Kayani wants India’s Afghan mission closed

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The point is, Pakistan wants some leverage over Afghanistan when it is already embattled in the same mess that Afghans are in right now. I don't see how he can ask for us to move our missions there without any evident links of us harming Pakistani territory.

I know you all would say we're promoting terror in your sensitive regions. But the evidence of that is to be provided to the world community for them to see and officially declare us as "meddlesome".

Kayani can ask for all he wants and the world itself at this time from USA or others, but it all depends on the other party on what he can actually give and to what extent the deal would benefit him (read here US and NATO). They have nothing to gain from asking us to get out or pressure Afghan government in doing it.

Where has Kiyani asked for the missions to be moved?

And the argument for 'providing evidence' works both ways.

 

[Vinod2070]

More Pashtun than the entire population of Afghanistan live in Pakistan and are well integrated into every section of society and government, the only reasonable case for 'unification of the Pashtun' ends up with the larger population integrating the smaller, and under that rationale it is Afghanistan that becomes part of Pakistan.

That is what you think. Apparently they don't agree.

Likely for reasons very similar to what led to the division of India.

Afghanistan is not only Pushtuns though. The others seemingly have even more love for you.

We can live with a 'difference of opinion', Pakistan cannot live with a nation that actively claims its territory with no international basis to its claims, and actively seeks to destabilize Pakistan (support for Baluch and Pashtun insurgents in the past, and allegedly currently as well).

So what do you do? More of the same?

If the Afghan's feel they have a claim and a 'difference of opinion' then they need to take their case to the UN or ICJ and see where it takes them, and not attempt to claim Pakistani territory through subterfuge and destabilization.

Apparently UN is not universally considered the most neutral or effective arbiter of international affairs.

But that is a good advice. I hope Afghans listen to you.

The disputed status of J&K has been validated through the UNSC resolutions and Pakistan has been accepted as a party to the dispute. Our position on J&K has nothing in common with the Afghan position.

Events have moved on. Anyway, this is not a J&K thread.

Why, what are we doing? The GoP and PA have ruled out support for the Taliban, so what exactly are we doing? Appears to me that we are engaging with Karzai and we wish for the GoA to end its active promotion of an anti-Pakistan agenda and inculcation of anti-Pakistan hatred amongst its populace through its media and government (see the M Semple piece on this).

And you seriously think anyone believes that Pakistan is not keeping the Taliban for a rainy day when the uncle leaves after eating a humble pie and Pakistan has no friends left in Afghanistan other than these Talibunnies?

Tough cookies - a treaty and agreement remains valid regardless of whether agreed to by those who follow. The Afghans can cuss out their King for doing so, but what is done is done, and is legally valid, and the Afghan State is obligated to honor its international obligations by honoring the Durand Agreement. If it does not agree with the validity of the DA, it should take it to the UN or ICJ and hope for a favorable ruling.

Well, nations do abrogate treaties. Unless otherwise mentioned, most treaties can be abrogated. The events that caused some agreement cease to exist. You can't expect a country never to correct a "mistake".

Versailles treaty led to WW-2. Unfair treaties that are discriminatory to one party can never succeed in the long run. I am nt saying this treaty is necessarily like Veessailes, just reminding you that a country can't be run just based on one sided treaties.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is what you think. Apparently they don't agree.

Likely for reasons very similar to what led to the division of India.

Afghanistan is not only Pushtuns though. The others seemingly have even more love for you.

The Afghans are seeking to absorb a population (Pakistani Pashtun) that outnumbers their entire country - it is pretty reasonable to argue that in this case what the Pakistani Pashtun think is the deciding factor, if the Afghans continue to pursue 'unification'.

So what do you do? More of the same?

That question is for the Afghans to answer - Pakistan's policy towards Afghanistan is reactive, not proactive. Have the Afghans not had enough of war, civil strife and destruction? Are they still intent on hostile acts against Pakistan, and therefore inviting retribution? Why is the international community not pressuring the Afghans on this point, if they truly wish to work for 'regional peace'? What does the lack of both rhetoric and visible action by the international community, to push Afghanistan towards accepting its international obligations, indicate about the intentions of NATO, and specifically the US.

Apparently UN is not universally considered the most neutral or effective arbiter of international affairs.

But that is a good advice. I hope Afghans listen to you.

The UN and ICJ remain the best hope of neutrality, despite their flaws. And the Afghans know their options, they are not stupid enough to not have realized in 62 years that they could use the above avenues to make their case, but they know that legally they have no case, since the Durand Agreement has no expiration date and was accepted by both sides.

Events have moved on. Anyway, this is not a J&K thread.

Doesn't matter. J&K remains disputed per the UNSC and Pakistan remains a party to the dispute, and the UNSC resolutions remain pending until the dispute is resolved or new resolutions passed.

And you seriously think anyone believes that Pakistan is not keeping the Taliban for a rainy day when the uncle leaves after eating a humble pie and Pakistan has no friends left in Pakistan other than these Talibunnies?

Are we actively supporting them? No.

Do our resource constraints prevent us from acting against NW, which also provides time to see whether NATO will tough it out in Afghanistan or run away? Yes. But on the latter count, I see nothing wrong with hedging our bets given the fickle nature of US foreign policy. In fact, with our offers to mediate between the Taliban and GoA, we are hoping to bring about a more structured settlement to the conflict than appears to be possible in the time frame being implied by the US. But if the US appears to actually be meeting its objectives, before reconciliation has worked, then policy can be changed.

Well, nations do abrogate treaties. Unless otherwise mentioned, most treaties can be abrogated. The events that caused some agreement cease to exist. You can't expect a country never to correct a "mistake".

Versailles treaty led to WW-2. Unfair treaties that are discriminatory to one party can never succeed in the long run. I am nt saying this treaty is necessarily like Veessailes, just reminding you that a country can't be run just based on one sided treaties.

But in this case we are talking about the demarcation of international borders - this is a little more than 'abrogating a treaty on cooperating on technology and trade'.

To take such a step means to contest the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another State - an act of war essentially. It is not quite as simple a deed as you make it sound.

 

[Vinod2070]

The Afghans are seeking to absorb a population (Pakistani Pashtun) that outnumbers their entire country - it is pretty reasonable to argue that in this case what the Pakistani Pashtun think is the deciding factor, if the Afghans continue to pursue 'unification'.

Well, they are not pursuing unification AFAIK. They are pursuing liberation as you want to do in Kashmir. Of course the similarities end there.

So your argument doesn't apply. Most Afghans simply don't want to live with the "Indian Muslims" that they consider you.

Ironic, isn't it? Almost delicious irony.

That question is for the Afghans to answer - Pakistan's policy towards Afghanistan is reactive, not proactive. Have the Afghans not had enough of war, civil strife and destruction? Are they still intent on hostile acts against Pakistan, and therefore inviting retribution? Why is the international community not pressuring the Afghans on this point, if they truly wish to work for 'regional peace'? What does the lack of both rhetoric and visible action by the international community, to push Afghanistan towards accepting its international obligations, indicate about the intentions of NATO, and specifically the US.

I think the international community is dealing with the bigger headache, stopping the terror factories in that region. I am not sure even Pakistan has raised this particular concern with anyone in any meaningful way.

The UN and ICJ remain the best hope of neutrality, despite their flaws. And the Afghans know their options, they are not stupid enough to not have realized in 62 years that they could use the above avenues to make their case, but they know that legally they have no case, since the Durand Agreement has no expiration date and was accepted by both sides.

Well, I have nothing new to say here. May be an Afghan member can add his/her thoughts.

Doesn't matter. J&K remains disputed per the UNSC and Pakistan remains a party to the dispute, and the UNSC resolutions remain pending until the dispute is resolved or new resolutions passed.

Off-topic. I can go back to calling the whole Islamic invasions of India as illegal and rolling back all its effects. Time moves on and nations must move on as well.

Are we actively supporting them? No.

Do our resource constraints prevent us from acting against NW, which also provides time to see whether NATO will tough it out in Afghanistan or run away? Yes. But on the latter count, I see nothing wrong with hedging our bets given the fickle nature of US foreign policy. In fact, with our offers to mediate between the Taliban and GoA, we are hoping to bring about a more structured settlement to the conflict than appears to be possible in the time frame being implied by the US. But if the US appears to actually be meeting its objectives, before reconciliation has worked, then policy can be changed.

Well, I can see your POV but have no sympathy with it. To me it is "hathdharmi" that is causing large scale problems all over the place. Pakistan will realize one day the folly of this policy if not already.

But in this case we are talking about the demarcation of international borders - this is a little more than 'abrogating a treaty on cooperating on technology and trade'.

To take such a step means to contest the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another State - an act of war essentially. It is not quite as simple a deed as you make it sound.

I am not saying its easy but it is a reality of your relationship with Afghanistan.

We have inherited problems in our region and our countries and leadership are not sagacious enough to resolve them. So we do what we do best, rhetoric and legalese, not issue resolutions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, they are not pursuing unification AFAIK. They are pursuing liberation as you want to do in Kashmir. Of course the similarities end there.

So your argument doesn't apply. Most Afghans simply don't want to live with the "Indian Muslims" that they consider you.

Ironic, isn't it? Almost delicious irony.

I fail to see the irony since we are not interested in absorbing Afghanistan or consider it part of 'Akhand Pakistan'. Your attempt at comparison with kashmir fails yet again when one considers the fact that the overwhelming majority of Pashtun voted in favor of Pakistan in a referendum after independence, despite the most popular Pashtun leader at the time opposing it.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/39251-nwfp-history-referendum-pakhtunistan-demand.html

My point merely is that any rational claim of 'unification' (and it is the GoA and Afghans that primarily make it, not Pakistanis) works in favor of Afghanistan being absorbed into Pakistan, not of Pakistani territory being given to Afghanistan.

I think the international community is dealing with the bigger headache, stopping the terror factories in that region. I am not sure even Pakistan has raised this particular concern with anyone in any meaningful way.

Pakistan has raised its concerns. Pakistan officials have raised their concerns privately and at international conferences, and NATO is not so dense as to not realize what drives Pakistani motivations in Afghanistan.

Well, I have nothing new to say here. May be an Afghan member can add his/her thoughts.

I am sure you have frequented Afghan fora occasionally, typically the response fluctuates between the non-factual (Durand Agreement has expired) and the nonsensical (derogatory comments about Pakistanis, mostly non-Pashtun - daal khor etc. - that also betray their opinions about Indians).

We do have a very erudite Tajik-Afghan on this forum, Ahmad, who to his credit is strongly opposed to any policy on the part of Afghanistan to claim Pakistani territory, and is very critical of those Afghans who push such ideas, as well as of the GoP for, IHO, not doing everything it can to stop the Taliban.

You see, given the ethnic tensions and delicate ethnic balance in Afghanistan, the 60% of Afghans who are not Pashtun have no interest in seeing the Afghan Pashtun population expand by any significant number, and turn them into a majority.

Off-topic. I can go back to calling the whole Islamic invasions of India as illegal and rolling back all its effects. Time moves on and nations must move on as well.

Bad comparison again, since no nation-state called India existed back then. The modern Indian State however is still a UN member and is committed to the UN Charter, as is Pakistan, and the UNSC resolutions also continue to exist currently, to which India also committed.

Well, I can see your POV but have no sympathy with it. To me it is "hathdharmi" that is causing large scale problems all over the place. Pakistan will realize one day the folly of this policy if not already.

Regardless of what you think of it, and what the PA thinks of it, resource constraints will prevent action in NW for the forseeable future. Pakistan has 140,000 troops deployed in the FATA and Swat struggling to pacify the Taliban and reconstruct the affected areas. That mission has to be completed first. The floods will only push the timeline for action in NW further back IMO, but there is nothing that can be done about that, since we are seeing no quick movement from the US on assets such as helicopters and other equipment that could act as force multipliers and alleviate some of the strain on current resources.

I am not saying its easy but it is a reality of your relationship with Afghanistan.

We have inherited problems in our region and our countries and leadership are not sagacious enough to resolve them. So we do what we do best, rhetoric and legalese, not issue resolutions.

It is not about 'being easy' but about the fact that Afghanistan's policy of contesting the Afghan-Pak border is tantamount to an act of war and aggression against Pakistan, given no international legitimacy to their claims, and no effort to obtain international legitimacy.

If the Afghans wish to contest the border, there is a 'legal and peaceful means' of doing that, through the UN or ICJ. So long as the Afghans do not even try that, and attempt to destabilize parts of Pakistan and encourage violent elements, Pakistan has every right to guard its interests how it sees fit. The responsibility to change here lies with Afghanistan and Afghans.

 

[InPhilTraitor]

India should not deploy Armed forces in Afghanistan, the whole Pinser move will only make Pakistan paranoid. The love affair of Pakistani Generals with "Strategic Depth" and the War on Terror will create their own ghosts that are too big to control.

Stay engaged but stay out of the fight.

 

[mikkix]

60% of Afghanistan is made up of non-pusthoons.

60% of afghanistan comprises of pakhtuns

 

[manojb]

hehehehe we are waiting for Indian troops in Afghanistan.


Zeenews has gone nuts further by twisting the statement and saying

"The Pakistan Army under General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is sponsoring a large-scale guerrilla war through Afghan proxies to keep India out of Afghanistan, according to a Canadian diplomat and former deputy head of the UN mission in Kabul."

Too bad for indians, the Americans are liking Kiyani

"

I guess you had too much of jingoism for lunch !?

 

[Ras]

60% of afghanistan comprises of pakhtuns

No...Pushtoons are only around 40% according to a bunch of different surveys. Certainly no where close to 60%.

And the war is certainly doing nothing to Pushtoon numbers considering none of the other ethnic groups are fighting in Afghanistan.

 

[Flame]

Seriously, who exactly is Kyani to dictate Afghans to close Indian mission in Afghanistan? It is the last thing you do when you want to have a healthy relations with Afghanistan. Indians will be fully protected in their help for Afghanistan, if some Taliban dummies could protect Bin Laden, then we can certainly as sane Afghans protect our friends and guests who ever they maybe, at least we will do what ever is in our power. Indians should difinitely not bring their's problem with Pakistan to Afg, other than that Pakistan can scream all it wants and send sueciders. Afghanistan is a sovereign and proud nation, a very proud, and Indians are playing a crucial role in our reconstruction efforts, where we get sueciders from Pakistan. Sorry for speaking my mind.

 

[Flame]

No...Pushtoons are only around 40% according to a bunch of different surveys. Certainly no where close to 60%.

And the war is certainly doing nothing to Pushtoon numbers considering none of the other ethnic groups are fighting in Afghanistan.

And Mr double flag USA, who are yo exactly to decide Pashtun numbers in Afghanistan? Which bunch of surverys, you mean the CIA bunch? We Afghans seriously don't care about the numbers, others do. In 2001, the CIA quoted it to be 38% and now misteriously it has jumped to 42%.

 

[friendly_troll96]

60% of afghanistan comprises of pakhtuns

Ethnic groups
Pashtun 38 percent
Tajik 25 percent
Hazara 19 percent
Minor ethnic groups (Chahar Aimaks, Turkmen, Baluchi, Nuristani, and others) 12 percent
Uzbek 6 percent

Encarta ©

 

[soul hacker]

India is not trying to capture it.India is trying to help Afghanistan.

kia chavli mari hai

 

[Vinod2070]

I fail to see the irony since we are not interested in absorbing Afghanistan or consider it part of 'Akhand Pakistan'. Your attempt at comparison with kashmir fails yet again when one considers the fact that the overwhelming majority of Pashtun voted in favor of Pakistan in a referendum after independence, despite the most popular Pashtun leader at the time opposing it.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/39251-nwfp-history-referendum-pakhtunistan-demand.html

Irony is in still being called "Indian" by those who converted you guys! That negates everything that Pakistan has tried to stand for and has been violently denying all along.

I don't need to expound on that, do I?

I said comparison with Kashmir is valid only to a small extent (you want to liberate it when it hosts not more than a very small percentage of Indian Muslims, just because you think you are a thekedaar of Islam).

My point merely is that any rational claim of 'unification' (and it is the GoA and Afghans that primarily make it, not Pakistanis) works in favor of Afghanistan being absorbed into Pakistan, not of Pakistani territory being given to Afghanistan.

Well, Afghanistan is a historical entity, hundreds of years old. Pakistan was created 60 years back based on certain factors and a specific situation.

You can do the maths.

Pakistan has raised its concerns. Pakistan officials have raised their concerns privately and at international conferences, and NATO is not so dense as to not realize what drives Pakistani motivations in Afghanistan.

OK. I have mostly seen their attempts to oust India from Afghanistan, disregarding what the Afghans want. This particular issue has totally escaped me coming in any meaningful way.

Anyway, others can't force you two to resolve the issue, you will need to settle it between the two countries. If Afghans can resist the Superpower invasions as claimed, what makes you think they can be browbeaten into accepting a border they don't agree with.

I am sure you have frequented Afghan fora occasionally, typically the response fluctuates between the non-factual (Durand Agreement has expired) and the nonsensical (derogatory comments about Pakistanis, mostly non-Pashtun - daal khor etc. - that also betray their opinions about Indians).

Yes, very occasionally (once or twice).

When they talk like that, I think of those specific people as low stock primitives. Even though, in general I have good opinion and sympathy for the Afghans.

But it is a different case for Pakistan, isn't it? You guys have been trying to prove that you have always looked west throughout history, never had anything to do with India.

Then you get this from the people you have always looked up to!

We do have a very erudite Tajik-Afghan on this forum, Ahmad, who to his credit is strongly opposed to any policy on the part of Afghanistan to claim Pakistani territory, and is very critical of those Afghans who push such ideas, as well as of the GoP for, IHO, not doing everything it can to stop the Taliban.

Well that is right. All countries in our region need to settle for what they have and stop dreaming of what they can't have.

You see, given the ethnic tensions and delicate ethnic balance in Afghanistan, the 60% of Afghans who are not Pashtun have no interest in seeing the Afghan Pashtun population expand by any significant number, and turn them into a majority.

I know. Still Afghanistan has maintained that policy and you know that.

Bad comparison again, since no nation-state called India existed back then. The modern Indian State however is still a UN member and is committed to the UN Charter, as is Pakistan, and the UNSC resolutions also continue to exist currently, to which India also committed.

That is a bad argument. The world did not suddenly discover morality and ethics when UN was created in 1945.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. India has moved on from that folly. Better you do too. If you can't, tough luck.

Regardless of what you think of it, and what the PA thinks of it, resource constraints will prevent action in NW for the forseeable future. Pakistan has 140,000 troops deployed in the FATA and Swat struggling to pacify the Taliban and reconstruct the affected areas. That mission has to be completed first. The floods will only push the timeline for action in NW further back IMO, but there is nothing that can be done about that, since we are seeing no quick movement from the US on assets such as helicopters and other equipment that could act as force multipliers and alleviate some of the strain on current resources.

Well, more than the resources the doubt is on the intent (neeyat) in the first place.

It is not about 'being easy' but about the fact that Afghanistan's policy of contesting the Afghan-Pak border is tantamount to an act of war and aggression against Pakistan, given no international legitimacy to their claims, and no effort to obtain international legitimacy.

If the Afghans wish to contest the border, there is a 'legal and peaceful means' of doing that, through the UN or ICJ. So long as the Afghans do not even try that, and attempt to destabilize parts of Pakistan and encourage violent elements, Pakistan has every right to guard its interests how it sees fit. The responsibility to change here lies with Afghanistan and Afghans.

It is legalese (as per your POV) and it will not resolve the issues as the other party is not necessarily rational.

Tell me why is Pakistan unable to make this simple fact dawn on Afghanistan?

 

[muse]

I want to bring up a point for discussion, because I need some help trying to understand the argument and would appreciate informed input

Afghanistan is a historical entity, hundreds of years old. Pakistan was created 60 years back based on certain factors and a specific situation

What's this mean? "India" as a modern nation state is 60 something years old as well - So, does the "age" mean something ?And "Palestine", is that a nation state or a label for a geographical area? So does "age mean something? if so, what? For instance, France is older as a nation state than the US, does that make the US illegitmate? China is the oldest nation state, does that mean it is more legitimate than others?