LONDON – Bitter disputes over covert CIA activities and drone attacks inside Pakistan, lack of progress over peace talks in Afghanistan, and rising Islamist-led opposition to the presence of foreign forces in the region are fuelling the biggest crisis in US-Pakistan relations since the 9/11 attacks, reports “The Guardian” quoting Pakistani politicians and other security related officials.
Pakistan is seen by Washington and London as a vital ally in the “war on terror”, while the Pakistani government and army say they remain committed partners 10 years after the Afghan conflict began, the British daily said.
But US criticism of Islamabad’s counter-terrorism campaigns in Pakistan’s western tribal areas, repeated in a White House report last week, and “blowback” from the US military surge in Afghanistan are testing the relationship to breaking point, officials warn.
“We will not accept the stigmatising of Pakistan,” Salman Bashir, Pakistan’s foreign secretary was quoted as saying.
“We need to re-examine the fundamentals of our relationship with the United States to get greater clarity. There has been a pause. Now we must start again”, he was quoted to have said.
Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister, said the Americans should stop blaming others for their difficulties in Afghanistan, where violence has worsened in the past year and reconciliation efforts have made little progress. “If the strategy is not right, all the stakeholders have to share responsibility,” Malik was quoted as saying.
Pakistan had suffered “unimaginably” since the “war on terror” began, he added. “We are not just fighting for Pakistan, we are fighting for the whole world. If this country is destabilised, the whole region is destabilised, so please, stop the blame game. We are your partners. We are victims, not part of the terrorists”, Malik was quoted as saying.
“The Americans need to devise a strategy but better still, share the [drone] technology with us,” Malik said. “There is big anti-American feeling. We would like to urge that the drone attacks be stopped.”
According to the paper, the rift comes at a dangerous moment for the US and its Nato allies as the Afghan conflict enters the “endgame” and they begin the process of handing over control of security to Afghan forces- and start withdrawing troops in July.
According to the Daily, Pakistani anger focuses on three main areas: unauthorised CIA activity inside the country, Pakistan’s perception that the US is keeping it “out of the loop” on Afghanistan, particularly in respect of mooted peace talks with the Taliban, and what Islamabad sees as the US failure to appreciate the full cost and impact of the “war on terror” on Pakistan’s economy and social cohesion.
Bashir told paper that Pakistan was deeply concerned about the apparent lack of progress in reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan. He said Pakistan welcomed some of the steps taken so far, such as the establishment of the Afghan High Peace Council and attempts to reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers.
According to the Daily he said the peace process could not be left to the Afghan government alone. He questioned how serious the US was about direct talks with the Taliban leadership, and whether such a process was even feasible, while complaining that Pakistan was being kept in the dark about US intentions.
There was a lack of “strategic coherence” about the US approach in Afghanistan and a growing sense of urgency as the July deadline for the beginning of US troop withdrawals neared, he added.
Meanwhile, “The Guardian” also reported that former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has also been critical of US-led Afghanistan strategy and proposes handing over responsibility for building a political solution to the UN.
Miliband has set out proposals for a new Afghanistan strategy in a New York Times opinion piece which the British daily has reproduced. Making a strong critique of the US-led strategy in Afghanistan, Miliband proposed instead handing over substantial responsibility for building a political solution to the UN, headed by a Muslim mediator capable of negotiating with the Taliban as well as partners throughout the region.
Miliband urges a “whole new level of urgency, coherence and effort” in bringing about a political endgame away from a focus on ending military engagement, and including the possibility of appointing a safe third country for all Afghan parties to negotiate from.
He writes: “It’s high time we stopped behaving as if there was a military solution and developed a political one. For that, politicians need to give a lead. That is the way forward in Afghanistan, working to mend it, not just rushing to end it.”
The intervention comes as senior military figures predict a rough summer of fighting ahead. Miliband’s assessment of the situation chimes with the opinion of senior Pakistani officials who feel the imminent end of the international military campaign in Afghanistan looks likely to be replaced by little political process, with few indications as to who Pakistani officials should engage with.
It also echoes the feeling inside Whitehall that US policy in Afghanistan is overly dominated by the military under General David Petraeus and that despite much talk about talks, American efforts to engage the Taliban diplomatically have made little progress so far.
Miliband’s criticism of the US-led campaign marks a change from the supportive UK-US relationship he maintained as foreign secretary when relationships with US secretary of state Hilary Clinton were famously strong.
Miliband acknowledges there are signs of significant shifts in American policy but nevertheless he goes on to write: “Deviations from the otherwise relentless focus on military operations, allied and Afghan, need to be taken to a whole new level of urgency, coherence and effort. Otherwise, our troops will be stuck in the front line of a strategy that has an end date but no clear end game. The 2014 end date set by Nato will prove illusory unless there is an endgame.”
“And that endgame must be negotiations, involving western powers led by the US, with all factions in the Afghan struggle, and their backers in the region.”
Miliband warned that two international conferences on the horizon, in Kabul in the summer and Bonn in December, currently have “scant agenda”, but their outcome should be the agreement of the kind of political approach he outlines.
He proposes: “The UN security council appoints and empowers a UN mediator to facilitate talks “with a clear UN security council mandate setting out principles of the endgame and an open invitation to all to participate”.
“The mediator should come from the Muslim world. His job would be to canvass the views of all parties, and create confidence for and commitment to a process for serious talks about the future of Afghanistan.”
“The mediator should “develop the idea of a safe place in a third country, an Arabian gulf state, Turkey or Japan, for all sides to talk.”
“Localised ceasefires must be proposed alongside security for development projects.”
“The new UN envoy should be responsible for regional engagement as
well as internal talks, creating a council of regional stability that
oversees compact between the neighbours and Afghanistan.”
