FM Qureshi urges Biden administration to 'not reverse' Afghan peace process

[Taimoor Khan]

FM Qureshi urges Biden administration to 'not reverse' Afghan peace process - Pakistan - DAWN.COM



FM Qureshi urges Biden administration to 'not reverse' Afghan peace process
Dawn.comPublished January 22, 2021Updated about 2 hours ago
Facebook Count
Twitter Share

13

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi says US President Joe Biden "should realise there is an opportunity in Afghanistan". — PID/File












Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has urged the Biden administration to "persevere" with the Afghan peace deal which was signed in Doha between the United States and Taliban last year and "not reverse things".

The foreign minister made the remarks in an interview with Al Jazeera that was published on Thursday. He said that Joe Biden, who was sworn in as America's president on Wednesday, "should realise there is an opportunity in Afghanistan".
“Push them forward, because, after a long time, we have started moving in the right direction," Qureshi said.
Pakistan has played the role of mediator during the peace talks between the Afghan Taliban and the US, which led to a landmark deal signed in Doha in February last year. According to a joint statement released by the parties at the time, a full withdrawal of all US and coalition forces would occur within 14 months of the deal getting signed, if the Taliban hold up their end of the agreement.

The US had committed to reducing the number of its troops in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 8,600 within 135 days of signing the deal, and working with its allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces in Afghanistan over the same period. Currently, there are 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan.
However, Biden's nominee for state secretary, Anthony Blinken, hinted earlier this week that an increase in violence in Afghanistan may lead to US retaining some of it troops.
"We want to retain some capacity to deal with any resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place," Blinken said in his confirmation hearing. “We have to look carefully at what has actually been negotiated. I haven't been privy to it yet."
US President Biden has stated that while he would reduce the number of combat troops in Afghanistan, he would not withdraw US military presence.
Last year, during a debate between Democratic presidential candidates, Biden had said: "We can prevent the United States from being the victim of terror coming out of Afghanistan by providing for bases — insist the Pakistanis provide bases for us to air lift from and to move against what we know."
Biden's nominee for defence secretary Gen Lloyd J Austin, meanwhile, identified Pakistan as an "essential partner" in the Afghan peace process during his confirmation hearing earlier this week.
“We are concerned because we feel violence can vitiate the climate,” Qureshi said in his interview with Al Jazeera yesterday. “Pakistan has done a lot, we have really bent backwards to create an environment to facilitate the peace process.”
The foreign minister further said that there were "spoilers" within Afghanistan who "have benefited from the war economy" and did not want the peace process to be successful. He also cautioned that there were "elements from outside who do not share our vision, which is a peaceful, stable, prosperous Afghanistan".
Ultimately, Qureshi said, it was the Afghan leadership's responsibility to ensure that the peace process succeeds.
"It's their country, it's their future."
Pakistan's relationship with the previous US administration had started out as thorny after former President Donald Trump ended the security assistance to Pakistan. However, relations improved after Pakistan assisted talks between US and the Afghan Taliban.
Islamabad has repeatedly emphasised that Pakistan has much to gain from peace in Afghanistan, which should be "Afghan-led and Afghan-owned".
“They (Biden administration) should be supportive of what, I feel, is a convergence of interests,” said Qureshi in the interview.
“Our approach, thinking, objectives and shared visions are very much in line with the priorities of the new administration. And that convergence can be built further.”
Qureshi also said that the US should not view Islamabad's close relations with China as a "zero-sum game".
“They [the US] should come, compete and invest,” Qureshi said, while referring to China's investment in Pakistan. The foreign minister further said that Pakistan was also willing to mediate between US and China if need be.
“Pakistan traditionally has had the opportunity and has built bridges between the two. In this environment, where there is a change […] Pakistan can be a bridge-builder,” said Qureshi. He was referring to Islamabad's mediation efforts between Washington and Beijing in 1972 in order to facilitate then US President Richard Nixon's historic visit to China.

 

[Nasr]

Biden's administration has more "war hawks" than one can count. Expect there to be an aggressive continuation of zionist run, american wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Expect new wars as well, quite possibly against Iran and a more aggressive war like posturing by Biden Administration against China and Russia. One thing is for certain, zionist-american war is going to start with the weakest opponent. In this case it would more than likely be Venezuela.

Biden's Administration could also possibly the last government in the White House which rules america as a super power, both economically and militarily. The peak of american supremacy in the world was when Bush Jr. was President. Obama and Trump periods was when american supremacy plateued. With Biden's presidency, american will begin it's decline. Covid-19 has ensured that american economic might spirals into an irreversible decline.

The time isn't far, where the combined effort of China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran will be exerted to push america off the cliff and out of Afghanistan. As from a strategic standpoint, 20 years of american military occupation of Afghanistan has exposed the sinister intent with american remains in the country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please don't turn into the Pakistani media and add your own masala to the statement made by the Foreign Minister.

It is far too early to know what direction the Biden Administration will take on Afghanistan, and the statement by the Foreign Minister is pretty normal in terms of officially re-stating Pakistan's position on the peace talks in Afghanistan and calling for continuity from the new US Administration.

Thread title updated.

 

[W.11]

Biden's administration has more "war hawks" than one can count. Expect there to be an aggressive continuation of zionist run, american wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Expect new wars as well, quite possibly against Iran and a more aggressive war like posturing by Biden Administration against China and Russia. One thing is for certain, zionist-american war is going to start with the weakest opponent. In this case it would more than likely be Venezuela.

Biden's Administration could also possibly the last government in the White House which rules america as a super power, both economically and militarily. The peak of american supremacy in the world was when Bush Jr. was President. Obama and Trump periods was when american supremacy plateued. With Biden's presidency, american will begin it's decline. Covid-19 has ensured that american economic might spirals into an irreversible decline.

The time isn't far, where the combined effort of China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran will be exerted to push america off the cliff and out of Afghanistan. As from a strategic standpoint, 20 years of american military occupation of Afghanistan has exposed the sinister intent with american remains in the country.

America at this stage cannot even afford such moves, they have their own civil war looming and economy failing.

regards

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

they have their own civil war looming and economy failing.

regards

Not really.

Isolated incidents might occur, but it isn't going to change into some kind of widespread conflict.

 

[Nasr]

America at this stage cannot even afford such moves, they have their own civil war looming and economy failing.

regards

If that were the case (mindset, not actual economy), then america would have pulled out of Afghanistan before the 10th anniversary of its invasion. Same would've been the case with Iraq. Fact is the american military has presence in active combat zones all across the Middle East, North & East Africa and Central Asia. The leadership of america is owned by zionists, who own Wall Street and the Federal Reserve Bank. They (american leadership) will continue it's wars, as ordered by their zionist owners. The zionists, a parasitic cancer, that owns and controls Europe, North America, Scandinavia and Australia, and they will not be done with their control until they have ignited WW3. These are the same parasitic-cancer zionists, who were the architects of WW1 & WW2.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Smell the coffee folks. America is back, and it intends to stay in Afg for its own interests. Expect a fully planned "upturn in violence" shortly, with USA permitting it to happen quite deliberately. This in turn will justify retention of American troops and other interested parties in support of the Kabul puppet regime.

It's all very simple.

I feel the only chance for Afghanistan in the post-Trump era is if China steps up its game and we see a couple more trade routes/pipelines come to fruition. These corrupt Kabulis simply need sufficient development to understand that Americans can't provide them a better deal than China and Pakistan.

 

[Meengla]

This in turn will justify retention of American troops and other interested parties in support of the Kabul puppet regime.

Yeah, but I don't understand the Pakistani position: Pakistan has been publicly cautioning America against a hasty withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan. And if Biden sends, say, 20,000 more troops, wouldn't that be according to Pakistan's wishes? Aren't Pakistanis fearing the come back of the total bloody anarchy in Afghanistan as was seen between 1992-1996?

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Please don't turn into the Pakistani media and add your own masala to the statement made by the Foreign Minister.

It is far too early to know what direction the Biden Administration will take on Afghanistan, and the statement by the Foreign Minister is pretty normal in terms of officially re-stating Pakistan's position on the peace talks in Afghanistan and calling for continuity from the new US Administration.

Thread title updated.

There is no masala, it is what it is.

If all was hunky dory, there was no need for FM to remind America to stay the course. Ofcourse there are concerns, with the make up and background of new American administration and some statements made in public by them.

Pakistan has invested a lot of time and energy to bring the peace talks to the stage where they are now. Last thing we want now is not only regional spoilers but spoilers from within new American administration, scuttle the peace process beyond repair. Afghanistan is starting to see surge in violence again, and of course ever lingering presence of notorious American "private" contractors is of huge concern.

 

[Cliftonite]

Smell the coffee folks. America is back, and it intends to stay in Afg for its own interests. Expect a fully planned "upturn in violence" shortly, with USA permitting it to happen quite deliberately. This in turn will justify retention of American troops and other interested parties in support of the Kabul puppet regime.

It's all very simple.

I feel the only chance for Afghanistan in the post-Trump era is if China steps up its game and we see a couple more trade routes/pipelines come to fruition. These corrupt Kabulis simply need sufficient development to understand that Americans can't provide them a better deal than China and Pakistan.

The US fears a repeat of the ISIS fiasco in Iraq in Afghanistan if it withdraws.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yeah, but I don't understand the Pakistani position: Pakistan has been publicly cautioning America against a hasty withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan. And if Biden sends, say, 20,000 more troops, wouldn't that be according to Pakistan's wishes? Aren't Pakistanis fearing the come back of the total bloody anarchy in Afghanistan as was seen between 1992-1996?

The Pakistani position is that the US needs to maintain some kind of a military presence to induce both sets of major domestic actors in Afghanistan (the Kabul government and the Taliban) to continue to engage in good faith, until a peace deal is reached, at which point the continued presence of US troops is something the US should negotiate with the Kabul Regime and Afghan Taliban (mostly the Afghan Taliban, since they are the ones with the biggest issue with foreign troops on Afghan soil).

The US keeping a small number of troops to maintain that leverage and act against other terrorist groups such as the ISKP, TTP etc. is something Pakistan does not object to. Small troop increases for such purposes are not something Pakistan opposes. What Pakistan would have issue with is a significant increase in US troops for the purpose of escalating military actions against the Afghan Taliban, or any kind of significant increase that would push the Afghan Taliban away from peace talks.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Yeah, but I don't understand the Pakistani position: Pakistan has been publicly cautioning America against a hasty withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan. And if Biden sends, say, 20,000 more troops, wouldn't that be according to Pakistan's wishes? Aren't Pakistanis fearing the come back of the total bloody anarchy in Afghanistan as was seen between 1992-1996?

Nope. Pakistan doesn't really want American troops in Afghanistan. It's possible that on occasion, such statements may have been made by the foreign office to (a) gauge the response and (b) cleverly project a degree of sympathy for the official position of Ghani and his government. It is "posturing" effectively and we are aware that in post-USA Afghanistan we will need to work with the Taliban AND Ghani.

The third plausible explanation is that on occasions when Islamabad has feared an excessive alignment between Kabul and other regional spoilers (Tehran, possibly Delhi) then as a backup, Islamabad would prefer the least of three evils (a relatively controllable america) embedded in Afghanistan.

In reality, the Americans need to go.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If all was hunky dory, there was no need for FM to remind America to stay the course. Ofcourse there are concerns, with the make up and background of new American administration and some statements made in public by them.

Issuing such statements with a new administration coming to power is normal. The US has issued similar statements about 'Pakistan continuing to cooperate against terrorism etc' every time a new government has taken charge in Pakistan as well.

At this point you can't say anything one way or the other, so no need to hype up a pretty routine diplomatic statement in the given circumstances.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

US keeping a small number of troops to maintain that leverage and act against other terrorist groups such as the ISKP, TTP etc. is something Pakistan does not object to.

That's a great point I didn't consider.

Agree with this conclusion and what @Cliftonite added.

It is a delicate balancing act for a variety of reasons. Certainly, we agree that Ghani and the Taliban need future roles in Afghanistan, and a small US presence may well help in that regard and in eliminating ISIS stragglers.

But anything beyond that should be rejected.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Issuing such statements with a new administration coming to power is normal.

Nothing is normal about the statement and the choice of words used.

reverse


verb

1. 1.
   move backwards.
   "the lorry reversed into the back of a bus"
   
   Similar:
   back
   
   
   go back/backwards
   
   drive back/backwards
   
   move back/backwards
   
   send back/backwards
   
   back-pedal
   
   
   
   Opposite:
   go forwards
   • 
     
     
   • 
     
2. 2.
   make (something) the opposite of what it was.