What's new

No breakthrough in Pak-Afghan talks

UmarJustice

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Brussels - Afghan and Pakistani leaders met with US Secretary of State John F Kerry on Wednesday to try to reverse a deterioration in relations that has threatened Afghanistan’s peacemaking efforts.

Invited by Kerry, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani flew to a sprawling Flemish-style estate on the edge of Brussels to try to overcome their differences on a long list of security issues.
Kerry emerged after more than three hours of talks saying that he believed “we made progress,” but making no claims of a breakthrough. “We had a very extensive and... a very productive and constructive dialogue... But we have all agreed that results are what will tell the story, not statements at a press conference,” Kerry told reporters, without disclosing any details of what was discussed.
Flanked by Kayani and Karzai, he said, “We will under-promise but deliver... I think that everybody here agreed today that we will continue a very specific dialogue on both the political track as well as the security track... We have a commitment to do that in the interests of Afghanistan, Pakistan and peace in the region.”
Karzai was accompanied at the meeting by Bismillah Mohammadi Khan, Afghanistan’s minister of defence. General Kayani was joined by Jalil Abbas Jilani, Pakistan’s foreign secretary. Gen Joseph Dunford, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, also attended the talks along with Douglas Lute, the senior White House official in charge of policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and David Pearce, the senior State Department coordinator for the region.
Kerry, who was in Brussels for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ministerial meeting, said all three had agreed to continue their discussions and planned now to return to their capitals to do homework. He did not elaborate. Kerry at one point escorted Karzai and Kayani on a slow walk around the grounds, with Kerry in the centre and the leaders on either side.
But neither Karzai nor the Pakistan officials made any comment at the end of the meeting. But Karzai called it an important meeting and said he was glad Kayani and Jilani had found the time to travel to Brussels. “Let’s hope...for the best,” he told reporters.
Karzai and Kayani had sought to reach a deal at a meeting in February hosted by British Prime Minister David Cameron at his country retreat, Chequers. The Wednesday meeting follows weeks of tension with Pakistan over their 2,600-km (1,600-mile) border and stalled peace efforts. Afghan officials say Pakistan has a long history of supporting Afghanistan’s Taliban and other insurgent factions. Pakistan in turn has accused Afghanistan of giving safe haven to militants on the Afghan side of the border.
Afghan leaders are trying to extend the reach of their shaky government and hammer out a political deal with the Taliban before the US and Nato presence dwindles next year. But they say the Pakistanis don’t want the Taliban to negotiate a deal with Karzai government that would undermine Islamabad’s influence. Even as plans for the meeting were set, Karzai’s spokesman said Monday that Islamabad had not taken any of the needed steps toward peace.
Kerry said before Wednesday’s meeting that he wanted to have a “continuing trilateral discussion with respect to the security and other issues” in the region as the Afghan military takes greater responsibility for protecting its own country. The estate where they met, Truman Hall, is a 27-acre property that was built by chocolate entrepreneur Jean Michiels and sold to the United States in 1984 by Michiel’s widow. It is the home of the US ambassador to NATO.

No breakthrough in Pak-Afghan talks
 
notice what Kerry said -
we have all agreed that results are what will tell the story
-- now, who was being asked to produce results? Pakistan, of course -- So another great success for the great Gen. Kiyani
 
In short, the meeting was another "Do More" lecture from the US, for the Afghans who can not handle their own country's affairs.

The General should have sent a lower ranking military official to this meeting to make our point.
 
notice what Kerry said - -- now, who was being asked to produce results? Pakistan, of course -- So another great success for the great Gen. Kiyani

May be you need not worry. Looks like Kerry got nothing from Kayani. T

3 or 4 hours of talks and still nothing. John Kerry made it sound like an achievement with a hope speech. This is probably OK for the first meeting. The two countries are supposed to be hard to bring to a table.

But it says a few things(or rather updates) about Pakistan's power structure. It is Gen Kayani who will negotiate with Karzai and Kerry on Pakistan's foreign policy. So nothing changed. The foreign policy power is still where it was. And also that Kayani will not yield. No operation in NW until US withdrawal.
 
...
But it says a few things(or rather updates) about Pakistan's power structure. It is Gen Kayani who will negotiate with Karzai and Kerry on Pakistan's foreign policy. So nothing changed. The foreign policy power is still where it was. And also that Kayani will not yield. No operation in NW until US withdrawal.


Our caretaker PM can hardly be expected to go. Their job is to oversee elections and continuity of essential services to the public and nothing more.
 
Why do you have to be so negative all the time, if they want peace in Afghanistan, they need us we don't need nobody.

notice what Kerry said - -- now, who was being asked to produce results? Pakistan, of course -- So another great success for the great Gen. Kiyani
 
When you don't know **** about the issue, keep your arse out.

A meeting between Kiyani, Kerry, and the B itch, has nothing to do with Pakistan's foreign policy you pinhead moron, the issues discussed were related to border issues that Afghanis are bitching about just like their "strategic advisor" HINDUstan.


May be you need not worry. Looks like Kerry got nothing from Kayani. T

3 or 4 hours of talks and still nothing. John Kerry made it sound like an achievement with a hope speech. This is probably OK for the first meeting. The two countries are supposed to be hard to bring to a table.

But it says a few things(or rather updates) about Pakistan's power structure. It is Gen Kayani who will negotiate with Karzai and Kerry on Pakistan's foreign policy. So nothing changed. The foreign policy power is still where it was. And also that Kayani will not yield. No operation in NW until US withdrawal.
 
Why do you have to be so negative all the time, if they want peace in Afghanistan, they need us we don't need nobody.

See I think you have the wrong idea about what "they need us" means -- "they" have power over us, "they" have any number of instruments that can use against us --- whereas we have only negatives such as "obstruction" and non-cooperation"

Please try to see in a more holistic manner, in international relations, as in military affairs, strengths can be turned to weaknesses, if not employed properly without emotion and in pursuit of realistic goals.
 
I don't see that "Power" working in the last decade.

What you term as "Obstruction and non-co-operation" is safeguarding our interest.
 
I don't see that "Power" working in the last decade.

What you term as "Obstruction and non-co-operation" is safeguarding our interest.

It's unfortunate that you allow one liners to be seen as substance of your position --- Do you really think the US does not have power over us? Yes, they need us, but we need them even more, recall that when Pakistan reopened routes to them, it even reduced tarrifs because as they depart, should they depart in a manner that does us damage, or strengthens the TTP, will our interests be said to have been "safe guarded"?? If they do not support us at the IMF, will our interests have been safe guarded"? If they do not support greater trade, allowing more Pakisdtani products in their market, will our interests have been safe guarded"? If they allow their Arabs to finance greater terror and sectarian terrorism in Pakistan, will our interests be safe guarded? If they withdraw financial supported for hydrel projects, will our interests be safe guarded?

Certainly there are more effective ways to safe guard our interests than being seen as non-cooperative or obstructing reconciliation in Afghanistan, won't you agree?
 
Our caretaker PM can hardly be expected to go. Their job is to oversee elections and continuity of essential services to the public and nothing more.
Correct. But the negotiations going on are about the whole picture. Then what is the urgency to start right now? Why not just let Kayani talk with his counterparts on the ISAF or ANA on the immediate issue and let the elected government come in by the next 20 days to do the big deal(This is the ideal scenario. To negotiate, a President meets his counterparts on the other side. That is the norm. Kayani has no constitutional power as executive)?

When you don't know **** about the issue, keep your arse out.

A meeting between Kiyani, Kerry, and the B itch, has nothing to do with Pakistan's foreign policy you pinhead moron, the issues discussed were related to border issues that Afghanis are bitching about just like their "strategic advisor" HINDUstan.

Did you even read the article?
“We will under-promise but deliver... I think that everybody here agreed today that we will continue a very specific dialogue on both the political track as well as the security track... We have a commitment to do that in the interests of Afghanistan, Pakistan and peace in the region.”

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...akthrough-pak-afghan-talks.html#ixzz2RXVkDrbg

Lol. I am not their strategic advisor. But I don't find another instance where matters like this(foreign policy, no doubt) get discussed between a President of a country on one side and an Army chief on the other. You can call Karzai names claiming he does not have support inside Afghanistan itself. But remember, the world countries respected your Zardari as well despite you people calling him 10%.
 
.....Why not just let Kayani talk with his counterparts on the ISAF or ANA on the immediate issue and let the elected government come in by the next 20 days to do the big deal(This is the ideal scenario.....

Good suggestion. No need to waste time with Kharazai the loser.

pakistan should invite the ANA chief alongwith ISAF guys and setup a framework.

The only problem so far is that ANA chief doesn't have the same level control on his forces so he cannot deliver.

Americans know this, so they were stuck with inviting kharazai.

All in all,

Pakistan should treat Afghanistan as one of its provinces and deal nicely. They are not our equals so we should not threat them as such.

peace
 
Correct. But the negotiations going on are about the whole picture. Then what is the urgency to start right now? Why not just let Kayani talk with his counterparts on the ISAF or ANA on the immediate issue and let the elected government come in by the next 20 days to do the big deal(This is the ideal scenario. To negotiate, a President meets his counterparts on the other side. That is the norm. Kayani has no constitutional power as executive)?

...


The said counterparts aren't eager to talk with Pakistan, probably because they don't have much to talk about. Their hostility to Pak-Armed Forces is no hiddent fact and it would have been an utter waste of time to talk to them about anything constructive.

Plus, the General probably didn't go to meet Karzai (he lives next door), it was Sen. Kerry that Pakistan was interested in. Pres. Karzai was just asked to tag along to highlight the topic of discussion.
 
Here's hiw this thing is being manufactured: that Karzai is convinced that Mullah Baradar (also a Popalzai) has a strong influence over group of TB commanders and that he can bring these commanders over to the govt - if only Pakistan will release him and some of his commanders from Pakistani jail -- now who is really behind karzai's view?

US and Karzai hope to out maneuver Kiyani on this issue - but Kiyani is "locked in" a not until the other power brokers in Afghanistan are persuaded that it is not possible to cut a deal with the TB, will this "locked in" position change.
 

Back
Top Bottom