Peace in Afghanistan Will Not be Possible Until Kabul Acknowledges The Durand Line'

[Path-Finder]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1072535295508254720

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"While many falsely accuse Islamabad of taking an ideological view on the political turbulence of its Afghan neighbour, the reality is that in the 1980s and 1990s, the reason why some in Islamabad were naturally sympathetic to the Mujaheddin and later to the Taliban was for one simple reason – the goal of the Afghan Taliban was to establish a state based on religious rather than nationalist characteristics. Because so much of both leftist and secular-conservative Afghan nationalism was framed around the concept of a “greater Afghanistan”, a concept which necessarily threatens Pakistan’s peace and unity, it was only natural for Islamabad to be sympathetic with those who did not hold such beliefs."

"before any all-parties peace conference can happen, all parties in Afghanistan must agree to acknowledge and respect the Durand line. If this does not happen, it risks having Pakistan negotiate from a position where it could set itself up to be taken advantage of by forces that have done so in the past (including the very recent past). If Pakistan and Afghanistan are to co-exist in peace, it is a fundamental requirement that Afghanistan understands where its borders end and where Pakistan’s begin."

https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/12/0...ble-until-kabul-acknowledges-the-durand-line/

Finally, an absolutely spot on article from the West that looks at the Afghanistan-Pakistan tensions and conflict dispassionately, outside of the usual, shallow Western & Indian prism of 'Pakistan's motivations are some sort of twisted, extremist, terrorism exporting pan-Islamist ideology'.

What this article states is something many Pakistanis have been arguing for years, and points to the absolute strategic incompetence (or deliberate subterfuge, depending on which theory you believe) on the part of the United States in Afghanistan.

 

[Menace2Society]

Take wakhan corridor and balkanize Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@Joe Shearer

I'd like to get your take on this, since you're one of the Indians whose views I respect as being objective when it comes to Pakistan & regional geo-politics.

 

[MultaniGuy]

The Amir of Afghanistan signed the treaty of Rawalpindi. There is no expiry date to this treaty, everyone knows this.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Amir of Afghanistan signed the treaty of Rawalpindi. There is no expiry date to this treaty, everyone knows this.

Apparently most Afghan's don't, and this 'expiration date to the treaty' lie is propagated by many Afghan politicians & leaders.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Apparently most Afghan's don't, and this 'expiration date to the treaty' lie is propagated by many Afghan politicians & leaders.

Afghanistan does not even have a collective nationalism. That's why we need public debates on international media like on Al jazeera on the Durand line and tell those dishonest goons there is no expiry date on the Rawalpindi Treaty.

 

[Solomon2]

What this article states is something many Pakistanis have been arguing for years -

I'm sure settling the border would be a big help but I've never perceived why doing so would guarantee that Pakistan cease its desire to keep Afghanistan a mess if free, or a satellite state if not.

I think the DL issue can and should be addressed separately. I think there are grounds for concessions by both sides. Specifically, while the DL was a "border" between Afghanistan and British India it never became a controlled border until a few years after Pakistan was established. That meant, for example, that shepherds who used to shuttle their flocks between the Afghan highlands in summer and Pakistani lowlands in winter were suddenly cutoff from their time-honored usual pasturage.

The 1783 U.S.-Britain peace treaty had a similar issue. It was settled by granting Americans very specific and limited extra-territorial rights in Canada and agreeing to peaceably settle the remaining border dispute through discussion - which took until 1842, even though there were one or two minor armed conflicts in the disputed region in the meantime.

 

[Yankee-stani]

"While many falsely accuse Islamabad of taking an ideological view on the political turbulence of its Afghan neighbour, the reality is that in the 1980s and 1990s, the reason why some in Islamabad were naturally sympathetic to the Mujaheddin and later to the Taliban was for one simple reason – the goal of the Afghan Taliban was to establish a state based on religious rather than nationalist characteristics. Because so much of both leftist and secular-conservative Afghan nationalism was framed around the concept of a “greater Afghanistan”, a concept which necessarily threatens Pakistan’s peace and unity, it was only natural for Islamabad to be sympathetic with those who did not hold such beliefs."

"before any all-parties peace conference can happen, all parties in Afghanistan must agree to acknowledge and respect the Durand line. If this does not happen, it risks having Pakistan negotiate from a position where it could set itself up to be taken advantage of by forces that have done so in the past (including the very recent past). If Pakistan and Afghanistan are to co-exist in peace, it is a fundamental requirement that Afghanistan understands where its borders end and where Pakistan’s begin."

https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/12/0...ble-until-kabul-acknowledges-the-durand-line/

Finally, an absolutely spot on article from the West that looks at the Afghanistan-Pakistan tensions and conflict dispassionately, outside of the usual, shallow Western & Indian prism of 'Pakistan's motivations are some sort of twisted, extremist, terrorism exporting pan-Islamist ideology'.

What this article states is something many Pakistanis have been arguing for years, and points to the absolute strategic incompetence (or deliberate subterfuge, depending on which theory you believe) on the part of the United States in Afghanistan.

That's pretty spot on but also Pakistan played a big role in the Cold War it was on the US side for the most part that contributed to the Anti-Leftist sentiment by most of the elite, but mistake there was the use of wahhabism,and Saudi funded programs to counter Communists and the puppet Afghan government,I dont think the leadership of Pakistan or much of the world saw that in the 1980s it would be until like the late 1990s and Early 2000s till most would understand the long term effects but like the Yanks are they would use anyone or dirty actors for their geo-political goals example modern day Syria and Yemen.

The Amir of Afghanistan signed the treaty of Rawalpindi. There is no expiry date to this treaty, everyone knows this.

Yet those B///stards think they are ancient People and we are just some occupiers another reason to spilt that nonsense of a nation

Apparently most Afghan's don't, and this 'expiration date to the treaty' lie is propagated by many Afghan politicians & leaders.

Screw those politcians they are just Yank bots anyways and most Afghanis are scum

Afghanistan does not even have a collective nationalism. That's why we need public debates on international media like on Al jazeera on the Durand line and tell those dishonest goons there is no expiry date on the Rawalpindi Treaty.

Durand Line is another BS excuse to make Pakistanis feel bad and they will always be dishonest

Take wakhan corridor and balkanize Afghanistan.

I support that 10000 percent but sadly much of the public of Pakistan will fall for the whole "Muslim Brother" propaganda and say no to that A Unified Afghanistan is nightmare for all nations neighboring it inculding Pakistan a spilt will make sure no domiant group in Afg will be backed by geo-political pawns

 

[MultaniGuy]

I'm sure settling the border would be a big help but I've never perceived why doing so would guarantee that Pakistan cease its desire to keep Afghanistan a mess if free, or a satellite state if not.

I think the DL issue can and should be addressed separately. I think there are grounds for concessions by both sides. Specifically, while the DL was a "border" between Afghanistan and British India it never became a controlled border until a few years after Pakistan was established. That meant, for example, that shepherds who used to shuttle their flocks between the Afghan highlands in summer and Pakistani lowlands in winter were suddenly cutoff from their time-honored usual pasturage.

The 1783 U.S.-Britain peace treaty had a similar issue. It was settled by granting Americans very specific and limited extra-territorial rights in Canada and agreeing to peaceably settle the remaining border dispute through discussion - which took until 1842, even though there were one or two minor armed conflicts in the disputed region in the meantime.

Seriously don't obfuscate here. THE AMIR OF AFGHANISTAN signed the Treaty of Rawalpindi and there is no expiry date to that treaty.

@Dubious ban this @Solomon2, he is trying to confuse people here. The Treaty of Rawalpindi has no expiry date.

This is what it says from wikipedia. I am not saying wikipedia is the most reliable thing one earth, but you get the basic gist of it.

"The Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1919,[1][2] also known as the Treaty of Rawalpindi, was an armistice made between the United Kingdom and Afghanistan during the Third Anglo-Afghan War.[3] It was signed on 8 August 1919 in Rawalpindi, British India (now in Punjab, Pakistan). The United Kingdom recognised Afghanistan's independence, agreed that British India would not extend past the Khyber Pass and stopped British subsidies to Afghanistan. This treaty could be cancelled by both parties within three years of signing but neither party cancelled it. So this became an internationally recognised border agreement.[1]"

And there are references to the wikipedia article as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Afghan_Treaty_of_1919

Otherwise this @Solomon2 is just saying Bakwass or nonsense.

@Dubious ban this @Solomon2 !

 

[M.R.9]

Just Block the tie line-

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'm sure settling the border would be a big help but I've never perceived why doing so would guarantee that Pakistan cease its desire to keep Afghanistan a mess if free, or a satellite state if not.

I think the DL issue can and should be addressed separately. I think there are grounds for concessions by both sides. Specifically, while the DL was a "border" between Afghanistan and British India it never became a controlled border until a few years after Pakistan was established. That meant, for example, that shepherds who used to shuttle their flocks between the Afghan highlands in summer and Pakistani lowlands in winter were suddenly cutoff from their time-honored usual pasturage.

The 1783 U.S.-Britain peace treaty had a similar issue. It was settled by granting Americans very specific and limited extra-territorial rights in Canada and agreeing to peaceably settle the remaining border dispute through discussion - which took until 1842, even though there were one or two minor armed conflicts in the disputed region in the meantime.

Pakistan's desire to control Afghanistan stems from Afghan subterfuge, interference in Pakistan and refusal to accept Pakistani sovereignty over large parts of Pakistani territory.

Nation-States act in their self interest and there is no self interest more critical than protecting territorial integrity & sovereignty - Afghanistan's refusal to accept the Afghan-Pakistan border (which is accepted as the legal border by the UN and almost every other country in the world) is a direct threat to Pakistani territorial integrity and that threat will continue to play the major role in Pakistani views towards, and actions in, Afghanistan. Without addressing that threat to Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity, there can be little tangible progress on other issues where the two sides disagree.

With respect to negotiations or discussions similar to those subsequent to the 1783 US-Britain peace treaty - Pakistan has historically shown a great deal of flexibility on the movement of peoples (specifically the Pashtun on both sides) across the border, and is still open to such movement with proper documentation and border control measures to prevent smuggling, drug trafficking and terrorism. However, any such negotiations will not change the internationally recognized Afghan-Pakistan border, as demarcated under the Durand Agreement.

 

[Solomon2]

...Pakistan has historically shown a great deal of flexibility on the movement of peoples (specifically the Pashtun on both sides) across the border...

Pakistan treats these as mere favors that can be withheld at whim, not as Afghanis' legal rights, correct? That's not at all the same thing as rights stipulated by the terms of a treaty.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Pakistan treats these as mere favors that can be withheld at whim, not as Afghanis' legal rights, correct? That's not at all the same thing as rights stipulated by the terms of a treaty.

@Dubious ban this @Solomon2,

Everyone knows the United Nations recognizes the Durand line as the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Treaty of Rawalpindi has no expiry date. @Solomon2 cannot counter argue that.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistan cease its desire to keep Afghanistan a mess if free

Do you think United States thought about such 'desire' between 1979-1989 when it intervened in internal affairs of Afghanistan by supporting terrorists? And please note the Soviets were in Afghanistan by permission of the recognized government of Afghanistan at that time.