And this again raises the question that did the foreign minister say what she did with the blessings of the military establishment or not? If she did, then it indicates a very welcome change in thinking on Afghan policy and a realisation that perhaps the time has come to change old mindsets and attitudes. Of course, if the foreign minister said this on her own, then it may represent nothing more than some well-intentioned words. The reason we say this is because despite having a civilian elected government our policies — such as those relating to Afghanistan, India, America and our overall approach to fighting the war on terror — are dominated by the military and its ancillary intelligence apparatus. If a change has indeed taken place, then Khar’s statement would perhaps be the first reflection of that — though for now it may be confined to words.
We should all realise why strategic depth has been a disaster: it means turning a blind eye to the presence of, or even actively helping, the Afghan Taliban.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 4th, 2012.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714129906-0/Clint-Eastwood-(1)1714129906-0-270x192.webp)
we are in mess and all thanks to jihad zindabad. we have to learn from our mistake. we have to apologize to afghans and promise not to interfare in their country. at the same time india and afghan government also have to do the same. in a gesture of good will we may facilitate direct talk between afghan government and taliban. and they can accept durand line. we can all be friends. lets concentrate on economic prosperity . rather than war mentality.
Even though I have admired the posting of a young English speaking female FM but the jury is still out on her loyalties considering her past. Let us hope and pray for the best.
I think even military does not want to pursue strategic depth policy anymore. As mentioned, firstly it has turned out to be a failure and secondly, military seems to be more worried about growing US pressure than India. Lastly, there seems to a growing consensus in the region that US presence in the area will create more trouble than good and to facilitate its graceful exit, we need to have India, Afghanistan, China, and Russia on board.
Admittedly, I felt she got the job courtesy her connections. But she has pleased surprised everyone with her charm, softy and no non-sense approach. Let us hope that she speaks with authority and blessings from her masters, civilian and junta.
how else apart from pakistan interrupt in Afghanistan, pakistan is known as safe heaven for the insurgents. UBL was found in the Army Camp in Abatabad, the Haqani is also live near islamabad in Tasala,
you (Pakistan) are the back list nation of the world.
Strategic depth or not, we need a government in Afghanistan that is not going to allow it's territory to be used in any way against us. We do not want a client state in Afghanistan but must also not turn a blind eye to the fact that in the past ten years Afghanistan have been used by some who mean us harm.
We also cannot ignore the facts that due to the porous border between us (and they being land-locked) the Afghan economy will always be dependent on us, or at least be interlinked with. Especially with those millions of refugees and all, who have by-the-way clearly overstayed their welcome by about two decades.
Hence, we have a direct interest in the future of Afghanistan, even more-so than US, Nato or India.
This editorial points out the obvious problem facing Pakistan - your Foreign Minister may make speeches about foreign affairs but everyone knows that the military actually controls foreign policy. Unless the military comes under the actual control of your Civilian govt I see no reason to ponder the significance of what Khar of anyone else in the Civilian govt has to say about foreign policy or military matters.