Salahuddin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 0
KABUL (AFP) - Afghan analysts say an increase in attacks on Afghanistan's border is vindicating fears that neighbouring Pakistan's truce with pro-Taliban rebels will feed the insurgency.
The US-led coalition said Thursday that attacks in parts of Afghanistan opposite Pakistan's troubled North Waziristan region have tripled in some areas since the ceasefire came into effect there two months ago.
The deal -- signed into a formal agreement early September -- has essentially opened a new front in the Taliban insurgency, said Kabul University politics lecturer and analyst Nasrullah Stanizai.
"I think the agreement in Waziristan is indeed giving legitimacy to Taliban and Al-Qaeda activities under the name of local Taliban in those areas," he told AFP.
"It is giving an assurance that they are no more under threat from Pakistan and this is opening a new front in Afghanistan" in provinces on the border, he said.
Reflecting suspicion here about the motives of Islamabad, which helped the extremist Taliban militia to power in 1996, Stanizai said the move was an "organised attempt by Pakistan to destabilise Afghanistan."
Similar accusations about who is to blame for the revival of the Taliban burst onto the world stage this week in a public spat between the leaders of the wary neighbours, who have been feuding for months.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf robustly defended the deal in North Waziristan, saying that tribal elders had agreed to stop cross-border attacks and expel Al-Qaeda fighters.
Speaking in Washington where US President George W. Bush brought him together with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai for a dinner, Musharraf said it was a a "holistic approach" to fighting the Taliban in the tribal zone after two years of bloody conflict.
The move has seen the Pakistan army reduce its presence in the area, cutting back on checkposts and freeing scores of prisoners.
Islamic militants in the tribal zone have shot dead three men this month on accusations of spying for US forces, while the Taliban have set up an office in the capital Miranshah.
Karzai and his allies, including the United Nations and NATO, have said they would "wait and see" what the deal would bring.
But the spike in attacks, which suggests an increase in the movement of militants from across the border, was not promising, analysts and officials in Kabul said.
"The early indications are not good," a military official said on condition of anonymity. "In effect we were relying on the word of the insurgents with no real ability to enforce it."
The treaty seemed to be lacking in "enforcement mechanisms," said Davood Moradian, a senior advisor in the Afghan foreign ministry, pointing out that the exact terms of the deal had not been made clear to the Afghan government.
"Every peace treaty has to have strong monitoring and enforcement provisions, and it seems to me that the provisions of this so-called peace treaty are rather weak," Moradian said.
"That they are coming into Afghanistan is an indication that it is not resulting in a positive outcome so far," he said.
A Western diplomat who did not want to be named said he was not surprised the deal was failing.
"It was very clear from the very beginning that this couldn't work," he said. "I do not know a single person who thought it would -- probably even Musharraf himself didn't believe that."
It remained to be seen how the international security forces would deal with the increased attacks, the diplomat said.
"It is not a sustainable situation to have this black hole in Pakistan," he said. "But what can they do about it?
"It goes to the heart of the Pakistan situation -- the military government and its alliances with the Islamists, and what to do about the country."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060929/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestpakistantaliban
The US-led coalition said Thursday that attacks in parts of Afghanistan opposite Pakistan's troubled North Waziristan region have tripled in some areas since the ceasefire came into effect there two months ago.
The deal -- signed into a formal agreement early September -- has essentially opened a new front in the Taliban insurgency, said Kabul University politics lecturer and analyst Nasrullah Stanizai.
"I think the agreement in Waziristan is indeed giving legitimacy to Taliban and Al-Qaeda activities under the name of local Taliban in those areas," he told AFP.
"It is giving an assurance that they are no more under threat from Pakistan and this is opening a new front in Afghanistan" in provinces on the border, he said.
Reflecting suspicion here about the motives of Islamabad, which helped the extremist Taliban militia to power in 1996, Stanizai said the move was an "organised attempt by Pakistan to destabilise Afghanistan."
Similar accusations about who is to blame for the revival of the Taliban burst onto the world stage this week in a public spat between the leaders of the wary neighbours, who have been feuding for months.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf robustly defended the deal in North Waziristan, saying that tribal elders had agreed to stop cross-border attacks and expel Al-Qaeda fighters.
Speaking in Washington where US President George W. Bush brought him together with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai for a dinner, Musharraf said it was a a "holistic approach" to fighting the Taliban in the tribal zone after two years of bloody conflict.
The move has seen the Pakistan army reduce its presence in the area, cutting back on checkposts and freeing scores of prisoners.
Islamic militants in the tribal zone have shot dead three men this month on accusations of spying for US forces, while the Taliban have set up an office in the capital Miranshah.
Karzai and his allies, including the United Nations and NATO, have said they would "wait and see" what the deal would bring.
But the spike in attacks, which suggests an increase in the movement of militants from across the border, was not promising, analysts and officials in Kabul said.
"The early indications are not good," a military official said on condition of anonymity. "In effect we were relying on the word of the insurgents with no real ability to enforce it."
The treaty seemed to be lacking in "enforcement mechanisms," said Davood Moradian, a senior advisor in the Afghan foreign ministry, pointing out that the exact terms of the deal had not been made clear to the Afghan government.
"Every peace treaty has to have strong monitoring and enforcement provisions, and it seems to me that the provisions of this so-called peace treaty are rather weak," Moradian said.
"That they are coming into Afghanistan is an indication that it is not resulting in a positive outcome so far," he said.
A Western diplomat who did not want to be named said he was not surprised the deal was failing.
"It was very clear from the very beginning that this couldn't work," he said. "I do not know a single person who thought it would -- probably even Musharraf himself didn't believe that."
It remained to be seen how the international security forces would deal with the increased attacks, the diplomat said.
"It is not a sustainable situation to have this black hole in Pakistan," he said. "But what can they do about it?
"It goes to the heart of the Pakistan situation -- the military government and its alliances with the Islamists, and what to do about the country."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060929/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestpakistantaliban
