 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US-Taliban talks? |
ALTHOUGH US President Barack Obama is yet to announce his new strategy for Afghanistan, its contours have started to emerge. According to a local media report, the US has decided to hold secret talks with the Afghan Taliban to engage them in the country's political process. Pakistani and US diplomatic sources, it says, have confirmed that talks have already begun.
It may be recalled that President Obama has been describing the Afghan war as a war of necessity and the one in Iraq as a war of choice. The reason is obvious. Al Qaeda had used Afghanistan as a sanctuary to launch the 9/11 attacks against the US. Last March, soon after he took over office as president, Obama had ordered a 30,000-troop surge for Afghanistan. But it failed to help.
The Taliban have continued to make gains. At present, they are in control of 80 percent of the country. Commander of the US forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal wants more troops, but some others in Washington think this could allow the US to prolong its stay in Afghanistan but not win the war. References to US's humiliating defeat in Vietnam are becoming more and more frequent in discussions of the situation the US now faces in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, opinion surveys show the American people are fast losing patience with the war. Washington wants to get out of Afghanistan, but its previous experience in that unfortunate country tells it not to leave without clearing the mess the eight-year war has created. The situation worries equally, if not more, Pakistan which is already facing a fierce insurgency in its tribal areas because of what is going on in the neighbouring Afghanistan.
Until recently American officials, including 'Af-Pak' envoy Richard Holbrooke, had been expressing the concern that Pakistan had continued to maintain its old contacts with certain Taliban factions as a hedge against what might happen after the US withdrawal.
Presumably, the US itself is using the same contacts to execute its exit strategy. Its foremost concern about departure is to ensure al Qaeda does not use Afghanistan ever again as an operating base to attack its homeland or its interests abroad.
What it must find encouraging are Western analysis reports that say the Afghan Taliban want only to oust foreign occupation; they are not interested in al Qaeda's global agenda. Reports also suggest that most Afghan Taliban are wary of the al Qaeda-linked foreign jehadis as they are weary from fighting for more than 30 years against two superpowers and an internecine conflict in between.
They would be willing to accept a negotiated departure of the foreign occupation forces. The US would not object to letting them, including their radical leader Mullah Omar, to make a triumphant return to Kabul provided they guarantee foreign jehadis would not use the country's territory for their purposes.
The challenge before the US and Pakistan, nonetheless, is not only to get rid of al- Qaeda but also to prevent Afghanistan's neighbours, both immediate and distant - such as India and Russia - from playing their games for the furtherance of their respective agendas in the region. The peace talks initiative needs to include a neutral status for Afghanistan.
|
| |
|
Decoding Kashmir conundrum |
PAKISTAN and India are increasingly trying to break away from the past and think afresh on Kashmir, yet both are failing to bring about any notable policy shifts. For Islamabad, Kashmir still is a problem, which means it is a disputed territory and an unfinished agenda of 1947 Partition.
For New Delhi, the accession of Kashmir to India is final and complete, and the challenge now remains of addressing cross-border terrorism, economic development and grievances of its people. Two such divergent definitions have apparently left no scope for a solution, unless both the countries try to merge the two definitions at a mutually agreed point.
India did agree to discuss the issue as part of the composite dialogue process, and Pakistan too showed willingness to explore options other than the UN resolutions on Kashmir. But India’s willingness to keep with the dictum ‘trust but verify’, as often voiced by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has its obvious limitation. As a consequence, Singh’s latest overture of peace to Pakistan on his recent visit to Jammu and Kashmir is not something extraordinarily inventive. The threat of terror attacks from Pakistan of the magnitude of Mumbai 26/11 continues to exist, despite the deterrence value of the new security upgrades in place in India.
Hence, New Delhi’s strategy is to wait and watch if Pakistan delivers on curbing the reliance of its Army and its intelligence agency, the ISI, on terror as a strategic tool against India. India’s repeated call for dismantling the terror infrastructure in Pakistan has, however, been only responded in words, where Islamabad has asked New Delhi to give them time to do the same. Pakistan is in the midst of operations against the rapid spread of Talebanisation, and is fighting the nastiest ever war against terrorism. It is in these circumstances that India feels the area of operation of these terrorists today extends far beyond the confines of Kashmir, and covers all parts of the country.
No wonder, the Indian prime minister has made it clear that in dealing with the terrorist challenge, New Delhi needs to be prepared for enhanced capabilities against terrorists. Any support on this from Pakistan against the common scourge of terrorism will be greeted with joy. Even more so, there are overt indications that America is beginning to forge a robust partnership with India to confront common complications of terrorism. Washington is strategically supporting India’s initiative of battling terrorism by encouraging fresh objectives to fight against Al Qaeda and the Taleban.
If US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent outburst in Pakistan is any indication, both the US and India are coming together to achieve security in the critical South Asian region, mainly aimed to overcome the threat of terrorism, and re-establish stability.
—Khaleej Times
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
