occasional fits to use vitriolic against Pakistan. His statement was reflective of his mental bankruptcy, as Pakistan is making sincere efforts to make Afghanistan move ahead with the process of reconciliation for durable peace and stability there.
He has forgotten Pakistan’s role in playing host to millions of Afghan refugees, accommodating them and giving them a share in economic activity. But Karzai is ungrateful type. In fact, he is feeling insecure, as Pakhtuns consider him as American puppet; Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbaks do not care a damn for him because he is at the fag end of his presidency. Hamid Karzai is extremely worried about his security, and it is out of frustration that he is lashing out at the US, Pakistan and the Taliban. Recently, President Karzai ordered US Special Forces to immediately cease all special operations and leave the restive province of Wardak - a strategic important eastern province viewed as gateway to capital. This area has been the focus of counterinsurgency efforts in recent years, yet President Karzai is trying to tarnish the image of the coalition forces in the eyes of Afghan masses.
Showing utter disregard to fraternal and religious ties between the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Karzai government has allowed Indian agency RAW to use long porous border for illegal activities against Pakistan, which provides financial and military support to Baloch separatists. Pakistani reservations on the issue are genuine as Chuck Hagel had stated in 2011 during his address on Afghanistan at Oklahoma’s Cameron University that India has over the years “financed problems” for Pakistan in Afghanistan. The war on terror has become the longest war in US history - nearly 11 years. It has consumed $57 billion in American development aid. The US military has spent more than $517 billion trying to subdue and secure Afghanistan. What, in the end, has the US achieved after all this time and treasury spent in Afghanistan? The world as well as the US is no more safe from terror attacks; rather an upsurge in terrorist activities has been observed.
In fact all the money spent in Afghanistan has gone down the drain, as there has been virtually no progress and development during their 11 years’ presence in Afghanistan and fighting the war on terrorism. Instead of identifying the causes for their inability to decimate the Taliban, Karzai continues with his propaganda that Pakistan is not sincere in bringing peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan is in the neighborhood of Afghanistan and has suffered a lot due to this territorial contiguity. Pakistan is fully committed to bring peace and tranquility in Afghanistan as troubling or distressed Afghanistan hurts Pakistan both in economic development and maintaining law and order. Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman reiterated Islamabad’s firm commitment to any dialogue process with the Taliban and Afghan government that ensures peace, stability and prosperity in Afghanistan. Of course, stable and peaceful Afghanistan is in the interest of Pakistan. President Hamid Karzai does not like to reciprocate such gestures.
On the contrary, Afghanistan leadership does not feel qualms for rewarding India in the form of contracts for reconstruction, which had not played any part during Afghan jihad in 19*80 to rid the Soviet occupation. Instead, it has facilitated India to create problems for Pakistan. During the last few decades, Pakistan is facing a severe low water flow in the rivers running from Indian Occupied Kashmir to Pakistan, which is resulting in shortage of water for irrigation and energy generation purposes. India is not only violating Indus Water Treaty by building hundreds of small and large water reservoirs or uplifting the existing dams, but also encouraging and financing construction of dams in Afghanistan, which will further reduce water flow in Pakistani rivers. Unfortunately, there are certain nationalist elements in Pakistan especially in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwah (KPK), who on one hand strongly oppose the construction of water reservoirs in Pakistan i.e. Kalabagh Dam; and on the other encourage India to build dams on the rivers flowing to Pakistan either from India or Afghanistan..
In April 2013, the Chairman of Awami National Party (ANP), Asfandyar Wali Khan in an interview to Radio Pakistan said that Pakistan should not criticize the uplift projects being carried out by India in Afghanistan. He added that if India wants to build roads and hospitals in Afghanistan, then Islamabad should not oppose the activities and avoid creating paranoia over the role of India. He further questioned that “Will Islamabad tolerate Kabul’s criticism over the construction of a port by China at Gwadar in “Balochistan”. One does not understand that he is concerned about Pakistan’s interests or interests of India and Afghanistan. When we have leaders like him, Pakistan does not need enemies. People of Pakistan had always doubts about such persons’ fidelity to Pakistan, and apart from rampant corruption in KPK during ANP’s tenure it was people’s disenchantment and distrust in the ANP leadership that the party has been completely routed in the May 11 elections. Pakistan is unlucky to have such leaders who enjoy perks and privileges of highest echelons of power but instead of promoting Pakistan’s interest, they promote aliens’ interests.


http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/