The region of Afghanistan remained unable to achieve peace for last many decades. World powers for their interests have been recycling the people of Afghanistan and neighbouring countries, and unfortunately, later served them accordingly for several reasons. In the wake of instability, the blame game continued throughout the conflicts but the biggest truth is that the natives of the region are the greatest sufferers of all and in all aspects.
The New York Times editorial, published on May 12, titled “Time to Put the Squeeze on Pakistan” has disturbed emotions of many of the intelligentsia and leading analysts of the world along with citizens of Pakistan. The editorial implicates Pakistan for the chaos in Afghanistan and labelled Pakistan a “duplicitous” and “dangerous” ally for the United States and Afghanistan. It is understood that the opinion is just from one group of journalists, and it cannot be generalised at all or considered official doctrine, but such prestigious newspaper could opine it in a better, a more balanced way. With this, we must keep in our minds the other numerous delightful, pluralist and enlightened expressions from the United States.
In response to the editorial of The New York Times, Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States Jalil Abbas Jilani strongly reacted to the biased opinion. He said that the situation in Afghanistan was a “collective failure of the international community.” He further added that “instead of complaining about the heavy cost imposed on us due to sustained external intervention in our neighbourhood, Pakistan has consistently cooperated with the United States and coalition forces in sharing intelligence and decimating the terror outfits operating from the region.”
To be fair, Pakistan has done many unwise things during almost four decades of the Afghan conflicts. The rationality could not be materialised; the way decision makers calculated for costs and benefits could not give them fruits. In the arena of neo-realists, every state wants to maximise its power and influence over other within its capacity but instead Pakistan suffered a lot.
It is true that the United States gave aid to Pakistan of around $33 billion in this war of terror, but the New York Times could also have mentioned the loss incurred i.e. approximately more than $80 billion. Who will repay the difference? Secondly, Taliban were a collaborated creation, referring to one speech of Hillary Clinton in which she said, “But let’s be careful, what we sow because we will harvest”, so blame should at least be shared. Thirdly, why not mention the casualties of around more than 60,000 citizens of Pakistan? Fourthly, what about the overall blow back Pakistan has suffered off for security and economy? In spite of so many sacrifices, if it is the time to ‘put the squeeze on Pakistan’ then I am afraid it is the time to bring more chaos in the region of the South Asia. Or if it is a tactic to hide failure in Afghanistan by putting squeeze on Pakistan, this notion cannot be sold easily to the world.
Regarding the future of the region, Taliban are the reality. Whether being supported by Pakistan or not, much of the population in Afghanistan still supports the Taliban regardless of the reality of how they are perceived by the international community. It is the norm of democracy to share power respectively, even if they are considered a minority. Sharing of power and negotiations may the only way to bring positivity and peace in the region because the relentless warfare of more than a decade has not served as a solution. The United States realised that, and that is why it agreed to hold talks with the Taliban under mediators. But now after the killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, the head of Afghan Taliban, in a drone strike by the United States, which breached the sovereignty of Pakistan yet agsin, many questions arise on the process of peace talks between Taliban and the United States, and the future of the region.
It seems as if after a decade-long war, the stakeholders of this region have yet not learned or understood the dynamics of the region, or they intentionally do not wish to understand. The policy of the United States seems unclear even now regarding dealing with the Taliban; whether the US wishes to have negotiations or continue fighting, its policy remains in the mist of confusion.
The writer is a researcher, columnist and author, and he can be reached at [email protected]