LAHORE - They have ruffled feathers, but they have since regained some lost
ground in their mission to bring stability to South Asia. The United States'
special envoy to the Af-Pak region, Richard Holbrooke, and Defense Secretary
Robert Gates have nudged arch-rivals Pakistan and India back to the negotiating
table after the November 11, 2008, Mumbai attacks had seen them on the verge of
war.
Holbrooke had earlier caused a stir. After discussions with Indian External
Minister S K Krishna in India he was quoted by attendant journalists as having
announced, "India is a tremendously important participant in the search for
peace, not only in South Asia, but throughout the vast region that stretches
from the Mediterranean to the Pacific."
This was followed by Krishna saying, "Indians feel worried that the
argument is gaining ground in Washington at all levels that New Delhi needs to
be more flexible ... towards Pakistan ... on its eastern borders." The
Holbrooke brief was seen in Pakistan not as bending India towards peace, but as
an acknowledgement of its military muscle.
The waters having been muddied, it took concerted efforts on the part of Gates
and Holbrooke to reassure Pakistan that this had not been the aim. It was not
until Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell announced that the US had drawn
the line at India training Afghan forces that Pakistan was somewhat appeased.
Suspicions, however, remained, compelling the White House to table an enhanced
US$3.1 billion budget proposal for Pakistan to calm the waters, with $1.9
billion of this marked as civilian aid and $1.2 billion marked as military
assistance. To bring Pakistan deeper into the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) embrace, the US offered to train Pakistani military
officers in its schools.
Just days earlier, at a NATO commanders' meeting in Brussels on the eve of the
London conference, both Pakistan's chief of army staff Ashfaq Parvez Kiani and
pertinently Russia's chief of staff Nicolai Markov had endorsed NATO's new war
plans to defeat the Taliban. Both reportedly said, "We have a greater interest
than you that you succeed."
Russia's concurrence particularly would have made an impression on India as
they have long stood as "non-aligned" allies. It therefore came as little
surprise to see India bend towards "talking with the Taliban", though it said
the Taliban were functioning as Pakistan proxies to launch terrorist acts on
India.
Following the London conference, however, India's external minister took the
first opportunity to announce to the press, "The international community has
come out with the proposition to bring into the political mainstream those
[Taliban] willing to function within the Afghan system ... We are willing to
give it a try." But discomfort was visible.
"We consider them to be terrorists who have close links with al-Qaeda ... We
are next door and our experiences make it difficult for us to differentiate
between good or bad Taliban," Krishna said, clearly pointing to Pakistan in
adding that Afghanistan's stability was dependent on its neighbors' "support,
sustenance and sanctuaries" for terrorists.
Meanwhile, it had dawned on Washington that Pakistan's charges of Indian
complicity in Af-Pak affairs were not all ill-founded - that they must not be
summarily dismissed. At congressional hearings both Admiral Michael Mullen,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General David Petraeus, head of
Central Command, advised Washington to accommodate Pakistan's perspectives on
Afghanistan.
General Stanley McChrystal, who heads the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan,
went further. In his report to the White House he said that "Indian political
and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan" and with the present
government in Afghanistan perceived in Islamabad as being pro-Indian, this
would "exacerbate regional tensions".
Pakistan's normally media-shy commanding general then clearly spelt out
Pakistan's position to the press in his country. "We want strategic depth ... A
peaceful and friendly Afghanistan can provide Pakistan strategic depth ... If
we get more involved with the ANA [Afghan National Army] there's more
interaction and better understanding."
Kiani reaffirmed that 140,000 Pakistani troops were fighting the militancy in
Pakistan's tribal areas, where 2,273 officers and men of Pakistan's armed
forces have been killed. He denied Pakistan's reluctance to fight the Taliban
in North Waziristan (seen as Pakistan's allies), bearing instead on the
"hold-and-build" paradigm before opening another front.
Washington appeared to have understood Pakistan's predicament and taken it on
itself and its NATO allies to up the ante against the Afghan Taliban in
Afghanistan's Helmand province. Together they are set to launch the
biggest-ever offensive in Afghanistan with a strike force of 15,000. The media
are projecting the assault as the US's largest since the Vietnam war.
The Taliban were presented with an option. NATO helicopters dropped leaflets
warning villagers of the impending assault. Droves of people began to evacuate
the area. But the 2,000 plus Taliban are deeply embedded and steeled to resist.
Reports filed quote locals as saying, "The Taliban will not leave ... They are
bringing in people and weapons."
McChrystal responded, "If they want to fight, then obviously that will have to
have an outcome. But if they don't want to fight [and elect to integrate into
the government] that's fine too." The hope is that the Taliban will chose to
integrate rather than fight. However, should the battle ensue, its result will
have a direct bearing on the Pakistan-India talks.
Pakistan's stated position is that India must delink the talks from terrorism
as Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah
Mehmood Quereshi reiterated the view that Pakistan's strategic policies would
remain India-centric as long as Kashmir and a water dispute remained
unresolved. India has adopted a polar position.
Pakistan stands to lose all popular support if it concedes to Indian
perspectives without gaining any concessions. Its greatest fear is that if the
militants fall to the Pakistan army's assault in North Waziristan, they will
infiltrate larger cities and play the type of havoc witnessed recently with the
bombings in the southern port city of Karachi - or a repeat of the Mumbai
attack in India.
If the Pakistan-India talks are to arrive at even an interim understanding, it
stands to reason that both the terrorist and the Kashmir issues must be
simultaneously addressed. The two are inter-related. But if hardened positions
persist, the talks will be another exercise in futility - with al-Qaeda (read
anti-state elements) gaining on both fronts.
Zahid U Kramet, a Lahore-based political analyst specializing in
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, is the founder of the research and analysis
website the Asia Despatch.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
