A leaked peace plan sees Pakistan replacing the United States as kingmaker. Can the different sides come together?
As the war in Afghanistan winds down, with the withdrawal of American combat troops scheduled to be completed by the end of 2014, there’s a modest ratcheting up of movement towards a reconciliation with the Taliban. Though many analysts are skeptical a deal can be reached within the limited amount of time before the withdrawal, and though the Taliban has plenty of incentives to forestall real talks and wait out the United States, many agree that Pakistan still holds the key to an accord.
In light of this, Afghanistan’s High Peace Council’s (HPC) leaked, five-step plan for reaching an accord, called the Peace Process Road Map to 2015, begins with “a focus on securing the cooperation of Pakistan.” The document says that was to have begun in earnest with a visit to Pakistan in November by Salahuddin Rabbani, the HPC’s chairman, who after meeting with high Pakistani officials, was to attempt to secure Islamabad’s agreement for the progressive release of imprisoned Taliban officials held in Pakistan.
The plan proposes that in the first half of 2013, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States work together “to agree on terms and conditions for delisting, safe passage, and other requirements of Taliban leaders willing to engage in peace talks.” Formal talks, beginning with efforts to proclaim a ceasefire, will take place in the second half of next year, and, according to the plan, will pave the way for the ”transformation of the Taliban and other armed groups from militant groups to political movements.” The goal of the five-step plan to have a final peace accord and expanded regional cooperation in place by 2014.
According to the McClatchy news service, which first reported the peace plan, Afghan leaders want Pakistan to play the leading role in the peace negotiations, supplanting that of the United States. Last week, meeting in Turkey, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan met Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to discuss the provisions of the accord that had been worked out last month by lower-ranking officials. High on the agenda of the meeting in Ankara was the December 6th assassination attempt against Afghanistan’s staunchly anti-Pakistan chief of intelligence, Asadullah Khalid. After the attack, Karzai blamed Pakistan for the attack, and it’s entirely possible that elements of Pakistan’s security establishment opposed to an accord may have ordered it in order to disrupt any reconciliation.
That’s why a peace plan’s success will be exceedingly difficult. Political factions on all sides bitterly oppose an agreement. In Afghanistan, forces associated with the old Northern Alliance don’t want the Taliban to have any role in a rebalanced government, and they’re reportedly rearming for a civil war after the United States departs. Hardliners in Pakistan don’t want to make any concessions that could undermine what they see as Islamabad’s necessary primacy in Afghanistan. The Taliban itself is divided over whether or not to take part in negotiations, and it chafes under what many Taliban leaders and foot soldiers see as the groups dependence on Pakistan’s ISI, the military’s powerful intelligence service.
In their talks in Ankara, however, Karzai and Zardari insisted that the peace process move forward and pledged to open a joint investigation of this month’s assassination attempt. “They (terrorists) don't want us, the governments, to get together and to be able to lead the nations to peace,” said Zardari after the two men met.
Although leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan might want the United States to stay in the background as they pursue an accord, it’s unlikely that any agreement could be accomplished without the support of Washington and the international community. Still, perhaps to create additional political space at home, the leaders of both Afghanistan and Pakistan have recently indicated increasing unhappiness with the American role in the region. Karzai, for instance, told NBC that the United States is greatly to blame for Afghanistan’s lack of security and Pakistan’s prime minister complained to the American ambassador that drone attacks are counterproductive. Terrorism, said Karzai, would not be defeated “by attacking Afghan villages and Afghan homes.” Karzai also suggested that unless the United States changed its ways in Afghanistan, he would refuse to cooperate on a long-term security accord that could allow U.S. counterterrorism forces and advisers to be stationed in the country long beyond 2014. In Washington, such talk is seen as bravado, but Obama administration officials recall that Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a similar situation, ultimately shocked the United States by rejecting an extension of the American presence.
Even so, the United States is certain to play a leading role in reconciliation talks. According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration has “launched a post-election push to restart moribund peace talks with the Taliban,” despite skepticism that Pakistan will cooperate. One American official told the Post, “We’d like [Pakistan] to go to the Taliban and say, ‘Hey, you guys need to go back and get talks started again. But the question continues to be whether [Pakistan] has both the willingness and the ability to do so.” Toward that end, the United States is seeking to quietly rebuild ties with Pakistan, which were strained almost to the breaking point in 2011 after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and a subsequent border incident that left many Pakistan troops dead, after which Pakistan shut down transit routes for U.S. supplies into Afghanistan.
A hopeful sign that U.S.-Pakistan ties are improving is the Pentagon’s decision this month to release U.S. $688 million in military aid to Pakistan. And many in Washington hope that Senator John Kerry (D-MA), reportedly slated to become secretary of state next year, will use his close ties to Pakistan and President Karzai to nudge Islamabad and Kabul toward an Afghan accord.
Photo Credit: State Department
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Paul
Those who say Taliban is Pashtun Nationalist please have a read through :
http://criticalppp.com/archives/229668
Kam
@Girish, I think Hikaru and Bharateeya both are right in their approach. Let’s come out of this blame game.
@Hikaru you have rightly substantiated your arguement with apt and evident facts.
@Matt, some questions and dynamics for your consideration as you mentioned Hakeem ullah saying that they and Afghan Taliban are same and Pak is patronising them
1. Why every other day there is a mayhem inside Pakistan staged by these Taliban
2. Pakistan has suffered a loss of 40,000 civilian and military lives and a loss of $ 168 billion to its economy with no foreseen end to this yet
3. US drones don’t target the Taliban’s terrorising inside Pakistan while killing hundreds of Al-Qaeeda and Afghan TAliban’s. Why this discrimination?
4. Whatever past was, now Pak is showing its willingness to Afghan Peace Process by fulfilling all demands of US and Afghan Govt but its capability is under question.
5. Pakistan completely shifted its security prism from Indian to Taliban and internal security phenomena recently. You may see recent Indian deployment of helicopters on Pakistan border and aggression on Line of Control right after that shift to keep it engaged on eastern border and narrow the space widening for it on Northwestern front being created by Peace Process.
6.As mentioned in the article, are some powerful stakeholders really interested in peace?
I do acknowledge the wrong policies of aiding Afghan Taliban in 90s by Pak but does the right policies of international community brought any solution to the issue of Kashmir. This injustice creates a foggy atmosphere and leads people and countries to unpopular means for pursuing their interests….
Vic
More odd commentary which is certainly welcome on a blog that provokes it. Getting back to the original question, there is no hope that Pakistan will be a peacemaker in Afghanistan. It isn't even a peacemaker in its own country. Pakistan is hopelessly inept, corrupt and treacherous. It is impossible that Pakistanis have anything positive to contribute to the situation in Afghanistan.
Hayashi
Vic, tell the Afghans to recognize their international border with Pakistan and Pakistan will lay off their country. What part of that is so hard to understand? If you think a litany of briefly-worded sweeping statements is a substitute for informed analysis then it's no wonder you are commenting on other people's articles instead of writing any yourself.
Michael Ware
you want peace? then let's talk India. Pakistan's robust ISI made it clear back in 2009 their preparedness to broker substantive talks on a political solution with the Taliban, Hizb-i-Islami, and others turned upon a genuine American "ear" on India. I love my Panshiris, but let's face it, they are solid Indian playmates. to this day. no wonder Islamabad freaks. mind you, the Pakistani army still thinks it's 1973, but whaddya going to do? see CNN interview with MGEN Athar Abbas in mid-2009. Amb Holbrooke was wading in to all this when he passed.
Girish
Pakistani government terror company ISI has been given immunity by US goverment in mumbai 26/11 terror attack case in New York Court. Formal ISI cheifs who are known to have hands in conspiracy behind that terror attack have been given immunity with a bargain deal. FBI itself had investigated the case in which 6 American had also died and had given evidences of hands of ISI and Pakistan based terror group LeT.
This is a biggest disappointment for India from so called US who boost its sincerity of friendship with India. US has once again supported Pakistan for its terror activates against India.
Very disappointing. But nevertheless, India has never given any weight to its relationship with US more then it deserves. India must continue to persue its interest and must always continue any friendly move by US with indepth scrutiny.
US by law can bargain anything for its own interests. Even if it means leaving those who killed their own citizens.
The alternate opinion
Yes, India can always welcome cooperation with the US in fighting the (perceived) external threat, but first, New Delhi must protect its defenceless women and young girls from two-legged animals that are so readily abundant in the land. Otherwise it's all very pointless.
Girish
@The alternate opinion
This is true that Indian society has to defend its woman from rapist just like any other country including US to defend rapes and other sexual crime against woman.
I do not find any relationship in your point putting external threats to nations and crimes against woman.
Did you just said that US is in war in Afghanistan (handling external threat) as now there is no sexual crime against woman in US. Do you even know the statistic before commenting?
Bharateeya
@Girish,
Dude, why drag India into an article where it isn't even mentioned once? While you began it, someone just went further and reminded you about the Indian civil society's problem. I guess you reap what you sow :)
Matt
It is just laughable at this point that some people still try to pretend that the Taliban is not owned and operated by Pakistan. Giving out bribe money just means we are being blackmailed. Pretending like giving them money is somehow a good sign is just too pathetic. Oh well, Losers will be losers.
applesauce
It is laughable that some people thinks that the taliban is controllable by any state, or that there is only one taliban group. they(the afgan taliban) and the ISI may perhaps have some converging interests but that does not make them controllable proxies of pakistan
Leonard. R.
I mostly agree w/Applesauce here. I view the Taliban as not only an Islamist movement, but also as Pashtun nationalists. If I'm right, the Taliban will turn their guns on the Pakistani army as soon as they have taken Afghanistan. Remember, most Pashtuns live on the Pakistan side of the Durand Line. The worst possible outcome for Pakistan is a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. They are safer with NATO bogged down n Afghanistan. Hen NATO leaves Pakistan will be facing two secessionist armies inside its border, one in Balochistan and one in the Pashtun border areas.
Leonard R.
Should read "WHEN NATO leaves…"
Leonard R.
My other comment disappeared. So I'll try again. The Taliban will turn their guns on the Pakistani government when NATO leaves. Then Pakistan will be fighting two secessionist wars inside its border, against the Balochs of Baluchistan & against the Pashtuns along the Durand Line. I think Karachi secretly dreads the day when NATO is no longer distracting the Taliban. They are not only Islamists. They are Pashtun nationalists. And Pakistan has a huge Pashtun population on its side of the Durand Line.
Matt
Well maybe Admiral Mullen was mistaken but I really doubt it. The most capable and effective group carrying out strategic attacks on behalf of the Taliban against ISAF is the Haqqani Network which as the Admiral so famously stated is a "veritable arm" of the ISI. Yes, there are many taliban foot soldiers that may or may not be apart of the Taliban directly however these people aren't the ones responsible for broad success in the Taliban strategy. Believe it or not the Taliban is a military type organization with clear chains of command. There has also been a delusional effort to claim Al Qaeda franchises have had nothing to do with Al Qaeda "central" despite the evidence of direct communication and control. Just the latest attack on the head of intelligence in Kabul was quickly blamed on Pakistan by Karzai. You can't overlook all the important attacks carried out by Pakistan and try to claim some taliban that aren't responsible for the war effort are the ones that prove Pakistan doesn't control them. The Taliban was founded, owned and operated by Pakistan from the very beginning. This is why Dick Armitage threatened Pakistan with being bombed back to the "stone age" if Pakistan did not abandon the Taliban after 9/11. Pakistan just went covert with their support and we allowed ourselves to be convinced otherwise.
Hikaru
"the Haqqani Network which as the Admiral so famously stated is a "veritable arm" of the ISI." - The Haqqani Network's pledge of allegiance is to Mullah Omar, whom Pakistan does not control.
"Just the latest attack on the head of intelligence in Kabul was quickly blamed on Pakistan by Karzai." - So Pakistan did it because Karzai said so? Pakistan's already told the Afghans to provide actual dossiers as evidence instead of single A4-sized sheets and communicate all their accusations through regular diplomatic channels instead of hurling them in the media but they have a penchant for sticking to making empty allegations without even conducting any investigation. You can just look up how the whole episode of Burhanuddin Rabbani's assassination turned out and how Afghanistan's allegations against Pakistan regarding the green-on-blue insider attacks turned out to be false.
So you might wanna lay back on believing something just by virtue of its coming our of Hamid Karzai's mouth.
"This is why Dick Armitage threatened Pakistan with being bombed back to the "stone age" if Pakistan did not abandon the Taliban after 9/11." - Uh, no. That's because Pakistan controls all the land and aerial access to Afghanistan and the use of Pakistani logistical support and military facilities was essential for successfully waging war on Afghanistan, and so Pakistan was forced to choose because Bush said either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. Besides, the United States is pursuing the same solution to end the war 11 years later that Pakistan was urging 11 years ago so there's hardly any point in subscribing to anti-Pakistan paranoia.
Matt
@ Hikaru So Pakistan knows nuthin about nuthin right? Lol. Why was Panetta laughing about Pakistan supposedly knowing nuthin about Usama living amongst them? Indeed the notion is laughable. Why is Hafiz Saeed still walking freely if Pakistan knows nuthin about nuthin? Where is Mullah Omar anyways???
Hikaru
Even while you quote Panetta's words you conveniently failed to note his use of the word "supposedly" when he accused Pakistan of knowing about Osama bin Laden living in Abbottabad. You need to be reminded that Hillary Clinton and the commanding officer of the SEAL Team 6 that conducted the operation have made it clear there's "absolutely no evidence" Pakistan knew Osama bin Laden was there. Even Barack Obama himself made it clear that "it's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people" when he first announced the alleged killing of bin Laden.
It's up to you now whether you want to believe Obama and Hillary who spoke with authority based on actual information, or Panetta who talked about things that Pakistan "supposedly" knew.
By the way, you are forgetting that to this day the United States has shown the world not a single shred of evidence that Osama bin Laden was ever located in some compound in Pakistan. Matt, where is your evidence he was there in Abbottabad? You've never even noted how fast the United States authorities have changed their stories on every single part of the story of how that whole operation progressed. The only thing laughable here is you unquestioningbly believing the word of the country that lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Re: Hafiz Saeed, are you aware that the US government has announced a $10 reward for anyone who can produce evidence – the kind that is actually admissible in a court of law – that would implicate him in the Mumbai attacks. This reward was announced even though India has repeatedly insisted it has already provided all the necessary evidence to get him convicted in any court. Do you realize what that means? It means there is no evidence Hafiz Saeed was involved in the Mumbai attacks.
Do carefully read what the US States Dept Spokesman had to say about that reward, and carefully note how (in visible unease) he dodges very pertinent questions from journalists about why in the world that reward was even announced if there is evidence against him and he really is guilty: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/04/187407.htm
Re: Mullah Omar, nobody knows where he is, except for the innermost circle of top level Afghan Taliban. Nobody could prove Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan and nobody can prove where Mullah Omar is, not that it even matters whether or not he is ever captured or killed, that won't reverse the US defeat in Afghanistan.
Evidently it's the United States that "knows nuthin about nuthin." You are just talking based on untested and unproven assumptions that have just been repeatedly regurgitated in the media, and you did not even address any of what I wrote in my previous reply to you. You just keep bringing up new strawmen that I have to waste my time striking down because you did not take the time to substantiate your own claims.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Nawal
@Hikaru beautifully argued and most importantly it was based on facts and what do you think will be the future of Pakistan after 2014 regarding its relations with US and Afghanistan
Matt
Warfare is not subject to the courts as our drones operate without any judge's permission to kill terrorists routinely in multiple countries. Terrorists do attempt to use our laws against us as they are trained to resist and fight in any way they can. Your rather pathetic denial of where we killed Usama says more about you than you might know. The only people on this planet that believe such rubbish are Pakistanis allied with Al Qaeda/Taliban and or Pakistanis buying into the propaganda spoon fed to you by the ISI. Same thing for Mullah Omar. You might as well say 9/11 was an inside job (you do believe that too don't you? lol). Where do you think that stealth helicopter tail came from, Allah??? I don't have to spend time refuting every fib you state because it is self evident to any informed person and uninformed people don't matter much anyway. Just as Syria is finding out, just because we withdraw from one place doesn't mean we won't defeat those who dared wage war on us in another. Pakistan is fooling only Pakistanis. Pakistan is famous for supporting terrorists and your denials of hard facts just makes you look like an apologist at the very least. Apologizing for terrorists is no way to make friends. Al Qaeda started this war with an attack on civilians so surely you can understand why no one listens to terrorists whining about unfair warfare.
Matt
You are just fooling yourself to believe the Taliban and Al Qaeda are separate really. They are one in the same. Kinda why they chose the path they did after 9/11/01. But don't take my word for it…listen to the enemy.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/12/daily_times_op-ed_hits_the_mar.php
Matt Yankee
From Hakeemullah Mehsud…."We are Afghan Taliban and Afghan Taliban are us," he said. "We are with them and al Qaeda. We are even willing to get our heads cut off for al Qaeda."
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/12/pakistani_taliban_re_4.php#ixzz2GdmPtpoM