Pakistan trying to broker Afghan deal

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Addressing a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi after a meeting, Afghan Foreign Minister Dr Zalmai Rasoul said that peace and security in Pakistan and Afghanistan were interlinked and they should cooperate with each other to achieve shared goals.

Dr Zalmai said his government was ready for a rapprochement with reconcilable Taliban militants to bring the nine-year-old strife to an end. “Peace talks are possible with those Taliban who have no links with Al Qaeda and renounce violence and respect the Afghan constitution,” he added.

About 1,600 delegates from across Afghanistan had at a jirga in Kabul early this month supported President Hamid Karzai’s plan to seek reconciliation with Taliban and other warring factions.

Mr Karzai had during a visit to Islamabad in March welcomed Pakistan’s offer to play a role in the reconciliation process.

DAWN.COM | Front Page | Pakistan, Afghanistan to boost anti-terror cooperation

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Externally, Pakistan seeks "strategic depth" against India, whose influence and friendly relations with the government of President Hamid Karzai threaten the Pakistani nightmare of strategic encirclement.

Western authors continue to ignore the fact that Pakistan has real security compulsions from an Afghanistan bolstered by India and hostile to Pakistan, given past history in which Afghanistan supported destabilizing elements in Pakistan, refused to accept its borders and claimed its territory.

The Afghan government has not, as of yet, still come out with a clear cut statement showing respect for the borders of Pakistan, nor has it challenged these borders using the proper channels in the UN or any other international avenue.

The Afghan government, through statements made by its ministers, as late as December, was illustrating its position on Pakistan's territorial integrity by taking umbrage at the reference to 'border points' in the under negotiation Afghan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement.

Of course the West - in its duplicity, deceit and continued vilification of Pakistan - obfuscates such direct threats and challenges to Pakistani sovereignty by Afghanistan, and concocts all manner of conspiracy theories and nonsensical fantasies to attribute to Pakistan and explain away both GoA treachery as well as its own failures.

 

[Dr.Evil]

How can Pakistan be a honest broker if it has its own interests to protect in Afghanistan.
Too Much of a conflict of Interest.

 

[BATMAN]

Who represent Pakistan???
Who is taking decisions in Pakistan???
What is the official position of Pakistan on this issue???
I remember when Mullah Bradar was captured by ISI it sparked strong reaction from UN cheifs... in Afghanistan and Karzai had to come Pakistan to negotiate freedom of deputy Taliban cheif.
Now i'm al ocnfused about it!!! so many parties and and games are involved that every thing is simply unpredictable.
When any thing goes wrong blame it on Pakistan (who) and when any thing goes right every one is their to claim the feather.
Now news in below link is a quite interesting development. consider a complete U turn from indian hawks who previously were talking to nuke Pakistan.
U.N. to remove Taliban from blacklist: Karzai

 

[BATMAN]

How can Pakistan be a honest broker if it has its own interests to protect in Afghanistan.
Too Much of a conflict of Interest.

Despite Taliban rule Afghanistan was in much better shape when indians were limited to northern alliance areas and this is grounds reality.

Now brutal warlords from north supported by thier frinds are ruling majority and occupying all govt. jobs. while blood of pashtoons is being spilled by hazara ANA.
Such injustice will build a peaceful society.

 

[Dr.Evil]

Despite Taliban rule Afghanistan was in much better shape when indians were limited to northern alliance areas and this is grounds reality.

Now brutal warlords from north supported by thier frinds are ruling majority and occupying all govt. jobs. while blood of pashtoons is being spilled by hazara ANA.
Such injustice will build a peaceful society.

This must be a story which the whole world has never seen and heard of.

You might be Breaking the News to every one.

For you Taliban are Angels

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How can Pakistan be a honest broker if it has its own interests to protect in Afghanistan.
Too Much of a conflict of Interest.

That would apply to every single country involved in Afghanistan, not just Pakistan.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

its like old wine in new bottle..!!

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Great game unfolds

G Parthasarathy

The members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family are legendary for their discretion and aversion to making strong statements. The monarch is, after all, not only the ruler of the kingdom but also bears the title and responsibility of being the Custodian of Islam’s holiest sites. Within the closely knit royal family, Prince Turki Faisal can be regarded as a figure who enjoys respect because of his educational background, his diplomatic abilities and his stewardship of the kingdom’s security services. As the youngest son of former King Faisal and nephew of king Abdullah, Prince Turki was head of the kingdom’s Al Mukhbarat al-A’amah (General Intelligence Directorate) and has been Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the UK, Ireland and also the US.

With his educational background of academic studies in Princeton and London universities and as a classmate of Mr Bill Clinton in Georgetown University, Prince Turki is regarded as a Saudi royal well disposed towards and well connected in the US. Moreover, as head of the Saudi Intelligence, Prince Turki realised that it was not in the kingdom’s interest to patronise the recalcitrant Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who arbitrarily rebuffed his efforts to get him to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan during a stormy meeting in 1998 which the Prince had with Mullah Omar in Kandahar.

Prince Turki, however, surprised an audience in Riyadh last month by characterising American policies in Afghan- istan as “inept”, averring: “The way this (US) Administration has dealt with President Hamid Karzai beggars disbelief and amazement.” He advised the US Administration to “hunt down terrorists on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and get out and let Afghan people deal with their problems”.

Saudi Arabia is not alone getting exasperated by American flip-flops in Afghanistan. Like India and Afghan- istan’s Central Asian neighbours — Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — Russia is deeply concerned about any prospects of the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan. Moreover, in recent years, as the Taliban expanded its control over territories in southern Afghanistan, drug smuggling across Afghanistan’s borders with Iran and its Central Asian neighbours has shot up, with Russia emerging as the world’s largest per capita consumer of heroin. Over 30,000 Russians die every year from heroin addiction and another 80,000 experiment with heroin for the first time.

Though Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev and Mr Obama agreed to closely cooperate last year, the Russians allege that they receive precious little by way of American cooperation in dealing with the drug menace. Iran, which faces an equally serious problem of heroin addiction, has lost hundreds of its law-enforcement personnel in shootouts with drug smugglers operating across its borders with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Obama Administration’s National Security Doctrine speaks of building a “stable, multi-dimensional relationship with Russia, based on mutual interests”. It also asserts: “We will seek greater partnership with Russia in confronting violent extremism, especially in Afghanistan.” Sixty per cent of supplies for American forces in Afghanistan — comprising fuel, food and some equipment — are now routed through Pakistan, with around another 30 per cent coming by train through Russia and Afghanistan’s neighbouring Central Asian republics. A wider US-Russian strategic dialogue could seek to increase American supplies for its forces in Afghanistan via Russia and Central Asia, thus reducing the strategic salience of the supply routes through Pakistan. One of the major reasons why Pakistan brazenly continues to support the Taliban is that it knows that American dependence on supply routes through its territory is so large, that there is precious little the US and its Nato allies will do to eliminate terrorist havens on its soil. Reduction of dependence on Pakistan for sustaining operations in Afghanistan is, therefore, crucial in coming years.

It is time India resorts to some innovative diplomacy to bring together regional and interested powers to enable Afghanistan to adopt a policy that King Nadir Shah advocated in 1931, when he proclaimed, “Afghanistan must maintain friendly relations with its neighbours as well as all friendly powers that are not opposed to its a national interest. Afghanistan must give its neighbours assurances of its friendly attitudes while safeguarding the right of reciprocity.” During World War I, Amir Habibullah Khan steered a path of neutrality for Afghanistan, despite pressures to back Turkey. Afghanistan joined the League of Nations in 1934, waiting until the Soviet Union joined, so as not to appear to be taking sides in favour of the UK. In 1937, Kabul concluded the Saadabad pact, a non-aggression treaty with Iran, Iraq and Turkey. King Zahir Shah’s Government proclaimed its official and legal neutrality during World War II.

Afghanistan’s problems are, even today, exacerbated by developments and rivalries beyond its borders. Both Russia and China would welcome a return to stability and an end to Taliban-style extremism in the country. They are, however, holding back from providing whole-hearted support for the US-led Nato forces in Afghanistan, because of suspicions about a long-term American military presence in Afghanistan, undermining their interests in Central Asia. Iran, which has extended significant economic assistance to the Karzai Government and was in the forefront of opposition to the Taliban leadership, shares similar concerns about the US’s presence in Afghanistan.

India and Pakistan ‘likewise’ share mutual suspicions about the role of each other in Afghanistan. The Bonn Conference saw a request from participants to the UN “to take measures to guarantee national sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of Afghanistan, as well as the non-interference by countries in Afghanistan’s internal affairs.” This is possible only, if in the words of Indian diplomat C R Gharekhan and former US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Karl Inderfurth, the international community recognises that to attain “the long-term goal of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, it must have better and more reliable relations with its neighbours and near neighbours, including Pakistan, Iran, China, India and Russia”.

India should supplement its economic assistance with a diplomatic effort that enables countries in Afghanistan’s neighbourhood to ensure that Afghanistan’s territory is not utilised to undermine the security of other countries, near and far, while guaranteeing observance of the principle of non-interference, in its internal affairs. One hopes that in the meantime, the Americans will get their act together in dealing with the threats Afghanistan faces from across its disputed border with Pakistan, the Durand Line. Virtually no Pashtun in either Afghanistan or Pakistan recognises the Durand Line as the international border.

The Pioneer > Online Edition : >> Great game unfolds

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Pakistan exploits troubled US effort in Afghanistan: NYT

* Afghan officials say Pakistanis are pushing various other proxies, with Kayani personally offering to broker a deal with Taliban
* Pak official says Taliban, including Haqqani group, ready to ‘make a deal’ over al Qaeda
* Analyst says Haqqanis’ willingness aimed at thwarting military action in NWA

Daily Times Monitor

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is exploiting the troubled United States military effort in Afghanistan to drive home a political settlement with Afghanistan that will give Islamabad important influence there but is likely to undermine US interests, Pakistani and American officials said, according to the New York Times.

The dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal will almost certainly embolden the Pakistanis in their plan as they detect increasing American uncertainty, Pakistani officials said. Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani preferred McChrystal to his successor, General David H Petraeus, whom he considers more of a politician than a military strategist, say people who have spoken recently with Kayani.

Pakistan is presenting itself as the new viable partner for Afghanistan to President Hamid Karzai, who has soured on the Americans.

Proxies: In addition, Afghan officials said the Pakistanis were pushing various other proxies, with Kayani personally offering to broker a deal with the Taliban leadership, New York Times reported.

Washington has watched with some nervousness as Kayani and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha shuttle between Islamabad and Kabul, telling Karzai that they agree with his assessment that the US cannot win in Afghanistan, and that a post-war Afghanistan should incorporate the Haqqani network, a long-time Pakistani asset. Despite McChrystal’s 11 visits to Kayani in Islamabad in the past year, the Pakistanis have not been altogether forthcoming on details of the conversations in the last two months, making Islamabad’s moves even more worrisome for the US, said an American official.

“They know this creates a bigger breach between us and Karzai,” the official said.

Although encouraged by Washington, the thaw heightens the risk that the US would find itself cut out of what amounts to a separate peace between the Afghans and Pakistanis, and one that does not necessarily guarantee Washington’s prime objective in the war, denying al Qaeda a haven, New York Times reported.

The network of Sirajuddin Haqqani – an ally of al Qaeda who runs a major part of the insurgency in Afghanistan – has long been Pakistan’s crucial anti-India asset and has remained virtually untouched by Pakistani forces in their redoubt inside Pakistan, in the Tribal Areas on the Afghan border, even as the Americans have pressed Islamabad for an offensive against it.

At a briefing this week at the ISI headquarters, Pakistani analysts laid out a view of the war that dovetailed neatly with the doubts expressed by Karzai. They depicted a stark picture of an American military campaign in Afghanistan “that will not succeed.”

The offer by Pakistan to make the Haqqanis part of the solution in Afghanistan has now been adopted as basic Pakistani policy, said Riffat Hussain, a professor of international relations at Islamabad University, and a confidant of top military generals. “The establishment thinks that without getting Haqqani on board, efforts to stabilise the situation in Afghanistan will be doomed,” Hussain said. “Haqqani has a large fighting force, and by co-opting him into a power-sharing arrangement a lot of bloodshed can be avoided,” he added, according to the New York Times.

The recent trips by Kayani and Pasha to Kabul were an “effort to make this happen,” he said.

As for the Haqqanis, whose fighters stretch across eastern Afghanistan all the way to Kabul, they are prepared to break with al Qaeda, Pakistani intelligence and military officials said.

Deal: The Taliban, including the Haqqani group, are ready to “make a deal” over al Qaeda, a senior Pakistani official close to the Pakistan Army said. The Haqqanis could tell al Qaeda to move elsewhere because it had been given nine years of protection since the 9/11 attack, the official said. But this official acknowledged that the Haqqanis and al Qaeda were too “thick” with each other for a separation to happen. They had provided each other with fighters, money and other resources over a long period of time, the official said.

The Haqqanis may be playing their own game with their hosts, the Pakistanis, Hussain said.

“Many believe that Haqqanis’ willingness to cut its links with al Qaeda is a tactical move which is aimed at thwarting the impending military action by the Pakistan Army in North Waziristan,” he said, according to the New York Times.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[GUNNER]

Karzai 'holds talks' with Haqqani

Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr reports from Kabul on 'face-to-face talks' between Karzai and Sirajuddin Haqqani.

Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, has met Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of a major anti-government faction, in face-to-face talks, Al Jazeera has learned.

Haqqani, whose network is believed to be based across the border, is reported to have been accompanied to the meeting earlier in the week by Pakistan's army chief and the head of its intelligence services, according to Al Jazeera's sources.

Karzai's office, however, denied on Sunday that any such meeting took place.

Major-General Athar Abbas, the Pakistani army spokesman, also said he had "no knowledge of such a meeting taking place".

The Haqqani network is described by the US as one of the three main anti-government armed groups operating in Afghanistan, alongside the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

It is thought to be responsible for the most sophisticated attacks in Kabul and across the country.
Increased speculation

Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr, reporting from Kabul, said reports about Karzai's meeting have fuelled increased speculation in the Afghan capital that Pakistan is trying to strike a deal in Afghanistan that would safeguard its interests here.

"With the US war effort floundering and plans by the White House to start withdrawing troops by July 2011, Karzai may be cosying up with Islamabad," she said.

"It may be the reason behind the forced resignations of the Afghan interior minister and intelligence chief who are hard-core opponents of the Taliban."

Our correspondent was referring to the resignations of Amrullah Saleh, the head of the Afghan intelligence, and Hanif Atmar, the interior minister, earlier this month.

"Any political agreement may temporarily find a solution - but giving Pakistan a say in Afghan politics could undermine stability in the long term, especially among Afghans hostile to their neighbour," she said.
'Pragmatic leader'

Afghan media have also reported that secret meetings are taking place and that Karzai is actively trying to hammer out a deal with groups opposed to his government.

Hekmat Karzai, director of the Kabul-based Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies, said such talks would be that of a pragmatic leader who understands the realities of Afghanistan and the region.

"The fact [is] that regional players support is needed, particularly Pakistan," he said.

"[But] we aren't clear what transpired so far, so we have to wait to see what comes out of it."

Some analysts say Karzai has already begun taking steps towards that end.

"Without a doubt Amrullah Saleh was not happy with Pakistani politics, and Pakistan considered him an obstacle in the way of them gaining a foothold in Afghanistan," Ahmed Saeedi, a political analyst in Kabul, told Al Jazeera.

"The Pakistanis have always said if you want peace you have to go through us."

 

[ای ایران]

Good article.

Overture to Taliban Jolts Afghan Minorities - NYTimes.com

 

[GUNNER]

British Army Chief says it's time to talk to Taliban

Britain's army chief said Sunday that talks with the Taliban should begin "pretty soon" as part of the exit strategy for international forces in Afghanistan, adding that this was his "private view".

"If you look at any counter-insurgency campaign throughout history there's always been a point at which you start to negotiate with each other, probably through proxies in the first instance, and I don't know when that will happen," General David Richards, chief of the general staff, told BBC radio.

Stressing it was "purely a private view", he said: "I think there's no reason why we shouldn't be looking at that sort of thing pretty soon.

"But at the same time you have got to continue the work we are doing on both the military, governance and development perspectives to make sure that they (the Taliban) don't think that we are giving up.

"It's a concurrent process and both equally important."

Earlier this month, Afghans from across the political and social spectrum said at a landmark conference, the so-called peace jirga, that talking to the Taliban was the country's best, and possibly last, chance for peace.

In January, a UN official said former UN representative to Afghanistan Kai Eide met with Taliban militants in Dubai with the hope of holding peace talks, but the militants denied the meeting took place.

 

[Indiarox]

Overture to Taliban Jolts Afghan Minorities

Christoph Bangert for The New York Times
A political settlement could end the war, but power sharing may also risk igniting ethnic strife in major cities like Mazar-i-Sharif.
By DEXTER FILKINS
Published: June 26, 2010


KABUL, Afghanistan — The drive by President Hamid Karzai to strike a deal with Taliban leaders and their Pakistani backers is causing deep unease in Afghanistan’s minority communities, who fought the Taliban the longest and suffered the most during their rule.

Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era.
Go to the Blog »
Related

Mullen Visits Afghan Leaders and Allied Troops (June 27, 2010)
The leaders of the country’s Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities, which make up close to half of Afghanistan’s population, are vowing to resist — and if necessary, fight — any deal that involves bringing members of the Taliban insurgency into a power-sharing arrangement with the government.

Alienated by discussions between President Karzai and the Pakistani military and intelligence officials, minority leaders are taking their first steps toward organizing against what they fear is Mr. Karzai’s long-held desire to restore the dominance of ethnic Pashtuns, who ruled the country for generations.

The dispute is breaking along lines nearly identical to those that formed during the final years of the Afghan civil war, which began after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1989 and ended only with the American invasion following the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 100,000 Afghans died, mostly civilians; the Taliban, during their five-year reign in the capital, Kabul, carried out several large-scale massacres of Hazara civilians.

“Karzai is giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and he is opening up the old schisms,” said Rehman Oghly, an Uzbek member of Parliament and once a member of an anti-Taliban militia. “If he wants to bring in the Taliban, and they begin to use force, then we will go back to civil war and Afghanistan will be split.”

The deepening estrangement of Afghanistan’s non-Pashtun communities presents a paradox for the Americans and their NATO partners. American commanders have concluded that only a political settlement can end the war. But in helping Mr. Karzai to make a deal, they risk reigniting Afghanistan’s ethnic strife.

Talks between Mr. Karzai and the Pakistani leaders have been unfolding here and in Islamabad for several weeks, with some discussions involving bestowing legitimacy on Taliban insurgents.

The leaders of these minority communities say that President Karzai appears determined to hand Taliban leaders a share of power — and Pakistan a large degree of influence inside the country. The Americans, desperate to end their involvement here, are helping Mr. Karzai along and shunning the Afghan opposition, they say.

Mr. Oghly said he was disillusioned with the Americans and their NATO allies, who he says appear to be urging Mr. Karzai along. “We are losing faith in our foreign friends,” he said.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was worried about “the Tajik-Pashtun divide that has been so strong.” American and NATO leaders, he said, are trying to stifle any return to ethnic violence.

“It has the potential to really tear this country apart,” Admiral Mullen said in an interview. “That’s not what we are going to permit.”

Afghanistan’s minorities — especially the ethnic Tajiks — have always been the most reliable American allies, and made up the bulk of the anti-Taliban army that the Americans aided following the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

The situation is complicated by the politics of the Afghan Army, the centerpiece of American-led efforts to enable the Afghan military to one day take over. The ethnic mix of the Afghan Army is roughly proportional to the population, and the units in the field are mixed themselves. But non-Pashtuns are widely believed to do the bulk of the fighting.

There are growing indications of ethnic fissures inside the army. President Karzai recently decided to remove Bismullah Khan, the chief of staff of the Afghan Army, and make him the interior minister instead. Mr. Khan is an ethnic Tajik, and a former senior leader of the Northern Alliance, the force that fought the Taliban in the years before Sept. 11. Whom Mr. Karzai decides to put in Mr. Khan’s place will be closely watched.

One recent source of tension was the resignation of Armullah Saleh, the head of Afghan intelligence service and an ethnic Tajik. Mr. Saleh, widely regarded as one of the most competent aides, resigned after Mr. Karzai said he no longer had faith that he could do the job.

Along with Mr. Khan, the army chief of staff, Mr. Saleh was a former aide to Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary commander who fought both the Soviet Union and the Taliban. Since leaving the government, Mr. Saleh has started what appears to be the beginning of a political campaign.

Other prominent Afghans have begun to organize along mostly ethnic lines. Abdullah Abdullah, the former foreign minister and presidential candidate, has been hosting gatherings at his farm outside Kabul. In an interview, he said he was preparing to announce the formation of what would amount to an opposition party. Mr. Abdullah, who is of Pashtun and Tajik heritage, said his movement would include Afghans from all the major communities. But his source of power has historically been Afghanistan’s Tajik community.

Mr. Abdullah said he disagreed with the thrust of Mr. Karzai’s policy of engagement with the Taliban and Pakistan. It would be impossible to share power with Taliban leaders, Mr. Abdullah said, because of their support for terrorism and the draconian brand of Islam they would try to impose on everyone else.

“We bring the Taliban into the government — we give them one or two provinces,” Mr. Abdullah said. “If that is what they think, it is not going to happen that way. Anybody thinking in that direction, they are lost. Absolutely lost.”

The trouble, Mr. Abdullah said, is that the Taliban, once given a slice of power, would not be satisfied. “They will take advantage of this,” he said of a political settlement, “and then they will continue.”

The prerequisite for any deal with the Taliban, Afghan and American officials have said repeatedly, is that insurgents renounce their support of terrorists (including Al Qaeda), and that they promise to support the Afghan Constitution.

Beyond that, though, Mr. Karzai’s goals vis-à-vis the Taliban are difficult to discern. Recently he has told senior Afghan officials that he no longer believes that the Americans and NATO can prevail in Afghanistan and that they will probably leave soon. That fact may make Mr. Karzai more inclined to make a deal with both Pakistan and the Taliban.

As for the Pakistanis, their motives are even more opaque. For years, Pakistani leaders have denied supporting the Taliban, but evidence suggests that they continue to do so. In recent talks, the Pakistanis have offered Mr. Karzai a sort of strategic partnership — and one that involves giving at least one the most brutal Taliban groups, the Haqqani network, a measure of legitimacy in Afghanistan.

Two powerful Pakistani officials — Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the army chief of staff; and Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, — are set to arrive Monday for talks with Mr. Karzai.

Afghanistan’s non-Pashtun leaders are watching these discussions unfold with growing alarm. So far, they have taken few concrete steps to resist them.

But no one here doubts that any of these groups, with their bloody histories of fighting the Taliban, could arm themselves quickly if they wished.

“Karzai has begun the ethnic war,” said Mohammed Mohaqeq, a Hazara leader and a former ally of the president. “The future is very dark.

 

[Spring Onion]

Before reading the article i thought they are advocating for share of Hazarars too in govt. But after reading it, it seems the Tajiks are not ready to share power with Afghan Pashtuns.


In my personal view no ethnic group should be given sidelined. There should be broad based government in Afghanistan with Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and other ethnic groups in the power sharing.


You sideline any of these group and you will see the fighting going on