news details |
|
|
| MEN & MATTERS | | Dear Rice, Taliban aren't mice! | | B L KAK
For America's Rice Karzai is nice. Rice? Answer: She is the US Secretary of State. Her full name is Condoleezza Rice. Karzai? He is none other than the present President of Afghanistan. Both Condoleezza Rice and Hamid Karzai are for the end of the Taliban menace.
But the Taliban, though out, are not down; they are not mice to be afraid of American cats. Condoleezza Rice heaped praise on Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan this June 28, upholding Washington's full support for a leader struggling to hold back resurgent Taliban forces.The top US diplomat, who flew from Pakistan to meet Karzai in Kabul, pledged unswerving support for the Afghan President whose popularity has slumped as he struggles to stem the violence and improve people's lives.
Rice's trip could also help blunt criticism in a US election year from congressional Democrats that the Bush administration has ignored the militant threat in Afghanistan because it is focused on fighting insurgents in Iraq. "I don't know anyone who is more admired and respected in the international community than President Karzai, for his strength, for his wisdom and for his courage to lead this country, first in defeat of the Taliban and now (in creating) a democratic and unified Afghanistan," Rice told a news conference.
Clearly, Rice's main aim is to persuade Pakistan and Afghanistan to work more closely in combating militants along their border. If there was any doubt about it, it was set at rest by Rice herself with her loaded statement: "We, Afghanistan and Pakistan are going to unify all our efforts, as we have done over the last several years, towards the goal of eliminating the threat of Al Qaida and the Taliban".
Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand, described her discussions with Pakistan President, Gen. Parvez Musharraf, as “excellent” and termed US-Pakistan relationship as “broad and deep”. But the real purpose of Rice’s visit to Islamabad — not pre-planned and more in the nature of a stopover on her way to Kabul — was not to deepen bilateral ties. She was more interested in sorting out the differences between Pakistan and Afghanistan so that they could fight the resurgence of the Taliban more effectively.
This is America’s biggest worry, as it is also that of Kabul and Islamabad. But the two neighbours who are most directly affected have not managed to draw up a joint strategy to confront the common danger. At the core of the dispute is the general belief in Afghanistan — and in some quarters in America too — that Pakistan is not working hard enough to root out the Taliban. Some even suspect that it is allowing them to operate from its territory. Allegations such as these have naturally irked the Pakistan government which has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to fight against terrorism. Both Kabul and Islamabad have been trading charges and counter-charges resulting in tensions between them.
Rice’s visit has achieved one important result. She has impressed on her hosts--Islamabad and Kabul--the need for them to address these problems through the trilateral commission. In this forum which brings Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US together they can coordinate their anti-militant strategies better. As a demonstration of its good faith, Pakistan has agreed to deploy 10,000 more troops along the Afghan border where 80,000 soldiers are already stationed. This will, hopefully, help Islamabad check infiltration from the tribal areas into southern Afghanistan which has lately been the theatre of intense fighting.
But at the same time Pakistan must have a free hand in having recourse to political measures to pacify the tribal areas which will have a positive effect on the security situation on the Afghan border. In that context, the American leader’s support for Islamabad’s policy of opening a political dialogue with the tribal chiefs in the territory under its own control is of great significance. What is needed is a strategy of carrot and stick to counter terrorism in this region. Be it Afghanistan or FATA, economic and social underdevelopment and backwardness are the bane of society and together make them the breeding ground for unrest and terrorism. Even after the infusion of massive funds for the socio-economic uplift in Afghanistan and for the tribal regions to boost their development, they continue to be in a pathetic state.
What is more the writ of the Afghan government does not run very far from the main centres of the administration. Until these considerations are removed, law and order will continue to be a major problem and the Taliban will not be easy to tackle. The paradox is that the American military presence in Afghanistan serves as a red flag for the Taliban. Yet without a firm hand that the Americans alone can provide Afghanistan cannot be pacified and made secure. In that context it remains to be seen if the replacement of the American troops by Nato forces next month proves useful in easing the situation somewhat by making the foreign presence less provocative for the Afghans. But until poppy as a source of financial sustenance in the south is brought to an end, the Taliban may continue to be a menace. Their capacity to impose a ruthless peace in areas under their control is enormous.
There are no easy answers to questions which essentially draw out suspicions over Pakistan's role in stoking or not, the conflict in Afghanistan. For months, Pakistani and Afghan officials have routinely traded charges over who is doing what to undermine whom. Afghan officials denounce Pakistan for its alleged involvement in supporting a fast resurging Taliban movement in parts of their country. Pakistan responds by saying that Afghanistan is working to undermine Islamabad's security interests, taking steps such as allowing intelligence operatives from neighbouring India to work against Pakistani interests.
The bottom line for the US, however, is another element which is essentially central to its emerging policy failures. Having taken the initiative to unleash a not so well defined "war on terror", the Bush administration and its allies including the Pakistani and Afghan regimes now live with the consequences. The war on terror took the United States to engage itself in Iraq in a largely futile conflict where the so-called weapons of mass destruction are yet to be found and security conditions continue to worsen.
The US led attack on Afghanistan after the New York terrorist attacks, which led to the installation of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime, has obviously failed in pushing ahead with the twin objectives of providing credible political representation and economic rejuvenation to the central Asian country. Instead, the US continues pouring in billions of dollars towards sustaining its Afghan military operations. More than five years after the war on terror began, high profile US enemies such as Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri, the two most prominent Al Qaida leaders, continue to remain elusive.
On the contrary, if the US would have indeed pushed ahead with a large scale reconstruction plan, swiftly implemented as a modern day replica of the Marshal Plan, the chances were that it would have gained far more respectability. There is even a chance that the high tide of anti-Americanism, which today is so central to the reality surrounding Afghanistan and Pakistan, may have been less of an issue. Rather than high spending on guns, more money for bread and butter could have essentially given further mileage to US policy.
As for dealing with leaders such as Karzai and Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the US cannot ignore its blatant oversight of regimes whose democratic character remains open to question. Karzai is widely seen anchored on Washington's support, while Gen. Musharraf remains controversial as a man who simultaneously holds charge of the military and the civilian administrations.
===========================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
