Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
US follows what Pak said 10 years ago: Lodhi
Karachi In one of the most intensive discussions on Afghanistan and Pakistan : conflict, extremism and Taliban, divergence of opinion emerged among renowned scholars of the region.
Dr Maleeha Lodhi, former envoy to the US and UK, told a packed audience that the United States was now following a course Pakistan had advocated 10 years ago by searching for a political solution to the Afghan war.
She said after 9/11, Pakistan said three things to America. One, dont go to war but find a diplomatic solution to the Osama bin Laden issue. Two, dont stay and become an army of occupation. And three distinguish between al Qaeda and the Taliban - meaning that find a political solution.
She said 11 years later the United States is doing precisely this. But for a decade Pakistan was demonised for proposing the very course the US was following now, she said.
Journalist-cum-scholar Ahmed Rashid was of the view that Pakistan was still involved in determining outcome of future in Afghanistan and if Islamabad instead of facilitating quick settlement of the issue, through peace process with Taliban, put its own demands, other regional players will follow suit and as a result, we would be back to square one.
Disagreeing with such an assessment, Maleeha Lodhi argued that Pakistan welcomes the move to finding a political settlement and had neither the desire nor the capacity to determine an outcome in Afghanistan. Islamabad had learnt many lessons from the past and it would be travesty of facts and history to blame Pakistan for the failures of others.
Again, differences of opinion emerged when famous writer William Dalrymple opined he saw more fragmentation of Afghanistan in future after withdrawal of the West as religious element in the conflict will be replaced by ethnic element, to which, Ahmed Rashid disagreed by saying he foresees emergence of Afghan nationalism that would lead to settlement of the conflict there as Afghans were fed up with the wars and being used as playground by global powers and regional players.
However, Germany-based scholar, Navid Kermani suggested the solution of Afghan and even Kashmir conflicts lies in transcending the national borders and forging regionalism on pattern of European Union.
Where we went wrong?
The roots of the problems could be traced back to Afghan Jihad of 1980s and even after 30 years, Pak was deeply involved to determine outcome in Kabul due to this desire, it took side in the conflict. Kermani said though Pakistan s influence has been emphasized, other players such as Iran has also used this place to further their interests.
Lodhi said though Pakistan carries the burden of history, it has learnt three main lessons such as not becoming obsessed with wanting a friendly government in Kabul, language that is no longer used in official pronouncements. Instead the focus is on a stable Afghanistan. She said Pakistan also believes there should be an Afghan solution not a Pashtun solution of the conflict there. An all inclusive peace process can deliver stability.
Admitting that Islamabad committed blunders in the past of not reaching out to non-Pashtun elements, the former envoy said demonizing Pakistan will not help and Islamabad should not be used as an alibi for other peoples mistakes. It takes responsibility for its own but not for those committed by others.
Dalrymple said even certain Mughal rulers such as Shahjehan gave some protection money to certain tribes though in other areas, the Mughal Empire used extensive force to quell revolts. He said Pak-India tension was also contributing toward extremisms. The author called for SAARC union on pattern of European Union to reduce regional tension that would also help to marginalize the extremist elements.
Asset or liability
Pakistan is located on geo-political fault-lines, said Lodhi, adding that the country could not get advantage from its location due to our own policies and the pursuit of interests by other players. She said more often than not Pakistans geopolitical location was a liability and challenge rather than an asset. However, Maleeha said a bright spot in the present regional landscape was the process of improving relations with India , triggered partly by the imperatives of globalization.
Rashid said the mess Pakistan was currently facing was result of huge deterioration in governance instead of geopolitical situation.
He said key institutions of the country have not given enough attention to domestic issues such as Balochistan, sectarian violence and Karachi killings.
Too many resources have been diverted to foreign policy and too much foreign policy was determined by Afghanistan , observed Rashid, leaving scarce resources to invest in social sector like education.
He said due to its foreign policy compulsions, Islamabad could not utilize natural resources of Central Asia in its favour.
Futility of military means
After 11 years, the U.S. has had to rethink its strategy in Afghanistan as military means have not worked and Washington now wants to pursue a political dialogue with the Taliban, said Lodhi. The former Pak envoy to Washington recalled that Islamabad had advised the then US administration after 9/ww to find a diplomatic solution as war will be unwinnable. She said the US did not listen at that time though subsequently, its policy went through several reviews of Afghan policy. She said super powers do not accept mistakes but undertake reviews instead..
Dalrymple opined when the US would leave Afghanistan , next stage may be messy. Religious element in the conflict will diminish and change will take an ethnic shape, feared the scholar.
Kirmani believed the things were quite complicated. Afghanistan may be on map but it would not be a viable country and there would be no stable government, he said.
National consensus over improving relations with India
To a question from the audience, Maleeha Lodhi said no one including Jamaat Islami is opposed to dialogue with India . She said the military encouraged and did not obstruct the opening of trade with India . There is a national consensus over improving relations with India , the envoy believed, suggesting that we need to come out from shadow of past.
To another question from audience, Ahmed Rashid said U.S. dialogue with Taliban was positive thing but collapse of relations between Pakistan and U.S. was bad thing. He also suggested that the future role of India should not be rejected.
In his concluding remarks, William Dalrymple predicted that China would emerge as potential major player in Afghanistan in future and it would be interesting to see as to how Pakistan would react to it.
The moderator of the programme, Prof. Rasul Bakhsh Rais suggested that perhaps best way to find some answers of the problems being faced by Pakistan today would be to follow glorious legacy of the founding fathers.
US follows what Pak said 10 years ago: Lodhi
Karachi In one of the most intensive discussions on Afghanistan and Pakistan : conflict, extremism and Taliban, divergence of opinion emerged among renowned scholars of the region.
Dr Maleeha Lodhi, former envoy to the US and UK, told a packed audience that the United States was now following a course Pakistan had advocated 10 years ago by searching for a political solution to the Afghan war.
She said after 9/11, Pakistan said three things to America. One, dont go to war but find a diplomatic solution to the Osama bin Laden issue. Two, dont stay and become an army of occupation. And three distinguish between al Qaeda and the Taliban - meaning that find a political solution.
She said 11 years later the United States is doing precisely this. But for a decade Pakistan was demonised for proposing the very course the US was following now, she said.
Journalist-cum-scholar Ahmed Rashid was of the view that Pakistan was still involved in determining outcome of future in Afghanistan and if Islamabad instead of facilitating quick settlement of the issue, through peace process with Taliban, put its own demands, other regional players will follow suit and as a result, we would be back to square one.
Disagreeing with such an assessment, Maleeha Lodhi argued that Pakistan welcomes the move to finding a political settlement and had neither the desire nor the capacity to determine an outcome in Afghanistan. Islamabad had learnt many lessons from the past and it would be travesty of facts and history to blame Pakistan for the failures of others.
Again, differences of opinion emerged when famous writer William Dalrymple opined he saw more fragmentation of Afghanistan in future after withdrawal of the West as religious element in the conflict will be replaced by ethnic element, to which, Ahmed Rashid disagreed by saying he foresees emergence of Afghan nationalism that would lead to settlement of the conflict there as Afghans were fed up with the wars and being used as playground by global powers and regional players.
However, Germany-based scholar, Navid Kermani suggested the solution of Afghan and even Kashmir conflicts lies in transcending the national borders and forging regionalism on pattern of European Union.
Where we went wrong?
The roots of the problems could be traced back to Afghan Jihad of 1980s and even after 30 years, Pak was deeply involved to determine outcome in Kabul due to this desire, it took side in the conflict. Kermani said though Pakistan s influence has been emphasized, other players such as Iran has also used this place to further their interests.
Lodhi said though Pakistan carries the burden of history, it has learnt three main lessons such as not becoming obsessed with wanting a friendly government in Kabul, language that is no longer used in official pronouncements. Instead the focus is on a stable Afghanistan. She said Pakistan also believes there should be an Afghan solution not a Pashtun solution of the conflict there. An all inclusive peace process can deliver stability.
Admitting that Islamabad committed blunders in the past of not reaching out to non-Pashtun elements, the former envoy said demonizing Pakistan will not help and Islamabad should not be used as an alibi for other peoples mistakes. It takes responsibility for its own but not for those committed by others.
Dalrymple said even certain Mughal rulers such as Shahjehan gave some protection money to certain tribes though in other areas, the Mughal Empire used extensive force to quell revolts. He said Pak-India tension was also contributing toward extremisms. The author called for SAARC union on pattern of European Union to reduce regional tension that would also help to marginalize the extremist elements.
Asset or liability
Pakistan is located on geo-political fault-lines, said Lodhi, adding that the country could not get advantage from its location due to our own policies and the pursuit of interests by other players. She said more often than not Pakistans geopolitical location was a liability and challenge rather than an asset. However, Maleeha said a bright spot in the present regional landscape was the process of improving relations with India , triggered partly by the imperatives of globalization.
Rashid said the mess Pakistan was currently facing was result of huge deterioration in governance instead of geopolitical situation.
He said key institutions of the country have not given enough attention to domestic issues such as Balochistan, sectarian violence and Karachi killings.
Too many resources have been diverted to foreign policy and too much foreign policy was determined by Afghanistan , observed Rashid, leaving scarce resources to invest in social sector like education.
He said due to its foreign policy compulsions, Islamabad could not utilize natural resources of Central Asia in its favour.
Futility of military means
After 11 years, the U.S. has had to rethink its strategy in Afghanistan as military means have not worked and Washington now wants to pursue a political dialogue with the Taliban, said Lodhi. The former Pak envoy to Washington recalled that Islamabad had advised the then US administration after 9/ww to find a diplomatic solution as war will be unwinnable. She said the US did not listen at that time though subsequently, its policy went through several reviews of Afghan policy. She said super powers do not accept mistakes but undertake reviews instead..
Dalrymple opined when the US would leave Afghanistan , next stage may be messy. Religious element in the conflict will diminish and change will take an ethnic shape, feared the scholar.
Kirmani believed the things were quite complicated. Afghanistan may be on map but it would not be a viable country and there would be no stable government, he said.
National consensus over improving relations with India
To a question from the audience, Maleeha Lodhi said no one including Jamaat Islami is opposed to dialogue with India . She said the military encouraged and did not obstruct the opening of trade with India . There is a national consensus over improving relations with India , the envoy believed, suggesting that we need to come out from shadow of past.
To another question from audience, Ahmed Rashid said U.S. dialogue with Taliban was positive thing but collapse of relations between Pakistan and U.S. was bad thing. He also suggested that the future role of India should not be rejected.
In his concluding remarks, William Dalrymple predicted that China would emerge as potential major player in Afghanistan in future and it would be interesting to see as to how Pakistan would react to it.
The moderator of the programme, Prof. Rasul Bakhsh Rais suggested that perhaps best way to find some answers of the problems being faced by Pakistan today would be to follow glorious legacy of the founding fathers.
US follows what Pak said 10 years ago: Lodhi
