Over the last six months, differences between the US and Pakistan over how to bring peace to Afghanistan had gradually boiled down to two contradictory positions. The US preferred recourse to an all-out attack and demanded that Pakistan launch an operation against the Haqqani network. Pakistan on the other hand, insisted that peace needed to be given a chance. Islamabad’s position implied that priority had to be given to talks with the Afghan Taliban, particularly the Haqqani network. The differences caused controversy and led to accusations and counter accusations. After the killing of Burhanuddin Rabbani, Karzai, who was keen to establish contacts with the Taliban, suddenly washed his hands of the enterprise declaring that only Pakistan could bring the militant leadership to the negotiating table as its agencies alone knew where they were located.
Hopes were roused after the talks between the high level delegation led by Clinton and the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan. Both sides seemed to have given concessions. Clinton stepped back from the demand for urgent operation in North Waziristan. Washington further agreed to hold talks with the Taliban provided these were meaningful. It was implied that Pakistan would bring the militant leadership to the table for talks.
Now suddenly comes the interview by DG ISPR to the BBC which strikes an altogether discordant note. The military spokesman maintains that Pakistan have not been informed and not been taken into confidence on a possible roadmap or a practicable shape of the reconciliation process and what are the objectives. Further that “we cannot guarantee the success of the reconciliation process because none of the groups is in our pocket.” Strangely an altogether different stance has been taken by the Foreign Office. A FO spokeswoman told the same day that a broad convergence of views had emerged between the two countries at the strategic level. It notes that “both countries agreed to have a work plan in order to translate these convergences into desired results.” What needs to be clarified is whether the differences that seem to have suddenly popped up are of minor nature and can be ironed out in meetings at the lower level or are we back to square one.
