US attitude unacceptable - PM Gillani

[Ahmad]

---

---

It is rather rich that you claim Pakistan's foreign policy is based on 'wrong perceptions', when your own comments continually imply that Afghanistan and Afghans refuse to accept Pakistan's territorial integrity and harbor irredentist ambitions.

Afghanistan's foreign policy has since Pakistan's independence been based on hostility towards Pakistan, a refusal to accept her territorial integrity (and initially accept the nation itself) and support for various insurgent movements that tried to spread the 'Pashtunistan' cause.

Even now Afghanistan refuses to accept Pakistan's territorial integrity:

Enayatullah Nabiel, director-general in the Economic Relations department of the Afghan ministry of foreign affairs, in Dec 2009:


Karzai in 2006:

http://www.afghannews.net/index.php?...pe=news&id=201

There are only two possible implications behind the statements and views of Afghan officials, that the Durand Line is irrelevant in the sense that Afghanistan and Pakistan should move towards a confederation, or that the Durand Line is irrelevant in the sense that Afghanistan claims Pakistan's territory.

Which is it for you?

Dear AM,

If you ask my personal opinion I think our border issues with Pakistan is settled and I dont see any dispute with that. Sometimes in my posts I act the opposite and it is because I want to show to some members the taste of their own medicine. Pakistan has always played ethnic card to destablize afghanistan, they have repeatedly insulted Tajiks, hazaras, uzbeks and others, look at this forum to see how they love to raise ethnic issues of Afghanistan and when i do the same to Paksitan they get agitated. There are not many many people who talk about Pashtoonistan issues in Afghanistan and i can tell you that at least Non Pashtoons dont care about it.

[All-Green]

"When i talk about talking to them i propose this as a viable, logical strategy. I am saying this that eventually this will make things better as it did for us in Swat..."

Great. Do so on your own lands...yet again. The evidence is in on these fcuks and I'm ASTOUNDED by your contention. I'm equally ASTOUNDED by your complete lack of understanding about the taliban's view of such.

Don't you READ? Omar has made clear his complete willingness to "talk" after ISAF has departed. Not before. Given his personal legacy and abhorrance of any democratic process, you can be assured that there'll be very little talking and one damnably large civil war...again.

Stunning what you'll foist on the afghans but not accept for your own sisters and mothers. For shame given all you've seen. Seriously.

"...i guess all are welcome to form their opinion..."

Mine is formed about the taliban, A.Q., Hekmatyar, Haqqani, Maulvi Nazir, and Hafez Gul Bahadur. You seem to need further lessons of pain administered like that young lady we all saw last spring in SWAT.

Thanks but, no thanks.

Hope you read those polls and reconsider your thoughts in light of that data. Hope you provide better if in disagreement. Other than that, I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt that Afghans aren't overwhelmed with Pakistan's role in all of this but you may require some reassessment of your role vis-a-vis your neighbors.

Thanks.

S-2,

Twice you have debunked my talks proposal as an uneducated or ignorant comment.
You need to read the entirety of this proposal and at least try to understand why i feel it is important...
There is a certain key item i actually wanted you to comment upon...
It is the fact that this is even suggested by Karzai and was one of his key agenda items as part of his presidential campaign... here is a link and it is not that old...
Hamid Karzai reaches out to 'Taliban brothers' in Afghanistan - Telegraph


Instead you are trying take me apart and implicate me as someone who is willfully neglecting the facts and deliberately accepting for Afghans a fate which i would not accept for my own people...clearly not my intention and certainly not something i would ever want...
Once again i am posting what i wrote and what needs to be read in full and not in parts...

When i talk about talking to them i propose this as a viable, logical strategy. I am saying this that eventually this will make things better as it did for us in Swat...if they are willing to listen then it is good...if not then that is even better for those who dislike them because it will take away their local support...if however the experts think that they do not have local support...then that explains why aversion to such an approach...
...
Still i fail to understand why the mention of dialogue or mention of Omar by Karzai as if inviting them to resolve a family dispute?
If they are so much loathed and hated and perceived as absolute devils...then why is this even being mentioned by those across the border...those victims who supposedly hate Pakistan for imposing Taliban on them...

My suggestion is not acceptance of Taliban rule but trying to establish what terms they are willing to offer for peace...the more unilateral their terms, the lesser support they shall be able to rally.
Moreover, if there are key people in Afghan government who feel that they need to talk to Taliban then i do not understand why this cannot be compared to Swat scenario and be explored...
Now if they accept a reasonable proposal for peace then it shall auger well for the common man to have stability.
However if on the other hand as per your perception it turns out that they 100% reject all offers of peace and talks (regardless of the terms)...then it seems that it shall only rob them further of any support that they enjoy currently, except for perhaps a very few hardcore members of Taliban...

Either way i do not see why talking to them translates to accepting their views and imposing them on the Afghans...
I knew from day one what the TTP would do in Swat, when many people were positive about the peace deal...i could gauge that TTP will never abide by it because they cannot survive the peace...however many disagreed with me and eventually whatever happened...most of us are now in the same boat because we have solid evidence that TTP could not digest peace, there is a huge change in public perception that TTP needed to be dealt with a stick and not olive branch...

Now the point about Omar not talking is something that is not holding Karzai back in calling Taliban to talk, clearly there is something to be gained by all of this otherwise why say it despite the snubs by Taliban leadership?
Explain to me why Karzai proposes talks then if you feel that i am totally and utterly devoid of logic in seeing something to be gained by constantly proposing talks.
If Taliban do not show any inclination to talk despite these offers, then eventually they shall be completely isolated...otherwise they shall be no more in the same boat as Al Qaeda...which was the primary antagonist to begin with.

I do not foist on the Afghans anything that i do not accept for my own sisters and mothers, do not draw such conclusions.
Their ignorant interpretation of Islam was perhaps the biggest thing i hated when all else about them was perceived as passable in their initial days.
Taliban are not ideologically in any way my ideals nor will they ever be.
However strategically treating them all like Al Qaeda is a big mistake since their ambitions were very different, local versus global.
The fact that before US offensive the grand jirga was able to persuade Omar to try Osama for his alleged crimes in Afghanistan proves that at least not all were blindly supportive of Osama...

[dk33]

Dear AM,

If you ask my personal opinion I think our border issues with Pakistan is settled and I dont see any dispute with that.

Thank you for your personal opinion respecting Pakistani territorial integrity as it stands today, but that is quite clearly not the view of your President and government.

How would you interpret the comments of your President and government officials? Are they not a continuation of Afghanistan's animosity and hostility towards Pakistan since its independence? Are they not reflective of a desire to break Pakistan by your nation?

What you say about Pakistan and what people on this forum say about Afghanistan is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things - it is the positions and policies pursued by our respective governments that really matter and stand to make a huge impact on the lives of Afghans and Pakistanis. In addition, the views of most Pakistanis pointing out the ethnic strife in Afghanistan do not seek to use that strife as a means of 'merging Afghanistan' with Pakistan, or breaking it apart, as is clearly the attempt behind some of the posts of Afghans here and elsewhere harping on the Pashtinustan issue.

How can you explain your nations policies and views, as articulated by its leadership, as being anything other than hostile to Pakistan, and a continuation of the historical Afghan attempts to break apart Pakistan?

And so long as your nation continues to harbor such 'desires' and threaten Pakistan's territorial integrity (and this has existed since 1947) how can you blame Pakistan for intervening in Afghanistan to facilitate a government friendly to it (not that the Taliban were necessarily friendly either, since they did not agree to settle the Durand Line issue either)?

[Ahmad]

Thank you for your personal opinion respecting Pakistani territorial integrity as it stands today, but that is quite clearly not the view of your President and government.

How would you interpret the comments of your President and government officials? Are they not a continuation of Afghanistan's animosity and hostility towards Pakistan since its independence? Are they not reflective of a desire to break Pakistan by your nation?

What you say about Pakistan and what people on this forum say about Afghanistan is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things - it is the positions and policies pursued by our respective governments that really matter and stand to make a huge impact on the lives of Afghans and Pakistanis. In addition, the views of most Pakistanis pointing out the ethnic strife in Afghanistan do not seek to use that strife as a means of 'merging Afghanistan' with Pakistan, or breaking it apart, as is clearly the attempt behind some of the posts of Afghans here and elsewhere harping on the Pashtinustan issue.

How can you explain your nations policies and views, as articulated by its leadership, as being anything other than hostile to Pakistan, and a continuation of the historical Afghan attempts to break apart Pakistan?

And so long as your nation continues to harbor such 'desires' and threaten Pakistan's territorial integrity (and this has existed since 1947) how can you blame Pakistan for intervening in Afghanistan to facilitate a government friendly to it (not that the Taliban were necessarily friendly either, since they did not agree to settle the Durand Line issue either)?

Regarding the NWFP issue, there has been different policy and attitude in different governments of Afghanistan. Any gov which have more pashtoon in it, they are always keen on NWFP issue, but the governments such as the Mujahideen which was comprised of Tajiks never cared about NWFP and considered it as integral part of pakstan, the powerful leaders of mujahideen which came from non pashtoon groups have always called for this matter as settled. on the other hand pro Pashtoon governments such as Zahir Shah, Dawood, lately Karzai and even the Taliban had the NWFP in their heads, so you see there is no a single attitude towards this matter in Afghanista. 40% of the populatin which are pashtoons see NWFP as their territory(to be fair not all pashtoons think this way, but majority of them do) and 60% of the population which are non pashtoons(notably Tajiks, uzbeks and Hazaras which make up over 50%) dont want to have anything with NWFP. Secondly, if Pakistan considering the above issue interfere in Afghanistan as a Tit for Tat issue it is a different matter, but they play religouse card and pretend to be helping afghanistan is very bad and a lie. and the last, dont forget that there were alot of Pashtoons of NWFP who were collaborating with Dawood Khan in that time against Pakistan.

[dk33]

Regarding the NWFP issue, there has been different policy and attitude in different governments of Afghanistan. Any gov which have more pashtoon in it, they are always keen on NWFP issue, but the governments such as the Mujahideen which was comprised of Tajiks never cared about NWFP and considered it as integral part of pakstan, the powerful leaders of mujahideen which came from non pashtoon groups have always called for this matter as settled. on the other hand pro Pashtoon governments such as Zahir Shah, Dawood, lately Karzai and even the Taliban had the NWFP in their heads, so you see there is no a single attitude towards this matter in Afghanista. 40% of the populatin which are pashtoons see NWFP as their territory(to be fair not all pashtoons think this way, but majority of them do) and 60% of the population which are non pashtoons(notably Tajiks, uzbeks and Hazaras which make up over 50%) dont want to have anything with NWFP. Secondly, if Pakistan considering the above issue interfere in Afghanistan as a Tit for Tat issue it is a different matter, but they play religouse card and pretend to be helping afghanistan is very bad and a lie. and the last, dont forget that there were alot of Pashtoons of NWFP who were collaborating with Dawood Khan in that time against Pakistan.

Unity, what percentage of Afghan population supports one position vs another is irrelevant so long as the GoA supports an irrendentist policy.

As for using the 'religion card', I fail to see what you mean by that or that it was in some way exclusive to Afghanistan. Pakistan's intervention in Afghanistan (in a major way) started during Zia's time, and we all know that Zia pushed towards a greater role of religion in matters of the State and moved Pakistan closer to a theocratic state, so the use of religion was not isolated to Afghanistan.

Secondly, Pakistan did not create the Taliban. We would have continued supporting one of the other Mujahideen leaders had they been able to exert influence and popularity in Afghanistan. It just so happened that in the chaos of the post-Soviet withdrawal the Taliban emerged as a movement that was popular and strong. Your current president Karzai and his family, and many other Pashtun notables themselves endorsed the Taliban when they were emerging. Karzai was allegedly tortured in Kabul by the NA and escaped and lent his support to the Taliban.

Given all of this, it made complete sense for Pakistan to support the Taliban movement as a disciplined and popular force in Afghanistan. No one could know then what would transpire later or how extreme they would be. So to argue that somehow Pakistan planned all of this and hypocritically pushed religion based politics into Afghanistan alone (religion based politics was pushed in Pakistan as well) is completely inaccurate.

P.S: The Pakistani Pashtun collaborating with Dawood Khan were obviously part of a very small minority in that none of Afghanistan's attempts to spark a separatist movement gained any great traction.

[S-2]

"Secondly, Pakistan did not create the Taliban. We would have continued supporting one of the other Mujahideen leaders had they been able to exert influence and popularity in Afghanistan. It just so happened that in the chaos of the post-Soviet withdrawal the Taliban emerged as a movement that was popular and strong."

Ahmad Rashid would disagree. He makes clear that there was a conscious shift of allegiance from Hekmatyar to the ascendant taliban by the Bhutto regime, largely driven by Hekmatyar's weakness in the pashtu south and your trucking cartels eagerness to assure their CAR routes from Quetta through Kandahar, Lashkar Gal and up through Herat then being afflicted by brigandry that Hekmatyar was powerless to stop.

Thanks.

[dk33]

---

---

"Secondly, Pakistan did not create the Taliban. We would have continued supporting one of the other Mujahideen leaders had they been able to exert influence and popularity in Afghanistan. It just so happened that in the chaos of the post-Soviet withdrawal the Taliban emerged as a movement that was popular and strong."

Ahmad Rashid would disagree. He makes clear that there was a conscious shift of allegiance from Hekmatyar to the ascendant taliban by the Bhutto regime, largely driven by Hekmatyar's weakness in the pashtu south and your trucking cartels eagerness to assure their CAR routes from Quetta through Kandahar, Lashkar Gal and up through Herat then being afflicted by brigandry that Hekmatyar was powerless to stop.

Thanks.

How does what Ahmed Rashid say differ from what I stated?

"We would have continued supporting one of the other Mujahideen leaders had they been able to exert influence and popularity in Afghanistan."

vs

"largely driven by Hekmatyar's weakness in the pashtu south and your trucking cartels eagerness to assure their CAR routes from Quetta through Kandahar, Lashkar Gal and up through Herat then being afflicted by brigandry that Hekmatyar was powerless to stop."