& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Pak - Afghan war of words

Barrister Harun ur Rashid
ON 14th June, Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai threatened to send Afghan troops across the border to fight militants in Pakistan, a forceful warning to insurgents and the Pakistani government that his country was fed up with cross-border attacks.
Karza*'s threat
Karzai reportedly said that because militants cross over from Pakistan “to come and kill Afghan and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to do the same. Therefore, Baitullah Mehsud should know that we will go after him now and hit him in his house’", referring to the top Taliban leader in Pakistan, suspected in the assas sination last year of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Some say President Karzai has his eye more on Afghan domestic politics. He knows that many Afghans sec the Taliban as the cat's paw of Pakistan — specifically of Pakistani intelligence. So it's popular for Karzai to threaten retaliation for the cross-border raids by the Taliban.
There have been rallies in support of Karzai in the southeastern provinces of Paktia and Paktika as well as the western province of Herat. In the southern insurgency-plagued province of Helmand and the northern province of Baghlan similar gatherings have expressed support for the President.
Karzai has long pleaded for Pakistan and international forces to confront militants in Pakistan but has never before said he would send Afghan troops across the border.
US officials have increased their warnings in recent weeks that the Afghan conflict will drag on for years unless militants are defeated.
Informed sources believe such threat from the President of Afghanistan was very unusual unless the President had the support of the Bush administration.
Analysts agree that without U.S. military support, Afghan forces would have little chance of success in a battle within Pakistan's tribal agencies. But it's unclear if Washington is willing to provide that support.
On 16th June, President Bush urged Pakistan to work more closely with Afghan and U.S. forces in the fight against terrorism.
The President reportedly said, "Our strategy is to deny safe haven to extremists who would do harm to innocent people, and that's the strategy of Afghanistan. And it needs to be the strategy of Pakistan. It's in all of our interests to prevent those who murder innocent people to achieve politi-cal objectives to gain safe haven."
Bush's comments come as relations between U.S. and Pakistani security forces appear to be at a new low. Last week, a U.S. air strike killed 11 Pakistani soldiers within Pakistani territory. The Pentagon says it targeted a group who had attacked U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and then fled back to Pakistan. A joint inquiry is being held on this incident.
Washington's growing distrust was highlighted last week by the release of a Pentagon-funded study by RAND Corporation. That study concludes that individuals in Pakistan's Frontier Corps and intelligence services support the Taliban by providing them with intelligence about the movements of coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and prominent author who is critical of the international approach in Afghanistan, says that Washington has become frustrated with Pakistan's military.
"There is a very massive breakdown between the U.S. and the Pakistani military. 1 think talks b^tvyeen these two have failed," Rashid says. Whatever the details are of this clash (and air strike], we really don't know what happened. There are many versions. But I think the real issue was that the Americans are clearly sending
a very tough message to Pakistan”.
Pakistan's reaction
The threat naturally angered Pakistan's new Gilani government, which summoned the Afghan Ambassador, to issue a formal complaint.
A Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Sadiq, commented on 15th June on Karzai's warning: "We think that he did not use his best judgment by making this statement.”
It is reported that Siddiqui Farooq, a spokesman for the second largest party in Pakistan's coalition government, condemned Karzai’s comments. He said that no one would be allowed to violate the international border.
Pakistan's Prime Minister is quoted to have said that the threat “will not be taken well."
Meanwhile former Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif, the largest partner in the coalition government, said that President Musharraf made Pakistan so weak that the US killed Pakistani soldiers in its soil and that Afghanistan threatened Pakistan.
There is another dimension to the Pakistan-Afghanistan relations that cannot be ignored. Pakistan wants Afghanistan to be within its sphere of influence and during the Taliban period Afghanistan was in fact within Pakistan's domination. That ended when Karzai took over in 2001. It is believed that India s influence has grown in Afghanistan considerably and Pakistan is not comfortable with that.
Furthermore, it is noted that in the past, Afghanistan had claimed border areas as their part of territory known as “Pakhtunlstan” and in 1947 It was only Afghanistan which objected to the admission of Pakistan to the UN in the General Assembly.
Against this background, the war of words is nothing new between them, except that this time, Afghanistan is emboldened by the likely support of the Bush administration.
What is at stake?
Tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan would provide an opportunity for the militants to grow in strength. Most of cross-border militants are Pakhtuns, and when they cross the border no one knows whether that individual is a Pakistani or an Afghan because they speak the same language and look alike.
Analysts believe this war of words, this rhetorical contest between two governments, between two partners in this region must end. Pointing fingers leads nowhere, when what Afghanistan needs most is constructive engagement with Pakistan and joint action to tackle a very serious security challenge.
The truth is that these networks are operating in both Afghanistan and Pakistan that the leaders spend time in both countries and military action is required wherever they are located.
It is noted that of the 142 Taliban leaders mentioned in Security Council Resolution 1267 of 1999, which slapped sanctions on Taliban and Al-Qaida operatives and associates, only a handful have been captured, reconciled with the Karzai government or their whereabouts otherwise established, due to a lack of international cooperation.
It is reported that Pakistan had taken steps against some people on the list, arresting some, but most experts would agree that others were believed to be hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan has given on many occasions the assurance that if these leaders are found in Pakistan action will be taken. Experts say,there is more work to be done in and around Quetta and elsewhere in Pakistan.
For peace and stability in the region, it is high time-that"both' couhFfiessHouRJ work together to meet the common threat of militants.