Editorial

A worrisome move

US has set up trilateral talks regarding Afghanistan that include India but exclude Pakistan

Editorial September 03, 2016

There is no clarity at all as to how the trilateral talks would in any way contribute to ‘stability’ in Afghanistan. PHOTO: REUTERS

Considering that Pakistan has a long contiguous border with Afghanistan and is closely engaged diplomatically and in the fight against terrorism, it is strange indeed that the US has set up trilateral talks that include India but exclude Pakistan on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session later this month. Stranger still is the remark by US Secretary of State John Kerry who said his hope was that “Pakistan as a country is not isolated by this but encouraged by this”. Mr Kerry usually gives the impression that he is on the same planet as the rest of humanity, but the trick seems to have eluded him on this occasion. It is difficult to see what dots he is seeking to join given that India has no engagement with Afghanistan beyond huge investment in infrastructure projects and a desire to be in any energy loop that may include Afghanistan. India is energy-hungry and there are a number of projects that tap into the vast reserves of natural gas and oil in Central Asia that it would wish to have a finger in.

There is no clarity at all as to how the trilateral talks would in any way contribute to ‘stability’ in Afghanistan. They do not include any of the various iterations of the Taliban so far as is known though they will certainly be aware of them, and India has no known linkages with any of the Taliban groups at a formal level though it must be assumed they have back-channel contacts. Understandably, Pakistan has questioned the motives behind these talks with the Foreign Office saying that it is not sure what they hope to achieve, what the agenda is or the status of the talks. It is difficult to believe that the Foreign Office is going to feel anything other than marginalised and out of the loop, and equally difficult to see what India can bring to the table in terms of creating regional harmony or lessening the ongoing conflicts inside Afghanistan. Indeed, some may see this as a calculated snub. Whatever it may be, this looks like a misstep by Mr Kerry.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 4^th, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (12)

Gp65 | 8 years ago | Reply @SHAH: India is not sending its army to Pakistan or trying to occupy it. It is training Afghan army and police to stand up to Afghan Taliban. So your analysis is on weak grounds. @Reader: "Bad move by US. First US sabotaged quad-literal forum by killing taliban leader just 2 days before scheduled talks " Not true. Just a week before Mullah Mansoor was killed, Sartaj Aziz had said that Afghan Taliban are unwilling to talk.

numbersnumbers | 8 years ago | Reply Pakistan had ample opportunity to join the world in fighting terrorism after 9/11, but instead chose to continue its "Strategic Depth" FO policy via its own Good Taliban terrorist assets! Americans are well aware of Pakistan's history of duplicity resulting in a stream of coffins coming home from Afghanisan, so they have decided to partner with a much more responsible regional power!

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Gp65 | 8 years ago | Reply "difficult to see what India can bring to the table in terms of creating regional harmony or lessening the ongoing conflicts inside Afghanistan. " India can supplement the US in training and army the Afghan army so that it can stand up to Afghan Taliban. India has not Forgotten the support given to hijackers by Afghan Taliban in 1999 which led to freeing Masood Azhar from Indian jail.

quatro | 8 years ago | Reply Pakistan has used the Taliban as leverage to gain access to the bargaining table for years - seems like the USA has reached the conclusion that your part of the problem and not part of the solution. Time for another strategy?

Ajay Mittal | 8 years ago | Reply Pakistan has this germ in its mind that Taliban are central to peace talks....thay are in for a heart attack when CPEC project completes when Chinee start making strident demands beyond Pakistan's calculations...;.since there is no fundamental disagreement between China and India other than strategic teasing moves against each other, that "CPEC completion day" is not far when China and India's interests will COMPLETELY converge.....China would have had a solid grip on Pakistani resources and land and politics by then...so there is nothing to loose for China, but everything to gain ! Balcohis will sign an agreement with China that they are allowed transit and use of Gwadar as long as they support thir right to independent existence. Chinse will earn their place as a respected global power that helped in eradicating the terror factories at source of origin.

SHAH | 8 years ago | Reply US needs to find a patsy who can contribute with dead bodies killed in was, fighting in Afghanistan and their own troops secured and safe... then all is dandy as others will get blood spilled and die, instead of them.. so, who else is a better patsy than Hindus-tan as they are so willing to get slaughtered in Afghanistan; All those who came here as super powers, including the Brits to start with then Soviets and then now the Yanks; all got their back sides reamed and are on the run, trying to find patsies to take the hit for them; Good, so be it.. come and make the rocks and sand Red with your blood; Welcome;

Komal S | 8 years ago | Reply @F Khan: There you go, comparing Nepal to Afghanistan would be wrong. Afghanistan has very long historical ties with India. Afghans want India to be part of their security strategy. Afghans have given up on Pakistan. By the way, Indians are training the Afghan police and security personnel.

Observer | 8 years ago | Reply @ F Khan, There is this standard Pakistani argument that India does not have borders with Afghanistan, therefore it has no business in Afghanistan, and must not be made a party to the peace process. But then the US also has no borders with Afghanistan, but has serious stakes in the Afghanistan's peace process ... !! ... India has centuries of trade relations with Afghanistan. Secondly, it is for the Afghan people to decide if India has any role in their country or not, none of Pakistan's business.

Sri Varahadev | 8 years ago | Reply What India brings to the table in terms of creating regional harmony or lessening the ongoing conflicts inside Afghanistan is helping Afghanistan combat Islamic Terrorism fomented by Pakistan’s Punjabi Dominated Military within Afghanistan; Indian Consulates in Afghanistan enabling diplomatic and moral support be provided for Baloch, Pathan, Sindhi, Mohajir and Kashmiri struggling under Punjabi oppression; helping Afghan capacity to deny “Strategic Depth” within Afghanistan to Pakistan’s Punjabi Dominated Military and also help building of Afghan capacity to reconquer Pushtun lands occupied under colonial era Durand Line Treaty.

Reader | 8 years ago | Reply Bad move by US. First US sabotaged quad-literal forum by killing taliban leader just 2 days before scheduled talks then this. With these monkey games there will be no peace in Afghanistan. No peace in Aghanistan means difficulties for Pakistan, therefore Pakistani establishment should take assertive measures to contain this monkey busniess which is bad for our nation.

F Khan | 8 years ago | Reply @Observer: Looks like you did not read the editorial properly.The idea is to converge ideas to bring stability in Afghanistan and not otherwise.Every country had its own security objectives, even within Afghanistan there are different stakeholders with different views on the future of that country.If India is not a party of a team for security in Nepal and Pakistan is then there is something seriously wrong with the intentions and objectives.

Observer | 8 years ago | Reply Security narrative of the US, India and Afghanistan converge, but Pakistan's security narrative does not. Therefore keeping Pakistan out of the trilateral dialogue makes total sense. However that does not mean that the three are ganging up against Pakistan, but it means that Pakistan needs to alter its own narrative to be accommodated in the group, or else there is a risk of being at the wrong end of the bargain.

Replying to X