High Level US team lead by Clinton Visiting Pakistan

[ashok321]

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — An unusually powerful phalanx of President Obama’s top officials, charged with organizing an orderly exit from Afghanistan, will face an outwardly confident, almost defiant Pakistan during talks that open in an atmosphere of rancor here on Thursday night.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; the new C.I.A. director, David H. Petraeus; and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, will, among other things, be asking the Pakistani Army to tamp down the terrorist actions of the Haqqani network that are killing Americans in Afghanistan, according to American officials and Pakistanis with knowledge of the situation.

The head of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, may even agree to try to help on that particular American request, the officials said. There were some very recent signs he was already doing so, a senior American official said.

But General Kayani, and the head of the Pakistani spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, hold fundamentally different views from Washington on how the war in Afghanistan should end, and so far, they are sticking to them, apparently unbothered by threats from Washington to withhold billions of dollars of American military and civilian assistance.

The Pakistani generals are anticipating the American drawdown from Afghanistan that is to begin in December, are watching as the war, in their view, goes badly and are waiting for their share of the Afghan spoils. As they do so, they appear to have little incentive to bargain away their demands or to modify their side of the ledger, officials and analysts here say.

“I see this as a test of wills,” said Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general, who is considered one of the few pro-American former Pakistani senior military officers. “There are such deep divergences of policy. Both sides are stuck.”

In essence, General Kayani says he wants a “stable” Afghanistan, a phrase that seems to deliberately echo what the Obama administration says it wants, too. It is an idea the general outlined in a 14-page paper he gave Mr. Obama during a meeting at the White House a year ago, but to which, the general tells people, he has never received a response.

For General Kayani, a sphere of influence for the Haqqani network in eastern Afghanistan — in Paktia, Paktika and Khost Provinces — that abuts Pakistan’s tribal belt is essential, Pakistanis and Americans say.

That is the area where the Haqqanis, who operate as assets of Pakistan inside Afghanistan, have long held sway. They have used the territory, as well as their havens in Pakistan’s tribal areas, to stage attacks on American and NATO facilities in and around Kabul in the last several months.

The strength of the Haqqani forces in these three provinces is particularly galling to Washington, General Masood said, because in comparison, the Americans have been relatively successful in curbing the Taliban, who are Haqqani allies, in the south of Afghanistan.

Another Pakistani demand that clashes with American objectives is a post-conflict Afghanistan that is free from the encroachment of India, Pakistan’s most mortal enemy.

Last month the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, visited New Delhi and sealed a strategic accord that included arrangements for India to train Afghan Army officers. The last thing Pakistan wants is Indian officers replacing NATO troops as trainers in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials said. The Pakistanis were “furious” that the Americans did not halt the accord, a senior American official said.

The very effort by the Americans to build a 350,000-strong Afghan Army is a contentious matter with General Kayani. He has said publicly and privately that he doubts the $12 billion annual expenditure by the United States is sustainable. Some American officials have begun to agree, given the growing economic pressures in Washington.

Last month, Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the head of training for the Afghan Army, said budget constraints were so onerous that he was saving money by installing fans instead of air-conditioners at Afghan Army bases, and by buying uniforms from Afghan outfitters instead of American ones.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/w...ffer-on-withdrawal-from-afghanistan.html?_r=1

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

"We intend to push Pakistan very hard," Clinton

Clinton urges Pakistan to boost anti-terror fight - Yahoo! News

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

Clinton lands in Kabul for talks with Karzai, other Afghan leaders - The Washington Post

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

NATO kills 115 militants in east Afghanistan fight - Yahoo! News

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

Flying Spy Surge: Surveillance Missions Over Afghanistan Quadruple

Flying Spy Surge: Surveillance Missions Over Afghanistan Quadruple | Danger Room | Wired.com

 

[Speed]

KABUL — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Pakistan on Thursday to eradicate terrorist safe havens inside its borders, saying there would be a “very big price” for inaction against militant groups staging attacks in Afghanistan.

Clinton’s tough words for Pakistani leaders came hours before the arrival in Islamabad of an unusually large delegation of U.S. officials, led by Clinton, to pressure Pakistan to take on the Haqqani network, a Pakistan-based Afghan militant group blamed for assassinations of Afghan leaders and a brazen attack last month on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

“We will be delivering a very clear message to the government of Pakistan and to the people of Pakistan,” Clinton said during a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai: “There should be no support, and no safe havens, for terrorists anywhere who kill innocent women and children.”

U.S. officials have accused Pakistan of tolerating — and, in some cases, supporting — Haqqani clan members in a string of violent attacks against U.S. and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, a charge Pakistan denies.

While insisting that both countries share a responsibility for fighting terrorism, Clinton hinted of consequences for Pakistan if the government fails to do more to stop attacks emanating from the Pakistani side of the border.

“No one should be mistaken about this being allowed to continue without the paying of a very big price,” Clinton said. She said Islamabad’s leaders “must be part of the solution, which means ridding their own country of terrorists who kill their own people and cross the border to kill people in Afghanistan.”

Clinton spoke of a growing international effort to squeeze the Haqqani network on both sides of the border, and said the effort “will be more apparent in the days ahead.”

“It is a fact that they are operating out of safe heavens in Pakistan,” Clinton said. “It took a while before we could turn to those safe havens. Now it is a question of how much more cooperation Pakistan can provide.”

Relations between Afghan and Pakistani officials have been badly strained following a series of high-profile attacks and assassinations, including the slaying on Sept. 20 of Burhanuddin Rabbani, a former Afghan president and the point man for reconciliation talks between the Afghan government and the radical Islamist Taliban movement. After Rabbani’s death, Karzai said peace efforts were useless unless Pakistan was heavily involved.

Standing beside Clinton on Thursday, Karzai repeated his assertion that his country’s insurgency is “to a very, very great extent controlled by establishments in Pakistan.”

“They stay in Pakistan, have their headquarters in Pakistan, launch operations from Pakistan,” Karzai said. “It is not in the manner of pointing fingers that we seek to talk to Pakistan, bur rather in the manner of finding the proper venue and proper authority for talks.”

Clinton arrived in Afghanistan late Wednesday ahead of a scheduled visit to Pakistan late Thursday and Friday. The visit, which was officially kept secret for security reasons, was to include not only Clinton but newly appointed CIA director David H. Petraeus and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, a top White House adviser on the war in Afghanistan, and Marc Grossman, the State Department’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clinton chides Pakistan on insurgent havens - The Washington Post

 

[ashok321]

“They stay in Pakistan, have their headquarters in Pakistan, launch operations from Pakistan

 

[Leviza]

She need to go back from where she came with all her BS...

What about attacks on Pakistani side from these terrorist from Afghanistan.... and under CIA ... they need to take action on CIA elements which are working against Pakistan and getting paid by US Tax money ...

YOU PPL ARE NOT WELCOME IN PAKISTAN ANYMORE..... YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO PAKISTANI PUBLIC ....

 

[P.kid]

“They stay in Pakistan, have their headquarters in Pakistan, launch operations from Pakistan

“They stay in Afghanistan, have their headquarters in Afghanistan, launch operations from Afghanistan into Pakistan"

 

[Emmie]

Mam Clinton may be this time this tone doesn't work, I am sure Islamabad and Rawalpindi are prepared enough, they are done with their homework.

 

[Emmie]

Well this statement of secretary Clinton seems to be for the native Afghan, morale boosting.. There's already a tone set in US, that we all know, series of allegations.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan turns tables on U.S. accusations about sheltering militants​

By Karin Brulliard, Updated: Thursday, October 20, 6:30 AM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — High in the mountains, a nation’s troops are regularly attacked by insurgents who easily come and go from sanctuaries across a porous international border. Armed forces in the neighboring country, nominally an ally, do little to stop the rebels. Resentment in the capital is growing.

For several years, that is how frustrated U.S. official have described the challenge for the NATO coalition in Afghanistan, which, they say, is battling Taliban enemies who operate freely from hilly hideouts in next-door Pakistan, an American ally and aid recipient.

But in the past several months, Pakistan has turned the tables, adopting a mirror-image argument in its own defense.

According to this increasingly assertive account, Pakistani Taliban fighters flushed out by Pakistani military offensives have now settled into a security vacuum created by NATO forces in eastern Afghanistan whose attention is focused elsewhere. That territory, Pakistan contends, is the new regional hub for Islamist militants of all stripes, one that the U.S.-led coalition must better control to prevent attacks on American forces as well as strikes inside Pakistan.

Some analysts here say Pakistan is now pushing this case as an excuse for not pursuing the Haqqani network, an Afghan Taliban faction that U.S. officials assert operates unmolested from Pakistan. Others say the opposite: That the Americans are boosting pressure on Pakistan by allowing the attacks inside Pakistan.

Either way, the dueling narratives have become the latest illustration of the disconnect between Washington and Islamabad, and they help explain why the ever-prickly security partnership shows little sign of improvement.

“The current do-nothing approach of all players doesn’t seem to be solving the problem,” the Pakistani daily newspaper Dawn wrote in an editorial Wednesday. “Instead, it might simply be causing them to dig in their heels further.”

The disconnect, which also involves differences over negotiations and the U.S. troop drawdown in Afghanistan, will be on center stage with the arrival of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as is expected after her stopover in Kabul Thursday. It will be the latest of several recent visits to Islamabad by senior American officials, all directed at improving cooperation after a series of disputes that have soured relations.

Pakistan escalated its complaints this week, faulting NATO forces for failing to hunt down an infamous militant cleric whom Pakistani troops expelled from its Swat Valley in 2009. Pakistani military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told Reuters that Maulvi Fazlullah is now in Afghanistan. From there, Abbas said, Fazlullah has directed a series of recent cross-border strikes that have killed more than 100 Pakistani security forces. The U.S.-led coalition has ignored Pakistan’s pleas for action, he said.

“The problem refuses to go away,” Abbas said.

Tensions over the remote Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier area have simmered for months amid reports of cross-border attacks. U.S. and Afghan officials complain of steady rocket fire emanating from Pakistan. Pakistan says its soldiers have been besieged by militant armies from Afghanistan. Both sides accuse the other of inadequately patrolling the frontier.

The issue surfaced again this week as NATO launched a new offensive against the Haqqani network, which U.S. officials have said is aided by Pakistani intelligence. Those accusations infuriated Pakistan, and its leaders and media have drummed up a public frenzy over the potential for a U.S. invasion, though there is no evidence one is likely.

In recent days, Pakistani newspapers have splashed alarmist headlines about NATO troops massing along the Afghan side of the border. Though Pakistan has previously encouraged such a move to assist with border security and U.S. military officials said it was notified about the offensive, suspicion swirled in Pakistan that it is a sign of an American march to war.

In a closed-door briefing Tuesday, Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani told lawmakers the possibility of an invasion was remote because the United States would “think 10 times” before invading a nuclear power such as Pakistan, according to various news reports. But he also said a Pakistani operation against the Haqqanis would accomplish little.

“The problem is in Afghanistan, not Pakistan,” Kayani was quoted as saying.

U.S. officials have said they would not pursue the Haqqanis in unilateral ground raids inside Pakistan. But the CIA has increased drone strikes near Miram Shah in North Waziristan, which American officials say is the Haqqani network’s stronghold. The strikes are extremely unpopular in Pakistan.

Disagreement over the Haqqanis is only the latest friction point in the bilateral relationship, which both sides say is warming despite the heated public rhetoric. Even so, many here say Pakistani officials are likely to turn one of the most despised Washington arguments back on Clinton.

“From the day the Twin Towers fell on 9/11, the same mantra has been endlessly repeated to Pakistan: it must ‘do more’ in the fight against terrorism,” the editorial board of the Express-Tribune wrote Wednesday. “Finally we have the opportunity to say the same thing to the U.S.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-accusations/2011/10/19/gIQAdLUPyL_story.html

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Mam Clinton may be this time this tone doesn't work, I am sure Islamabad and Rawalpindi are prepared enough, they are done with their homework.

I believe the Army leadership's briefing to parliamentarians made clear what Pakistan's position is:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/135469-coas-dg-isi-dgmo-briefing-parliament.html

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Deciphering the roadmap: US, Pakistan to push for Afghan endgame deal​

By Kamran Yousaf
Published: October 20, 2011

ISLAMABAD: In what seems an unprecedented development, Pakistan and the US will push for a ‘deal’ on the Afghan endgame when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets the country’s top civil and military leadership in Islamabad during a two-day trip beginning today (Thursday).

The significance of the visit, official sources say, can be judged from the fact that Secretary Clinton will be accompanied by US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Central Intelligence Agency Director David Patraeus.

It is a rare instance for the secretary of state, who arrived in Kabul on an unannounced visit on Wednesday, and the US military and intelligence chiefs to undertake a joint trip to Pakistan. “This is the first time that senior US officials are coming to Islamabad together and suffice to say discussions will be on the Afghan endgame,” said a senior security official.

Another official disclosed that Secretary Clinton was arriving in Islamabad to clear up the confusion about her country’s “options and proposals” on Afghanistan. “Frankly, so far the Americans have not shared their roadmap on Afghanistan with us,” the official added. “What confuses us is that we don’t know who is in charge in Afghanistan. Is it the Pentagon or the State Department? This is complicating matters,” he said.

Sensing the importance of the visit, Pakistan’s top civil and military leadership have done their homework and prepared a joint strategy, it is believed. According to the strategy, the contents of which have been shared with The Express Tribune, Pakistan will inform the US that sustainable peace in Afghanistan can only be achieved through a meaningful political reconciliation.

(Read: Afghan war anniversary: 10 years on, the answers are blowing in the wind)
Afghan war anniversary: 10 years on, the answers are blowing in the wind – The Express Tribune

What this means, one official explains, is discussions with insurgent groups. “There is a need to first identify reconcilable groups,” he said. Pakistan might also insist that the US drop preconditions attached to negotiations with the Afghan Taliban. “Afghanistan is a tribal society and they never accept any preconditions and we understand that the US is also now convinced,” the official added.

The strategy also talks of Pakistan’s fears regarding growing Indian influence in Afghanistan. “Pakistan has no issues if the US thinks that by giving India a lead role it will bring sustainable peace in Afghanistan. But obviously that is not the case,” the official pointed out.

(Read: Karzai‘s great gamble)
Karzai

Another area of concern for Pakistan is the Afghan National Army. Pakistan argues that a 400,000-strong Afghan army will disband into splinter groups when the international forces led by the US pull out of the war-torn country. Based on this assumption, Islamabad believes that the US needs to rethink its strategy.

It is unclear whether the US will endorse Pakistan’s point of view given the differences between the two countries on some strategic issues, such as how to tackle the Haqqani network. The US has so far remained adamant in its demand for a military offensive against the group.

The Pakistan Army has resisted US pressure, though the army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, told parliamentarians on Tuesday that if he was convinced that an operation in North Waziristan would bring about peace in Afghanistan, he would do it tomorrow.

Despite differences, experts say the countries have mutual interests. “Pakistan and the US don’t wish to see Afghanistan used against any third country,” said Rustam Shah Mohmand, former ambassador to Afghanistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 20th, 2011.

Deciphering the roadmap: US, Pakistan to push for Afghan endgame deal – The Express Tribune

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

Funny, when the trolling and flaming comments are deleted, no one wants to actually participate in the discussion with constructive commentary and analysis ...

 

[JAT BALWAN]

“From the day the Twin Towers fell on 9/11, the same mantra has been endlessly repeated to Pakistan: it must ‘do more’ in the fight against terrorism,” the editorial board of the Express-Tribune wrote Wednesday. “Finally we have the opportunity to say the same thing to the U.S.”

Well Pakistan has very right to say same thing to U.S.A. after every attack suspected from afgan taliban, cos America is is the real ruler of Afganistan now.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Conflicting perceptions of estranged allies​

Asif Haroon Raja

Till 2004, Pakistan was a peaceful country and suicide bombing was unheard of. The figure of terrorism-afflicted casualties began to rise from 2005 onwards and by 2007 the number rose to 3599 killed. The death toll has now jumped to 35000. While the total fatalities of ISAF in Afghanistan from 2001 till 30 September were 2670, which includes 1800 US soldiers, Pak Army alone has suffered 3500 deaths and injuries to 10,000 soldiers. Wear and tear of weapons, tanks, APCs, helicopters, guns and vehicles is substantial. Given the acute resource constraints, it is very difficult for Pak Army to replace them or get them overhauled. The Army and Frontier Corps have been provided very limited counter terror equipment by USA and have not been paid their dues for the services rendered and for deploying 147000 troops in FATA and Swat region in deference to the wishes of US. Had the US been able to contain terrorism in Afghanistan, the wave of terrorism would not have entered Pakistan. Ironically, the US and its strategic partners rather than helping Pakistan in controlling terrorism have been fomenting terrorism. Failing to make any headway, White House belatedly realized that military option will not solve the Afghan tangle. It therefore decided to give a push to the political prong and to earnestly work towards political settlement through negotiations with irreconcilable Taliban and move out.

After jointly fighting the war on terror for a decade and suffering a lot, the two allies USA and Pakistan are cross with each other. Both are not on the same page and their perceptions on several issues are at variance. Setbacks of US in Afghanistan are principally the main cause of its frustration, edginess and resentment against their foes as well as Pakistan. Its military as well as political prongs have failed to make any worthwhile progress. Neither the Taliban been defeated in the battlefield nor have Taliban agreed to hold talks. Failing to do anything against the Taliban who are on rampage, the US gives vent to its impotent rage by blaming Pakistan for all its failures. Spin-doctors of ISAF have been continuously churning out fabricated anti-Pakistan stories and allegations to cover up US blunders. In the aftermath of Raymond Davis incident and raid in Abbottabad to get OBL, trust deficit between the two allies has widened. While the US is behaving tough and trying to cow down Pakistan, the latter for a change is courageously facing its media and diplomatic blitz and economic and military coercion.

The US military not favorably inclined to the idea of dialogue with Taliban or drawdown of troops continues to apply force against the Taliban and also threatens Pakistan to launch an operation in North Waziristan (NW) despite Pakistan expressing its regrets. Having declared that al-Qaeda has been sufficiently emasculated and that it is no more a major threat to US interests in Afghanistan, the US has now come up with Haqqani Network (HN) allegedly based in safe havens in NW and is projecting it as the most dangerous group. After the 13 September attacks in Kabul and murder of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the US has started accusing ISI that it is linked with HN and is using it as its proxy in Afghanistan. Last week of September saw US military and civil officials in bad temper. They expressed their resentment against Pakistan openly and threatened to intervene if Pakistan didn’t proceed against HN. The US has now deployed hundreds of troops to seal NW border and also to multiply pressure on Pakistan.

The US officials are cribbing that $20 billion assistance provided to Pakistan has gone down the drain since returns made by Pakistan are not commensurate to the quantum of aid given. The US and India think that the US military aid to Pakistan instead of being utilized on fighting anti-US and anti-India militants in Pakistan is being used to enhance its military capacity against India. The two suspects that the Army and ISI are covertly sponsoring four militant groups HN in NW, Mullah Omar’s Shura in Quetta region, Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, and will not abandon any of them for any amount of US money since these groups act as proxies against India and Afghanistan.

Pakistan argues that sacrifices it rendered to fight US dictated war are far in excess than any other country and it has suffered three times more economic loss rather than making gains. It maintains that to what good is the US aid when its socio-politico-economic health has deteriorated and become much worse than pre-September 2001. It complains that the US aid has neither strengthened democracy nor institutions, or helped in reducing poverty, or in overcoming its energy crisis, or in reducing fiscal deficit and inflation. Pakistan rightly grieves that the US has all along selfishly remained focused on war on terror and paid scant attention to the problems of people. It says that India and not Pakistan has hugely benefited from the US assistance.

Pakistan has rejected the allegation that ISI in cahoots with HN is using violent extremism as an instrument of policy and exporting violence in Afghanistan. It categorically denied having had anything to do with attacks in Wardak and Kabul or murder of Rabbani. Pakistan counters the US tirade by asserting that Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism, which is promoted by RAW and several other intelligence agencies including CIA using Afghan soil. It has been furnishing evidence of involvement of RAW in Balochistan and FATA but so far no step has been taken by USA to restrain its strategic partner since both have common objectives. Pakistan is also the biggest sufferer of drone war.

Pakistan Army feels insulted to be called an unreliable ally and accused of its linkage with Al-Qaeda affiliated with Taliban after it lost so many lives of its brave hearts and playing a key role in shrinking their capacity to fight. It is sickened over the incendiary language used by US officials. It shoots back that the comparative casualty rate of security forces of Pakistan vis-à-vis that of ISAF, ANA and India will give a clear picture to a neutral onlooker as to who is aligned and who is fighting them. Moreover, the US has so far not provided any proof to substantiate its allegations. With its high tech intelligence gathering resources and presence of CIA network and Blackwater inside Pakistan, it can easily gather evidence to indict Pakistan.

Interestingly, the US after demonizing the HN and charging that the ISI is using HN as its strategic arm against US targets in Afghanistan and trying to bully Pakistan and making it comply with its demand to go after HN in NW, Hillary Clinton had the brashness to say that the US would like to open dialogue with HN. The US has so far not declared it as a terrorist group. Sirajuddin Haqqani son of Jalauddin Haqqani, heading a small wing of Haqqani force and till recent based in NW, gave an interview to BBC on 3 October. He revealed that the US officials as well as emissaries from other Muslim and non-Muslim countries have been in contact with him and convincing him to abandon Mullah Omar and join Karzai’s government, but he rejected their offers saying that he would do as told by his leader Mullah Omar. He dispelled the widely held misperception that HN is an independent group and clarified that Haqqani’s were part of Mullah Omar led Taliban.

All Taliban groups in Afghanistan have denied their involvement in Rabbani’s murder and have unanimously opined that Indian lobby in Afghanistan planned the assassination since it was averse to peace talks and wanted to disrupt it. This revelation has further degraded India in the eyes of Taliban and they have now become more determined to expel them from their country. Gen McChrystal was right in his assessment that Indian presence in Afghanistan is part of the problem. Gen Dempsey and Gen Allen should mull over McChrystal’s observation.

—The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst.

Conflicting perceptions of estranged allies

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

US pushing for international monitors on Pak-Afghan border​

Tom Hussain
Thursday, October 20, 2011


ISLAMABAD: The United States is urging Pakistan to accept international monitoring of its border with Afghanistan as part of a regional security solution, security experts say.

A formal Pakistani response is still forthcoming to the proposal, which was circulated as a “non-paper” in late September at a conference on Afghanistan in Oslo, they said.The Track-2 diplomatic draft calls for the 14 countries of the Istanbul Conference, including Afghanistan’s six neighbours, to agree to collective mechanisms that would safeguard the sovereignty of Afghanistan and ensure non-interference in its affairs.

The experts said a major sticking point for Pakistan was a proposal for a group of specialist border monitors that would be tasked with enforcement of that agenda. The border monitoring specialists would be drawn from the member states of the Istanbul Conference, which brings together Afghanistan, its six immediate neighbours, other regional powers and the US at a forum formed to address the future security of Afghanistan.

“The problem with a monitoring group enforcing the agenda is that it would largely focus on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border,” said Simbal Khan, director for research at the Institute for Strategic Studies Islamabad, a government think tank.

The security input from the Istanbul Conference, to be finalised on November 2, is a critical component of a wider plan for political and economic transition in Afghanistan up to the withdrawal of Nato forces in 2014.

The plan is to be finalised by the international community at the 2nd Bonn Conference on December 5. The first Bonn Conference, held in 2002, resulted in the existing political dispensation in Afghanistan.

A further serious impediment to Pakistan’s agreement would be the participation of India in any enforceable monitoring mechanism for Afghanistan’s borders, the experts said. India joined the Istanbul Conference late last year, but only after Pakistan was persuaded to withdraw its objection.

The conference also includes Pakistan’s key diplomatic partners, China and Saudi Arabia. The proposed Afghan border monitoring mechanism ignores Pakistan’s outstanding complaints that India has exploited the instability along the Durand Line to covertly support Tehrik-i-Taliban and Baloch insurgents, the experts said.

While Pakistan has not made public any evidence of such Indian interference, the security experts said they had received tacit confirmation from “non-US” NATO governments with forces in Afghanistan.

“The Indians are all over Pakistan, but we don’t want to take this seriously. The fact that the US cannot see this is gobsmacking,” said Christine Fair, a security expert at Georgetown University in Washington DC.

The experts said that the proposal was “the one most favoured by the US,” as it prepares to withdraw the bulk of its forces from Afghanistan by 2014. They said the Afghan government wanted the mechanism because it would provide a substantial structure for the security of its borders.

But the proposed monitoring mechanism would also negatively impact Iran, the security experts said. Like Pakistan, it hosts a substantial population of Afghan refugees, and has been accused by the US of supporting insurgent groups in Afghanistan, and of providing safe havens to Al Qaeda.

Iran has recently drawn closer to Pakistan to promote what it calls a “regional solution to a regional crisis”, the experts said. Pakistan has since the summer engaged in intense lobbying of Istanbul Conference members in an effort to galvanise support for the concept, the experts said.

It has yet to be given shape in any Track 2 diplomatic draft, but may surface in proposals currently being jointly developed by government think tanks in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. The trilateral proposal would be presented at the Bonn Conference.

Pakistan’s renewed engagement this year with Iran and Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbours is led by Asif Ali Zardari, the president. Pakistan’s diplomatic strategy is based on a policy consensus between the presidency and the military, and is tacitly supported by China, the experts said.

(Tom Hussain is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist)
US pushing for international monitors on Pak-Afghan border

 

[internal]

barking dogs seldom bite

 

[JanjaWeed]

hmmm... that preemptive strike by Gen Kayani did not work then??