Bonn conference

If the recently held Bonn conference failed to achieve any significant progress it was not because of its boycott by Pakistan; it failed because the Afghan Taliban were not there. After one of modern history's longest military expeditions, the US-led coalition was nowhere near any of the UN-mandated objectives. Peace and stability remain elusive as the propped-up Karzai regime's writ is absent even from Kabul, the seat of the Afghan government. What we had in Bonn over the weekend was a wedding without the bridegroom, the Afghan Taliban. That the conference exhorted the Afghan government institutions at all levels to be "responsive to the civil and economic needs of the Afghan people and deliver services to them," is a tall order for the Karzai government. Add to this the "key priorities" - protection of civilians, strengthening the rule of law and fight against corruption - set by the conference and one would see queer juxtaposition of good intentions against reality on the ground which remains dangerously unpredictable, so savagely put on display on the holy day of Ashura when scores of peaceful mourners became victims of unclaimed violence. The fact is that ever since the beginning of the Afghan war, following the US invasion that eased out the Taliban from the seat of power in Kabul, there has been a buzz for national reconciliation. But then from day one it has been also the policy of the outsiders to see that the insurgents come to the negotiating table on their knees. That is a historic miscalculation, given the Afghans undying determination to defend their country whatever it costs. And as always they won in the end, proving right the much-quoted adage that Afghanistan is the 'graveyard of empires'. And then, there was this Loya Jirga stunt followed by the Istanbul meeting which was seen by the insurgents as yet another manoeuvre to ensure that the country remains in the control of foreign powers. While the Jirga advocated the need to retain a foreign military presence, the Istanbul moot endorsed the US proposal to set up a Contact Group, the latter seen by Pakistan and some other neighbours as a Trojan horse. If the Afghan insurgents' refusal to attend the Bonn conference was their deliberate decision, Pakistan's boycott was not. In spite of its sharply mismatching perspective on the agenda of the conference, it would have been there, as the restoration of peace and stability on its western border is the linchpin of its geo-strategic thinking. But the November 26 Nato attack on the Salala post threw a huge spanner into the works. It remains enigmatic how Nato, which has been receiving Pakistan military's unflinching support and co-operation in this war on terror, could have resorted to such a deliberate attack. Consequently, the unwarranted and widely believed-to-be planned, raid on the border post made it next to impossible for the Pakistani establishment and civilian leadership to remain committed under the not-so-clearly spelt out arrangement. No wonder then, while expressing full support for the idea of national reconciliation in Afghanistan the government of Pakistan has insisted on resetting the terms of engagement as a partner with the US-led military operation against the insurgents. President Obama is reluctant in offering his government's apology - as proposed by his ambassador in Pakistan and largely endorsed by the State Department - in this run-up year of the elections, which may sound logical to some. But to think that the Pakistani leadership will remain stuck in the old groove and blindly follow US dictat is simply impossible. Admitted, both Pakistan and the United States have many things to share; but to protect and promote their national interests, even when they clash with each other, is an internationally recognised right of every state. Copyright Business Recorder, 2011