What's new

Afghan peace talks should not cross 'red lines': India

Ok, Weeeee, and away we go - When last we visited the zoo, we heard from the Pakistanis that the US and Kerry had a problem, they had promised to different players what were, or at least to be, mutually exclusive positions -- and that once Kerry got to India, Afghanistan would be served on the agenda and with much displeasure, How do US diplomacy and Kerry soothe those feathers?? Meanwhile, back at the ranch, TTP have made themselves heard :

Kerry urges 'central role' for India in Afghan elections
By AFP
Published: June 23, 2013


NEW DELHI: US Secretary of State John Kerry called Sunday for a “central role” for India in Afghanistan’s 2014 elections as he warned of potential difficulties in the war-torn nation as US forces withdraw.

“The world’s largest democracy can play a central role in helping the government of Afghanistan improve its electoral system and create a credible and independent framework for resolving disputes,” Kerry said in New Delhi.

Afghanistan is scheduled to hold presidential elections on April 5, 2014 when the incumbent Hamid Karzai is due to stand down.

The country’s last presidential elections in 2009 were marred by massive vote-rigging which helped prompt Karzai’s rival Abdullah Abdullah to pull out of a second round.

Indian officials are expected to raise concerns with Kerry, who is on a three-day visit there, about the upcoming US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

It is also uneasy about the prospect of negotiations with the Taliban, who are sworn enemies of India.

Kerry said that no agreement would be rushed through and that “a final settlement may be long in coming.”

“And let me be clear: Any political settlement must result in the Taliban breaking ties with al Qaeda, renouncing violence, and accepting the Afghan constitution – including its protections for all Afghans, women and men,” said the top US diplomat.

“Afghanistan cannot again become a safe haven for international terrorism.”

The subject is likely to feature high on the agenda in talks between Kerry and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday, with officials in New Delhi saying they are anxious to hear more about the future US plans in Afghanistan.

they will test them in any hard to go situations, with a lots of bucks in pocket india also like to join hell casino? wellcome india!
but machins of that casino are all crooked by a forgotten mechanic called ISI?
 
.
they will test them in any hard to go situations, with a lots of bucks in pocket india also like to join hell casino? wellcome india!
but machins of that casino are all crooked by a forgotten mechanic called ISI?

I love these mini commentaries, when I understand them
 
.
Ok, Weeeee, and away we go - When last we visited the zoo, we heard from the Pakistanis that the US and Kerry had a problem, they had promised to different players what were, or at least to be, mutually exclusive positions -- and that once Kerry got to India, Afghanistan would be served on the agenda and with much displeasure, How do US diplomacy and Kerry soothe those feathers?? Meanwhile, back at the ranch, TTP have made themselves heard :

Kerry urges 'central role' for India in Afghan elections
By AFP
Published: June 23, 2013


NEW DELHI: US Secretary of State John Kerry called Sunday for a “central role” for India in Afghanistan’s 2014 elections as he warned of potential difficulties in the war-torn nation as US forces withdraw.

“The world’s largest democracy can play a central role in helping the government of Afghanistan improve its electoral system and create a credible and independent framework for resolving disputes,” Kerry said in New Delhi.

Afghanistan is scheduled to hold presidential elections on April 5, 2014 when the incumbent Hamid Karzai is due to stand down.

The country’s last presidential elections in 2009 were marred by massive vote-rigging which helped prompt Karzai’s rival Abdullah Abdullah to pull out of a second round.

Indian officials are expected to raise concerns with Kerry, who is on a three-day visit there, about the upcoming US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

It is also uneasy about the prospect of negotiations with the Taliban, who are sworn enemies of India.

Kerry said that no agreement would be rushed through and that “a final settlement may be long in coming.”

“And let me be clear: Any political settlement must result in the Taliban breaking ties with al Qaeda, renouncing violence, and accepting the Afghan constitution – including its protections for all Afghans, women and men,” said the top US diplomat.

“Afghanistan cannot again become a safe haven for international terrorism.”

The subject is likely to feature high on the agenda in talks between Kerry and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday, with officials in New Delhi saying they are anxious to hear more about the future US plans in Afghanistan.

@muse, kaaheka central role? we would be happy if Afghanistan stabilizes itself with no military Taliban - just a political Taliban (and I don't know what is that, because these f@cks just know to blow themselves up), we don't want any central role - we just want an independent entity called Afghanistan ruled by its people and its security looked after by its forces and who engages in business and trade with all countries including India.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
Remember Pakistan always comes first.

Nationalism and patriotism keeps us unified, religion gives us spirituality.

I suggest we conduct a survey in the country and anyone that thinks otherwise should be allowed to leave the country and never come back.

Go be a wanderer of the world, we need committed people who look beyond ethnicity as a tool to judge someone.

All these lost fools like Pak-one want to feed their egos. They rather be a tiny micro state in the name of Islam only to empower their own ethnicity.

In reality all they are doing is dividing themselves into a small, meaningless society which will get pushed around by India and other countries.

To achieve prosperity and true freedom (not this phony freedom of being a little sh*t country, ego trips) we need to remain as big as possible. Share the power and responsibilities and then watch our society flourish.

My father and mother went through hell during the partition to make this country, because they understood this is the only way our voices will be heard in the world. For a fool who thinks ethnicity is more important than Pakistan is a Ghadar and against the principles we stand for.

The future is our oyster, with the amount of oil and gas reserves, man power, nukes and army to protect is we can achieve wonderful things. The world knows this, in particular India and Israel who feed the ego of certain people in an attempt to divide us to stop this happening.

No ethnicity is better than another, we are all human and all are god's creation. It is what our principles are which sets us apart from the rest.
 
.
Ok, so it's just one more opinion, but I think the author is right to focus on Karzai, he has now become a giant headache for all parties concerned, how will he be maneuvered into creating his own irrelevance, to my thinking, will be a tremendous challenge for American diplomacy



Sleepless in Kabul
Aasim Zafar Khan
Monday, June 24, 2013

Afghanistan is on the brink of history. The Americans are about to leave, and elections are around the corner as well. And just when the world thought that peace in Afghanistan was an impossible dream, the United States (with a lot of help from a certain friend/foe) managed to bring the Afghan Taliban onto the negotiating table. The talks were just days away, the future of Afghanistan on the agenda. And then Hamid Karzai happened.

On the surface, what ticked the Afghan president off were two things: a) the Afghan Taliban were using the name ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ and b) instead of the Afghan national flag, they were flying their own colours. This to Karzai was impossible, a slap to Afghan dignity, and he promptly put into question a bilateral security agreement between the US and Afghanistan post 2014. But the truth is that Hamid Karzai is scared, and fighting to survive and remain relevant.

First things first, these talks were going to be ‘Afghan-led’, but there wasn’t an Afghan to be seen, apart from one of the two Taliban at the press conference. In opening a direct line with the Afghan Taliban, the US has very strongly signalled its total lack of belief in the Karzai government’s efforts to secure peace in Afghanistan’s future.

Second, let’s assume that talks between the Afghan Taliban and the US take place and are successful. What would be the outcome? Well, simply, there would be a countrywide ceasefire, and the Taliban would be allowed to take part in next April’s presidential elections. And what if they nominate Mullah Omar as their candidate? What sort of chance does he have against people like Abdullah Abdullah, Omar Daudzai, Qayum Karzai and Ahmed Massoud’s brother? Depending on who you listen to, Mullah Omar could beat these guys in a presidential election. Imagine the reaction.

It’s this exact chance that scares Karzai, and he will do all he can to ensure that the talks don’t happen. The Taliban would ruin his best-laid plans. Plans he has so meticulously created. What the Afghan president is also trying to do is negate Pakistani interference in his country post 2014. But Karzai overestimates how much ‘control’ Pakistan has over the Afghan Taliban, which are now a primarily Afghan-led, independent movement. President Karzai has long been muttering his disapproval about ‘Pakistanis meddling in Afghan affairs’.

The Afghan presidential elections, scheduled for April 2014, are wide open. We all remember how utterly rigged the last one was, but thankfully, Hamid Karzai cannot run for the office for a third time. So he’s touting his brother Qayum in his place. The problem is that Qayum does not garner the kind of Pakhtun support that Karzai has, and is not a winning horse.

Realising this, Pakistan has put its money elsewhere, mending fences with erstwhile opponents such as Abdullah Abdullah, and looking to support, for the very first time, a non-Pakhtun as the president of Afghanistan.

Karzai is trapped. If he stops the Taliban from entering into the political process, he is denying his country the possibility of peace. If he tries to sidestep Pakistan, he risks alienating the Pakhtuns from Afghanistan’s highest office – for the first time in a very long time.


What must Karzai do in order to remain relevant and true to Afghanistan? To be honest, he cannot remain relevant, having bungled up the last two terms in office, cutting deals with warlords who would put many global war criminals to shame. However, he can still be true to his country and people.

Let’s take the Taliban out of the equation for now. Afghanistan is a country fractured and divided into numerous groups, mostly on ethnic lines. It looks extremely unlikely that all the different groups will be able to come to a unanimous decision for a candidate to succeed Hamid Karzai. Or that if a certain party wins the elections, the other or others will accept the result as legitimate. If this sort of thing happens, there is the possibility of a total breakdown of governance in Afghanistan, and this will happen without the Taliban having lifted a finger!

Despite western efforts, the civilian government in Afghanistan remains weak, fractured and extremely corrupt. On the other hand, a very large sum of money has been poured into the Afghan National Army, which has been made numerically powerful and well-equipped. As history has shown, whenever there is a weak civilian government and an unfairly strong military institution, what happens?


We Pakistanis know the answer to that question very well: the military steps in. There is a strong likelihood that in Afghanistan, in case of a breakdown of governance, the ANA will step in. However, the ANA is also fractured and divided along ethnic lines, much like the Afghan state. The Pakhtuns believe that the army is predominantly Tajik and could easily rally opponents under the ‘Pakhtun’ banner. Also, factions within the army could also break away, and with the government broken and the army fighting within itself, the situation could quickly and easily spiral out of control.

Karzai must, at the earliest, understand that his country is on the brink of a civil war post 2014, and whatever violence can be avoided should be avoided.




Afghanistan needs a break.
 
.
I love these mini commentaries, when I understand them

just try it you will & you can?
with karzai getting frustrated with americans where he needs to go next?
to keep afghanistan at least at the level what we hve today?
to pakistan?
to Iran?
to talibans?
or try russia & china cause in any case he needs money to run that full of robbers country?
i think next time it will be a regional peace force comming to afghanistan to check the talibans sitting in a debated oolitical setup?
& amercican giving talibans riyals to to the proxy war on iran?
game is on?
see mini comentry getting bigger & bigger!
my dear genious lord!
 
.
just try it you will & you can?
with karzai getting frustrated with americans where he needs to go next?
to keep afghanistan at least at the level what we hve today?
to pakistan?
to Iran?
to talibans?
or try russia & china cause in any case he needs money to run that full of robbers country?
i think next time it will be a regional peace force comming to afghanistan to check the talibans sitting in a debated oolitical setup?
& amercican giving talibans riyals to to the proxy war on iran?
game is on?
see mini comentry getting bigger & bigger!
my dear genious lord!

Hmmmmmm - the Iranian would eat the Talib's lunch and Iran have many friends in Afghanistan -- Are you serious? No, I think you are a little of the mark on this - I agree that US is not going anywhere soon, 2014 or no 2014, but setting up Talib to attack Iran without realizing Talib has many enemies in Afghanistan and in the region
 
.
Hmmmmmm - the Iranian would eat the Talib's lunch and Iran have many friends in Afghanistan -- Are you serious? No, I think you are a little of the mark on this - I agree that US is not going anywhere soon, 2014 or no 2014, but setting up Talib to attack Iran without realizing Talib has many enemies in Afghanistan and in the region

my dear genious lord,
plz check the past history how saddam hussian was pushed into kuwait?
& after that how our dear good cowboy lord went into whole arabian countries?
my dear lord iam just a weak servent of yours, plz dont make me shy asking these sort of great questions!
all they want just a spark?
satan shia iran attacking innocent suni gods army of heavens?
our great cowboy king?
 
.
my dear genious lord,
plz check the past history how saddam hussian was pushed into kuwait?
& after that how our dear good cowboy lord went into whole arabian countries?
my dear lord iam just a weak servent of yours, plz dont make me shy asking these sort of great questions!
all they want just a spark?
satan shia iran attacking innocent suni gods army of heavens?
our great cowboy king?


OK, lets work it - For what you suggest to be seen as credible, what kind of things or signal should we anticipate? In other words, lets build credibility by workingout the kinds of signals that would lead us to conclude that we can have confidence in the proposition that this whole thing is to set up the Talib to attack the Iranian -- Look, what kinds of signals should we be looking for as far as the groups the make up the Shura e Nazaar e Shomali -and what about Hibz e Wahdat --- And what about the upcoming elections? I posted an article that suggested that Pakistan is now very comfortable with Abdullah Abdullah, and further that Mullah Omar may actually do very well if he chose to run in the elections?
 
.
We see terrorists as terrorists not good or bad..You are the one who differentiate it.For you Afghan Taliban is good coz they are keeping you in Afghnaistan and TTP is bad coz they are blowing up your arse..LET is good because they are doing good by killing Indians and LEJ is bad coz they are kiiling shias in your country whereas they all have grown up the under the shadows of same *****.

in other words LET is bad in eyes of India because its blowing your arse and LTTE is good in eyes of india because its carrying Indian strategic terrorism under the shadow of same ***** ;)
 
.
OK, lets work it - For what you suggest to be seen as credible, what kind of things or signal should we anticipate? In other words, lets build credibility by workingout the kinds of signals that would lead us to conclude that we can have confidence in the proposition that this whole thing is to set up the Talib to attack the Iranian -- Look, what kinds of signals should we be looking for as far as the groups the make up the Shura e Nazaar e Shomali -and what about Hibz e Wahdat --- And what about the upcoming elections? I posted an article that suggested that Pakistan is now very comfortable with Abdullah Abdullah, and further that Mullah Omar may actually do very well if he chose to run in the elections?

elections in afghanistan? are you joking me my lord just because i am not that educated? matching your levels of mastry?
forget elections of afghanistan, what about pakistani elections? just passed by now?
its all managing setups with the approval of concerned parties in the game?
its not that peoples of those countries electing thier govts?
signals???
why arabs are so keen to open talib offices?
why now in dubai or in bahrin peoples with shiat names bieng deported?
whats in it for them peace in afghanistan will bring what to them?
are they so keen for peace? thn what about palestine?
 
.
elections in afghanistan? are you joking me my lord just because i am not that educated? matching your levels of mastry?
forget elections of afghanistan, what about pakistani elections? just passed by now?
its all managing setups with the approval of concerned parties in the game?
its not that peoples of those countries electing thier govts?
signals???
why arabs are so keen to open talib offices?
why now in dubai or in bahrin peoples with shiat names bieng deported?
whats in it for them peace in afghanistan will bring what to them?
are they so keen for peace? thn what about palestine?
Peace if Afghanistan can bring a lot to them Sir peace in Afghanistan can result in less people going their to attack oil fields and trying funny business
 
.
Peace if Afghanistan can bring a lot to them Sir peace in Afghanistan can result in less people going their to attack oil fields and trying funny business

yes oil ?
iranian oil wells?
if any how our cowboy master gets his hands on iranian oil, the merly total occupation of oil of this world wouldbe completed?
thus arabs will be living in peace in thier little kingdoms under the protection of cowboy king?
with that no one to challenge thier wealth?
with iran becoming another iraq? thats what the peace plans of arabs are now?
 
.
In Afghanistan, back to the future



Such is the measure of America’s strategic desperation that it has accepted the Taliban’s vague assurances and gone to great lengths to accommodate the outfit
Notwithstanding President Hamid Karzai’s anger and the deep resentment in Kabul at the Taliban conduct during the opening of their Doha office on June 18 and the statement issued by them on that occasion, there is little doubt that talks between the United States and the Taliban will take place sooner rather than later. When tempers cool, Mr. Karzai will also realise that he cannot defy the U.S. beyond a point for, where will he turn for funds, if nothing else, to keep the administration such as it is and the Afghan security forces going? In any event, the initiative is now with the Taliban and its friend and mentor Pakistan and they stand to gain even if the talks do not get off the ground for some unforeseen reason.
The U.S. has already gone to great lengths to accommodate the Taliban and Pakistan. Such is the measure of its strategic desperation that contrary to its earlier position, it has accepted the Taliban’s vague assurances regarding Afghan territory not being used to foment violence outside the country. Also, for many months the U.S. and its European partners had almost given up on the reconciliation process and the focus was on a credible Afghan presidential election so that an effective and cohesive political leadership, post-2014 and post-Karzai , could take on the Taliban insurgency. No statement or comment since June 18 mentions the political process as mandated by the Afghan Constitution at all.

U.S. approach

In order to assess how far the U.S. will go in this direction and how much pressure it will bring to bear on Mr. Karzai, it would be instructive to turn to its approaches towards the Taliban in the 1990s.

The Taliban effectively captured Kabul on September 26, 1996. That evening in Islamabad, at a dinner hosted by our High Commissioner, at which this writer was present, a senior U.S. diplomat was one of the guests. He was obviously following the success of the Taliban in Kabul with a sense of satisfaction. He was completely unfazed by the nature of the Taliban, including its theological orientations.


Two months later, the U.N. Secretary General called a meeting of countries with “interest and influence in Afghanistan” in New York. At that meeting the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Robin Raphel, called the Taliban “a significant factor in the Afghan equation and one that will not disappear anytime soon.” In a pointed message to those who considered the Taliban creatures of Pakistan, she said, “... they are Afghan; they are indigenous; they have demonstrated staying power”.

Notwithstanding the disquiet expressed by many influential U.S. women groups on Taliban attitudes on gender issues Ms Raphel stated “the real source of their power has been the willingness of many Afghans, particularly Pashtuns, to tacitly trade the unending fighting and chaos for a measure of peace and security, even with severe social restrictions.” It is especially noteworthy that the Taliban record on human rights was characterised thus. Why? U.S. officials at that time were particularly focussed on evacuating Central Asian hydrocarbons through pipelines across Afghanistan and Pakistan, and clearly felt that only the Taliban could create stable conditions in Afghanistan to make this possible. Human rights then as now have never come in the way of hard national interest.

Ms Raphel also advised all countries to engage with the Taliban and put that suggestion in practice a month later when a Taliban team led by Mullah Muttawakil visited Washington ostensibly at the invitation of a U.S. oil company. The State Department strongly lobbied with many embassies, including our own, to receive the Taliban team. The Taliban team was received by a middle level diplomat. They said that they should be considered Afghans. They also said that they were not against India. This was at a time when they were hosting training camps where members of terrorist groups operating against India were also being trained.

The U.S. attitude towards the Taliban changed in 1998. Why?

Osama-bin-Laden reached Afghanistan from Sudan a few months before the Taliban captured Kabul. He developed a close nexus with the Taliban leadership, especially Mullah Omar. In 1998, the al Qaeda attacked U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and it became apparent that Osama was using Afghanistan as a base to plan his attacks on western targets. It was only then that the U.S. began to be unhappy with the Taliban and, even then, its ire was not against the Taliban per se but against their connection with the al Qaeda.

Prior to 9/11, the U.S. gave the Taliban every opportunity to give up the al Qaeda and make peace. Following 9/11, the U.S. allowed the Pakistanis to virtually nurture the Taliban provided they handed over members of the al Qaeda. The Pakistanis obliged and hundreds of low level al Qaeda operatives were given by them to the U.S. In return, Pakistan got strategic space and more than $11billion.

By 2004 the Taliban, with Pakistani assistance, had gained sufficient strength to begin operations in Afghanistan and the Taliban insurgency had begun. It was allowed to gain strength because deep down some influential sections in Washington subscribed to the Raphel Taliban Doctrine. An exhausted U.S., after the elimination of Osama, is essentially attempting to revert to that doctrine.

Karzai’s challenge

In the 1990s, the Taliban and Pakistan could not fully achieve their objectives largely because of Ahmed Shah Massoud. Mr. Karzai is no Massoud but he can meet the current challenge even now if he abandons the narrow politics he has pursued since 2001. More than ever, he needs the skills of the Panjsheri leaders, Abdullah and Qanooni, the analytical capacities of the former Intelligence Chief, Amrullah Saleh, the courage of the Hazara leader, Mohaqiq, and the tenacity of the Uzbek leader, Dostum. Along with them he needs to travel, with all its risks, especially to Pashtun areas to warn against the long-term dangers the Taliban represent to Afghanistan’s future. Perhaps this is too much to ask of Mr. Karzai. [:))))))))))))))))))))]

The Afghan situation will certainly figure prominently in Secretary of State Kerry’s discussions in Delhi. The Indian leadership cannot confine itself to the pious principles contained in the government’s statement of June 21. It must forthrightly inform Mr. Kerry of India’s misgivings about the Taliban and that India will act to protect its interests in Afghanistan, along with like-minded countries. We must especially underline that India will not allow itself to be excluded from international diplomacy over Afghanistan, as was the case in the 1990s. Following the Kerry visit, India must urgently hold consultations with Russia, Iran and the Central Asian states on developments in Afghanistan.
The Taliban are part of the Afghan landscape but their vision of the country’s future is flawed for it is exclusionary, not inclusive of Afghanistan’s diversities. Our diplomacy while remaining realistic and flexible must not be oblivious of this basic aspect.

As for the U.S.: Faustian bargains cost lives and much more. But that is mainly for the U.S. public to consider. On their part, U.S. policymakers will have to ponder over the reasons for the strategic reverses, if not defeat, of their country in Afghanistan. Is it because of a continuing ambivalence on Pakistan and the lack of a clear, specific and sustained Pakistan policy or are the reasons Afghanistan specific? The Af-Pak concept has clearly failed.

Meanwhile the Taliban are out of the shadows and Pakistan is back at the centre of international diplomacy on Afghanistan.

(Vivek Katju is a former Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan)

In Afghanistan, back to the future - The Hindu

@muse @nuclearpak
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom