TTP postpones peace talks with government

TTP tells people not to attend public rallies of PPP, MQM and ANP as they are on their list.


Our Correspondent March 18, 2013
Ehsanullah Ehsan claims that the security forces and government are not serious about the peace dialogue. ILLUSTRATION: JAMAL KHURSHID/FILE

Citing what they believe to be the non-serious attitude of the security forces and government, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) announced on Monday that it was postponing the peace talks.

In an eight minute video released by the TTP from an undisclosed location, its spokesperson Ehsanullah Ehsan claimed that the security forces and government are not serious about the peace dialogue, which is why the TTP have decided to postpone the peace talks.

With masked armed men standing behind him, the TTP spokesperson further demanded that the people not participate in the public gatherings and rallies of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and Awami national Party (ANP), claiming both of these parties are on the TTP’s (hit) list.

Influential politic-religious leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman asked the government earlier in March to give the go-ahead for peace talks with the Taliban.

Addressing a gathering at the provincial secretariat of his eponymous faction of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the Maulana said that Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the outlawed umbrella of militant groups, has expressed confidence in a tribal jirga which has been trying to broker peace in the region.

The PPP-led government, however, did not respond to the Taliban offer, and Interior Minister Rehman Malik insisted that the Taliban "back had been broken" which forced the militants to attempt dialogue.

The TTP have been involved in a string of attacks on both Pakistani civilians and military personnel. They had claimed responsibility for the bomb attack on ANP minister Bashir Bilour in December.

COMMENTS (29)

US CENTCOM | 8 years ago | Reply

It is absurd to think that the TTP are being supported by the U.S./NATO from across the border. If anything we’ve been criticized for pressuring Pakistani forces to go after the terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan. On the other hand, the TTP have warned the Pakistani government for working with the U.S. on several occasions. Do you remember when they were against the idea of reopening the NATO supply route through Pakistan? Do you remember the attack on the U.S. convoy in Peshawar by the TTP? Let me remind you what the Taliban spokesman, Ahsanullah Ahsan, said after the attack: "The diplomatic staff of all Nato countries are our targets. We will continue such attacks. Pakistan is our first target, and America is our second." If we choose to dissolve ourselves in conspiracy theories, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing our common enemies to leap ahead. Our nations have made a lot of sacrifices in this decade long war against terrorism. It is our wish and desire to see stability prevail in Pakistan for the sake of achieving our common objectives. That’s why we are working closely with the Pakistani government on addressing our shared concerns. We want to develop a healthy working relationship that will benefit both nations in the long term. Those who continue to bring allegations against the U.S. must remember that it is only in our best interest to see a safe and stable Pakistan.

Ali Khan

Aschraful Makhlooq | 8 years ago | Reply

Both TTP and the government are insincere and dishonest to proceed peace talks and negotiations with each other because both parties' terms and conditions for peace talks and negotiations are unacceptable and unpractical for each other and both parties have been fooling and deceiving the nation intentionally on the name of peace talks and negotiations and now the next elected government shall decide that how the peace talks and negotiations shall be proceeded in the future with TTP????

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

E-Publications

Most Read