India, Russia, China discuss Taliban, Afghanistan

[SpArK]

India, Russia, China discuss Taliban, Afghanistan​

New Delhi, Nov 15 (IANS) Amid a spike in violence in Afghanistan, India Monday sought to intensify cooperation with Russia and China to stabilize the violence-torn country and joined them in supporting the Afghan government's Taliban reintegration plan.

'They expressed concern at the deteriorating security situation and underlined the need for adequate development of the Afghan National Security Forces to enable Afghanistan to defend its sovereignty and independence,' said a joint communique after the Russia-India-China trilateral meeting.

Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna held wide-ranging talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and their Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Wuhan during which the situation in Afghanistan figured prominently in the discussions.

'The ministers expressed their support to the transition to increasing Afghan responsibility on national security, and to the Afghan government's peace and reintegration programme,' said the statement.

'The ministers stressed the importance of cooperation among three countries on the issue of Afghanistan within current mechanisms,' it said, adding that the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) was an important platform for regional cooperation on this issue.

India has been closely in touch with Russia over countering the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, but New Delhi has initiated a dialogue with Beijing over the Afghan situation recently.

Opposed to a selective approach towards terrorism, India has backed the reintegration plan of the Afghan government, but only on condition the Taliban renounces violence, cuts off links with terrorism and accepts the Afghan constitution.


India, Russia, China discuss Taliban, Afghanistan

 

[Guest]

uncle sam must be very very unhappy about this

 

[Tangerine]

These three countries have NO say on what goes in Afghan. NATO is in charge of this, and with the support of Karzai .

This discussion isn't going to effect the US in any way.

 

[muse]

This is interesting - now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first time we are reading about India supporting the Reintegration process (even if with conditions) -- what does this say about the quality of the talks with Russia and China? And of course whether like the US, Russia and China agreed with the Indian position that the Problem in Afghanistan is Pakistan?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it indeed comes as a welcome and commendable development......Pakistan india and China can agree on one thing:

stability in the war-ravaged country is paramount to regional peace, regional stability and regional prosperity


yes the Taliban should renounce violence

yes the Taliban should cut off links (direct or indirect, whatever they may be) with terrorism

yes they should accept the Afghan constitution --as it applies to all Afghans

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

These three countries have NO say on what goes in Afghan. NATO is in charge of this, and with the support of Karzai

This discussion isn't going to effect the US in any way.

the NATO & the U.S. itself are in favour of such an integration process --- the media just doesnt seem to be as vocal about it

it's more fashionable to dogmatically and blindly claim that the Taliban are a ''strategic asset'' to Pakistan, and Pakistan (blindly) supports Taliban which is working with Al qaeda militants


factually and criminally incorrect, but such is the usual aging rhetoric for past 9-10 years or so, for whatever its worth



as of late, Karzai seems to have caused a lot of commotion and anger in U.S. policy circles

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Taliban Chief Mullah Omar Rules out Afghan Peace Talks

There is no prospect of peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government, the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar has insisted.

In a statement, Mullah Omar said "rumours of negotiation" were a ploy by Western powers to "cover up" their military defeat in Afghanistan.

A BBC correspondent says some insurgents - including some Taliban - have spoken to the Afghan government.

But Western diplomats say there have been no high-level talks.

Mullah Omar's wordy statement was released to media outlets and jihadist websites on the eve of the Muslim holiday Eid.

It comes four days before Nato leaders gather in the Portuguese capital Lisbon for a summit set to be dominated by the Afghan conflict.

Withdrawal

In his statement, Mullah Omar says: "The enemy is retreating and facing siege in all parts of the country day in and day out. Their life casualties are spiralling up.

"It is because of this pressure that the enemy has resorted to spreading the misleading rumours of peace talks."

Mullah Omar, who is rumoured to be in Pakistan, says the "sole way for our salvation is the armed jihad", or holy war.

The "solution of the issue lies in withdrawal of the foreign invading troops and establishment of a true Islamic and independent system in the country," he adds.

Mullah Omar also addresses former jihadi leaders working with Hamid Karzai's administration, urging them to join the struggle against the invaders.

"Was the aim behind your 14-years-long jihad [against the Russians] to let the place of the Russians to be occupied by the Americans?" he asks.

Casualties mount

This year has been the most deadly for Nato forces fighting in Afghanistan since the invasion of 2001.

In his statement, Mullah Omar says his aim is to increase Taliban operations "to entangle the enemy in an exhausting war of attrition and wear it away like the former Soviet Union".

About 150,000 foreign troops are currently in the country, though US President Barack Obama is planning to begin gradually pulling US forces out from July 2011.

It is hoped that security responsibility will be handed over completely to Afghan forces in 2014, though some analysts say the current level of violence suggests this target is optimistic.


There have been mounting reports that Nato is seeking to open channels of communication with the Taliban - and a growing acceptance, analysts say, that there must be a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

President Karzai's government insists the insurgents renounce violence, accept the Afghan constitution and cut their links to al-Qaeda before any agreement can be reached.

The BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Kabul says there have been talks between some insurgents and the Afghan government, though these have not been at a senior level.

Western diplomats admit that some of those claiming to represent the Taliban have turned out to be imposters, our correspondent adds.

BBC News - Taliban chief Mullah Omar rules out Afghan peace talks

 

[muse]

Haqqani group looking better and better?? US never supported reintegration?

I think the story here is that India may not have found much succor with the Russian and the Chinese

 

[Guest]

These three countries have NO say on what goes in Afghan. NATO is in charge of this, and with the support of Karzai .

This discussion isn't going to effect the US in any way.

maybe they have no say on what goes in Afghan, but US have NO say on what goes TO Afghan neither: From those you want, such as supply to those you don' t want, such as weapons.

 

[Tangerine]

the NATO & the U.S. itself are in favour of such an integration process --- the media just doesnt seem to be as vocal about it

Yes

it's more fashionable to dogmatically and blindly claim that the Taliban are a ''strategic asset'' to Pakistan, and Pakistan (blindly) supports Taliban which is working with Al qaeda militants factually and criminally incorrect, but such is the usual aging rhetoric for past 9-10 years or so, for whatever its worth

Such thing won't fly. The Pakistani public government is enraged enough with the 'world' calling Pakistan a terrorist state (I don't mean it in an offensive way). More crap like this = the less Pakistan will cooperate with NATO. The US has critisized Pakistan/ISI for backing Taliban, but they have faced plenty of hardships for those remarks (Clinton) *cough* Supply route *cough*.

as of late, Karzai seems to have caused a lot of commotion and anger in U.S. policy circles

There are no worries about Karzai atm (I know what you're talking about, but he later apologized and took back his remarks). If he defies us, then he'll have to face corruption charges in his own country. Karzai can't live if he can't cooperate with the US. We all know how much the Afghans want to kick his @$$.

 

[Tangerine]

maybe they have no say on what goes in Afghan, but US have NO say on what goes TO Afghan neither: From those you want, such as supply to those you don' t want, such as weapons.

I must be living in a box then. I must be dreaming all this time that the US has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.

 

[pmukherjee]

The Pushtuns comprise of 42% of the population of Afghanistan. How is any lasting peace possible in Afghanistan without the positive participation of 42% of its population? India has never been averse to the Pushtuns being a part of the reintegration of Afghanistan. Just that they like all the others should abjure violence and accept the supremacy of the Afghan constitution.

 

[Kinetic]

Good initiative. Apart from US, Afghanistan needs India, Russia and China's economic and strategic supports to build a stable and progressive Afghanistan.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Good initiative. Apart from US, Afghanistan needs India, Russia and China's economic and strategic supports to build a stable and progressive Afghanistan.

I agree, though in the case of india --we must view it with caution and some suspicion.

We don't ENJOY viewing it with caution and some suspicion, but we must due to history.


Therefore if your intentions are good --then best of luck. No misbehaviour though! Big brother is watching closely

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

The US has critisized Pakistan/ISI for backing Taliban, but they have faced plenty of hardships for those remarks (Clinton) *cough* Supply route *cough*.

The US failed, until much later, to realize that YES there are good vs. bad talebs; only issue is both nations and being able to match on labels

as for supply route, that was in response to NATO attack on our soldiers. It was a pretty lenient response, all things considered.

4 soldiers lost their lives due to clumsiness. In a country like Pakistan where the Servicemen and the institutions they serve are most respected, that is a BIG deal.

There are no worries about Karzai atm (I know what you're talking about, but he later apologized and took back his remarks). If he defies us, then he'll have to face corruption charges in his own country. Karzai can't live if he can't cooperate with the US. We all know how much the Afghans want to kick his @$$.

if there are legitimate corruption cases against him, why not open them up and promote accountability and honest governance?

Is it about setting the correct example in a country where corruption is one of the main evils keeping them backwards, or is it only about your own interests?

If you know how much Afghans want to kick his arse, then why keep him propped up there? Is that democratic, or is that securing only your own interests?


I appreciate your honesty though sir.