As rumours of secret contacts between Washington and ‘representatives’ of the Taliban floated around during the last two years, Turkey was often mentioned where the process would eventually become ‘visible’ in the shape of a liaison Taliban office. In the end, it was the fabulously rich Qatar, that became the favoured site for it.
Some instant commentaries in the west pointed out that, apart from being a trusted ally of the United States in Arab affairs, Qatar would also make it easier for the Americans to insulate the Doha Taliban office against undue influence of Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai.
As the dust settles on the Salala attack and Pakistan’s closure of Nato supply routes, we are beginning to see a grudging realisation that Islamabad cannot be completely marginalised. Should this thinking become the latest point of inflection in Washington, Pakistan should be ready with a set of flexible responses, unified by its overriding need for a stable, united, friendly and prosperous Afghanistan. Neighbouring India would, for some time more, walk the tight rope between opportunistic acceptance of the changing American thinking and its original effort to deny the Taliban a share in Afghanistan’s future.
Pakistan’s diplomacy has to operate at several levels. First and foremost, there is the need to narrow differences with the United States. Basically Pakistan‘s problem with Washington has been a lack of American clarity on a number of issues about the run-up to 2014 and Afghanistan’s future beyond 2014; the problem, unfortunately, still persists. American intentions about Afghanistan’s regional relations are ambivalent. Preoccupation with India has become an essential part of Washington’s China policy. In Bonn, Karzai’s men informed the international community that Kabul expects $10 billion per annum through 2025 for the western project to succeed. Experts have calculated that it would translate into an American commitment of at least, $140 billion over a decade.
Secondly, Pakistan must deepen its current conversation with Karzai despite the known pitfalls. Karzai should bow out in 2014, according to the Afghan Constitution but, he may seek to circumvent this provision. Be it as it may, he will have to struggle hard to demonstrate to his people that the phrase ‘Afghan-led peace process’ means that it is led by him along with his High Peace Council. By accident or design, the ethnic competition in Afghanistan has sharpened, not diminished, during the period of centralisation provided by an occupation force and Karzai’s preference for only limited devolution to regions — and even the national parliament. Even if the Qatar process aims at bringing the Taliban in on a restrictive basis, they may still make a bid to control Kabul either because of their own hidden agenda or because other ethnic militias either try to dominate Kabul, or failing that, push regional autonomy too far.
Pakistan will be affected by any of these scenarios. The real issue is no longer Pakistan pursuing ‘strategic depth’, a dead concept that Pakistani liberals and retired diplomats cannot get over; it is adjusting Pakistan diplomacy, trade and security, especially in the tribal belt to the dialectics of the Afghan situation. It warrants that Pakistan greatly improves its conversations with the non-Pushtun power brokers as well. It is unlikely that Nato-Isaf would leave Afghanistan in a state of inviolable coherence.
Third, Pakistan must intensify or initiate conversations with all the neighbours and near neighbours of Afghanistan in its future and the parameters in which they all, including Pakistan, should operate. Iran, Turkey, China and Russia are accessible straightaway; for India, the Pakistan foreign office must develop a viable approach. The Qatar process cannot blossom in isolation even if the Americans and the well-meaning rulers of Qatar may think otherwise; it has to be part of a robust bilateral and multilateral diplomacy amongst all the stakeholders.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 24th, 2012.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ G Din please wake up. Time for dreams is over. US is begging for the talks and trying to pursue an HONOURABLE EXIT which is not available to her. moreover That horrible incident of your soldiers just show ur desperation and violation of all types of human codes and rights for which u guys cry a lot.
@khabar: "John US will have to leave afghanistan if it wants peace in afghanistan because it is very unlikely that taliban will agree on any peace deal until US assures them that it will no longer stay in afghanistan." If memory serves correctly, US has even named 2014 as the year NATO forces will leave Afghanistan. But, if anyone thinks it will be Viet Nam-like withdrawal, they are living in a la-la land of their own. Taliban are no Vietnamese. US will leave when it damn well pleases. Is it possible that the one-eyed mullah is so terrified for his own survival that he is negotiating his surrender even after that horrible incident of US soldiers letting loose on cadavers of his comrades? With Alqueda virtually wiped out and much of Taliban leadership decimated by precision drone attacks, Mullah Omar knows his days are numbered. He is in no position to make any demands.
John US will have to leave afghanistan if it wants peace in afghanistan because it is very unlikely that taliban will agree on any peace deal until US assures them that it will no longer stay in afghanistan.if taliban had any intention to let US stay in afghanistan,they wouldn't have fought for 10 years.remember it is US that entreated talibans to come on table.
No one can deny that Pakistan has a stake in Afghanistan, but there are no takers for an assertion that it is the stakeholder, much less the only stakeholder.
Today it seems that all the powers that are there have a stake in Afghanistan. The US is there, so are the NATO countries of western Europe and Australia. Then there is Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia, Central Asian countries, China. We also have Saudi Arabia, Turkey and now Qatar in this. So very few are actually not there. This exactly is the problem. There too many stackholders in this for a solution to be found. This issue will linger on, atleast that is what i feel. Later as the world geopolitical hot-spot shifts to the East to the Indo-Pacific theatre, most of these countries will loose interest in Afghanistan and there will then be a possibility of a solution. India will remain on board as will be Iran and Pakistan. The Central Asian countries will remain and may be also Russia.
John D, so long as you are willing and able to sacrifice the present and the future of others less powerful than you, while protecting your own, you do not need "resources, time, political and geographical clout" to do what you desire. Nothing in Pakistan's approach to Afghanistan will fundamentally change. If you read this article carefully, you can see a frozen mind.
If the Military Establishment is kept out of negotiations and the Foreign office steps forward with pragmatic and durable policies Afghanistan may welcome the move. The World has little patience for party spoilers and trouble makers.
Western powers are not going away from Afghanistan and for US 14 billion / year for next ten years for Afghanistan is a pittance compared to what US has given to PAK. What will be the focus of Dhoa conference though is what is the level of PAK involvement in Afghanistan. No one is restricting PAK in Afghanistan as long as Afghanistan wants it, but it is time for PAK to come out of her idea of vital nation megalomania and play as a team.
Pak does not have the resources, time, political and geographical clout to act as pre Madonna. After 2014, the conflict between Afghanian and PAK may be a reality, if PAK continues on the present approach.