Afghan reconciliation: Grossman moves to dispel Pakistan’s fears

US concedes mistake of abandoning Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.


Express August 04, 2011

ISLAMABAD:


President Barack Obama’s pointman for Pakistan and Afghanistan Marc Grossman on Wednesday tried to dispel mounting fears that Washington was trying to bypass Islamabad in the Afghan reconciliation process.


At a meeting with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Grossman said that the US does not contemplate any reconciliation in Afghanistan without Pakistan. The meeting came amid reports that the US was considering keeping Pakistan out of the loop on the reconciliation process.

The fourth round of the trilateral talks which were held between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US in Islamabad on Tuesday failed to produce any tangible results due to simmering tensions between Islamabad and Washington.

According to a statement issued by the prime minister’s press office, Gilani emphasised that the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan should be on the same page to deny any legroom for militants to capitalise on, and Islamabad was looking forward to a positive outcome of the forthcoming conference in Istanbul and Bonn.

He also underlined his apprehensions about Pakistan once again being left ‘high and dry’ to suffer the fallouts from the US policy in Afghanistan. Ambassador Grossman conceded that it was a mistake to abandon Pakistan after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in early 1990s and assured that the same would not be repeated. He agreed with the prime minister on the need for the repatriation of the 3.5 million Afghan refugees still on Pakistani soil.

The upcoming visit by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Pakistan would be an opportunity to exchange views on a host of issues and forward movement between the two countries was essential in containing the militant threat, he added.

The prime minister reiterated the joint resolve of Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s leaderships to root out militancy as both had suffered immensely due to insecurity.

He added that Pakistan was working to ensure Afghanistan’s connectivity in the region through the Trade Agreement (APTA). Furthermore, he said that it was extremely important for Pakistan to see a sovereign, stable and prosperous Afghanistan.

Ambassador Grossman agreed with the prime minister’s views about the criticality of economic development as an essential part of an Afghan-owned reconciliation process.

The prime minister said that he was happy that his idea of three ‘Ds’ – dialogue, development and deterrence – was being realised as a way forward by the international community to achieve stability through economic development.









Published in The Express Tribune, August 4th, 2011.


COMMENTS (16)

Hedgefunder | 9 years ago | Reply @Incredible: In regards to Afghanistan, due to historical lack of recognised internatinal border between these two nations and the local inhabitant's tribal way of life, its always been an area where people have simply come and gone across without normal formalities, however all this changed over period of soviet occupation and than Pakistan's ambitions in the region, hence the mess today !! Now pakistan likes to play its role as regional power, however it can not solve the mess in its own house !!! In regards to Karachi its very simple, the sponsored thugs affiliated to various different political parties are simply fighting out turf wars and innocent people are becoming part of collateral damage, and the number of casualties are rising daily and the inability of authorities to bring situation under control is International News!!!! That should give you some grasp of both the situations.
Incredible | 9 years ago | Reply @Faraz: I am a 10th. grade student. Please explain to me how "attempts to make peace in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s involvement would be futile". Also explain what is going on in Karachi? Afghanistan comes second.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ