Gold9472
11-16-2006, 11:38 PM
‘Pakistan must not harbour Taliban’
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C16%5Cstory_16-11-2006_pg7_23
By Khalid Hasan
11/16/2006
WASHINGTON: Pakistan must be persuaded not to harbour the Taliban so that the explosive situation that now exists on its shared border with Afghanistan can be brought under control and stability can come to the region, according to a panel of experts.
The experts - Marvin Weinbaum, Steve Coll, James Dobbins, Bruce Riedel and Col Richard Giguere - were on a panel organised at the two-day annual conference of the Middle East Institute at the National Press Club on Monday to discuss Afghanistan, Pakistan and regional stability.
Weinbaum, who moderated the discussion, said Afghanistan put the entire blame for regional instability on Pakistan, which, for its own part, is witnessing some disconcerting developments domestically, both for Gen Pervez Musharraf and the military. There is an insurgency in Balochistan, while in the tribal areas there is a “state within a state”. The US-Pakistan relationship is fragile in character and it is unclear if elections in the country next years would throw up a legitimate government or how the issue of Gen Musharraf’s uniform would be resolved. It is also uncertain how exactly he would be elected president. The destinies of Pakistan and Afghanistan are closely related; if one were destabilised, the other would be affected. Stability, therefore, is essential not only in the regional interest but in the global interest as well.
Steve Coll of the New Yorker and author of Ghost Wars, said Pakistan tried to control the political space in Afghanistan and it also watched what India did in that country. He said Pakistan’s policy had reverted to support for the Taliban. Their leadership is based on Pakistan territory, two such places being Quetta and Miranshah. There is a Taliban Shura in Quetta and one in Peshawar. There may be others elsewhere. He said there was some evidence on contact between the ISI and the Taliban as there was of training facilities. The relationship between the Pakistani intelligence establishment and the Taliban is complex and has a history. Then there is the political dimension, with the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) being the dominant among Taliban allies from amongst Islamist parties. There are “safe houses” in Pakistani cities which the Taliban can use. From Karachi, there is also operated licit and illicit networks with linkages abroad. The two governments in Quetta and Peshawar are also a factor since they contain pro-Taliban parties. According to him, the Pakistan Army has a weak record in conducting counterinsurgency operations. It is engaged in just such operations in Balochistan and the NWFP today. He said he had found no evidence that Pakistan is trying to install a Taliban government in Kabul. However, there is resentment and division in the Pakistan Army on the government’s policy which has led to conflict and military operations in both Balochistan and the Pakistan-Afghan border and agency areas. He felt Pakistan’s future stability lies in pluralism and on turning its back on radicalism.
James Dobbins of the Rand Corporation also spoke about the gradual rise of the Taliban with Pakistan providing them the base they needed. In Kabul, he pointed out, President Hamid Karzai was neither a forceful nor a decisive ruler but for the present, he was the right man for the right job. He told the conference, “Our problem is not Iraq but Pakistan.” Osama bin Laden, he added, is not in Iraq nor did the London attacks happen because of Iraq, implying that bin Laden is in Pakistan and the London attacks of July 2005 had Pakistan’s involvement or backing. He said he was not advocating an invasion of Pakistan, but only that the US should put pressure on Pakistan to follow the desired course. Pressure could be applied through economic, diplomatic and political means. According to him, in the war against terrorism, “the central front is Pakistan”. However, he ruled out a military solution of the Pakistani situation. Col Giguere, military attaché at the Canadian embassy here, who has served with NATO forces in Afghanistan expressed his country’s concern over the “porous” Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He said it was important for Canada and Pakistan to step up their cooperation in order to effectively deal with this problem.
Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution said the security situation in the Pak-Afghan region was worsening. He noted that the Taliban leadership had always delivered on what it had promised. The Taliban, he added, were never defeated. They suffered some losses and then they scattered among the population in classic guerilla manner. The United States, after its initial success, “moved its eye from the ball”. Pakistan, he stressed, like other speakers, provides a safe haven to the Taliban. The relationship between the Pakistan Army and the Taliban is a long and intimate one. He said Pakistan during and after the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, Pakistan developed a “stew” of terrorist and guerrilla elements. At different times, it has been pulling out different pieces from that “stew” to deploy where it has needed to deploy them, such as in Kashmir of in aid of the Sikhs. That needs to be brought to an end. He conceded that President Musharraf had a difficult problem at hand. As for Afghanistan, as long as Coalition forces stay in the country, there can be no Taliban takeover. However, the Taliban will survive in the countryside and it is their strategy to wear out the Coalition forces. Afghanistan, he suggested, needs a major reconstruction effort and its allies need to do more than they have done. He advised Washington to “talk softly” but firmly to Pakistan to cease its support of the Taliban and to dismantle their bases. He said it was not clear if Pakistan had the political will to do so. He called Pakistan’s policy in dealing with the unrest in its NWFP tribal areas as “schizophrenic” as one day it signs a peace deal with those elements the next day it bombs them.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C16%5Cstory_16-11-2006_pg7_23
By Khalid Hasan
11/16/2006
WASHINGTON: Pakistan must be persuaded not to harbour the Taliban so that the explosive situation that now exists on its shared border with Afghanistan can be brought under control and stability can come to the region, according to a panel of experts.
The experts - Marvin Weinbaum, Steve Coll, James Dobbins, Bruce Riedel and Col Richard Giguere - were on a panel organised at the two-day annual conference of the Middle East Institute at the National Press Club on Monday to discuss Afghanistan, Pakistan and regional stability.
Weinbaum, who moderated the discussion, said Afghanistan put the entire blame for regional instability on Pakistan, which, for its own part, is witnessing some disconcerting developments domestically, both for Gen Pervez Musharraf and the military. There is an insurgency in Balochistan, while in the tribal areas there is a “state within a state”. The US-Pakistan relationship is fragile in character and it is unclear if elections in the country next years would throw up a legitimate government or how the issue of Gen Musharraf’s uniform would be resolved. It is also uncertain how exactly he would be elected president. The destinies of Pakistan and Afghanistan are closely related; if one were destabilised, the other would be affected. Stability, therefore, is essential not only in the regional interest but in the global interest as well.
Steve Coll of the New Yorker and author of Ghost Wars, said Pakistan tried to control the political space in Afghanistan and it also watched what India did in that country. He said Pakistan’s policy had reverted to support for the Taliban. Their leadership is based on Pakistan territory, two such places being Quetta and Miranshah. There is a Taliban Shura in Quetta and one in Peshawar. There may be others elsewhere. He said there was some evidence on contact between the ISI and the Taliban as there was of training facilities. The relationship between the Pakistani intelligence establishment and the Taliban is complex and has a history. Then there is the political dimension, with the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) being the dominant among Taliban allies from amongst Islamist parties. There are “safe houses” in Pakistani cities which the Taliban can use. From Karachi, there is also operated licit and illicit networks with linkages abroad. The two governments in Quetta and Peshawar are also a factor since they contain pro-Taliban parties. According to him, the Pakistan Army has a weak record in conducting counterinsurgency operations. It is engaged in just such operations in Balochistan and the NWFP today. He said he had found no evidence that Pakistan is trying to install a Taliban government in Kabul. However, there is resentment and division in the Pakistan Army on the government’s policy which has led to conflict and military operations in both Balochistan and the Pakistan-Afghan border and agency areas. He felt Pakistan’s future stability lies in pluralism and on turning its back on radicalism.
James Dobbins of the Rand Corporation also spoke about the gradual rise of the Taliban with Pakistan providing them the base they needed. In Kabul, he pointed out, President Hamid Karzai was neither a forceful nor a decisive ruler but for the present, he was the right man for the right job. He told the conference, “Our problem is not Iraq but Pakistan.” Osama bin Laden, he added, is not in Iraq nor did the London attacks happen because of Iraq, implying that bin Laden is in Pakistan and the London attacks of July 2005 had Pakistan’s involvement or backing. He said he was not advocating an invasion of Pakistan, but only that the US should put pressure on Pakistan to follow the desired course. Pressure could be applied through economic, diplomatic and political means. According to him, in the war against terrorism, “the central front is Pakistan”. However, he ruled out a military solution of the Pakistani situation. Col Giguere, military attaché at the Canadian embassy here, who has served with NATO forces in Afghanistan expressed his country’s concern over the “porous” Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He said it was important for Canada and Pakistan to step up their cooperation in order to effectively deal with this problem.
Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution said the security situation in the Pak-Afghan region was worsening. He noted that the Taliban leadership had always delivered on what it had promised. The Taliban, he added, were never defeated. They suffered some losses and then they scattered among the population in classic guerilla manner. The United States, after its initial success, “moved its eye from the ball”. Pakistan, he stressed, like other speakers, provides a safe haven to the Taliban. The relationship between the Pakistan Army and the Taliban is a long and intimate one. He said Pakistan during and after the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, Pakistan developed a “stew” of terrorist and guerrilla elements. At different times, it has been pulling out different pieces from that “stew” to deploy where it has needed to deploy them, such as in Kashmir of in aid of the Sikhs. That needs to be brought to an end. He conceded that President Musharraf had a difficult problem at hand. As for Afghanistan, as long as Coalition forces stay in the country, there can be no Taliban takeover. However, the Taliban will survive in the countryside and it is their strategy to wear out the Coalition forces. Afghanistan, he suggested, needs a major reconstruction effort and its allies need to do more than they have done. He advised Washington to “talk softly” but firmly to Pakistan to cease its support of the Taliban and to dismantle their bases. He said it was not clear if Pakistan had the political will to do so. He called Pakistan’s policy in dealing with the unrest in its NWFP tribal areas as “schizophrenic” as one day it signs a peace deal with those elements the next day it bombs them.