What's new

Pasha assured of greater Pak role in Afghan talks

Dance

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
4,850
Reaction score
0
WASHINGTON: During the ISI chief’s meetings in Washington, senior US officials have assured Pakistan of a greater role in the Afghan reconciliation process, diplomatic sources told Dawn.

According to these sources, intelligence cooperation, reconciliation in Afghanistan and the dispute over visas dominated the talks during Lt-Gen Shuja Pasha’s one-day stay in the US capital.

The two issues highlighted by the media – restoration of US military aid to Pakistan and the release of a Pakistani helper of the CIA – were not discussed, the sources said.

(Reuters quoted a US official as having said “the discussions today between General Pasha and the acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency went very well. They agreed on a number of steps that will improve Pakistani and US national security”. A senior official at the Pakistani embassy in Washington said: “Both sides were able to agree on the way forward in intelligence. This visit has put the intelligence component back on track completely. We have had difficulties since May 2 operation in Abbottabad. Those difficulties are being addressed”).

Shakil Afridi, a physician, allegedly helped the CIA trace Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.

“Senior US and Pakistani generals are already discussing the aid issue in Islamabad,” a senior diplomatic source told Dawn. “And issues like the release of a mole are not discussed in such high-level meetings.”

Gen Pasha, who left for Pakistan on Thursday evening, met acting CIA Director Michael J. Morell, Deputy National Security Adviser Gen Douglas Lute and Ambassador Mark Grossman, the US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Another important decision taken at the meetings was to avoid using the media for “putting pressure on Pakistan before sensitive talks”, said a source while pointing out that a series of official leaks to the US media preceded Gen Pasha’s visit to Washington.

The sources said that while the US had already included Pakistan in its talks with the Taliban, “there’s a feeling in Islamabad that the Americans were preventing them from playing a more effective role”.

In the talks, the Americans “assured the Pakistanis that they not only recognised their interests in Afghanistan but also want them to play a larger role”.

The Pakistanis assured them that “they support the US-led process” and would use their influence “to ensure that the process succeeds”.

On the issue of visas for US security and intelligence officials, the two sides agreed on a framework which would allow the Americans to deploy their personnel in Pakistan. But the Americans also agreed to “work with the ISI and not against it”.

The two sides agreed to meet again for further talks on these proposals and the next meeting may soon be held in Islamabad.

The sources said that both the CIA and the ISI realised they needed each other to effectively defeat the militants and that’s why they wanted to create a mechanism for dealing with day-to-day issues.

During the talks, the Americans underlined their concern that sharing sensitive intelligence with Pakistan could be counter-productive.

The CIA seems convinced that the ISI had tipped the militants when they asked them to raid an explosives factory in North Waziristan. The ISI says the militants had already left the location before the Americans shared the information with them.

The ISI’s complaints revolved around their concern that the Americans had little regard for Pakistan’s territorial integrity, as they demonstrated during the May 2 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. They fear that such violations can happen again “and sought and received assurance that this will not be repeated”.

The American concerns were further accentuated by reports from Islamabad that their decision to suspend $800 million of military aid had further convinced the Pakistani military and the ISI to decrease their dependence on the United States.

Diplomatic observers in Washington say that the decision to invite Gen Pasha to the US and send senior American generals to Islamabad followed a realisation among American policymakers that “they need to further engage Pakistan and not isolate it”, a point also highlighted this week by US media outlets like the Washington Post, CNN and the Los Angeles Times.

Pasha assured of greater Pak role in Afghan talks | Newspaper | DAWN.COM
 
.
it's really the media which seems to exaggerate this whole thing about Pak's role in this or that. Pakistan simply wants to be assured that subsequent to withdrawal, no anti-Pakistani "system" or "government" will be in place.

being a neighbour, having a porous and rugged border, and based on some troubled history --we are MORE THAN WITHIN OUR RIGHT to have our voices heard here since we are indeed the biggest stakeholder here.

the truth is, Afghanistan has been used from time to time for anti-Pakistan activity and that will never be tolerated by either the security establishment or the people of Pakistan --especially the ones residing along the border regions who have been MOST affected. My village is just 15 km from the border and I could go through great lengths to describe the inconveniences and other issues that have taken place due to the total lack of proper governance and security on the Afghan side.

we can't have peace or stability in these regions if there is turmoil in Afghanistan.....so once again, we very much have a right to have a say in this matter...more so than any role or voice NATO has --since they are foreigners in a no-mans-land.
 
.
without pakistan, afghanistan, cant run for long alone, all pakistan has to do is to cut wheat and water supplies
 
.
well from a legal perspective, land-locked countries have a right NOT to have their water supplies cut off....the option is always on the table, however we aim to have good relations with Afghanistan; not a hostile one.

i do think that the border (or at least certain parts) should be fenced and land-mined as it is in our national interests to do so


it just takes proper leadership....not Zardari-ism.
 
.
Pakistan can control not only Afghanistan's destiny but the entire region's destiny. As of now, Pakistan has an upper hand in what goes on in Afghanistan, but Pakistan should not give into pressure from global powers. Pakistan must do what it can to make sure theres a friendly PRO-PAKISTAN Afghanistan next door for atleast 100 years, and to get that eventually ANA, Karzai's government, and indian consulates all have to be destroyed. Pakistan can destroy all these enemies in neighbouring Afghanistan indirectly ;)
 
.
Well, if Afghanistan wants to prosper it should have bilateral relations with Pakistan based on mutual respect.
Pakistan has much in common with Afghanistan, and if the similarities are exploited, the better.
Many Afghanistani refugees and Afghanistanis have been to Pakistan, and have brought their culture, food, language, and ideas.

You are right Omar1984, there should be a pro-Pakistani government in Afghanistan.
Hopefully when the Afghanistani refugees go back to Afghanistan they will set up a government which is pro-Pakistan. This is a way to show their gratitude to Pakistan, because Pakistan helped millions of Afghanistani refugees.
 
. .
it's really the media which seems to exaggerate this whole thing about Pak's role in this or that. Pakistan simply wants to be assured that subsequent to withdrawal, no anti-Pakistani "system" or "government" will be in place.

being a neighbour, having a porous and rugged border, and based on some troubled history --we are MORE THAN WITHIN OUR RIGHT to have our voices heard here since we are indeed the biggest stakeholder here.

the truth is, Afghanistan has been used from time to time for anti-Pakistan activity and that will never be tolerated by either the security establishment or the people of Pakistan --especially the ones residing along the border regions who have been MOST affected. My village is just 15 km from the border and I could go through great lengths to describe the inconveniences and other issues that have taken place due to the total lack of proper governance and security on the Afghan side.

we can't have peace or stability in these regions if there is turmoil in Afghanistan.....so once again, we very much have a right to have a say in this matter...more so than any role or voice NATO has --since they are foreigners in a no-mans-land.
any legitimate issue of Pakistan, I do not think anyone will have problem with.
 
.
well they ought not to have any issue

it's just too bad things had to boil over for so long; it was when the red army was defeated which is when Afghanistan should have been helped rather than abandoned --awash in weapons and with a war-torn people and destroyed infrastructure
 
.
well they ought not to have any issue

it's just too bad things had to boil over for so long; it was when the red army was defeated which is when Afghanistan should have been helped rather than abandoned --awash in weapons and with a war-torn people and destroyed infrastructure

Hind-sight is 20/20, but sadly, you are right. That is why we must not make this mistake again.
 
. .
without pakistan, afghanistan, cant run for long alone, all pakistan has to do is to cut wheat and water supplies

don't worry india just signed an agreement with them to supply them with wheat.
 
. .
Afghanistan ideally shouldnt have to import its wheat supplies (or get it smuggled in from Pakistan --at Pakistan's own peril)

it is years of drought that caused them to be reliant on imports from outside; years of war also caused this (the soviets would often uproot the fields in areas that were seen as 'hostile' to their presence)

the yields are slowing improving and like economic security, food security is very important.......and it suits Pakistan, since greedy herders wont feel 'compelled' to hoard off domestic non-surplus supplies for the sake of quick gain

in that sense, the Afghans have thrived off of Pakistan getting screwed over.....but soon Inshallah, this brief trend will change with the right leadership


Zardari and gang love their yapping and photo-ops with Karzai and his cronies.......but he does diddley-squat when ragtag militias from across the border shell our people. It's what should be a friendly country allowing itself to be hi-jacked from time to time by elements that are actually more harmful to Afghanistan and its national interests than anything else.

but on a broader level, this is short-term.....lets just hope for the best so that Pakistan can be secure and be free of instability and it can prosper gain a foothold into central asia
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom