Has Pak. been sidelined by the Indo-Afgh. Strategic Agreement?

[Emmie]

Where is General Hameed Gul , who always harps - Afghan so adorable?

IMO, this accord wont impact to a larger extend in terms of serving a specific purpose as a dozen of Indian consulates are already operational in Afghanistan. Pakistan instead of showing concerns should take appropriate steps to to enhance its intel and should engage the world through an immaculate diplomacy.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Where is General Hameed Gul , who always harps - Afghan so adorable?

IMO, this accord wont impact to a larger extend in terms of serving a specific purpose as a dozen of Indian consulates are already operational in Afghanistan. Pakistan instead of showing concerns should take appropriate steps to to enhance its intel and should engage the world through an immaculate diplomacy.

In case you care for facts, NO, India does not have a dozen consulates in Afghanistan.

Indias plans are ambitious after capturing part of Kashmir from Pakistan we would have a peace road to Afghanistan and Baluchistan one day will come when Balochintan will be free from Pakistan.Our government is changing its policy on Pakistan very fast your new friend can not save you.

Ok, so you don't think before you speak, but make an exception for typing atleast.

 

[Rafi]

Let the indians and Afghans do what they may, we hold the key - to that country's future.

 

[karan.1970]

Let the indians and Afghans do what they may, we hold the key - to that country's future.

I think the need of the hour in Pakistan is to secure its own country's future first which itself is becoming more and more difficult by the day...

 

[Donatello]

Afghans better have friends with Pakistan.....like i have said again and again....long distance relationships rarely work......how can India influence Afghanistan once USA is out? Pakistan border Afghanistan and hence can do a lot more than India can.......

 

[iPhone]

very wrong headline by Dawn, "Pakistan Warns Afghanistan......"

In no way did Pakistan issue a warning to Afghanistan over it's pact with India. Nor did the spokesperson for foreign affairs say anything like that. If you read her statement she says, "Pak expects Afghanistan to demonstrate maturity."

Very irresponsible headline by the newspaper and zero reporting ethics.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1) US is the invader, Afghanistan is the sovereign country being invaded and Taliban is the fighting force which is made upof indigenous Afghans (as Pak claims) . So why exactly should another country, Pak be consulted in this ? Is there any international obligation/rule for such an expectation on Pak's part ?

2) As a sovereign nation, Afghanistan is the final authority in deciding which country should train its forces. Again why is Pakistan expecting that it has the birth right to that effect ? If they choose India fine, if they choose Guinea-Bissau then fine. Thats their prerogative. Not anyone elses.

Let me tell you whats the problem with Pakistan - It expects every country in the world to pamper it,listen to its concerns and if the other country does not do it as its conflicts with its own national interest, it feels hurt and starts crying the victim.

Let me tell you the 'problem with your post', I was not, and am not, arguing over the veracity of the positions you talk about above - I am simply pointing out to you and some others that essentially nothing has changed with this 'strategic agreement' as far as Afghanistan's policies go.

So while I appreciate the effort you put into the post, it was completely irrelevant to my point and the topic.

To reiterate, Pakistan cannot be 'sidelined by the strategic agreement' when nothing in the 'strategic agreement' changes Afghan policies or the situation on the ground.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Who is talking of pre and post Rabbani only.. I am simply highlighting a change of stance of Afg/NATO/US towards Pakistan over last few years which was cognizant of Pakistan sensitivities earlier and is not now..

What 'sensibilities'? You mean that finally they have dropped any pretense of 'respecting Pakistan's national interests', as Obama wants Pakistan to do for the US?

Pakistan was not consulted when the transitional government was put in place, Pakistan was not consulted over reconciliation efforts or the the COIN strategy pursued by the US in Afghanistan, Afghanistan never cared to consult with Pakistan over anything meaningful.

So pray tell what exactly Pakistan has lost?

It may not mean much for you, but in international diplomacy, sentiments drive a lot of policy / posture changes. A good example is how USA shapes the public sentiment before making a major policy change. But then you may chose to have a different view.. Also, do remember that individual stance of Afg in isolation is not the only question here.. A lot of what Afg does, is done in consultation with NATO, which again used to be extremely sensitive to Pakistan's concerns wrt India in Afghanistan, which doesnt seem to be the case now..

Public sentiment in the US has long been anti-Pakistan, as has public sentiment in Afghanistan, so again, what exactly has changed on that count suddenly that tangibly impacts Pakistan?

And if you are going to argue 'government sentiment', then let me point out to you that the actual policies pursued by the Afghan and US governments over the time they were 'publicly sensitive to Pakistan' were essentially just as anti-Pakistan interests as they are now.

Again, Pakistan cannot be said to have been 'sidelined', when nothing on the ground in terms of Afghan policy has changed to impact Pakistan more negatively than before.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Pakistan is India's twin brother too, Afghanistan is a great friend. The agreement that we signed yesterday with our friend will not affect our brother.

Uhhh, no we aren't.

 

[KS]

Uhhh, no we aren't.

No we arent. I agree with you cent percent.

I cant even imagine it.

Fateh ji

---------- Post added at 09:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 AM ----------

Let me tell you the 'problem with your post', I was not, and am not, arguing over the veracity of the positions you talk about above - I am simply pointing out to you and some others that essentially nothing has changed with this 'strategic agreement' as far as Afghanistan's policies go.

So while I appreciate the effort you put into the post, it was completely irrelevant to my point and the topic.

To reiterate, Pakistan cannot be 'sidelined by the strategic agreement' when nothing in the 'strategic agreement' changes Afghan policies or the situation on the ground.

Ok let me put it directly - Do you think Pakistan is being sidelined in Afg or not ?

A simple direct Yes/No would suffice.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

These agreements are worthless until an afghan govt representing afghanis not american soldiers is in place.

well why do you think the man has little influence or respect outside of his little quarter in Kabul?

just today i saw on the news protests against the govt. because of this fact....


Karzai is a man of many hats...in fairness to him, he's been good at it -- shuffling back and forth between Pakistanis, Iranians, CARs, Yanks/NATOs then of course the hindstanis...

but at the end of the day, he has little legitimacy in the eyes of most Afghans and in fact many even accused him of vote rigging (even some of his own protectors)

Re: The topic


i think what you really have to ask is

a.) when and in which particular context.....

and


b.) where (in public or in private sphere)

 

[karan.1970]

Pakistan was not consulted when the transitional government was put in place, Pakistan was not consulted over reconciliation efforts or the the COIN strategy pursued by the US in Afghanistan, Afghanistan never cared to consult with Pakistan over anything meaningful.

Why would a decision on a sovereign country's government or a reconciliation plan with its insurgents require Pakistan's additional consultations over and above the normal discussions where all Afghanistan's neighbors were involved..like the one in Turkey and London.. Why would honoring Pakistan's sensitivities involve compromising on Afghanistan's sovereignty ??

So pray tell what exactly Pakistan has lost?

The trust of both USA and Afghanistan. The 2nd one wasnt in place to begin with.. the 1st one has deteriorated over time from 2001 till now with the recent events being the tipping point.

Public sentiment in the US has long been anti-Pakistan, as has public sentiment in Afghanistan, so again, what exactly has changed on that count suddenly that tangibly impacts Pakistan?

And if you are going to argue 'government sentiment', then let me point out to you that the actual policies pursued by the Afghan and US governments over the time they were 'publicly sensitive to Pakistan' were essentially just as anti-Pakistan interests as they are now.

Again, Pakistan cannot be said to have been 'sidelined', when nothing on the ground in terms of Afghan policy has changed to impact Pakistan more negatively than before.

There are degrees of public sentiment and govt sentiment and things are never in binary.. But I guess you know that already.. What Pakistan has lost is that it has slipped a few notches lower on the trust and alliance scale for both NATO/USA and Afghanistan and every slipped notch brings with it, its own set of disadvantages/lost opportunities

 

[Awesome]

What Afghans don't realize is that we're expecting them to militarily help India in attacking Pakistan in the event of a war. It becomes a moot point whether or not we have a right to interfere in Afghanistan since we do have a right to defend Pakistan.

If Afghanistan cannot make us feel comfortable enough fully knowing we have power over them then that doesn't show them to be very smart. It's not a matter of how dare they go to India, it's more like "Oh so you wanna screw us over eh? We'll show you".

The tussle opens up and its been Pakistan's policy to never start a fight but once started, we decide the level of intensity this fight should go on to.

So Afghanistan is asking for a fight from Pakistan when you cut through the BS, thats all that you are left with.

 

[Radio_Man]

Let the indians and Afghans do what they may, we hold the key - to that country's future.

Or it may be opposite, Afghans hold the key to stability of Pakistan. If you play bad with them, they will play bad with you.


Hundreds of Afghans hold anti-Pakistan protest – The Express Tribune
“Fighting our country’s enemies is nothing new for Afghans and Pakistan is another enemy to fight with,” he said.

 

[Vinod2070]

What Afghans don't realize is that we're expecting them to militarily help India in attacking Pakistan in the event of a war. It becomes a moot point whether or not we have a right to interfere in Afghanistan since we do have a right to defend Pakistan.

If Afghanistan cannot make us feel comfortable enough fully knowing we have power over them then that doesn't show them to be very smart. It's not a matter of how dare they go to India, it's more like "Oh so you wanna screw us over eh? We'll show you".

The tussle opens up and its been Pakistan's policy to never start a fight but once started, we decide the level of intensity this fight should go on to.

So Afghanistan is asking for a fight from Pakistan when you cut through the BS, thats all that you are left with.

Replace Afghanistan with Pakistan and Pakistan with India. It is exactly the same situation.

Did it ever stop you?

Would it stop them?