asianaffairs

Tough talk but no resolutions

Despite recent negotiations between the key players, there is still no clear roadmap for ending the Afghan conflict,

By Rahimullah Yusufzai

WORDS OF WARNING: Gen Kayani has counselled the US to focus on achieving stability in Afghanistan

While Pakistan's Army Chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, did not speak to the press directly, the statement he made to two parliamentary defence committees during a recent briefing at the army's General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi was so significant that the media was happy to quote unnamed participants of the meeting and turn it into a banner headline. Its importance lay in the fact that it alarmed the US and at the same time gladdened the hearts of most Pakistanis, who are fed-up with the constant 'do more' demands by Washington as it seeks new military operations against militants in Pakistani tribal areas.

As the army did not issue any clarification, it was assumed that General Kayani wanted his message to be conveyed. And the message was loud and clear.

In his statement to the law-makers, he said the United States should focus on achieving stability in Afghanistan, where 'the real problem lies', rather than pushing Pakistan to take action against militants based on Pakistani

soil. Besides, he warned that the US 'will have to think ten times' before launching an attack in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region, 'because Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan'.

Tough words conveying a strong message and that is what the Pakistan army command meant following the unprecedented criticism by the top US military commander Admiral Mike Mullen, prior to his retirement from service, that Islamabad was backing the Afghan Taliban and that the Haqqani network was 'a veritable arm of the Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI]'.

General Kayani's statement came on the eve of a visit to Islamabad by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who set the stage for a sort of confrontation with Pakistan by declaring in Kabul that she would be demanding that the Pakistanis take action against all the militants operating within its borders and uproot safe havens for the Haqqani network in North Waziristan. It was widely reported that she conveyed this tough message to Pakistan's civil and military leaders during her subsequent two-day visit to Islamabad, but the Americans took pains to clarify later that no deadline was given to Pakistan for taking action against the Haqqani network, which is one of the most powerful factions of the Afghan Taliban movement. The US authorities also tried to assure their worried Pakistani hosts that there would be no American boots on the ground as Islamabad and Washington had taken steps to try and repair their ties and start trusting each other again in the wake of the damage done to their relationship by the unilateral US Special Forces raid in Abbottabad in northwestern Pakistan on May 2 to assassinate the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. However, it remains to be seen whether the trust deficit has really been overcome, or whether this is yet another temporary phase in Pakistan's love-hate relationship with the US.

While General Kayani did not complain that he was misquoted and US officials tried to put into context Hillary Clinton's thoughts to make sure she was properly quoted, the complexity of the situation in the Af-Pak region was explained when President Hamid Karzai's spokesmen stressed that he had been 'misinterpreted' in an interview with the private Pakistani TV channel, Geo, in which he clearly said that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if it was attacked by the US, India or any other country. The statement upset the US and its Western allies, alerted India and surprised Pakistan. However, before long the presidential spokesmen in Kabul were busy doing damage control and clarifying that Karzai had only meant that Afghanistan would welcome Pakistani refugees in case of a war in the same way that Pakistan had welcomed and hosted a large number of Afghans displaced by the long and unending conflict in Afghanistan. The clarification was not very convincing in this age and time when TV footage of Karzai's statement was readily available and, in fact, was irrefutable.

However, this wasn't the first time that Karzai — a visibly sentimental man who, in the past, has wept on camera and has even been described by certain US and UN officials as emotionally unstable and given to manic-depressive mood swings — uttered something in the heat of the moment and then tried to backtrack. Even before the clarification, most Pakistani analysts weren't convinced that Karzai meant what he said about Afghanistan siding with Pakistan in case of a war with the US or India. They argued that he had already shown his preferences by signing a security agreement with the Indian government, knowing well that it would upset Islamabad. In fact, Pakistan would be less inclined in future to cooperate with the US and Afghanistan to cooperate in the fight against the Taliban militants as there is a feeling in Islamabad that Kabul, with Washington's blessing, signed the security agreement with New Delhi and agreed to send Afghan military officers to receive training in India. Many Pakistanis, rightly or wrongly, believe that the close cooperation between Afghanistan, India and the US would harm Pakistan's interests in the region and diminish its influence in Karzai-ruled Afghanistan.

Pakistan, it seems, was still hoping to clinch a similar security agreement with Afghanistan. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said recently that Pakistan was ready to train Afghan army and police officers in its military academies. A similar public offer was made several months ago by General Kayani and the matter has often been discussed in bilateral meetings between Afghan and Pakistani officials. However, the Afghan government has yet to respond positively to the offer from Pakistan. President Karzai knows that elements of his government and the opposition led by former foreign minister Dr Abdullah and former Afghan intelligence head Amrullah Saleh would, due to their old animosity towards Pakistan, exploit the situation and make life difficult for him if he agreed to Pakistan's proposal.

Meanwhile, Pakistan and the US continue to differ on the best method to tackle the Haqqani network, which American military commanders have labelled as the most dangerous armed faction in eastern Afghanistan and the one responsible for most of the spectacular attacks in the Afghan capital including the recent ones on the US embassy in Kabul and the NATO base in neighbouring Wardak province. Pakistan has been pleading for talks with not only the Haqqani network, which was founded by veteran mujahideen commander Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani and, due to his old age and illness, is now headed by his 33-year old son Sirajuddin Haqqani, but also the mainstream Afghan Taliban led by Mulla Mohammad Omar. It is pushing for a political solution following the failure of the US-led NATO forces to effect a military victory against the Taliban.

However, the US policy is visibly contradictory as on the one hand it wants Pakistan to take military action against the Haqqani network assets in North Waziristan, and on the other to bring it and other Taliban groups to the negotiating table. Hillary Clinton explained this policy as 'fight, talk, build' during her recent visit to Pakistan, adding that although it appears inherently contradictory, it is best-suited to the situation as the US experience with militant groups showed that continued fighting against them would convince some to come to the negotiations and remove others that are totally opposed to peace. Still many analysts believe the US policy is vague and contradictory and it won't lead to an end to the ongoing Afghan war, already the longest that America has fought anywhere to date.

Apart from a recent search operation in Afghanistan's Khost province targeting the Haqqani network and the increased use of drones to attack its members in Pakistan's North Waziristan, the US has been following the policy explained by Hillary Clinton by establishing contacts with the Haqqanis. Both the US and the Haqqani network have now confirmed that their officials held a meeting sometime back to explore the chance of entering into serious peace talks. However, Clinton stressed that the meeting was exploratory and was held on the proposal of the Pakistani ISI, which wanted the US and NATO to consider the option of talking to the Afghan Taliban movement, including the Haqqani network, instead of focusing on achieving the elusive military victory. It was revealed that Ibrahim Haqqani, an uncle of the Haqqani network's head Sirajuddin Haqqani, met the US officials in Islamabad and Dubai. Sources close to the Haqqanis insisted that Ibrahim Haqqani, despite being Sirajuddin's uncle, did not represent the military command of the Haqqani network. They insisted that the network would not make a separate deal for ending the Afghan conflict with the US or any other power, but would instead abide by any decision taken by the Taliban Shura led by Mulla Omar.

Such claims and counter-claims make the situation even more confusing and complex. It is obvious that there is still no clear roadmap with the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan for ending the Afghan conflict. At times it seems they are working at cross-purposes. The Taliban seem to know this and are, therefore, biding their time before deciding their next move. Of all the parties to the conflict, they appear to be the most clear-headed, ready for both more fighting and also talks with the US.

top