If you think Pakistan will abandon the Taliban, think again!

[Icarus]

The Americans are dealing with the Taliban and so are the Afghans, we also have stakes in the Afghan situation because unlike the Americans, we can't extract or distance ourselves from this mess. We can't just pack up and shift elsewhere, Afghanistan is our neighbour and the Taliban are still a force to reckon with, these are ground realities that need to be understood, acknowledged and respected. We need to pave the way for a stable relationship for a post-American withdrawal Afghanistan and aiding the peace process in Afghanistan is our effort at doing just that.

 

[Spring Onion]

UN makes it easier for blacklisted Taliban to travel for peace talks


UNITED NATIONS: The UN Security Council renewed its Taliban sanctions regime on Monday, but made it easier for blacklisted people to get an exemption to travel outside of Afghanistan for peace and reconciliation talks.

US-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban government in late 2001 when it refused to hand over al Qaeda militants, including Osama bin Laden, after the Islamist network’s hijacked airliner attacks on the United States on Sept 11.

There are 132 individuals and four entities on the UN Security Council’s sanctions list. Some diplomats hope the flexibility to grant travel exemptions will help induce moves toward peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan.

The resolution “invites the government of Afghanistan, in close coordination with the High Peace Council, to submit for the committee’s consideration the names of listed individuals for whom it confirms travel to such specified location or locations is necessary to participate in meetings in support of peace and reconciliation.”

The Security Council’s sanctions committee will require the passport or travel document number of the person traveling, the specific location to which they are expected to travel and the period of time – which cannot exceed nine months – during which they are expected to travel.

Britain’s UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said the travel ban exemption is “more effective and more flexible so it can serve the purposes of the peace and reconciliation process that is going to be so important over the next two years in Afghanistan.”

“It does that while sustaining proper oversight for the committee and it also sets the framework for closer cooperation between the Afghan Government and sanctions committee,” Lyall Grant said in a statement.

France said on Sunday that officials from the Afghan government, the Taliban movement and other factions would meet this week near Paris to discuss the country’s future. Foreign troops have started handing over security control to Afghan soldiers and police, a process due to be completed by the end of 2014.

UN makes it easier for blacklisted Taliban to travel for peace talks | World | DAWN.COM

Why should we abandon them

 

[RescueRanger]

That's a matter of misplaced priorities sir. The US has been fighting a long war in Afghanistan and has grown weary of the futility of the campaign. So now, the main focus is to get some semblance of a national government in Afghanistan so the the Trillion Dollar resources are free to be mined. The sad truth is that the US is no longer interested in being the savior of the people. As they say, "it's all about the money, stupid", if that means they have to sell the Afghan people down the river, so be it.

AS for you postulating that the Afghan and Pakistani taliban are different entities, i beg to differ. I have folks living in the town of Khaar (they have to relocate after an army operation in their native area), long story short, my uncle called a couple of weeks ago and informed my mother that the whole area is more or less under Talib control. The writ of government, which existed to a certain extent in the past is now nonexistent. Basically, its the same familiar story of denouncement of education for the female population amongst other despicable things. Any act by a deemed unIslamic in their eyes is dealt with inhumane brutality. So i ask you again, whats the difference? Does it have anything to do with the fact that the talibans on the east of the Durand line don't attack the army so that essentially makes them good? what about the local population which has been abandoned to languish and suffer under the monsters? The US has no connection with the local population so their disregard seems understandable if not justified but what do you make of the fact that Pakistan is throwing her own people under the bus just for the sake of avoiding confrontation? As far as i am concerned, the rhetorical good taliban are just as vile as their counterparts across the border.

So i ask you again, whats the difference? Does it have anything to do with the fact that the talibans on the east of the Durand line don't attack the army so that essentially makes them good?

Sir, you answered your own question, with another question. Fact of the matter is, when the US is gone, we have to live with Afghanistan. The Taliban will be far stronger than any government in Kabul, the US, NATO and UN know this, hence the compromise, if the US can term some Taliban as "good" Taliban, i ask... why can;t Pakistan?

Better than having to fight a hostile group in your own country and having to fight a hostile force on your borders. And we all know how easy it is for Afghan's to come into Pakistan from camps like Kharotobad and Pishin and the various other agencies, so as the age old addage goes... Let sleeping dogs lie.

The sad truth is that the US is no longer interested in being the savior of the people.

Not true, i had the privilege of speaking to a senior former US military officer, on the issue of US intervention in foreign lands, and his answer to me was simple (Cuz,we are a nation of Doo Gooders, and despite everyone hatin what we do, we will keep doin it, cuz we remember how our great nation came into being)...

Okay so some of that was bravado, but i do think that trying to deliver "democracy" and the sense of "fighting the good fight" is mentally ingrained in every US citizen.

 

[MilSpec]

@RescueRanger: sir, what was the economic policy of "Taliban" based on when they were in power ?

 

[RazorMC]

Pakistan can have every thing yellow except Banyam ( we put too much work in there ) NATO takes responsibility for the pink and the blue.

How did we end up with the Americans on our borders ?? :s
Refunds anyone ??

Once the Talibs are back in the power-game though, there's not going to be any yellow and blues and what-nots. They are probably biding their time until Uncle Sam goes back to the mainland.

 

[MilSpec]

What i understand from all the posts I have come across from members on the forum over last couple of years is in reconciliation with taliban is:

Taliban represents the majority of afghans, i.e. pashtuns, hence have a legitimate stake in the government.
Taliban had constituents of mujhahideens of soviet war that favored pakistan and vice versa, hence pakistan supported the onset of taliban.
After the WoT situation pakistan wants to ensure proper representation of pashtuns in afghanistan, hence want the moderate taliban to have representation in the government.
Although some members here believe that once NATO leaves, taliban will walk back and take over kabul, most of the pakistani members here belive that there can be negotiations be done to get a power sharing deal with taliban.

The entire focus of the above arguments is to ensure that afganistan becomes a nation that has proper representation of all factions of people in the country, remains a good neighbor to pakistan and in some degree doesn't allow it's soil to be used against pakistan.

All of the above sound fine to me, infact is very proactive and might be the best solution for stabilization of pakistan.

I have a few queries which I would appreciate if few of the knowledgeable members on the subject matter would shed some light on, especially on the taliban element that pakistani members in general accept if not promote.

Does majority of a certain community in the nation automatically ensure that their actions would be in the national interset, because from the track record of taliban, they have put the afghans through the worst possible time in the modern history.

If pakistan does broker a deal to get taliban back into power, what leverage will pakistan have to ensure that taliban doesn't trample human rights the way they did back in the day.

What is the economic future that taliban brings to the afghanistan. There were zero reforms wrt education, technology agriculture, tourism, foreign relations when taliban were in power. With zero experience in nation building, internal affairs, foreign relations, what gains are expected from leaders who are nothing but guerrilla fighters.

It is often said that taliban represents the pashtoon of afghanistan, if the same rhetoric is put in context of pakistan, does pakistani taliban represent pakistani pashtoons and will they be allowed political settlement in nation of pakistan. Will such scenario be acceptable to rest of the pakistan.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

^Talibans do not represent Pashtun nation, pashtuniyat and talibanization are opposite phenomenas. Talibans are just misguided or extremist pashtuns/afghans/pakistanis. Taliban can be any one, punjabi, pashtun, uzbek, chechen....
The creator of talibans is Pakistan itself, sending mujahideens to afghanistan against russia, asking tribals to do mehman-nawazi of arab and uzbek guests, then sending jihadis to kashmir like jaish e mohammad, sipah sahaba, harkat ul mujahideen etc which would later become punjabi talibans, supporting mullah omar and co and ask them to hang najibullah in kabul. Then create more reactionary talibans by carrying military operations in FATA for america.

 

[RescueRanger]

@RescueRanger: sir, what was the economic policy of "Taliban" based on when they were in power ?

Not good at all, and that is what worries me when i think of ordinary afghan's and their future. Being a father myself, it does cause me concern, because unless some intricate balancing act is created whereby the economic and strategic policies are managed by the Kabul government and the provincial government is managed by these lot, Afghanistan could go back to stone ages again.

 

[Spring Onion]

What i understand from all the posts I have come across from members on the forum over last couple of years is in reconciliation with taliban is:

Taliban represents the majority of afghans, i.e. pashtuns, hence have a legitimate stake in the government.
Taliban had constituents of mujhahideens of soviet war that favored pakistan and vice versa, hence pakistan supported the onset of taliban.
After the WoT situation pakistan wants to ensure proper representation of pashtuns in afghanistan, hence want the moderate taliban to have representation in the government.
Although some members here believe that once NATO leaves, taliban will walk back and take over kabul, most of the pakistani members here belive that there can be negotiations be done to get a power sharing deal with taliban.

The entire focus of the above arguments is to ensure that afganistan becomes a nation that has proper representation of all factions of people in the country, remains a good neighbor to pakistan and in some degree doesn't allow it's soil to be used against pakistan.

All of the above sound fine to me, infact is very proactive and might be the best solution for stabilization of pakistan.

I have a few queries which I would appreciate if few of the knowledgeable members on the subject matter would shed some light on, especially on the taliban element that pakistani members in general accept if not promote.

Does majority of a certain community in the nation automatically ensure that their actions would be in the national interset, because from the track record of taliban, they have put through the afghans through the worst possible time in the modern history.

If pakistan does broker a deal to get taliban back into power, what leverage will pakistan have to ensure that taliban doesn't trample human rights the way they did back in the day.

What is the economic future that taliban brings to the afghanistan. There were zero reforms wrt education, technology agriculture, tourism, foreign relations when taliban were in power. With zero experience in nation building, internal affairs, foreign relations, what gains are expected from leaders who are nothing but guerrilla fighters.

It is often said that taliban represents the pashtoon of afghanistan, if the same rhetoric is put in context of pakistan, does pakistani taliban represent pakistani pashtoons and will they be allowed political settlement in nation of pakistan. Will such scenario be acceptable to rest of the pakistan.

1. Ensuring Human rights by Taliban is NOT only Pakistan's responsibility. That is a side business/matter whatever you may call it in this bigger game.

2. Human rights abuses in Afghanistan were the same under Afghan warlords too. So thats an issue that has been carried by all sides hence ensuring it is the responsibility of everyone NOT just Pakistan.

3. When Taliban were in rule, most of the period was struggling with internal power wrangling so not much space for reforms and development.

4. In Future if they are in govt through proper process. and supported the development projects will indeed take place.

 

[MilSpec]

Not good at all, and that is what worries me when i think of ordinary afghan's and their future. Being a father myself, it does cause me concern, because unless some intricate balancing act is created whereby the economic and strategic policies are managed by the Kabul government and the provincial government is managed by these lot, Afghanistan could go back to stone ages again.

I think Pakistan, china, India, US and Eu should form an economic development fund for purely developing afaganistan. Key agendas need to be demilitarization, education, empowerment of women (that basically doubles human index), and agriculture.

Pakistan needs to bury the hatchet with NA, if karzai is willing to talk to pashtuns, pakistan should be willing to tolerate tajiks and uzbeks in the cabinet.

Sometimes power of one can change a nation, that one man for afganistan was Ahmed Shah Massoud, unfortunately he is no longer thier, Gen Fahim or Gen Dostum do not have the same foresight hence, unless a good leadership comes along, afganistans future will be uncertain.

Eradication of heroin culture. the cycle of violence is afganistan is fuelled by narco money, there needs self sustaining agri business in afganistan. Religion can play a huge role is positively eradication drug-economics in afghanistan.

 

[RescueRanger]

I think Pakistan, china, India, US and Eu should form an economic development fund for purely developing afaganistan. Key agendas need to be demilitarization, education, empowerment of women (that basically doubles human index), and agriculture.

Pakistan needs to bury the hatchet with NA, if karzai is willing to talk to pashtuns, pakistan should be willing to tolerate tajiks and uzbeks in the cabinet.

Sometimes power of one can change a nation, that one man for afganistan was Ahmed Shah Massoud, unfortunately he is no longer thier, Gen Fahim or Gen Dostum do not have the same foresight hence, unless a good leadership comes along, afganistans future will be uncertain.

Eradication of heroin culture. the cycle of violence is afganistan is fuelled by narco money, there needs self sustaining agri business in afganistan. Religion can play a huge role is positively eradication drug-economics in afghanistan.

A very solid idea and i feel this would be a great step in improving regional trade and trust across borders.

 

[Sedqal]

In my humble view the nightmare scenario for Pakistan would be:

1- USA/ NATO forces withdraw with some token presence in Afghanistan (limited to Kabul).

2- A disenchanted Taliban force which attacks from that side of Durand line, the geography of border will make it impossible to stop infiltration. Identifying Taliban from Pakistanis and countering suicide attacks would be next to impossible. A spread out force (Taliban) in Afghanistan would mean that you can't use Army. Thus the bloodshed would continue forever.

3- This would harm the already fragile relationship with Afghanistan and keep Army focused on Western border (giving a free hand to India, the sole reason Pakistan went into Afghanistan).

Perhaps some member with better understanding of Afghanistan/ Pakistan can shed some light on possibility of the above mentioned scenario.

 

[MilSpec]

1. Ensuring Human rights by Taliban is NOT only Pakistan's responsibility. That is a side business/matter whatever you may call it in this bigger game.

2. Human rights abuses in Afghanistan were the same under Afghan warlords too. So thats an issue that has been carried by all sides hence ensuring it is the responsibility of everyone NOT just Pakistan.

3. When Taliban were in rule, most of the period was struggling with internal power wrangling so not much space for reforms and development.

4. In Future if they are in govt through proper process. and supported the development projects will indeed take place.

Madam i am not supporting afgan warlords or any one here. I did admire ahmed shah massod for his forsight and resileince, but he's gone and there is no equivalent to him left. Afganistan pre soviet invasion may not be sweeden, but was still alright. people weren't mindlessly killing each other and shooting at every moving object. They were still a self sustaining economy. If only the adjoining powers could just com together and build few roads, few colleges, some hospitals, and few markets, with some positive reinforcement from religion which works wonders in the region can have a chance to prosper again.

I understand actions of taliban are not pakistans responsibility, but when pakistan does want to see taliban element in government, they should ensure some leverage on on them to ensure human decency. thats all

 

[Spring Onion]

Madam i am not supporting afgan warlords or any one here. I did admire ahmed shah massod for his forsight and resileince, but he's gone and there is no equivalent to him left. Afganistan pre soviet invasion may not be sweeden, but was still alright. people weren't mindlessly killing each other and shooting at every moving object. They were still a self sustaining economy. If only the adjoining powers could just com together and build few roads, few colleges, some hospitals, and few markets, with some positive reinforcement from religion which works wonders in the region can have a chance to prosper again.

I understand actions of taliban are not pakistans responsibility, but when pakistan does want to see taliban element in government, they should ensure some leverage on on them to ensure human decency. thats all

Agree with your points here.

We can only press them on the HR issue however can not force them. But i am sure over the years of the conflict they have learned alot and will be held responsible if come into power through polls

 

[RazorMC]

... If pakistan does broker a deal to get taliban back into power, what leverage will pakistan have to ensure that taliban doesn't trample human rights the way they did back in the day.

What is the economic future that taliban brings to the afghanistan. There were zero reforms wrt education, technology agriculture, tourism, foreign relations when taliban were in power. With zero experience in nation building, internal affairs, foreign relations, what gains are expected from leaders who are nothing but guerrilla fighters...

Pakistan does not need to broker a deal for the Talibs to get their hands on power. Their capacity to wage a continuous war for over a decade shows their resilience and determination. They are going to be part of any future power struggles in Kabul and the US has recognized this (while expecting Pakistan to stop negotiations with the same people).

Your second point is valid. A progressive Afghanistan is not to be expected while warlords and guerilla fighters hold the keys to the country. The international community is going to have to keep doing their part to ensure Afghanistan moves forward. The same applies to human rights.