Friday, March 29, 2024
01:34 AM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles

News & Articles Here you can share News and Articles that you consider important for the exam

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Friday, March 30, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default Pak-Afghan Relations (Important Articles)

Taliban are Pak Army proxies, not Pashtun nationalists - I

Taliban, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, are an attempt to wipe out entho-nationalism among the Pashtun and temper with the Pashtun cultural identity

Insight By Farhat Taj

One of the media and academia's axiomatic constructions about Pashtun is that Taliban are Pashtun nationalists. This construction is based on distorted one-sided information and selective references to the Pashtun history that too are misrepresented to concur with the notion that Taliban are Pashtun nationalists. Drawing upon the current Pashtun ground realities and history, I will argue that Taliban, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, are mere proxies of the Pakistani state to wipe out forces of entho-nationalism among the Pashtun as well as temper with Pashtun cultural identity on both sides of the Durand line in the state pursuit of the foreign and domestic policy objectives set and controlled by the military establishment of Pakistan.

Let me say on the outset that the Pashtun experience of having been assaulted with state proxies in garb of religion is not new. In the past the Mughal and the British states have done the same in order to force the Pashtun to behave in line with the states' strategic interests. There are basically three big pan Pashtun nationalist movements in the Pashtun history. All the three movements were perceived as clashing with the contemporary states' interests. Thus all the three were assaulted with states' proxies and propaganda skillfully camouflaged with religion.

The first movement was initiated by mystic, Bayazeed Ansari, from Kaniguram, South Waziristan. He was called 'Pir-Rooshan' (the saint of light) by his followers. He lived during the reign of the Mughal Indian Emperor Jalaludin Akbar (1542-1605). The Mughal emperor imposed a ban on him and his followers. Above all the supposedly secular Mughal ruler, Akbar, tasked mullahs to launch a politically-motivated religious campaign against the teachings of Pir-Rooshan. Prominent among the those mullahs are Akhund Darveza (a mullah of Tajik origin) and another Pir Ali Tirmizi (of Uzbek origin). These two state sponsored mullahs declared him Peer-Tareek (the saint of darkness) and assaulted his movement with a sustained malicious propaganda apparently rooted in Islam.

The second Pashtun nationalist movement was launched and led by Khushal Khan Khattak, well-known Pashtun poet, political leader and warrior. The nationalist movement led by him was fully supported by two other influential Pashtun tribal leaders, Darya Khan in Khyber agency and Aimal Khan in Mohmand agency. Arguably, Khushal Khan can be regarded as the founder of modern Pashtun nationalism. For the ethno-nationalist inspiration of future generations of Pashtun, Khushal Khan, also known as lord of pen, has left volumes of his Pashto poetry that is full of Pashtun nationalistic motivation, aim and expression. In one of his well-known couplets, he says this: 'Drast Pashtun la Kandahara tar Attoca sara yo da nang pa kar pat ao ashkar, pa yowa zhaba wail sara Pashto kro walay nashoo la yo bal khabardar' ( All Pashtun from Qandahar to Attock speak Pashto language (and) are (socio-culturally) one and the same, but are (politically) oblivion to one another). Khushal Khan's movement was suppressed by the most bigoted Mughal ruler of India, Aurangzeb Alamgir (1618-1707). One of the Khushal Khan's couplets in which he condemns the Mugahl ruler's atrocities is this in. 'Che pa noom Pakhtanay ghuseegi pray khawkheegi, Aurangzeb dasay badshah de da Islam' (He (Aurangzeb) derives pleasure from massacre of Pashtun, such is Aurangzeb's kingdom of Islam).

The third great Pashtun nationalist movement was launched by Khan Ghafar Khan, popularly known as Bacha Khan. A prominent difference between Khushal Khan and Bacha Khan is that the former ran his movement with sword in form of armed struggle against the Mugahl army led by a fanatic Muslim ruler and the latter's movement was non-violent. Essentially, Bacha Khan's movement was for mass-scale social reformations in the Pashtun society in order to cleanse it from socio-cultural practices that hindered wide spread human development in the society, such as revenge or the inhibition towards modern education.

The British-Indian and the successor Pakistan states used religious proxies to oppress Bacha Khan's movement. Wali Khan's book, Facts are Facts, contains interesting research about the role of mullahs against the Pashtun nationalist movement under the British Raj. Both the British-Indian and the Pakistani states never allowed Bacha Khan to enter the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) although despite all the states' opposition, his movement did inspire countless people across FATA, including many parents who sent their children to the schools established by Bacha Khan in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa areas on the border with FATA.

Linked with Bacha Khan's movement was the mass scale social reform and state building agendas of Amanullah Khan, the great Pashtun King of Afghanistan (1919-1929). The king made arrangements for compulsory education for all Afghans and gave right to vote to women. Pashto was declared the official language of Afghanistan. He began to build a strong Afghan armed force, including the air force with help of the Russians, and initiated a process of industrialization. He tasked the Russians to build a road linking Tashkand with Kabul and Khyber agency in FATA. The king regularly used to read Pakhtun, a Pashto language magazine launched by Bacha Khan, and used to advise other people in Afghanistan to do so. The Pashtun, although divided by the British drawn artificial Durand Line, had turned their faces towards progress, development and ethno-national unity.

All this was too much for the British rulers of India to bear because it was happening in the area that the British had assumed their buffer zones vis-a-vis Russia. Their first buffer zone, Afghanistan, and their second buffer zone, FATA, along with the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (formally NWFP) seemed going out of the British control coupled with a possible tilt towards the Russians. The British had to act to eliminate the reforms undertaken on both sides of the Durand Line. The British knew they could not do it militarily. It could have brought the British face to face with the Russians that the British never wanted. Secondly, the harsh experiences of the three Afghan wars had taught them that military intervention in Afghanistan is pointless. Thus they unleashed mullahs on Bacha Khan and King Amanullah Khan to rob their reform agendas of religious legitimacy. In case of the king the British lowered themselves to such an extent they made fake photos of his wife, Queen Soraya, showing her half naked. The photos were distributed in Afghanistan with the malicious propaganda that the king is not a Muslim in his personal and political life and hence cannot be king of the Pashtun, who are Muslim. Deadly chaos was created in Afghanistan in which Bacha Saqa took power who did with Afghanistan what the ISI backed Taliban did during their reign (1996-2001). Girls' schools were closed down, Afghan Shias were massacred, the state building agenda was rolled backed and Kabul was ravaged. Similarly, mullahs were also unleashed by the British to discredit Bacha Khan's movement as well.

King Amanullah Khan's agenda for social reforms, imposed from above, was very vulnerable to conspiracies by anti-Pashtun forces, who exploited the vulnerability to the full. Contrary to this, Bacha Khan's movement for social reforms was firmly rooted in people's confidence that he and his followers had successfully won through direct interaction people in villages and towns. Thus his movement could be never rolled backed despite severe and prolonged oppression by the British-Indian and Pakistani states. Nevertheless, the implantation of the social reforms that both Bacha Khan wanted was thwarted by the successive states' oppressions. Imagine where the Pashtun as nation would have been today if the reform agendas undertaken on both side of the Durand Line had been carried forward.

To be continued
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/index.php
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
iranibilly (Thursday, May 16, 2013)
  #2  
Old Friday, April 06, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Taliban are Pak Army proxies, not Pashtun nationalists - II

The Taliban brutally suppressed everything that represented Afghan or Pashtun national identity. Is it appropriate then to call them Pashtun nationalists?


Opinion By Farhat Taj

Pakistan has been actively pursuing a foreign policy rooted in religious discourse vis-a-vis Afghanistan. This is also because Kabul was pursuing a foreign policy rooted in secular Pashtun ethno-nationalism, including its claims over the Pashtun territory of Pakistan. Secondly, Pakistani army, deeply concerned about its military imbalance vis-a-vis India, does not want a pro-India government in Afghanistan. Thus the nurturing of the Afghan religious figures, displeased by the secular pursuit of the successive governments of Afghanistan, came up as an ideal opportunity in the strategic calculus of the military establishment of Pakistan. Afghan religious figures, including Gulbadin Hikmatyar and Ahmad Shah Masood, were invited to Pakistan where they were trained by Pakistan military's Special Services Group.


This happened well before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. All those trained religious figures were used as proxies in the war against Soviets in Afghanistan. Several kinds of Afghan groups, such as secular Pashtun nationalists, traditional tribal leaders and religious figures, were ready to resist the Soviet occupation of their country. Pakistan ignored the nationalists and traditional tribal leaders and exclusively supported the Afghan religious forces. The West, which had backed the Afghan resistance against the Soviets, provided military, financial, political and diplomatic assistance to the resistance, but had no physical control over the so-called Afghan Mujahideen. It was only the ISI that exerted the control, including training and flow of funds and weapons to the proxy fighters. It was the time when Pakistani generals, led by dictator Gen Zia, assaulted the Afghan (including Pashtun) identity and Afghan state with their policy of Strategic Depth, an assault that continues to this date in the form of the Taliban.

The Strategic Depth is proactive policy to install an indoctrinated Pashtun-dominated Pakistan-controlled government in Afghanistan that disowns Pashtun/Afghan identity and bans any Indian influence in Kabul. The policy also means strengthening Pakistan's ties with the Arab world by cutting the country's cultural roots in Persian and Indian civilizations. This especially includes a systematic tempering with the Pashtun identity to erase the cultural memory of the present and future generations of the Pashtun and replace it with an Arabized identity.

Afghan national identity since the last 1,000 years following the rule of Mahmood of Ghazna (971 -1030) has been strong Afghan Muslim identity, just like the Persian Muslim identity or the Turkish Muslim identity. Both Persians and Turks have thoroughly indigenized Islam. The two nations have firmly evolved peculiar Muslim identities that can be distinctly distinguished from Muslim identities elsewhere in the world, especially the Arab Muslim identity. Over the centuries, the Pashtun did the same with Islam by aligning it with Pashtun traditions and culture.

The military ideologues of the Strategic Depth tempered with the strong Pashtun identity by exaggerating and expanding its Muslim part. They carefully groomed and encouraged the religious extremists and crushed the secular Afghan nationalists who were opposed to Soviet occupation. Above all, they brain washed thousands and thousands of young Afghan refuges in a systematic way in religious schools especially established for the purpose in the refugees camps in Pakistan.

They did not do so out of their love of Islam. If that had been the aim, they would have focused on the universal principles of Islam, such as justice, fair play and public welfare - the principles that can be applied to any society in the world. It was these universal principles of Islam that Bacha Khan Movement was striving to promote in the Pashtun society. Instead, the ideologues of the Strategic Depth indoctrinated young Afghan Pashtun with a narrow, intolerant and violent version of Islam that glorifies a particular archaic version of the Arab tribal culture. The aim was to homogenize the future of Afghanistan by cutting the cultural roots of its people with their history and traditions. In other words the aim was to destroy Afghaniat (Afghanhood), including Pashtun nationalism. One of the Strategic Depth ideologues, Gen (r) Hamid Gul, has said on many occasions that 'Afghanistan is a blank paper and it would look like whatever we write on it'.

I would like to link this point to something not directly related to our discussion on Taliban and Pashtun nationalism, but still relevant. Some friends from Sindh and Baluchistan are reporting that a network of Sunni extremist madrassas (religious schools) is being set up in the two provinces to damage the secular ethno-nationalist Sindhi and Baloch political forces through religious discourse that is also tempering with the ethnic identities. If so, Sindhi and Baloch nationalists should take it very seriously. Their ethnic identities are enriching parts of human heritage, and they must do whatever they can to stop the anti-civilization indoctrination of their youth in the name of Islam.

Coming back to the issue of Taliban and Pashtun nationalism, Pakistani military ideologues began to implement the agenda of Strategic Depth by importing the Afghan Mujahideen parties they had nurtured on the Pakistani soil to Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the Soviet forces. These outfits were too artificial to deliver. They fragmented very quickly in the rising tide of civil war in Afghanistan. This time round, the military establishment began to support the Taliban.

Rejecting the various stories about the origins of Taliban, the Pashtun nationalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan believe that they were created in 1994 by the Afghan Cell of the ISI led by Major General Aziz Khan. Although retired general Nasirullah Babar boasted of his share in the creation of the Taliban, Gen Aziz remained the 'focal person' for Taliban in the security establishment of Pakistan almost up till 9/11.

Nationalists all over the world are recognized by their actions, conduct and attitudes that concur with their national identity. Let's look at the actions, conduct and attitude of the Taliban. What were their first major steps when they entered Kabul in 1996? They banned the Afghan national flag, Afghan national anthem and Nowroz (Afghan New Year) - a five thousand year old festival. Radio Kabul became 'Voice of Sharia'. Jirga, the most important social institution of Pashtun tribes, was declared anti-Sharia and also banned. The statue of Buddha in Bamian, a symbol of Afghan culture that had remained intact and respected among countless past generations of Afghans, was demolished. Everything that represented Afghan (or Pashtun) national identity was brutally suppressed. Is this the way nationalists treat their national identity? Far from being Pashtun nationalists, the Taliban religiously imposed the Strategic Depth agenda during their rule from 1996 to 2001, destroying Afghan identity and state and making the country a de facto fifth province of Pakistan.

To be continued

Friday Times
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Saturday, April 28, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Opinion By Farhat Taj

The notion that 'fiercely autonomous' tribes in the 'weakly governed' FATA gave refuge to fleeing militants from Afghanistan in line with the code of Pashtunwali is completely false



Taliban are Pak Army proxies, not Pashtun nationalists - III


In the aftermath of 9/11, Pakistan was forced to fight the Taliban. Pakistani generals accommodated the immediate US concerns about Al Qaeda but also continued a low profile relationship with the Afghan Taliban to preserve them for strategic depth in Afghanistan after the US had left the country. They managed to play the double role by creating a 'managed chaos' in FATA that made the region too insure for independent observation from the outside and too frightening for the local tribal people to share information with the outside world. It was systematically propagated in Pakistani media that 'fiercely autonomous' tribes in the 'weakly governed' FATA have given refuge in line with the code of Pashtunwali to the fleeing militants from Afghanistan in defiance of the Pakistani state. All this is utter nonsense.

Not even a single tribe in FATA gave refugee to any militants. People who cooperated with the militants were individuals within tribes. These individuals have longstanding links with the military establishments and their tribes have no control over them. For example, Maulana Noor Muhammad from South Waziristan was openly urging the tribes in his Friday sermons to support the militants following their escape in the area.

South Waziristan was the first FATA agency where the 'managed chaos' was imposed to construct a fake popular support for the militants. While most people watched the activities of the militants as unconcerned bystanders, it were the local Waziri Pashtun nationalists and other sensible local tribal people who foresaw the danger in such activities and began to educate people about them. At this point mysterious targeted killing of such anti-Taliban people began in 2003. The first anti-Taliban tribesman who was target killed in 2003 was Farooq Wazir, the local leader of the Pashtun nationalist Pashtunkhwa Mili Awami Party, PMAP, who had publicly declared in response to Maulana Noor Muhammad's sermons that no militants will be allowed to enter the city centre of Wana, capital of South Waziristan.

Between 2003 to 2007, over 200 political activists, including tribal leaders in South Waziristan were target killed under mysterious circumstances never investigated by the government of Pakistan. The common denominator among them is that they all were anti-Taliban. Their families hold the ISI responsible for their killing. Many of the eliminated anti-Taliban people were local activist of Pashtun nationalist political parties, PMAP and ANP. Mahmud Achakzai, leader of PMAP, repeatedly visited Waziristan to attend the funeral ceremonies of his assassinated party workers.

When the 'managed chaos' had to be shifted to the Mehsud area of South Waziristan, the intelligence authorities could not even find a suitable local Mehsud to 'crown' as Taliban commander. Thus a non-local Mehsud, Baitullah Mehsud, was chosen for the purpose on the recommendation of Maulana Mirajudin, an establishment linked Mehsud cleric. Although originally from South Waziristan, Baituallah's family had settled in Bannu for a long time. At the time of his arrival in South Waziristan as a Taliban commander, Baitullah could not even speak Pashto in the typical Mehsud dialect. He used to speak Banuchi - the Bannu Pashto dialect. Later during his stay in Waziristan as a terror leader he learned the Mehsud dialect.

Taliban apologists, such as PTI leader Imran Khan, have been claiming that Taliban militancy in Waziristan is inspired by Faqir of Ipi, the Waziri tribesman who led Waziristan's armed resistance to the British. This is a misleading claim. The Faqir's struggle was basically nationalist despite his religious orientation. This is the reason that descendents of the Faqir's family have disassociated themselves from the Taliban militancy, implying that Taliban have no ideological connections with the Faqir. Moreover, descendents of the close associates of the Faqir, all of them Pashtun nationalists linked with PMAP and ANP, have been target killed for their public anti-Taliban stance. One of them, Mirza Alam had been approached by the military authorities in Wana to give them one of his sons or nephews for leadership of the Waziri Taliban. He refused and later was killed along with six members of his family.

In North Waziristan, unlike South Waziristan, there was almost no local resistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. This does not imply any popular tribal support for the militants. The brutal massacre of the anti-Taliban people in South Waziristan was being closely watched in the neighbouring North Waziristan. By the time the militants reached North Waziristan, people there had clear idea that resistance to Taliban/Al Qaeda was pointless since the state is behind them. That was further confirmed when they saw that Jalaludin Haqqani hosted all the militants. Thus the militants landed and continue to live there in peace amid the terrified local tribals whose free will is under siege.

A Pashtun from Afghanistan, Jalaludin Haqqani, leader of the Haqqani Network, is one of the veterans of ISI's proxies, who were recruited in 1974 and later trained by colonel Imam in Peshawar for Afghan 'jihad'. He was settled in Danday Darpa Khel, a village in the suburbs of Mir Ali, the second important town of North Waziristan. His extended family owns almost half of the real estate in Mir Ali. A signal phone call from his house or madrassa is enough to ensure postings and transfers in all government offices in North Waziristan. Also, the Haqqani family has houses in Rawalpindi and Peshawar.

The Haqqani network based in North Waziristan, a frequent target of the US drone strikes, is the most formidable Taliban group attacking the US and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. It is the Haqqani Taliban leaders that the military establishment of Pakistan wants to accommodate in the future government of Afghanistan as has been suggested by the establishment linked think tank, Jinnah Institute, in its report 'Pakistan, US and the Endgame in Afghanistan' (page 13). The same report warns of Pashtun backlash in FATA if the Taliban are not accommodated in power in Afghanistan. But there is no public support for Afghan Taliban in FATA that could translate in such a backlash. Although the ISI did try to create that support, it failed.

For example, the ISI tried to create a stature for the Haqqanis as respected tribal leaders in FATA. They were directed to make peace among the Shia and Sunni tribes in Kurram. The objective was to argue to the world that Haqqanis are respected tribal leaders who have managed to make peace among the Shia and Sunni tribals, something that even the government of Pakistan had not been able to achieve. Thus any action against the Haqqani Network, that the US is asking for, would enrage the 'fiercely autonomous' people of FATA.

The Shia and Sunni tribal leaders questioned the wak (authority) of the Haqqanis to negotiate Kurram disputes. The Haqqanis responded that they were directed by the ISI. They demanded full authority from the tribal leaders for a peace deal. The Shias flatly refused. The Sunnis gave them the authority that practically means no authority: they asked the Haqqanis to use their influence with the ISI to implement the Murree agreement negotiated between the Kurram Shias and Sunnis by the government of Pakistan in 2008 but never enforced.

In the past, Kurram has been accepting mediation from Waziristan. Khandan Mehsud, a respectable tribal elder from Waziristan target killed in the post 9/11 Waziristan due to his opposition to the Taliban, has been leading the negotiations. Why did tribes of Kurram welcome Khandan Mehsud but not the Haqqanis? This is because the Mehsud had the stature of a popular tribal leader in FATA that the Haqqanis simply do not have. The fact that Mehsud belonged to the Sunni sect never damaged the Shias' trust in him. In this context he was a Pashtun nationalist who sincerely worked for well being of the Pashtun regardless their religious affiliations. Contrary to this, the Shias see the Haqanis as their murderers and the Sunnis fear, not respect, them. This is not how popular nationalist leaders are looked upon by their people.

To be continued

-FridayTimes
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Pakistan’s Afghan dilemma

May 23, 2012
S P Seth

Pakistan’s relations with the US and its allies seem to be on the mend with reports that the suspended NATO supply route to Afghanistan might be reopened. The route was closed by Pakistan after 24 of its soldiers were killed last November by the US forces on the Pakistan-Afghan border. Whether it will mean any real improvement in their relationship remains problematic because both remain hostage to developments in Afghanistan. While the Hamid Karzai government might feel reassured about the US commitment to a post-2014 Afghanistan after the US military withdrawal, following the strategic partnership between the two countries for ten years; Pakistan might not be all that happy. With the US involvement, of sorts, likely to continue, Pakistan’s capacity to shape developments to its strategic advantage will be severely constrained. Therefore, Afghanistan will remain a difficult issue affecting US-Pakistan relations for quite some time even after 2014.

It would appear that there is considerable confusion in the higher echelons of the Pakistan military about how best to achieve their strategic objectives in Afghanistan. There is, of course, the clearly understood goal of creating strategic depth in Afghanistan under Pakistani influence. But to imagine that an independent Afghan regime, presumably run by the Taliban, will follow Pakistan’s strategic dictates is a wild assumption. According to some reports, even at this point of time when the Taliban leadership is said to be sheltering in Pakistan, the relationship between some of Pakistan’s top generals and the Taliban leaders in residence is quite testy, bordering on deep distrust. It, therefore, does not bode well for Pakistan’s presumed confidence that the Taliban leadership, if and when in power again, will play Pakistan’s cards.

In a recent review article in the New York Review of Books on a bunch of books on Afghanistan, Anatol Lieven has written, “…sensible Pakistani [military officers] do not want the Taliban to conquer the whole of Afghanistan, because they would then be free to turn on Pakistan by giving their support to their Pashtun brothers who are in revolt against Pakistan as part of the Pakistani Taliban…”

Since Professor Lieven is considered an expert on Pakistan and Afghanistan (his latest book: Pakistan: A Hard Country), it is worth quoting him at some length. He writes: “Just what the Pakistani security establishment is really aiming at [in Afghanistan] is extremely difficult to work out. Quite apart from the levels of opacity and deceit in which Pakistani policy is wrapped, the Pakistani state is weak and soft. Even in the military, the lines of command have become blurred.”

Highlighting the role of the ISI in Afghan affairs, he comments, “Indeed, so close is the identification of some ISI officers with the Taliban that there is some doubt whether the Taliban is acting as Pakistan’s proxy or the ISI is acting as the Taliban’s proxy.”

Such confusion of policy and implementation, when the state is soft and weak, portends danger for Pakistan. And the danger clearly is that Pakistan is becoming hostage to a set of assumptions that do not hang together. They need a policy where the Taliban ceases to be its centrepiece, because it is actually weakening the foundations of the Pakistani state. The meteoric rise of the Pakistani Taliban (an offshoot of the Afghan Taliban), and the deadly violence it is inflicting on Pakistani society (with their fraternal linkages with other extremist and terrorist groups), is an existential threat for Pakistan.

Unless and until this realisation dawns on the Pakistani state, particularly its military, Pakistan is likely to lurch from one tragedy to another. In this context, whether its relations with the US are on the mend or not is immaterial. Pakistan’s own contradictions and conflicts are so overwhelming that the state has no time to work out an alternative strategy to save Pakistan. Let us face it, Pakistan is in danger of imploding from within.

In the midst of all this, some of the Afghans living in Australia were mulling over their country’s fate after the US withdrawal in 2014 at a national TV forum here. Most of them were against the US withdrawal in 2014 for fear that it would put in jeopardy the limited gains in education facilities for girls in the cities and other benefits of relative openness of Afghan society, at least in the cities.

There was also concern about Pakistan’s role as a safe haven for terrorists and extremists to destabilise Afghanistan. And it was feared that the return of the Taliban, if it were to eventuate, would be disastrous for minorities such as the Hazaras.

The Afghan diaspora generally shares these fears, many of whom fled Afghanistan to escape the country’s mayhem, and they fear the worst in terms of a possible civil war in the country and/or the return of the Taliban into power in parts of the country. The Taliban are unlikely to be the sole political actor in the country, because they will be resisted by the warlords in the north and by other ethnic groups like the Tajiks. The Afghan diaspora, therefore, by and large, favour the US troop presence beyond 2014, believing that this was would somehow be tantamount to stability of sorts. In some way, though, foreign troops in Afghanistan are part of the problem, and not its solution.

However, there is one issue that is somehow skirted in all this talk of the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014: what sort of political order is envisaged in the post-2014 period when the withdrawal of foreign troops would coincide with the end of Karzai’s constitutional term as Afghanistan’s president? Karzai probably would like to continue. But that would be unconstitutional. This might be fixed, though, with a managed constitutional amendment, followed by a managed/manipulated election. If that happens, it would further delegitimise the system and the regime. And how would the US and its NATO allies respond to it? As it is, Karzai might appear to be the only dependable ally for the US, notwithstanding his quirkiness and tendency to play all the cards at the same time.

In other words, apart from the Taliban danger, there are other imponderables in the Afghan situation as well. Therefore, the post-2014 situation, following NATO withdrawal, could turn out to be even more messy and lethal than what has happened so far.

And Pakistan will be in the middle of it all. It is imperative that it should work out a strategic vision and not go for tactical gains that have a habit of turning into greater disasters.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au
-Daily Times
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Monday, March 25, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Afghanistan's stability is the Pakistan's survival
March 24, 2013
Muhammad Shoaib Akif

The pre-partition Pakistan is no different from the post-partition Pakistan as far as independence of its people is concerned. We won a territory, in 1947, from British and Hindu majority but not freedom. We, on the other hand, added internal colonizers after the external one.

Due to lack of resources, knowledge and industry, we had two choices. First, we could build ourselves socially, technologically and knowledge-wise by taking help of USSR. Second, we could keep pre-partition social and economic structures intact, and for day to day survival take financial help of USA, the emerged sole super power, after WWII.

Our indigenous tribal and feudal politicians and Muhajir leadership were never willing to share politics and power (democracy) with the poor people of Pakistan. Same was desired by the USA. So, our leadership chose the second option of USA to survive. For the first decade the leadership survived due to the bureaucracy and without any constitution of our own. Afterwards, army ruled the country with the help of civil bureaucracy for another decade. Hunger, homelessness, economic and social poverty and ignorance multiplied for common Punjabis, Pukhtoons, Sindhi, Balochs and Bengalis. These ethnicities would have been better off, had they been part of India where tribalism and feudalism was abolished and social democracy was the system of governance after independence.

Thus, we replaced British with Americans as external rulers and added civil-military bureaucracy as internal colonizers. Extreme poverty compelled the majority of people of East Pakistan, Bengalis, to win freedom from West Pakistan to form Bangladesh in 1971. To save the rest of Pakistan the ruling elite (civil-military bureaucracy and tribal/feudal lords) made the country’s first unanimous constitution in 1973. The constitution is the mixture of mutually exclusive systems: Islam, Socialism and democracy. The numeric strength of civil-military bureaucracy increased with the decrease in territory after the formation of Bangladesh. The involvement of Arabs was also increased in Punjab due to Islamic character of the constitution. USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, 1979, increased the role of anti-communist Arabs and Americans more in our state and society for USA-backed Afghan Jehad.
Socially, we became more divided and poorer. Centuries old tribal moral clash, sectarianism, between Shia and Sunni surfaced due to the Sunni-Wahabi influence of Arabs. Economy went to the hands of mafias related to drugs, weapons and smuggling of other goods.

Military not only remained part of such economy but multiplied it forming cartels involving even basic industries related to sugar, wheat, cement etc. by the end of the rule of last military dictator Gen. Musharraf. Intermittent so-called democratic governments came and were sacked untimely in 1990’s but nothing changed for better as the governments had positions just, with power still rested with civil-military bureaucracy. 9/11 changed the world, so did the Pakistan. People got space for their power in governance. Gen. Musharraf failed to meet the interests of USA-led NATO forces engaged to eliminate Taliban from Afghanistan and bring stability there due to China and Russia’s pressures. So, Americans preferred democracy over dictatorship to meet its interests in Afghanistan. Elections of 2008 and NRO, after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, must be seen in this context. This is exactly where the Arabs and American interests diverged as far as Afghanistan is concerned. Arabs involvement depends on the post 2014 situation of Afghanistan when NATO and majority of American troops would have gone from there.

The Americans are going to stay for a long time in Afghanistan even after the NATO and majority of their troops leave by 2014. The first phase of their stay has been for bringing about stability and building institutions and infrastructure, and the second phase will be to expand their economic and strategic interests in the region. In this regard Americans have taken into confidence Russia, the Central Asian States, China, India and even Iran except Pakistan. Americans have assured them that no kind of terror will be supported or tolerated anymore in the region.

Americans want constant chaos in Pakistan come what may for the last six decades. It’s due the fact that Americans want the area stretched between Bay of Bengal to Baltic Sea leading to Europe disconnected economically through anarchy in Pakistan. If the Americans don’t do it, they would ultimately lose the control over 3/4 of the world. Relaxation of trade between India and Iran and China and Iran in the US/UN sanctions on Iran is not without reason in this context. That’s exactly why President Asif Ali Zardari, who had foreseen this duplicity a long ago, had to move fast to get the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline started and completed by the exit of US-led NATO forces by the end of 2014 from Afghanistan. The President Asif Ali Zardari had already taken the regional powers into confidence in this regard and will work more on it. The president Zardari has to work most on TAPI gas pipeline project in which Afghanistan is the corridor as well. Pakistan’s economy has become precariously dependent on energy and the energy is the dire need of teeming poor Pakistanis at the moment.

Pakistan and Iran can manage the required finance 7.5 billion US$ by bartering our rice with Iranian petroleum on which we spend more than 12 billion US$ annually. India is doing such with Iran already. Americans, in reaction, cannot give green signal to army to take over the country as Pakistan will not be united within a month and the regional fall out of that will never be tolerated by the regional powers- China, Russia and India. Americans cannot tolerate to lose their multi-billion US$ investment in Afghanistan. And this is what Americans know well and will not dare finance anymore military coup in Pakistan. Our devastating obsessions of ‘strategic depth’ instead of economic depth led us to extreme poverty, strategic death and extreme international isolation as no country likes to engage us economically except Iran which needs to sell its petroleum products to survive desperately, given the US backed UN sanctions.

The bureaucrats and generals with the help of judges have treated the teeming millions of poor Pakistanis in the absence of true politics and democracy pathetically. It’s pertinent to mention here that 85% of civil-military bureaucracy is Punjabi ethnically and they ruled 35 years directly and 25 years indirectly consuming almost all what poor people of Pakistan gave the state in the form of taxes. The required politics and political direction is now here very much here to go back never again. The upcoming general elections will be the decisive election between the democratic and dark forces of destruction. The people have always voted for politicians, not generals.
The futility of two referenda by Gen. Zia and Gen. Musharraf respectively are the enough of proof in our political history. The people, now, know that in these dictatorships the dark forces of destruction were developed and distributed within and without the country.

The religious/sectarian politics of Arabs in Pakistan and American duplicity towards the development of Pakistan are over now.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/213449/
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Monday, April 01, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Pak-Afghan must not derail

Once a contractor for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)--now a princely President of Afghanistan-- Hamid Karzai continuously vomits out venom against Pakistan-a country he often described as ‘inseparable twin brother’. His actual authority outside Kabul is said to be so limited that he is often derided as the ‘Mayor of Kabul’. Amidst growing frustration and discontent over failing to reforms outside of the region under the influence of various local leaders around Kabul, President Karzai and his administration, in a bid to salvage their tarnished image, unleashed a Pakistan-bashing campaign. In fact, he had sown seeds of hatred against Pakistan amongst the Afghan people. Karzai’ journey to Kabul Palace from the US hotel studded and punctuated with betrayals starting from the killing of the friends and foes alike in the Palace. Having been surrounded by accusations of nepotism, widespread corruption, electoral fraud, and the alleged involvement of his late half brother Ahmed Wali Karzai in the drug trade, President Karzai, in fact, is fast losing his hold on Afghan affairs, particularly his role in the US-led peace process initiated to establish a durable peace in the country before the pullout of the US and NATO troops by the 2014-end. The entire world including the UN believes and sees regional power Pakistan as critical to stabilizing Afghanistan. The Karzai Administration, once heavily dependent on Pakistan, has initiated a blame-game against Islamabad. The fact of the matter is; the Karzai-led Administration has not been cooperating with Pakistan in repatriating the members of the TTP given safe havens in Afghanistan-an act that has created multiple problems for Pakistan. The Foreign Office on Thursday expressed concern over continued presence of safe havens of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in Kunar and Nooristan areas of Afghanistan from where these elements are carrying out undesirable activities against Pakistan. Yet Pakistan, in the larger interest of regional peace, has extended its support to the Afghan peace process; releasing all high profile Afghan Taliban-a gesture never been reciprocated by the Karzai Administration resulting thereby Pakistan is continuously facing massive loss of men and material.

To be exact, over 49000 people have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. The causalities in Pakistan have out-numbered the loss of life in the Afghan war on terror. Notwithstanding, the loss Pakistan has to withstand in the war against Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In return, President Karzai, having attained a lifestyle of Mughal King, is sending a rude shock from across the Durand Line over Pakistan’s ‘complacency’ in the nascent Afghan peace process and is ready to work without Islamabad’s help on reconciliation. Kabul’s Deputy Foreign Minister goes on to say ‘We here in Kabul are in a bit of a state of shock at once again being confronted by the depth of Pakistan’s complacency, we are just very disappointed.’ Even the Kabul government has cancelled visit of its army officers to Pakistan. The fallout in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations is ill-affordable for the durable peace in the region. Beyond any doubt, the stability in Afghanistan is interlinked with the peace in Pakistan thus two states must not forget-the solution to Afghan instability needs a joint effort to wipe out terrorists operating on the both sides of the border. None of the two can capitalize on instability in either side. President Karzai, however, must understand that leaders of Afghan Taliban if at all are reluctant to talk to the government it is just because he has been installed by the foreign forces to serve their interests rather than serving the people of Afghanistan. Secondly, Taliban are aware that the peace process is aimed at giving a new lease of life to corrupt presidency. Taliban are sovereign sons of the Afghan soil do understand the ground realities, hardly need any foreign dictation, thus their continued reluctance to stay away from the government has nothing to do with Pakistan. President Karzai, having enjoyed his two terms in heavily guarded office, is no more acceptable. Thus instead pouring out venom against Pakistan, President Karzai should concentrate on the political affairs of his country the way he wants. Better if he understands the strategic importance of Pakistan thus should pursue the follow-up of the London talks. Best way to remove the concerns of the two countries is to communicate through every possible channel rather than slamming the door on each other.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/46/
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Pak-Afghan ties must improve


No solution to Taliban problem without Afghan, Pakistan dialogue
2014 is an important year in the geo-politics of Central and South Asia. With US forces set to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban problem will be left to Afghanistan and Pakistan to sort out between themselves. But the outstanding question is: are Pakistan and Afghanistan willing to trust each other and move forward in confidence? Only two days ago, the Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Javed Ludin suggested that Kabul could pursue the peace process without Pakistan’s help. He had further alleged that Pakistan was hampering the Afghan government’s attempts to negotiate peace with the Taliban by “either killing or arresting Taliban figures willing to reconcile within Pakistan.” While the immediate questions were: what were these Taliban figures doing in Pakistan and what were their channels of communication with the Afghan government, the harsh statement from Afghanistan forced the US and UK to come in and find a bridge between the two governments. Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to Qatar also comes amidst growing tension between the two neighbours. With Qatar reportedly being the Taliban’s reported choice for a diplomatic secretariat, Karzai appears to be wincing around the need to sit down and hold what could be called a ‘frank conversation’ with Pakistan over the cross-border terrorism issue that plagues relations between the two countries.

The Pakistani response to the accusations from across border has been tit-for-tat. In a briefing last week, the Pakistani Foreign Office pointed to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan safe havens in Kunar and Nooristan districts in Afghanistan. However, it has not changed its commitment to negotiations as the way forward. It has condemned diplomatic boycotts, including a recent decision by Afghanistan not to send a military delegation for a training course in Quetta, and called for the need to “promote bilateral relations and build trust.” The fact that over 26 Taliban leaders have been released by Pakistan to Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan High Peace Council is cited to reflect Pakistan’s seriousness in furthering peace in Afghanisation. If nothing, perhaps both sides realize now, that the decade-long war against the Taliban is failing on the battleground, and the negotiating table may be the final hope for this apparently unending battle.

Recently, Pakistan too has begun to follow the ‘negotiate with the Taliban’ card, but with little success. The fact that the Taliban is not a simple entity with a defined leadership structure is an important factor in these talks failing. But there is little that the governments of these two countries can hope for other than individual Taliban groups switching their sway. For this process to yield results: Pakistan and Afghanistan need to be on board. Karzai is wrong and shall be proven so if he moves ahead on accords with the Taliban without involving Pakistan.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/editorials/
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Justified concern

April 03, 2013

In a meeting with Isaf Commander General Joseph F Dunford, COAS General Kayani conveyed his concern over cross-border attacks from Afghanistan. This is the least we could do, since these atrocities happening over the years have become dangerously frequent and have resulted in a massive loss of life.

The Nato and Isaf forces’ presence along the border is one factor that ought to have curbed such activity. As satellite technology and human intelligence gives them details of such movement, it is but unacceptable that Isaf which often calls itself an ally of Pakistan should be just watching this phenomenon passively. Islamabad’s longstanding demand has been to initiate action against the militant networks including the one led by Mullah Fazlullah, responsible for mass-casualty attacks across Pakistan. It was his outfit that carried out the assassination attempt on Malala Yousafzai for standing up for girls’ education. The role of the Afghan government too has been far from satisfactory; recently it refused to hand over some of the terror suspects wanted by Pakistani officials.

Under no circumstances, should Isaf let the militants blitz their way into Pakistani territory. As this complicates the job of the Pakistan’s military engaged in eradicating extremism from its tribal areas, at the end of the day this would add up to the collective failure of the fight against terror.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Thursday, April 04, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Misplaced fears
April 04, 2013



Kabul’s apprehension over a routine renovation of a border check post inside Pakistan is totally misplaced as well as unfortunate. The anxiety was expressed by Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin whose statement that the posts were used as a launching pad to fire rockets inside Afghanistan was pegged with the warning of bedevilling the bilateral ties. Responding to the charge, Pakistan’s spokesperson explained that the maintenance work was being done on an old post in line with the tripartite Border SOP, a development that has been brought to the notice of the Afghan government well in advance as a goodwill gesture. He rejected the charge of rocket fire as fiction.

The purpose of the check post is quite obvious; it is part of the strategy meant to stop militants from sneaking into Pakistan. Increased surveillance is indispensable to keeping calm in Fata and to augment Army’s activities to clean up the mess along the border areas, particularly since our constant demands on the Karzai government to arrest cross-border movement have not being given the importance that is their due. If the Afghan government is prone to hallucination, there is arguably very little that can be done to mollify it, particularly when the current regime is beholden to Nato for its hold on power. Kabul must draw a line where it has to stop worrying.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Pakistan and the Afghan peace process

By Tariq Fatemi

What is it about Pak-Afghan relations that just when you sense an improvement, they descend into another crisis? Recent events have renewed these fears. This would be deeply disappointing, particularly as it appeared that after the tumultuous developments of 2011 that dragged Pakistan-US relations to a new low — with its inevitable fallout on Pak-Afghan relations — both Islamabad and Kabul appeared to be taking important, measured steps to bring their ties back on track.

Since the last quarter of 2012, Western diplomats have acknowledged detecting a tangible desire by Pakistan to work closely with both Washington and Kabul to promote the peace process in Afghanistan. Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s trip to Kabul in November 2012 to sign an agreement to improve border security and, thereafter, his joining former foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar in the Brussels’ meeting in December to agree on joint counter-terrorism efforts in the region, were seen as a confirmation of this trend. This was followed by an understanding between Islamabad and Kabul on establishing a hotline between their respective military and intelligence wings for “structural interaction” and finally, facilitating talks with the Taliban via a Taliban office in Doha. These initiatives appeared to reinforce the impression that Islamabad and Washington were finally operating on the same wavelength and that Pakistan had succeeded in removing misgivings about its earlier attachment to the “strategic depth” concept as regards Afghanistan. Incidentally, this impression had been 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.

Notwithstanding these seemingly reassuring developments, new wrinkles have emerged in Pak-Afghan relations, giving rise to renewed anxiety with regard to peace prospects in Afghanistan. Even though the mercurial Afghan president is known to engage in public tirades against both friends and enemies and his close associates, too, tend to go off on a handle, the recent eruption 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. Islamabad’s reaction to these accusations was calculatedly moderate and restrained. But a day later, another Afghan official charged that Pakistan was setting “pre-conditions” for backing the reconciliation process. Kabul also alleged that Pakistan was unilaterally constructing a border post, charging that “these activities are against accepted international norms and unacceptable to the Afghan government”.

General Kayani did seek to calm the disturbed waters during separate meetings last week with Nato chief General Joseph Dunford and with Centcom chief General Lloyd Austin by reiterating that Pakistan remained committed to working for the success of an “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” peace process. There can, however, be no denying that recent events have raised fresh questions as to the post-2014 troop withdrawal scenarios in Afghanistan, in the absence of genuine cooperation between the neighbours.

While no specific reason has yet emerged to explain this unexpected setback, analysts believe that given the tortured history of Pak-Afghan relations, such twists should not be a surprise. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his close associates continue to harbour lingering doubts about Pakistan’s intentions, while also remaining sceptical about its protestations of having abandoned its strategic objectives in Afghanistan. No less important are Karzai’s growing fears about his own future and his desperate need not to become irrelevant when his term ends in 2014. Notwithstanding the above, it is essential that Pakistan not weaken in its resolve to promote a genuine peace process, not as a favour to Afghanistan, but in its own supreme interest.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 10th, 2013.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pak-India Relations (Important Articles) Roshan wadhwani News & Articles 96 Saturday, October 31, 2015 01:42 PM
Afghanistan Issue (Important Articles) Roshan wadhwani News & Articles 101 Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:03 AM
History of Pak-US Relations Shooting Star Current Affairs 0 Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:50 AM
Future of relations with China Afshan Discussion 2 Wednesday, October 19, 2005 08:46 AM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.