Despite some tough talk, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's
recent visit to Pakistan seemed to subtly soften Washington's stand on a
key point of contention between the two countries: whether Islamabad
should take military action against Pakistan-based insurgents fighting
American troops in Afghanistan, or try to engage them in peace talks.
Clinton
seemed to acknowledge during her two-day visit that ended Friday that
help with a negotiated settlement is perhaps the best the U.S. can hope
for from Pakistan. This shift in the U.S. stance could give Washington
and Islamabad new room to cooperate on ending the Afghan war.
But
serious barriers to negotiations remain. The U.S. believes that military
force is still needed to push the Taliban and their allies to make
concessions. Pakistan, which Washington alleges supports some of the
militant groups, prefers on the other hand to reduce violence to induce
the insurgents to come to the table.
Islamabad is also worried
about being blamed if peace talks fail. It has long-standing ties with
the armed groups, but the militants are unpredictable and resistant to
pressure. Pakistan is furthermore unsure of exactly what kind of deal
the U.S. and Afghan governments might strike with the insurgents, and
the atmosphere is permeated by feelings of distrust on all sides.
The
U.S. has long demanded that Pakistan take greater military action
against Taliban militants and their allies who use Pakistani territory
to regroup and to send fighters to attack forces in Afghanistan.
Recently, the U.S. has pushed for an assault on the Haqqani militant
network, which the U.S. alleges is supported by the Pakistan military's
spy agency, the ISI. The U.S. deems the Haqqanis the greatest threat to
American troops in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has denied supporting the
Haqqanis, but has also made clear that it will not conduct an offensive
against the group's safe haven in the North Waziristan tribal area, a
position that has not changed despite the two-day visit by Clinton and
other senior national security officials, including CIA chief David
Petraeus and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
Many
analysts believe Pakistan's refusal is driven by its belief that the
Haqqanis could be key allies in Afghanistan after foreign forces
withdraw, especially in countering the influence of archenemy India.
The
Pakistani military, however, says that its failure to act against the
Haqqanis is just a question of limited resources. It claims its troops
are stretched too thin by operations in other parts of the tribal region
of northwest Pakistan that are deemed a higher priority — a stance
reiterated by the Pakistanis following talks with Clinton's delegation.
"There
is limited capacity, and if the organization is overstretched and
starts to develop cracks, that is counterproductive," said a senior
Pakistani security official, speaking on condition of anonymity to
comment on the outcome of the closed-door talks.
Clinton seemed to
soften the U.S. stance during a town hall meeting in Islamabad. When
asked whether the U.S. expects Pakistan to militarily tackle the Haqqani
network or force them to the negotiating table, she said, "It's more
the latter."
Clinton also confirmed that the U.S. had tried to
reach out to the Haqqanis directly in peace efforts. She is the first
U.S. official to publicly acknowledge the overtures, which were first
reported by The Associated Press in August. She said the meeting was
organized by the ISI.
The U.S. has not totally backed away from
blunt public statements urging Pakistan to fight the Haqqanis. Clinton
said Islamabad must rid the country "of terrorists who kill their own
people and who cross the border to kill people in Afghanistan."
The
tough message may be intended to avoid making the U.S. look weak in its
policy toward a militant group accused of attacking American civilians
and soldiers in Afghanistan. It could also be meant to keep up perceived
pressure on the Haqqanis to get them to negotiate.
Pakistan
doesn't believe the U.S. plan to use military action to force militants
into peace talks will work — a disagreement that has bedeviled the
process.
"In our culture, it may not work if you want to negotiate
with the same adversary you are fighting," said the Pakistani security
official. "You have to declare a pause in fighting if you want to give
peace a chance."
Clinton made clear the U.S. feels otherwise,
saying during the town hall meeting that experience has shown that only a
combination of fighting and talking "will convince some to come to
negotiations and will remove others who are totally opposed to peace and
want to continue their violent attacks."
Pakistan is open to
approaching the Taliban and their allies about participating in peace
talks, but can't provide any guarantees that its efforts will succeed,
said the security official.
"Contact does not mean that they are
in our pockets," said the official. "Contact means we will suggest to
them that they participate."
Both the Taliban and the Haqqanis have been difficult partners for Pakistan over the years.
In
the late 1990s, the founder of the Haqqani network, Jalaluddin Haqqani,
refused Islamabad's demand to hand over militants in his camps in
Afghanistan who had carried out attacks inside Pakistan. Following the
Sept. 11 2001 attacks, Taliban leader Mullah Omar refused Pakistan's
plea to hand over al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden.
Perhaps the
greatest barrier to a potential peace deal, however, is that nobody
seems to have a clear idea whether the Taliban and their allies have any
interest in negotiating.
"We're not sure," said Clinton. "There
may be no appetite for talking on the other side for ideological reasons
or whatever other motivations."
After the U.S. met with a senior
Haqqani official over the summer, the group allegedly carried out an
attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and staged a truck bombing days
later that wounded 77 American soldiers.
The peace process also
took a big blow with the assassination in Kabul of former Afghan
President Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was tasked with the government's
outreach to the Taliban. It's still unclear who carried out the attack.
The Afghan government has said it was planned in the Pakistani city of
Quetta, the Taliban leadership's suspected base, and the interior
minister accused the ISI of being involved. But no evidence has been
provided.
The allegations have soured relations between Pakistan
and Afghanistan, as did a strategic partnership agreement that Kabul
recently signed with India — the first of its kind that Afghanistan has
reached with any country.
U.S. accusations that Pakistan has supported the Haqqani network have also increased feelings of mistrust on all sides.
"These
kinds of public pronouncements don't help enhance the space for
cooperation," said the Pakistani security official. "They badly affect
the space, which is limited to begin with." AP
