NATO Summit: Prepares Road Map, Joint Exit Strategy for Afghanistan

The two-day summit of the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was held in Chicago, first on the US soil in more than a decade. Approximately 60 world leaders, including presidents of the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan have gathered to attend one of the biggest NATO summits in history. Despite a myriad of issues facing the 63-year-old organization founded in the wake of the Second World War as it confronts shifting 21st-century realities, the Chicago summit is set to be dominated by Afghanistan.

The Chicago summit was significant as President Barack Obama has announced that all combat operations led by the US forces will cease in the summer of 2013 and the NATO forces would move to a “support role.” The summit aimed at charting out a road map of international support to Afghanistan and prepare a blueprint for a joint exit strategy.

Afghanistan War

NATO allies declared that the end of a long and unpopular Afghanistan war is in sight even as they struggled to hold their fighting force together as France’s new President announced plans to pull troops out early.

The fate of the war is the centre of the two-day NATO summit that opened in Chicago. The alliance already has one foot out of the Afghanistan door, with the Europeans pinching pennies in a debt crisis and President Obama with an ear attuned to the politics of an economy-driven presidential election year.

Still, some cautioned against following France’s example while others played down stresses in the fighting alliance.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: “There will be no rush for the exits. Our goal, our strategy, our timetable remain unchanged.”

The military alliance is pledged to remain in Afghanistan till 2014, but will seal plans during the summit to shift foreign forces off the front lines a year faster than once planned.

Afghan forces will take the lead throughout the nation next year, instead of in 2014. The shift is in large part a response to the plummeting public support for the war in Europe and the United States, contributors of most of the 130,000 foreign troops now fighting the Taliban-led insurgency. A majority of Americans now say the war is unwinnable or not worth continuing.

Tough Time Ahead

The US president, who was hosting the summit in his hometown and the city where his reelection operation hums, spoke of a post-2014 world when “the Afghan war as we understand it is over.” Until then, though, remaining U.S. and allied troops face the continued likelihood of fierce combat.

Obama said: “We still have a lot of work to do and there will be great challenges ahead. “The loss of life continues in Afghanistan and there will be hard days ahead.”

In fact, the strategy has shifted many times over the course of more than 10 years of war, and the goal narrowed to objectives focused on the long-term security of the mostly Western nations fighting there. The timetable has also moved, despite the overall commitment to keep foreign forces in Afghanistan till 2014.

France’s Stand

Tension over newly elected French President Francois Hollande’s pledge to end his country’s combat mission two years early infused the meeting. German Chancellor Angela Merkel pointedly cited the credo of the allies in the Afghanistan war, “in together, out together,” and her foreign minister cautioned against a “withdrawal competition” by coalition countries.

The Taliban are urging nations fighting in Afghanistan to follow France’s lead and pull their international forces from the war this year.

The Chicago summit called upon all the other NATO member countries to avoid working for the political interests of the US officials and answer the call of your own people by immediately removing all your troops from Afghanistan,” the group said in a statement before the meeting.

Obama-Karzai Meet

Obama said that NATO envisions a decade of transformation after 2014, with the United States still contributing money and forces.

“What this NATO summit reflects is that the world is behind the strategy that we have laid out,” Obama said after lengthy talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. “Now it is our task to implement it effectively.”

Karzai said his nation is looking forward to the end of war, “so that Afghanistan is no longer a burden on the shoulder of our friends in the international community, on the shoulders of the United States and our other allies.”

Despite the stubborn Taliban insurgency, war-weary international forces are seeking to hand control of security to Afghan forces while withdrawing some 130,000 foreign combat troops by the end of 2014.

Similarities and Differences Between Withdrawal of Russian and US Forces

Russians started withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1367 Hijri (1988). Later, the Afghan Government fought the opponents alone until 1371 (1992) and defeated them in the month of February, the same year. Now, the history is about to repeat itself. Some indications are emerging that after the withdrawal of the United States, whether or not the Afghan Government will prolong? To answer these questions it is necessary to analyze the past and present.
With the Russian arrival in Afghanistan, comparatively general uprising was started from north to south and east to west of the country. The uprising was initially at public level. However, later, Jihadist organization came to fore. Currently, only the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and a portion of Hizb-e-Eslami are fighting against the government. During the Russian period, mujahidin were supported by the neighboring countries, the Arab world, Western Europe, the United State, China, and almost half of the world. However, no country openly sympathizes with the Taliban. The Pakistani Governments and Iran have been blamed. However, they never accepted these allegations.
Mujahidin’s Control
Following the war, former mujahidin were equipped with the spirit of Islam and Jihad. Government forces also had the spirit of patriotism. A proof to it is that in 1367 (1988), mujahidin carried out a fierce attack on Jalalabad. At that time, Nangarhar local government units surrendered. Only the national security and police units protected Jalalabad. The military guards coming to Kunar from Jalalabad were also cooperating with them. Mujahidin had taken control of the airport and had reached the city gate. In this war, Pakistani forces also supported mujahidin logistically. It is said that their artillery was also used in the war.
The time was close when the entire Jalalabad would have fallen into the hands of mujahidin. Dr Najibullah ordered 9th battalion, controlling the road security of Jalalabad, to reach Jalalabad. The first group of this battalion, which reached there was Group-155. Its commander was Arozgai Asadullah. The brave army commander of Nangarhar asked him to defend the airport. Assadullah said: I will object it. Commander asked how many men do you have? He had about 250 troops. He maintained his troops on Pica and other weapons. Then he started communicating with him. During the telephonic conversation, another language was heard. He asked his troops, if they understand that language. They said yes, they are speaking Urdu. He asked whose language is it? Troops replied: of Pakistanis. Asadullah said: Pakistanis have attacked our homeland. Homeland is like a mother. Those of you who respect the dignity of mother should stand up with me; if you do not, you are free to go. All the troops said: we will fight.
Commander Asadullah said: we will be fighting in standing position. There will be no lying or kneeing position. Injured and dead will not be carried out. Similarly, we will fight the enemy face to face. Then, he led and the troops followed him. They advanced for 2.5-km. They repulsed the enemy. All of them were killed. However, many of the enemy personnel were massacred.
Defeat of Mujahidin
The offensive of these 250 troops later caused the defeat of mujahidin. They were only fighting in the name of homeland and not for the national ideology. At that time, the government forces were equipped with the spirit of patriotism. They were taking mujahidin as enemies of the homeland. They were observing that mujahidin were setting ablaze schools, destroying bridges, uprooting electricity towers, killing teachers, same as the Taliban are doing now. However, right after the fall of Dr Najib's government, mujahidin started looting and plundering across the country, and proved their enmity with the homeland.
In March, Interior Minister General Bismillah said: "There is lack of patriotic spirit in army and police". Earlier, military commanders used to be patriotic. They were not looters. They were real men and were equally treating their troops, without any differences. However, now situation is not the same. Probably, due to the same reason, soldiers are less patriotic now than before. When Russians were withdrawing from the country, there were thousands of tanks, hundreds of transport and combat air-crafts, hundreds of helicopters, equipped artillery, Luna, (military) equipment, Scud missiles, and complete resources and possibilities of anti-air craft were in control of the Afghan Government. However, now our army does not have weapons, not even Pica and RPG.
UN Peace Plan
With the well maintained army of that time, an active and dynamic president like Najibullah was working for the country. He himself fought a war as a leading commander. However, President Karzai does not posses similar physical capacity or a consistence vision. He keeps on changing his statements. At times, he becomes furious and at other moment a cool minded person. Equipped army, high morale of troops, strong president, and fair administration was the bases of prolonging the rule of Najibullah. However, his government was not toppled because of mujahidin but internal conspiracies. Initially, the coupe d'état by Shahnawaz Tanai broke the backbone of his government. Later, the coalition between General Momin, Dostam, Syed Kian and Ahmed Shah Masud limited the writ of the government to Northern part of the country. General Nabi Azimi and Karmal's cooperation blunt the UN peace plan, and forced Dr Najibullah to resign.
Can the Hamid Karzai government sustain after the US withdrawal? According to the aforementioned points, now the opponents of the government are limited to two confronting political groups. They do not have support from any international element. They do not enjoy greater support because of the incidents of setting the schools on fire, destroying bridges, roads, and hospitals, and suicide attacks. The Taliban do not have capacity for face to face fight. They can only conduct sniper and suicide attacks. They can only be caught through intelligence and detective information. The government forces are incapable against them and do not have air forces and air defense. They do not have cannons, tanks, and other heavy weapons. Above all, the soldiers are not as loyal as they should be. Another good point is that there is no excuse for the government to fight against the Taliban after the US withdrawal. Most of the Taliban will surrender due to the peace talks.
Following the Russian withdrawal, Jihadist organizations told their fighters that the government has loyalties to Russians; therefore, we need to do Jihad against them. They leveled decree of infidelity against Dr Najib. Mjahidin did not clear their hearts for Dr Najib no mater how many testimonies he was making. However, now no one suspects Karzai. It is being said that he offers Tahajud Prayer (mid night prayer). Therefore, he sleeps until 0900 and does not attend his office.
After the Russian withdrawal, the Afghan Government was left alone. Only the Soviet Government was supporting it. Now, when the United States will withdraw, the entire world will support Afghanistan. As we have trained ex-army soldiers, they can be reappointed in army and their expertise can be utilized. Our former Army officers are accustomed with the Russians weapons. If heavy weapons are taken from Russia, three years is not a long time to establish air force and build air defense. Until our air force is not self sufficient, the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) can take the responsibility of country's air force and army. The government can maintain its troops for patriotism.
Financial Support
It is only possible if the Taliban are propagated against their crimes. The Taliban should be shown videos of them killing the people, setting ablaze the schools, and destroying the public welfare infrastructure. They should be forced to realize that they should not forget the sacrifices of the people. On the other hand, those soldiers who have been martyred for the sake of homeland, their families should be provided financial support. By doing so, soldiers will be free of the worries of their families' sustenance. As the Taliban cannot fight face to face, and stress upon suicide and sniper attacks; therefore, the government should make its intelligence stronger. If all this is done, then there is a greater possibility that the government can stay for a longer period. However, weak leadership of Karzai is a matter of concern. If he cannot do it, he should find an active, dynamic, and strong person for war strategy and administration.

New US and Allies Outlook on Taliban

The attitude of the United States, so to say the Western world has stated changing on the Taliban issue. Now, they want to proceed through not confrontations and clashes but through understanding and peaceful means. After fighting for over a decade in Afghanistan, they have now decided to establish peace by putting an end to bloody war. They are trying to overcome the challenges through political settlement instead of military confrontation. It seems they have changed their stand and policy on Taliban issue.
Al-Qaida and Taliban are the diehard enemies of the United States and its allies. These two organizations are black-listed as international terrorist operatives. Their supporters and sympathizers are also regarded as the enemies of the western world, including the United States. These are also defamed internationally as the enemies of mankind. Not only the Western world, all countries of the glove which are the members of the United Nations hate these extremists and their shelter givers.
The Al-Qaida is blamed for launching terrorists' attacks on Twin Towers of New York and Pentagon building in Washington on 11 September 2001. The Taliban are also identified as the terrorists and extremists as well as accomplices and patrons of the Al-Qaida operatives. The United States and the United Kingdom blamed Taliban for 9/11 terrorist attacks and took vow to crush such evil forces. To attain this objective, they installed an alternative regime of Taliban government in Afghanistan by launching joint the US and British military attacks on Afghanistan on 7 October 2001 to crush the Taliban regime in Kabul as retaliation of the 9/11 incident. Later, an election was held in Afghanistan. The anti-Taliban Karzai government is still ruling Afghanistan. The US troops are still stationed in Afghan soil.
Movements Against Western Forces
Although the western forces were succeeded to overthrow the Taliban regime, they could not eradicate the followers of the Taliban from Afghanistan. They are still building up resistance movements against the Western occupation forces. They are carrying out sniff attacks on Anglo-US forces. The Taliban forces have been continuing guerilla warfare against the strongest western troops for over a decade. The Taliban military strategists made the western power deeply concerned. When they (three Western power) have felt that there is no way to eradicate the Taliban by military action, they have no other alternative but to think for changing their policy and strategies. And exactly the western powers are doing the same thing on Taliban issue. This has been crystal clear from some recent remarks of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. At a press conference on 17 June Hamid Karzai said that the western powers have started discussion and negotiations with the Taliban forces to establish peace ending one decade of arms confrontations. Although it was in the air for quite some times that the United States was trying to start negotiation with the Taliban force, this is for the first time that a high-level Afghan leader like Hamid Karzai admitted this publicly. But he informed that this discussion is still at initial stage. There may be some constructive talks when Afghan Affairs conference will take place in German capital Bonn in next December.
That the United States is going to change its stand on Taliban issue was sensed from some remarks of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the beginning of the current year. She, however, told about some pre-conditions of beginning peace talks with the Taliban forces. She said that before initiating any such peace negotiation, the Taliban must snap their relations with Al-Qaida operatives. Besides, Taliban have to accept the present constitution of Afghanistan. The Taliban, however, outright rejected Hillary's offer.
Al-Qaida’s Threat to the US
The present stand of the United States and its allies is irrevocable on the issue of Taliban. In this regard they are prepared not to give any concession to the Taliban extremists. On 2 May, the US troops entered deep into Pakistan territories and killed Al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden. The incident is not end here.
The United States declared its vow to kill Egypt-origin Ayman Al-Jawhiri when he was elected leader of the Al-Qaida international terrorist operative to replace Osama Bin Laden. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of US army declared that Jawhiri would also have to face the same fate like that of Osama Bin Laden. As we have killed Ladin, we will do the same thing in case of Jawhiri, Admiral Mike said. He said that Al-Qaida was still great threat to the United States.
Prevailing Political Reality in Afghanistan
Political analysts viewed that the United States is going to change its stand on Taliban because of prevailing political reality in Afghanistan. The reflection of the attitude of the United States and its allies on Taliban and Afghanistan has also fallen on the United Nations. The UN Security Council has also adopted resolution to carryon more effectively and vigorously its war against terrorism giving new thought towards Taliban and Al-Qaida. The Security Council in this regard is considering two proposals. There is an agenda to take vote in the Security Council in this issue. In these proposals it was said that the Taliban and the Al-Qaida would have to consider under two separate perspectives. This is because these two organizations and extremists outfits do not have same agenda. The aim of the Al-Qaida is to attack on Western interests and to reach this objective they are lodging jihad (holy war). However, the objectives of the Taliban are limited to their own country. They seldom launch any attacks targeting the outside world. Present Chairman of the Security Council and German Ambassador to the United Nations, Peter Wig, while giving his comment on the resolutions taken by the Security Council in the first part of June last on Taliban and Al-Qaida said: "The decision of the security council to impose sanctions separately on Taliban and the Al-Qaida is the true reflection of the reality existing in Afghanistan."
War on Terror
Through taking divided resolution on Taliban and the Al-Qaida, it is presumed that situation has been fast changing in Afghanistan after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Now time has come to give new thought. In the meantime the New York District Court has dismissed the cases filed against Laden on charge of terrorism owing to his death. Judge Luis Kaplan dismissed over 200 charges of terrorism, murders, use of weapons of mass destructions for killing civilian people brought against Osama Bin Laden. The charges brought against Ladin were dismissed by the court after being sure about his death.
Al-Qaida chief Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden is no more. He was replaced by Al-Jawhiri. Nothing as such new target of Al-Qaida was heard from the lips of Jawhiri until today. Although some hints were received about the change of attitude of the US Administration on the Taliban, no sign was noticed about the aggressive attitude of the United States against the Al-Qaida. However, there is indication of new formula of the United States over its declared the war on terror in cooperation with Pakistan.

Afghan President’s India Visit: New Delhi and Kabul Establish Strategic Cooperation

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, came to India for a two-day visit on 4 October. Karzai’s trip to New Delhi is seen as one laden with significance where the deepening of bilateral ties between the two countries are concerned. The two countries entered into a strategic partnership under which India will, among other things, assist the war-ravaged nation in training, equipping and capacity building programs for Afghan National Security Forces.

The landmark agreement was signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Afghan President Karzai after their wide ranging discussions on the situation in the embattled nation and how India could strengthen its capacity building programs in that country.

Political and Security Issues

The agreement envisions bilateral ties on an altogether different and broader plane, encompassing areas such as security and economic cooperation. The most significant aspect of the strategic partnership is the political and security cooperation it envisages in areas such as combating international terrorism.
The agreement provides for the training, equipping and capacity-building of Afghan national security forces, which is being seen as a preparation for the drawdown of US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces by 2014. Thus far, treading carefully, New Delhi had been largely pumping aid to help build Afghanistan’s infrastructure.

Security cooperation between the sides was intended to help enhance their respective and mutual efforts in the fight against international terrorism, organized crime, illegal trafficking in narcotics, money laundering and so on, the text of the strategic partnership document said. India agreed to assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping and capacity building programs for Afghan National Security Forces.

The two countries also concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cooperation in the field of development of hydrocarbons and another on cooperation in the field of mineral resource development.

Under the agreement, the two sides will engage in close political cooperation by establishing a mechanism for regular bilateral political and Foreign Office Consultations. Political consultations will be led by the Foreign Ministries of both countries and include summit level consultations convened at least once a year.

The two sides will also consult and cooperate at the United Nations and other international, regional and multilateral fora. India and Afghanistan also agreed to establish a Strategic Dialogue to provide a framework for cooperation in the area of national security. The dialogue will be led by National Security Advisers (NSAs) and involve regular consultations with the aim of intensifying mutual efforts toward strengthening regional peace and security.

Support for UN Reforms

The strategic agreement also comprises joint initiatives on key international issues and support for UN reforms, including permanent seat for India in the UN Security Council. It entails a strategic dialogue to provide a framework for cooperation in the area of national security. "The dialogue will be led by NSAs and involve regular consultations with the aim of intensifying mutual efforts towards strengthening regional peace and security.

The two countries committed themselves to strengthening trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation, as well as cooperation between other bodies of business and industry representatives, with a view to expanding trade and economic relations.

The major pacts signed include:

* An MoU on cooperation in the field mineral resource development concluded. The two sides will engage in close political cooperation
* India to assist in training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan security forces
* Both nations committed to strengthening trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation

Rabbani's Assassination: Jolt To Afghan Peace Efforts

The assassination of former Afghan President Barahuddin Rabbani in a suicide attack makes it clear that peace in that war-torn country is very far yet. His assassination is an attempt to sabotage the ongoing efforts for peace in that country. Those involved in hatching the conspiracy alone cannot be held responsible for it. Efforts to bring peace are under way with the US support. But not only the Taliban, but the common man in Afghanistan also have no faith and trust in the United States, hence, they do not take these efforts seriously. Insurgents and terrorists derive mileage efforts; and have to bear the brunt of it. Even the former Afghanistan president became a victim to such suicide attack.
Talks With Taliban
Rabbani was among the moderate leaders in Afghanistan. He was the president of Afghanistan in the period 1992-1996 and as president he made efforts to bring peace in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai assigned him the task of bringing terrorist elements in the peace process by holding talks with the Taliban and bringing them back to the mainstream. Since Rabbani was an influential leader, his efforts were being supported not only by various sections of the society but at the international level as well. He visited India in July as the chairman of the High Peace Council. He held meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna, and others. He attached special importance to India on the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the establishment of peace and lauded India's cooperation and commitment for it. That is why India has expressed deep sorrow and grief at his sudden demise and announced to continue to extend cooperation in the peace process in that country.
Rabbani was of the firm belief that without India's full support, the peace dialogue cannot move in the right direction. Under these circumstances, his killing has given rise to a significant query to what role would India have in the dialogue with the Taliban and to whom Karzai would hand over the responsibility to hold talks with the Taliban.
Hatred Toward US
The killing of Rabbani makes it clear that there exist a most powerful group among the Taliban, which want to derail the peace dialogue. The main reason behind it is nothing but the strong resentment and hatred toward the United States. The assassination of Rabbani is a severe jolt to the United States also which is prepared to pack up and leave Afghanistan. If, consequent upon Rabbani's killing, the peace dialogue get affected, it may have an impact on the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan as well.
Most importantly, Rabbani's assassination is a severe jolt to moderate elements in Afghanistan. This moderate group includes that section of the Taliban, which was supporting the talks, by abjuring violence with the Karzai government and US representatives. In short, the fatal attack on Rabbani has placed a big question mark on his expectations of establishment of peace. It has, more importantly, added to the woes and difficulties for the United States.

Peace Process in Afghanistan

The United States wants to put an end to its longest war, the war in Afghanistan. US President Barack Obama made this comment recently. Although many people do not accept this or do not want to accept it, these comments bear a strange resemblance to the comments made by the last Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, when the Soviet forces were withdrawing from Afghanistan. Gorbachev really succeeded in ending the longest war in the history of his country, but it nevertheless cost the then Soviet Union and Afghanistan dearly. Although it portrayed Soviet defeat in Afghanistan in the most honorable way, it opened the gate for new long and frustrating wars in our country.
Does Obama also want to end the longest war in the history of his country the way Gorbachev did? Obama's comments clearly contradict comments made by the United States and its military commanders in the past. Previously, continued military cooperation and possible long-term US presence was emphasized. What has happened now that US officials are now showing an inclination towards ending their military presence in Afghanistan?
Legitimate Solutions
Meanwhile, Taliban leader Mullah Omar surprisingly showed in his Id message that he has revisited his previous position.
It is not clear how the Afghan Government found out that the statement is indeed issued by Mullah Omar because Hamid Karzai has constantly been in doubt whether the Taliban really stage attacks and kill people when they assume responsibility for such incidents. He had argued that since nobody has seen Taliban spokespersons, nobody can know that these persons who contact the media truly represent the Taliban and their leader). Mullah Omar said in the statement that any legitimate solutions to the Afghanistan issue can be considered. The Taliban leader has not explained what his group deems as legitimate, but it is clear that this group has constantly emphasized on a political role for itself under special conditions.
New Developments
Anyway, several points emerge from the US president's comments and Mullah Omar's statement:
First, when Obama says he will soon end the longest US war, he may mean he will do so to handle the financial cost the war is inflicting. The most recent report by the two Senate committees on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq says that 60bn dollars were wasted on two useless wars. The report emphasizes that 60bn dollars of taxpayers' money have been wasted due to suspicious contracts, lack of oversight and transparent mechanisms. This may have prompted the US president to speak about ending the war in Afghanistan.
Second, after Usamah Bin-Ladin's death, the 10-year war in Afghanistan, which the Americans regard as the longest war in US history, entered a new phase and many Americans said that continued presence of their troops in Afghanistan is no longer justified. It is also important to remember that the level of international interest in the menace of terrorism is not as high as it used to be and many people believe that the Westerners were mistaken in defining terrorism.
Third, the United States wants to have a long-term presence in Afghanistan and in the region, which can be facilitated if military bases are built. This is why the Americans are tying to have a strategic declaration with Afghanistan to achieve this objective and practically maintain a powerful and long-term presence in Afghanistan. To achieve this objective, there is a need to secure the consent of a number of powerful regional countries including Pakistan, China and Russia and it seems some countries have consented already.
Fourth, the government of Afghanistan has been busy trying to include a number of Taliban and their leaders in the political process and a number of countries supporting Afghanistan have agreed to this or have been encouraging this. Mullah Omar's statement can be viewed as a green light to the forthcoming talks in Turkey. The international community wants to hold a regional conference in Turkey and invite a number of groups and neighboring countries involved in Afghanistan before it holds the Bonn II conference. It is said that the conference can enable the Taliban to enter the political process in the country. Although the Americans have said that there is no place for the Taliban in the Bonn II conference, the government of Afghanistan has constantly emphasized that the Afghan delegation will be composed of one group under the umbrella of the government of Afghanistan. Karzai has extended an invitation to the Taliban to participate in the conference under these conditions.
Fifth, authoritarian circles within the government are trying to convince the United States and Western governments that the best solution to the crisis in the country is to negotiate with and give insurgent groups a share in the government. Therefore, the lengthy war is likely to come to an end through talks with these groups.
Sixth, the government of Afghanistan wants to convene a Loya Jirga or grand assembly of Afghans, which many analysts think would be a ceremonial event, to secure the agreement of the Jirga to the joint declaration with the United States and thus pave the way for the Taliban to enter the government.
Seven, Americans are not satisfied with what has happened in Afghanistan in the past 10 years and by having a regional ally they want to rid themselves of the need to spend heavy sums of money. It is not important for them as to who will ensure their interests as long as their interests are ensured.
Eighth, President Karzai embarked on a tour of Saudi Arabia shortly prior to Id ul-Fitr citing umrah (pilgrimage to the Holy Kaba in Saudi town of Mecca) as the reason, but Saudi Arabia had previously assembled a number of other Afghan groups. The statement by the Office of the President about Hamid Karzai's trip had alluded to talks with Saudi officials for peace in Afghanistan.
Ninth, these show that fresh efforts are being made to maintain the status quo while at the same time find a solution for Afghanistan. This can stand in blatant contradiction with the achievements of the international community in the past 10 years in Afghanistan. These new developments can also jeopardize true peace and sideline the enlightened and pro-reform forces in the country.

Blood-Soaked Afghanistan: Obama's Declaration of Pulling Out US Troops

The history of Afghanistan is blood-soaked. There is no end of blood-shed in Afghan history. At the latest spell, 60 persons were killed and 43 others were injured in a car bomb blast at Logger Province of the country. Although Taliban were blamed for this subversive design, they did not accept their involvement in the bomb explosions. Rather they strongly refuted the allegations. The puppet government of Hamid Karzai is ruling the country after the US-led military intervention in Afghanistan in the name of fighting back the Taliban regime. Still today huge number of American and British troops remained stationed in the mountainous country with a plea of protecting democracy and peace. Although Afghan people now dislike presence of foreign troops in their own soil, it has been internationally recognized that the Afghan citizens are playing the key role in maintaining peace and tranquility in the country.
National Building Activities
There are at least 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Besides, there are British soldiers. On 22 June Barack Obama declared to withdraw 33,000 US troops from there. He made the declaration while giving a speech at White House. Of them, 10,000 soldiers will be lifted this year, while the rest 23,000 will be pulled out by 2012. Obama said now is the appropriate time for the US troops to come back from Afghanistan and devote in national building activities. This declaration of the US President generated high acclamation world wide. He also faced instant criticism over such announcement. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stressed on the political impact of the Obama's announcement. The Defense Secretary said the gradual diminishing trend of US public opinion against further staying of the US troops in Afghan soil is the major cause of such sudden decision of Barack Obama to pull back troops from there.
There are many debates over the merits and demerits of withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Discussions were held not only on the impact of Obama's declaration on Afghan situation but also on the total internal political arena of the United States. The political aspect of Obama's announcement has become more specific and clear from the statement of Hillary Clinton. She said Obama would pull out US troops from Afghanistan by July 2011. She further said lifting of troops from Afghanistan was the commitment of Obama to the nation. By giving declaration of withdrawal of solders from Afghanistan Obama has been just materializing his pledges to the nation.
Reducing US strength and Influence
It has not yet been possible to know from any survey report whether Obama's popularity has enhance owing to such declaration. But this declaration has created bitter reactions among the US commanders who are still stationed in Afghanistan. This is because withdrawing troops from Afghanistan would definitely reduce the strength and influence of the United States over Afghanistan. Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff of US Army Mike Mullen said that the announcement of President Obama is much more stronger than the suggestions given by the military commands. Chief of army staff of US troops in Afghanistan General David Petraus has also expressed similar opinion. But it was understood from their versions about the dangers that may descend on US troops in Afghanistan following such sudden announcement of army pull out from Afghanistan. It would definitely put the US military presence in Afghanistan on an awkward position.
Worldwide War on Terror
Although US troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan as per Obama's declaration, it is sure that all soldiers would not leave Afghan soil right now. The year 2014 may be a target in this regard. Even if the US troops are withdrawn from the Afghanistan as per Obama's declaration, there would be presence of foreign troops in the country. They are allied forces of the United States. That means there would be foreign troops in Afghanistan to protect the interest of the western world. There is no reason for the Afghan people to be very joyful or enthusiastic over the Obama's declaration to pull out soldiers. It is apprehended that after Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameroon may give similar declaration. But Cameroon was strongly alerted about it right now. British Army Chief General Peter Wall said there is still doubt if the British soldiers could be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 2014, the deadline set earlier by the British Premier. Former British Army Chief Richard Dundy called upon the British Premier to remain alert over the impending risk of pulling out troops from Afghanistan. He said, "In no way Britain should be influenced by Obama's decision to withdraw troops from Afghan soil."
Richard's statement had proved beyond any amount of doubt that the declaration of Obama is very much political. In an interview Richard Dundy said Obama had given announcement of pulling out troops from Afghanistan purely for internal political reason. "I hope the United Kingdom will not put its step on Obama's traps." Dundy said adding "Cameroon would surely not like to see that Afghanistan be tinged with blood again."
Indiscriminately Killing Civil People
Although Hamid Karzai welcomed the Obama's declaration of army pullout, it is not still clear if such political stance of the United States would be beneficial for the Afghan people. The worldwide war on terror being launched by the United States, the United Kingdom, and their allies is not above controversy. While speaking at an Anti-Terrorism Conference in Teheran on 25 June, chief religious leader of Iran Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeini said that in the name of war against terror, the United States has been rearing the terrorists. They are indiscriminately killing civil people by launching drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, they are declaring so smugly war against terrorism in the world. The Palestinian people have been launching war in their own soils to materialize their demands to have their own independent and sovereign homeland. But the United States and some of its western allies are branding the Palestinians as terrorists. However, Obama has been contesting for the presidency of the United States for the second term. To maintain his popularity, Obama has to talks over establishment of peace in the Middle East like his declaration of withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. It would be demonstrated through the poll-results how much confident the US people are on Obama's commitment.

US To Set Up Permanent Bases in Afghanistan Under New Joint Strategy

The US Congress has held weeklong discussion as to how to adopt a joint plan and principles for joint strategy with Afghanistan to prepare for the approval and the consensus of which countries is necessary for this strategy? US President Barack Obama has sought the opinion of the American Congress on these questions. At last, Obama got the consent of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and on those in the United States whom he needed. Only the neighboring countries of Afghanistan have said that they do not agree with the United States about the joint strategy on Afghanistan.
Setting Up of Joint Commission
Although Pakistan because of some problems has not openly said something about the strategy of the United States on Afghanistan yet Islamabad wanted to exchange its views with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan authorities about restoration of complete peace in Afghanistan. Afghan Olasi Jirga (National Assembly) faces opposition and questions about this joint strategy. The United States has delayed the topic of joint strategy. The political debates have started and media is giving wide coverage to rockets firing, attacks and militants' infiltration from Afghanistan, attacks on police checkpoints in Pakistani territory and allegations against each other and finally the two countries have agreed over setting up of a joint commission for resolution to the issues. This indicates that such decisions about US-Afghan joint strategy may not take place which continued in the past.
Political analysts of Afghan affairs have given the reason of this silence that neither the Afghan nation nor the entire officials in the Afghan Government have agreed over this joint strategy. They added, the neighboring countries of Afghanistan have also adopted silence on this joint strategy of the United States until improvement in the situation.
Legal Status in Future
It may be noted that the president of any country could not sign any agreement with another country, which is opposed by his parliament and if he signs it, it will have no legal status in the future. As far as the matter of expressing views in the Afghan Olasi Jirga is concerned, the US media, intelligence and other sources are trying to convince the members of the Afghan parliament to have unanimous views about the US-Afghan joint strategy, which also includes the establishment of permanent bases in Afghanistan.
Role of Pakistan
However, Iran has openly opposed the setting up of United States permanent bases and joint cooperation with Afghanistan. Expressing his views, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said at a press conference in Tehran that the United States wanted to establish permanent bases in Afghanistan to ensure its permanent presence in the region. The United States has rejected each and every Iranian opinion about Afghanistan. Because of its problems, the United States could not clear its position with regard to Pakistan as the United States defeated the forces of former Soviet Union with the support and cooperation of Pakistan.
Although the silence is being observed about the United States joint strategy about Afghanistan, there is concern that this silence may break up because of the agreement of some people, who favor the United States.

Pakistan-US Agreement on Counterterrorism Cooperation

The fourth session of the Pakistan-US Working Group on Counterterrorism was held in Islamabad on 5 July. The Pakistani delegation was led by Interior Minister Rehman Malik while William Brownfield, US assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and narcotics affairs, led the US delegation. At the session, Pakistan and the United States agreed on the need for joint efforts to continue strategic talks, to resolve visa problems, and to curb drug trafficking. Moreover, complying with the US demand, Pakistan banned the export of nitrate, which is used in preparing landmines, to Afghanistan. However, the United States assured to enhance Pakistani security agencies' capability.
Addressing the joint news conference at the conclusion of the talks, Interior Minister Rehman Malik welcomed the resumption of talks between Pakistan and the United States. On this occasion, William Brownfield assured to support Pakistani Government's efforts against terrorism. The meeting decided to form a joint task force to eliminate the explosive devices.
Curbing Narcotics Trafficking
The agreement between Pakistan and the United States on strategy and steps against terrorism indicates that, despite the differences on several issues, some dialogue between the two countries is going on, which is a welcome development in the sense that it will not only help resolve these issues but will also help improve relations between the two countries. Narcotics trafficking is a major issue of this region as well as of the rest of the world. The Pakistan-US agreement on curbing narcotics trafficking is an encouraging development. The need of the hour is that the rest of the world too played its due role in this regard so that the longstanding dream of forming a drugs free global society could be materialized.
The ban on export of nitrate, which is used in preparing landmines, to Afghanistan, is a welcome step. The use of landmines in wars dates back to a long time ago. The use of the landmines in the prevailing situation in Afghanistan can bear devastating results. However, the United States should gain an assurance from the Karzai government that the terrorists would not be able to obtain the chemical, used in preparing landmines, from somewhere else.
Common Interest
During his unannounced visit of Afghanistan, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said that Pakistan's and Afghanistan's working jointly is in the interest of both the countries. However, President Hamid Karzai is unable to understand that. In his meeting with President Asif Ali Zardari, he expressed grave concern over the alleged shelling in Afghanistan from the Pakistani areas. It is pertinent to mention here that, a few days ago, several hundred Afghan terrorists invaded Pakistani area and reaction was shown from this side of the border.
Speaking in this connection, Interior Minister Rehman Malik has said that the intervention and supply of weapons in Pakistan from Afghanistan needs to be stopped. He added that our borders have been violated five times from the Afghanistan side.
Eliminating Terrorism
David Petraeus, commander of the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said that the foreign forces will focus attention on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in the coming months. It is imperative that the NATO forces not only stopped violations of the Durand Line but also enforced measures to prevent the terrorists from infiltrating into Pakistan from Afghanistan.
The United States can give a new dimension to the cooperation against terrorism by showing progress on these matters. That will also pave way for normalizing the relations between Pakistan and the United States once again.

Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan Summit

Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, reiterating their strong commitment to reinforce their efforts to eradicate extremism, terrorism and militancy, have agreed to strengthen and expand trilateral cooperation in various fields. This was agreed during the trilateral summit between President Asif Ali Zardari, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Afghan President Hamid Karzai held in Teheran on 24 June.
Cooperation Among Governments
Within the framework of trilateral cooperation among the governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, heads of the three states held the second trilateral summit in Teheran on 24 June 2011.
The parties in this summit underlined the good neighborly relations and the necessity of strengthening and expanding trilateral cooperation in various fields. They also discussed issues of mutual interest in the political, security and economic domains, as well as in the areas of trade, education and culture. Moreover, the parties regarded the trilateral summit as an appropriate platform for the promotion of regional cooperation and the strengthening of peace and stability.
During the trilateral discussions, held in a friendly environment, the three parties emphasized the implementation of agreements based on the document signed among the three countries in Teheran (24 May 2009) and the agreement among the three foreign ministers in Islamabad (16 January 2010).
Joint Agreement
The leaders at the summit agreed on the following points:
1. All parties stressed the strong will of the governments and Muslim people of the region to strengthen the ties in various areas of political, security, economic and cultural issues and promoting cooperation among three countries in the above mentioned areas.
2. All parties underlined the need to maintain peace, stability and tranquility in their region as well as to promote economic prosperity, strengthen their cultures and respect religious beliefs.
3. All parties underscored their strong commitment to reinforce their efforts to eradicate extremism, terrorism and militancy, and also rejected external interference, all of which are not in clear conformity with the spirit of Islam and the peaceful traditions of their people.
4. All parties expressed their deep concern over the increase in narcotic drugs trafficking and their organized crime, and called for greater regional cooperation to eliminate this menace.
5. All parties stressed that the existing capacities of their respective countries be fully utilized so as to strengthen peace and security to ensure the respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity as enshrined in the UN charter to prevent any instability.
6. All parties reiterated the importance of regional cooperation and emphasized to work together to resolve regional issues affecting them.
7. All parties agreed that further trilateral meetings at the level of ministers of foreign affairs, interior or security and commerce will prepare a roadmap for the heads of government.
8. The Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Republic of Pakistan support the Afghan-led and owned reconciliation and peace process initiated by the Afghan government.
9. All parties agreed that the third trilateral summit shall be held in Islamabad, preferably before the end of 2011. They also agreed that the fourth summit would be held in Kabul.

UN Resolution on Terrorists, Organizations

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has unanimously adopted two resolutions under which terrorists and organizations associated with Al-Qaida and the Taliban would be split into two separate lists. There was one committee in the UNSC for sanctions against Taliban and Al-Qaida. However, it has now been decided unanimously to deal with Taliban and Al-Qaida separately.
After the adoption of two resolutions, international powers led by the United States have said they view that Taliban and Al-Qaida have different targets. In the words of western diplomats, Taliban are waging resistance only in Afghanistan while Al-Qaida has an international agenda. The head of UNSC Counter-Terrorism Committee and the German ambassador has said that the adoption of the resolutions is a clear and strong message that we are supporting the Afghan government to end violence and advance the process of reconciliation for peace in Afghanistan.
Possibility of US-Taliban Talks
Soon after the adoption of the resolutions by the UNSC, Afghan President Hamid Karzai addressing a press conference in Kabul disclosed that several international powers including, the United States, are engaged in talks with the Taliban. Earlier, different diplomatic circles reported several times that negotiations were underway between the Afghan government and Taliban. However, it is for the first time that Afghan President has officially confirmed talks with Taliban adding that the United States itself is engaged in talks. After disclosure by the Afghan President, the US Embassy has refused to confirm or deny talks with Taliban. However, Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid has strongly denied talks with the United States and European countries. Mujahid telephoned to the French news agency, AFP, from an unknown place and denied the disclosure made by Afghan President. He said that the Taliban have in the past denied such reports.
We do not know as to why Karzai has made this disclosure. Whether or nor the United States or western countries are holding direct or indirect talks with Afghan Taliban, it has become clear that now the United States has compelled to beg to the Taliban for talks. A major hurdle in the way of talks between United States and Taliban were the resolutions under which it has declared Taliban and Al-Qaida terrorists. Following adoption of the resolutions by the UNSC, names of some wanted Taliban leaders would be removed from the list as the resolution allows the Afghan government to make changes in the list. However, they will be approved by the UNSC.
Afghan War Strategy
The split of Al-Qaida and Taliban in the list of terrorists by the UNSC indicates difference over strategy between the United States and Europe regarding Afghanistan war. After passage of the resolution (resolutions) British Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt has said that with a view to grasp the situation, US contacts with Taliban are in line with the thinking of the international community and Afghan people as well as the government. Commenting on reports of contacts between the United States and Taliban, he said that he had always supported reconciliation with resistance elements in Afghanistan and their joining to the national mainstream on the conditions of Afghanistan government. The conditions of the Afghan government include, abandoning of violence, severing contacts with terrorist organizations and acceptance of the constitution. The fresh contacts, which have been confirmed by Afghan President Karzai is a step towards the destination to which, the situation will at last lead.
It is known to all that establishment of peace does not depend on only military success and training of Afghan army and police rather it will be on a political settlement. The statement of an important official of British Foreign Office about the United States' negotiations with Taliban shows the fact that differences have developed between the United States and Europe over Afghan war strategy.
Differences between the US political and military leadership with regards to (Afghanistan) wa r have become clear. On the one hand, US President Barack Obama has announced to begin US military withdrawal from July 2011. The US military leadership holds the viewpoint that Taliban cannot be brought to the negotiations table without crushing their resistance. The time is passing and the Afghan war is ten years old. If the US military with the help of 40 countries has not succeeded to crush Taliban's resistance during the past 10 years, as to how it will do so during the next few months.
Status of Taliban
The United States through the UNSC resolution has allured Taliban to weaken their resistance and divide the Mujahidin. The western diplomatic circles raise the questions (question) as to what is the status of those Taliban in the ranks of Taliban to whom the United States is holding talks. The United States and international western powers through the latest UNSC resolution have at least admitted that war going on in the name of elimination of terrorism is based on falsehood and deception. A question has also arisen about the legal and moral credibility of the UN resolutions. The law changes when their expediencies change. They declare terrorists to someone and remove someone from the list of terrorists on their own sweet will.
The peace cannot come to the world when the international law will be made on the basis of reposts of secret agency, the CIA without giving any evidence. Ten years ago, the United States had resorted to brutal military adventurism (in Afghanistan) by declaring Al-Qaida responsible for 9/11 and Taliban as their supporter. During these 10 years, hundreds of thousands of Afghans were killed and lethal weapons on a large scale were tested on poor Afghans. Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons were also used in Afghanistan because of which disabled and ill children are being born there.
Legislation Against Terrorism
The legislation against terrorism had started even before 9/11. The United States has forcibly imposed its laws on the entire world through the United Nations. These laws are the worst case of trampling of human rights. The United States continued to present Afghanistan and Taliban as a threat to the world for 10 years although the Afghans were fighting US attack as they fought the Soviet Union. At that time, Mujahidin had come to Afghanistan from the entire world.
The United States under its anti-humane agenda declared international impact of Afghan Mujahidin's success over Soviet Union as terrorism. The United States had got conducted inhuman and unjust legislation from the United Nations before the 9/11 in the name of terrorism. Terrorism is a crime whose definition could not be made until today. The war was the continuation of the new world order whose, one aspect is globalization. However, today the US and western pride has been trampled in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Manmohan Singh's Afghan Tour

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Afghan tour is of vital importance. During a dinner thrown by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, he said, 'We want to see a strong and peaceful democracy in Afghanistan, so that its people play their role in respect of cultural and social fabric on global level. We have come here with a message of peace and India will keep on contributing for the development of their country.' On this occasion, Singh presented a gift of $100 million to Afghanistan.
Predecided Visit
After six years, the Indian prime minister's visit to Afghanistan was predecided and had no relation with Osama Bin Ladin's death. Suddenly, South Asia's scenario has changed after 2 May. The political upheaval has escalated post-Bin Ladin's death in Pakistan and Afghanistan will also be affected with this. What will be the foreign policy of Afghanistan cannot be said.
However, during talks of Manmohan Singh and Karzai, the withdrawal of US troops is neither in tune with South Asian policies nor would benefit India. This is the reason that the United States does not want to spoil relations with Pakistan.
Bin Ladin's Presence in Pakistan
Bin Ladin's presence in Pakistan was not strange for India as Pakistani intelligence functioning is well known to India. What is happening there and what it can do is very clear. The 26/11 (Mumbai terror attacks) occurrence has opened our eyes, but now the United States must review its relationship with Pakistan. Although the United States is making inquires in this regard and is talking to teach a lesson to Pakistan, its foreign policy will not weaken it because the United States is at liberty to use its land as and when needed.
The second big power of the world is China, with whose borders the United States can come closer due to Pakistan. This is the reason China is not expressing its anger over Bin Ladin's shelter in Pakistan. More so, in this region, no other country, accept Pakistan, will act with the United States. Singh must speak to Karzai about permanent peace in the region and bringing an end of US meddling in Afghanistan.
India's Foreign Policy
One should not forget that after 9/11, prior to Pakistan, the Indian Government offered the use of its land for land and air attacks in Afghanistan. That time Atal Behari Vajpayee was the prime minister, and this was an unsuccessful attempt of India's foreign policy. After the Indian offer, Pakistan also felt necessary to offer itself. That time the United States preferred Pakistan over India and strengthened its economy, besides praising it all the time.
Had India not presented its offer, Pakistan would also not offer due to public opposition and its true nature would not have been revealed. The Indian prime minister is once again on tour to give a new shape to South Asia. Let us see what the country gain and what it lose.

Strain in US-Pakistan Relations Over Diplomat Issue

There has never been such a great strain in US-Pakistan relations as it is now. Though Pakistani people have vent their ire against the United States on several occasions earlier, all governments in that country continued to wag their tail to the United States. That is why the United States never felt the need either to threaten Islamabad, or initiate any diplomatic action against it.

For once, however, because of a US citizen Raymond Davis, the United States appears to be greatly annoyed. This occurred on 27 January when he shot two Pakistanis dead in Lahore. He maintains that the two Pakistanis were following him on a bike, and wanted to waylay him by threatening him with a gun. Therefore, he fired upon them in self-defence. The American was arrested. The car belonging to the US Embassy speeded up and killed another Pakistani in an attempt to save him. This led to a hue and cry in the country, and slogans like "Death to the Killers" began to be raised. The widow of one of the persons killed committed suicide. This incident added fuel to the fire.

Firefighting Operations
The US Embassy commenced firefighting operations. For the first couple of days, it did not divulge the name of its citizen, implying that he is not a regular diplomat and could be a spy. Names of spies are kept secret. Fake names are also given to them. After his arrest, the American was produced before a Lahore court. If he was not a diplomat, his prosecution in the Lahore court was justified fully.

Yet, no sooner than the United States awoke from slumber, it began to raise the bogey that the American was no ordinary employee in the Embassy, but held the status of a diplomat, implying that his arrest was violative of the international convention. True that foreign diplomats enjoy immunity all over the world. All countries are signatories to the Vienna Convention in this regard. Yet, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi became adamant. Records in his ministry checked whether the American is a diplomat, and whether he enjoys such immunity. He found that the American was no diplomat and cannot be granted any immunity, and can be proceeded against in a court of law in the country. Because of this, Qureshi had to lose the foreign minister's post.

US Economic Aid
Qureshi used to claim to be very close to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Yet, last week, Hillary did not even exchanged any pleasantly with him at Munich, though she did talk to Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani who was sitting beside Qureshi. Truly, if the master gets annoyed, how can an employee continue to be in employment? In fact, Qureshi was under the misconception that Pakistan is a sovereign country, and he the foreign minister of that country.

The American continue to be in custody, the United States has taken to twisting Pakistan's arm. A delegation of US Congressmen has categorically told President Asif Ali Zardari that if it fails to release the American, Pakistan may have to lose the annual US aid of $1.5 billion. The US Department of State has boycotted the Pakistani Embassy in Washington. As if it was not enough, the tripartite meeting between the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, scheduled to be held in February, has been postponed. The meeting was to be attended by President Barack Obama, Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari. The United States has never before adopted such a strong stance against Pakistan. In fact, the US media has highlighted the issue more than it deserved. US citizens are wondering how the very same country that eats out of the crumbs fallen from their table can commit such a blunder.

Anti-US Wave
Meanwhile, the anti-US wave among the masses in Pakistan was already at its peak. All Islamic elements have now begun to talk louder, and are asking why the Zardari government is tolerating the unwarranted US attitude. They wonder if a Pakistani employee had killed two or three Americans in New York, would Americans spare him? Had that person been a Pakistani diplomat, he would not have been spared even then. In 1997, an American girl was crushed under the wheels of the car of Georgia's Deputy Ambassador. The US administration got his diplomatic status withdrawn, and was arrested. The US administration can go to any length to get the American released.

On the US dispute, the Zardari government appears to be on the horns of a dilemma. On one side is its bread earner and on the other are Pakistani voters. The government is caught in a vice grip. The government is passing the buck to Qureshi. It is, however, to difficult to come out of this blind alley. If the court is presented with evidence that the American is a diplomat, it would release him and the Zardari government would be saved.

Withdrawal of US Troops From Afghanistan
Should the issue get prolonged, it would not only escalate tension between the United States and Pakistan, but may also adversely affect India-Pakistan relations, and even the situation in Afghanistan. India-Pakistan dialogue has been resumed under the US pressure. How ridiculous would it be for India to continue to talk to Pakistan, but the United States continues to shun Pakistan? At the same time, all schemes for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan may fall into doldrums.

The sympathies of Pakistani people toward Taliban and Al-Qa'ida would continue to increase, and whatever popularity the Zardari government has may vanish. US policymakers would have to weigh what is more important -- its own interests or the special rights of a mere employee? If the United States so desires, it can use Pakistani courts so cunningly and craftily that the desired target is achieved without causing harm to anyone. US-Pakistan tension is not in favor of any country.