EDITORIAL (July 20 2009): In an important foreign policy speech she delivered at the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington the other day, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the position that her country's fight is not with the Taliban but al Qaeda.
Said she, "we and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al Qaeda, and depends on it for support, sometimes co-ordinating activities." She further said that her side stands ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces al Qaeda, and is willing to participate in the political process. A couple of days earlier, Afghan President Hamid Karzai had made similar remarks, promising "we will be talking with the Taliban, the opponents, solving the problems through talks, if people voted again for me."
These, of course, are well thought-out overtures. Notably, ISPR spokesman Major General Athar Abbas was quoted a few days ago by the CNN as saying that Pakistan was in contact with the Taliban. And that it had the ability to bring Mullah Omer and other commanders like Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbadin Hekmatyar to the negotiating table to broker a cease-fire. For some reasons, the ISPR tried to retract General Abbas' claim. But considering Clinton's assertions, the retraction is not so convincing.
The troop surge President Barack Obama had ordered soon after taking over power has not helped his country win the war. The Taliban have been found to be a doggedly determined force; they are often in a position to inflict heavy losses on Western forces.
Earlier this month, Britain's death toll rose to 184. That may look a small number in comparison to the casualties Pakistani soldiers have taken while grappling with the war's spillover from Afghanistan, but it is the highest loss for Britain since World War II. It has triggered severe criticism back in London against the government for its alleged inability to providing the British forces with enough helicopters. As things stand, the word that western diplomats and military commanders use to describe the military situation in Afghanistan is 'stalemate.'
No wonder they have now reached the conclusion that the only way to break the stalemate is to talk in order to end the nearly 8-year long conflict. That is good news for Pakistan, which has paid a heavy price in terms of lives lost - both civilian and military - the nation's economy and its social fabric. Pakistan therefore has as much, if not bigger, a stake in the success of the peace overtures as the US and its allies.
The question is, will they succeed? Former director general of ISI, general Hamid Gul (retd), who is believed to be in touch with the Taliban leadership, comprising mostly his former proteges, thinks that the response would be positive. It is reasonable to think they, too, would be fatigued from fighting for such a long time. It may take a while for the two sides to reach a negotiated settlement, but that is the only way forward.
Said she, "we and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al Qaeda, and depends on it for support, sometimes co-ordinating activities." She further said that her side stands ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces al Qaeda, and is willing to participate in the political process. A couple of days earlier, Afghan President Hamid Karzai had made similar remarks, promising "we will be talking with the Taliban, the opponents, solving the problems through talks, if people voted again for me."
These, of course, are well thought-out overtures. Notably, ISPR spokesman Major General Athar Abbas was quoted a few days ago by the CNN as saying that Pakistan was in contact with the Taliban. And that it had the ability to bring Mullah Omer and other commanders like Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbadin Hekmatyar to the negotiating table to broker a cease-fire. For some reasons, the ISPR tried to retract General Abbas' claim. But considering Clinton's assertions, the retraction is not so convincing.
The troop surge President Barack Obama had ordered soon after taking over power has not helped his country win the war. The Taliban have been found to be a doggedly determined force; they are often in a position to inflict heavy losses on Western forces.
Earlier this month, Britain's death toll rose to 184. That may look a small number in comparison to the casualties Pakistani soldiers have taken while grappling with the war's spillover from Afghanistan, but it is the highest loss for Britain since World War II. It has triggered severe criticism back in London against the government for its alleged inability to providing the British forces with enough helicopters. As things stand, the word that western diplomats and military commanders use to describe the military situation in Afghanistan is 'stalemate.'
No wonder they have now reached the conclusion that the only way to break the stalemate is to talk in order to end the nearly 8-year long conflict. That is good news for Pakistan, which has paid a heavy price in terms of lives lost - both civilian and military - the nation's economy and its social fabric. Pakistan therefore has as much, if not bigger, a stake in the success of the peace overtures as the US and its allies.
The question is, will they succeed? Former director general of ISI, general Hamid Gul (retd), who is believed to be in touch with the Taliban leadership, comprising mostly his former proteges, thinks that the response would be positive. It is reasonable to think they, too, would be fatigued from fighting for such a long time. It may take a while for the two sides to reach a negotiated settlement, but that is the only way forward.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment