The third round of a trilateral process for peace in Afghanistan initiated by British Prime Minister David Cameroon has ended. The Afghan and Pakistan presidents have promised to work together for lasting peace.
The third round of a trilateral process for peace in Afghanistan initiated by British Prime Minister David Cameroon has ended. The Afghan and Pakistan presidents have promised to work together for lasting peace. Will they achieve the impossible?At the end of their meeting in London President Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari said they would “take all necessary measures” to achieve a peace deal within six months.
They also pledged to work towards a strategic partnership.
Expressing support for the opening of an Afghan office in Doha, they urged the Taleban to reopen theirs to enable the resumption of talks.
The Afghan president has requested the Taliban to participate in a peace process that would ensure “all sides can help in the building of a future Afghanistan.”
The Right and Justice Party issued a statement endorsing the outcome of the trilateral meeting. Dialogue can strengthen the relationship between the two neighbours, and ensure commitment on the ground to the peace process, it said.
The party has urged the government to widen the peace process to include civil society and members of Afghan women’s groups.
It has questioned the recent release of Taleban prisoners in Pakistan, and said it should have been made conditional on their willingness to work for peace with the Afghan government. Also, the released prisoners’ movement should be tracked to make sure they are not a “risk” to the peace process.
There is deep suspicion about Pakistan among Afghan political analysts.
Navid Elham, journalist and political observer, said: “We can never be sure that Pakistan is entirely for peace as long as opponents of the Afghan government are fed by mafia groups and smugglers of opium.”
With the hint of a suggestion that Pakistan is soft on the Afghan Taleban, he said, “Pakistan is trying to use the mentality of antagonism of opponents (of the Afghan government) for its interests, and establish a government (that would be) more obedient to Pakistan, which will help Pakistan deal with agrarian conflicts and issues such as the Durand Line.”
Which country stands to gain more from meetings like the London trilateral talks?
Fazal Rahman Oria of the National Coalition party said, “Pakistan makes more use of the (conflict) situation than the Afghan government and is the main winner of advantages.” He said Pakistan wants a greater role in the peace process.
Pragmatic view
Wahid Muzhda, a political analyst, warns Afghanistan to be pragmatic about the promises made in London. “Pakistan has promised in the past as well but never stood on its words,” he said.
Political watchers are also cynical about the role of international mediators like Britain in the most recent round of talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan. By mediating a peace deal they believe they are preparing the ground for a respectable exit from the country, observers say.
After London Karzai traveled to Norway to sign a strategic treaty with the country.
A pact with Pakistan will depend on Islamabad’s willingness to show sincere cooperation, stop interference in domestic matters and the resolution of transit problems with Afghan tribes living along the international border.
Last month Afghan truckers were again stopped from taking goods overland through Pakistan. Khan Jan Alokozai, chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said on Feb 4, 3,700 trucks had been stopped at Peshawar and Karachi port. “We suffer a loss of one million USD every day,” he lamented.
Commerce Ministry spokesman Wahidullah Ghazikhail later said the problem has been resolved.
Trust between the neighbours has, however, taken another hit.
