PDA

View Full Version : Clash on Pakistan Border Stirs Afghan Emotions



1980s
02 May 13,, 16:00
A very interesting development:

Clash on Pakistan Border Stirs Afghan Emotions (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/world/asia/afghanistan-pakistan-border-clash.html?ref=world&_r=0)
By ROD NORDLAND
Published: May 2, 2013

KABUL, Afghanistan – Afghan forces claimed they overran a Pakistani-held border crossing in a remote area on Thursday -- an event that provoked a spontaneous outpouring of nationalist sentiment here, sending thousands of students into the streets in demonstrations, and sparking lively debate on social network sites.

More than a thousand students turned out for the funeral of an Afghan border policeman who was the only confirmed victim of the clash, Qasim Khan. An ambulance pressed into service as a hearse to carry his body from Jalalabad to his home village in rural Nangarhar Province was strewn with flowers, and mourners were celebratory in declaring a victory over Pakistan. Hundreds of miles away in Gardez city, Paktia province, Mr. Khan was hailed as a national hero by crowds of students who marched through the center of the city beating drums and chanting anti-Pakistani slogans.

A spokesman for the Afghan Border Police unit in eastern Nangarhar Province said that force’s troops took back five Afghan police posts that had been occupied by Pakistani forces in the Goshta District in fighting that began Wednesday night and finished early Thursday morning. They also burned a border crossing post in the area which Pakistan had allegedly built without Afghan approval. The crossing was one of several that President Hamid Karzai had publicly complained about last month.

The border police spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with his agency’s policy, said there were unconfirmed reports that nine Pakistani militiamen were killed in the clash.

However, Pakistani government officials said only two of their security personnel were wounded in a cross-fire and there were no reports of border facilities changing hands. And an Afghan member of parliament from Goshta district, Friadon Momand, said his information was that the border crossing had not been destroyed and was still operating.

Whatever actually happened, the incident aroused an unusual degree of reaction especially among young Afghans, which contrasts sharply with their apathy over actions by their army and police in clashes with Afghan insurgents.

“An Afghan Border Police officer died last night fighting Pakistanis, Afghans enraged and showed emotions. But now Eight Afghan Local Policemen killed by (Sons of Pakistan) Taliban, all will remain silent,” read a Facebook post attributed to Sohrab Sharifi.

Mr. Sharifi was referring to reports that eight Afghan Local Police were killed by a roadside bomb that blew up as they passed in a truck in Pashtunabad village, Logar Province on Thursday morning.

Abdul Wali Wakil, the chairman of the Logar Provincial Council, said that the local police had just graduated from a training program run by American Special Forces soldiers, and had just been brought by the American troops to their assignment in the area.

“I have personally warned the provincial governor and provincial police chief about the potential threat in the area, but they ignored my advice,” he said.

The border clash in Nangarhar Province comes after months of complaints by Afghan authorities over cross-border shelling, and control of their common border. In addition, Afghan political leaders, including President Hamid Karzai, have greatly stepped up their anti-Pakistani rhetoric lately, blaming their neighbor for supporting insurgents and hindering efforts at peace talks.

“We should put the name of this Afghan Border Police officer killed last night in the list of Afghanistan’s national heroes,” said Liaqat Khan, a medical student who went to the funeral in Jalalabad. The students at the funeral, who organized the protest themselves, complained that national and high-ranking provincial officials were absent. They had signs reading “Long Live Afghan forces,” and “Death to Pakistan.”

On Facebook and Twitter, many Afghans called for further demonstrations after Friday prayers.

The border clash came a day after the reopening of the major crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan, at Torkhum on the Grand Trunk Road between Kabul and Peshawar. It had been closed for two days after a fistfight between Afghan and Pakistani border guards over the Pakistanis’ refusal to let an Afghan woman enter without a visa.

Pakistan closed the crossing for two days until the Afghans apologized for the incident. According to Col. Enayatullah Abdullah, an Afghan Border Police official at Torkhum, four Afghan patients died waiting at the crossing to go to hospitals in Pakistan.

President Karzai has repeatedly raised the long-festering issue of the Durand Line, which forms the border between the two countries, and was established by the British in the early 1900s. The line divides traditionally Pashtun tribal areas on both sides of the border; Pashtuns are Afghanistan’s largest ethnic grouping, and they predominate among the Taliban insurgents.

An Afghan employee of The New York Times in Jalalabad and Salman Masood in Islamabad contributed reporting.

Agnostic Muslim
02 May 13,, 16:04
A very interesting development:

Clash on Pakistan Border Stirs Afghan Emotions (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/world/asia/afghanistan-pakistan-border-clash.html?ref=world&_r=0)


Not really - border clashes between Afghan and Pakistani border security forces are pretty frequent - the main difference this time is that the Afghan Border Police is trying to claim the occupation and destruction of Pakistani posts, and having its claims contradicted by Pakistan and a member of the Afghan parliament.

1980s
02 May 13,, 16:43
Not really - border clashes between Afghan and Pakistani border security forces are pretty frequent - the main difference this time is that the Afghan Border Police is trying to claim the occupation and destruction of Pakistani posts, and having its claims contradicted by Pakistan and a member of the Afghan parliament.

I find the reaction to the news among ordinary Afghans more interesting than the actual clash, which like you pointed out are not unusual. Such an out-pouring of people for the funeral of the Afghan policeman because he was killed in a clash with Pakistanis is very revealing.

Agnostic Muslim
02 May 13,, 17:03
I find the reaction to the news among ordinary Afghans more interesting than the actual clash, which like you pointed out are not unusual. Such an out-pouring of people for the funeral of the Afghan policeman because he was killed in a clash with Pakistanis is very revealing.
I would argue that the 'outpouring of sentiment' is probably linked more to the exaggerated account of the ABP (occupying and destroying Pakistani border posts) than any significant shift in Afghan public opinion.

Parihaka
02 May 13,, 21:08
I find the reaction to the news among ordinary Afghans more interesting than the actual clash, which like you pointed out are not unusual. Such an out-pouring of people for the funeral of the Afghan policeman because he was killed in a clash with Pakistanis is very revealing.

Twelve years of widespread semi-secular education. There's a whole generation out there coming into adulthood.....

lemontree
03 May 13,, 06:28
The Aljazeera news video does show a destroyed Pakistani post....


http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia/2013/05/201353176188283.html

notorious_eagle
03 May 13,, 07:06
One member of the Afghan border police is dead and two Pakistani soldiers have been wounded after a row close to the disputed Gursal border gate.

A two-hour firefight began after an attack on a Pakistani checkpoint, according to officials in Islamabad.

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry released a statement saying it had summoned the senior Afghan diplomat in Islamabad to protest at what it called “an unprovoked firing incident.”

However, Kabul is claiming Pakistani troops were in the wrong when they tried to fortify the gate on the Afghan side. Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi said the situation at the border was now “under control.”

The border is over 2,600 kilometres long, and militants often cross over, carrying out attacks in both countries.

The US is trying to improve relations between the two countries before NATO troops leaving Afghanistan at the end of 2014. America wants Pakistan to help Afghanistan to coax the Taliban to the negotiating table ahead of the withdrawal.

Two-hour gunfight and one dead in Pakistan-Afghanistan border dispute | euronews, world news (http://www.euronews.com/2013/05/02/two-hour-gunfight-and-one-dead-in-pakistan-afghanistan-border-dispute/)

Agnostic Muslim
03 May 13,, 12:04
The Aljazeera news video does show a destroyed Pakistani post....


http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia/2013/05/201353176188283.html
I see a damaged post, not sure whether it is Afghan or Pakistani at around 50 seconds ...

farhan_9909
03 May 13,, 14:14
pakistan and afghan armed forces need to get together against taliban,not fighting each other

notorious_eagle
04 May 13,, 05:31
I see a damaged post, not sure whether it is Afghan or Pakistani at around 50 seconds ...

It was damaged, not destroyed. Orders have been given out to rebuild them with more protection, the number of soldiers stationed there are also going to be increased.

Officer of Engineers
04 May 13,, 06:45
The Afghans would just hit somewhere else that is weaker. A two hour firefight and no RRF. The Afghans I can understand ... but the Pakistanis? It's a border crossing with a road behind you.

anil
04 May 13,, 07:08
The Afghans would just hit somewhere else that is weaker.
Give the afghans some f-16s so that they could hit something hard http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/images/smilies/innocent0009.gif

Mihais
04 May 13,, 07:17
Give the afghans some f-16s so that they could hit something hard http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/images/smilies/innocent0009.gif

Why pay for your war? You buy them some SU-30's if you need them :biggrin:

notorious_eagle
04 May 13,, 08:14
The Afghans would just hit somewhere else that is weaker. A two hour firefight and no RRF. The Afghans I can understand ... but the Pakistanis? It's a border crossing with a road behind you.

Sir

From what i have gathered, PA is showing maximum restraint due to the precarious political situation on the ground.

doppelganger
04 May 13,, 09:48
I had gone to Delhi yesterday for some urgent work regarding admissions.

On the flight there I got talking to 2 guys who looked and spoke like foreigners.

Turned out they were Afghan. Parsi, not Pashtun.

They said that not only did they do a lot of damage to the Pakistani side, but that such attacks would now be escalating.

Like us, they believe that Pakistan is training and sending terrorists into their country. The Iranians, some of whom are in class with me, have similar complainsts.

Notorious, you guys really should clean up your act yaar. We are all losing patience.

anil
04 May 13,, 10:37
Why pay for your war? You buy them some SU-30's if you need them :biggrin:
It's not for us. Having bankrolled and cultivated an insurgency that has now spread to most of the habitable continents as a political tool for the low born and outcasts, I think the west will be needing it more than us in the future.

1980s
06 May 13,, 23:17
And another one: BBC News - Second Afghan-Pakistan border clash in a week (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22427641)

Agnostic Muslim
07 May 13,, 18:53
Sir

From what i have gathered, PA is showing maximum restraint due to the precarious political situation on the ground.
I am not sure I understand what exactly the Afghan's are doing. If the Afghan account is true, and the Pakistani posts they are attacking are on Afghan territory, then the occasional small arms and light artillery attacks on the Pakistani posts, without any serious attempt to take control of the posts and push Pakistani forces back, does not accomplish anything other than raising tensions in a critical transitional period.

Agnostic Muslim
09 May 13,, 01:38
http://gdb.rferl.org/C7350B3E-5772-44C1-B098-916D7BA09277_w640_r1_s_cx0_cy5_cw0.jpg

Afghan border policemen walk past a bunker, destroyed during recent clashes between Afghan border police and Pakistani troops in Goshta district of Nangarhar Province.

Deaths Reported At Protest In South Afghanistan (http://www.rferl.org/content/afghanistan-deaths-pakistan-protest/24980726.html)

Agnostic Muslim
09 May 13,, 01:44
Pakistan protests as Karzai raises the dead Durand Line issue, seeks Taliban help


Mariana Baabar

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan had protested to Afghanistan after five Frontier Constabulary soldiers were injured on Monday by firing from Afghan posts and President Karzai had tried to resurrect the dead issue of Durand Line and has sought Taliban help to pressurise Pakistan.

While so far, Pakistan has shown restraint, on Tuesday it expressed ‘serious concern’ and in a veiled threat, clearly told Kabul not to test its patience and “in case of any further escalation as a result of this situation, the responsibility would be on the Afghan government.”

As events have shown, even the recent trilateral meeting in Brussels with the Americans was a complete failure as far as bilateral ties with Kabul are concerned.

These past few days there has been firing from across the border at Pakistan, with senior diplomats being summoned to each other’s foreign ministries. Pakistan has denied that its soldiers have fired at the Afghan forces.

If on Monday Pakistan’s Charge d’ Affairs was summoned to the Afghan Foreign Ministry, Tuesday saw the Afghan Charge d’ Affaires, being summoned to the Foreign Office here where a protest was lodged on repetition of an unprovoked firing incident that took place on May 06, 2013 at 0845 hours from the Afghan posts on the Pakistani Gursal post.

“As a result of this unprovoked firing incident, five Frontier Constabulary (FC) soldiers got injured. As in the past, Pakistan security forces exercised maximum restraint and communicated first to the Afghan side about repetition of this serious violation through military channels”, spokesman at the Foreign Office said in a statement.

He had earlier pointed out that these posts on Pakistan-Afghanistan border are serving the useful and mutually beneficial purpose of better border management, which is crucial for interdicting cross border undesirable activity.

“We should use bilateral channels including military to military contacts to resolve the issues relating to posts. In several high level interactions in recent past, the leadership of Afghanistan and Pakistan have agreed on the imperatives of a mechanism for an effective border management for the mutual benefit of the two countries”, he said.

Pakistan’s Ambassador in Kabul Muhammad Sadiq clarified in a press meeting on Monday that Kabul was wrong in claiming ownership over check posts which Pakistan had constructed in 2002, which had often been visited by Nato forces.

The Afghan Charge d’ Affairs was conveyed Pakistan’s serious concern and asked to advise the relevant authorities in Afghanistan to avoid repetition of unprovoked firing which undermines the existing coordination mechanisms between the security forces of the two countries.

Many thought that the Brussels trilateral meeting would help improve relations but according to western diplomats the “most difficult and tense moment” which took up the most time at Brussels, was when Pakistan took up the issue of continued rhetoric coupled with hostile statements from Kabul, in the presence of Gen Kayani, Foreign Secretary Jalil Abbas Jilani, President Karzai and US Secretary State John Kerry.

“If Karzai was first exposed at a trilateral meeting in London, it happened again in Brussels. Earlier even the British prime minister was surprised. Time has shown that Karzai has backed out of many assurance he had given at Brussels. This was exactly what Kerry was apprehensive about”, added the diplomat.

Back in Kabul, Karzai did not waste much time in first ‘opening discussion’ on the Durrand Line and later in a brazen manner telling the Taliban to attack Pakistan instead of Kabul. “Opening discussions on this issue is a distraction from the more pressing issues requiring the priority attention and cooperation of Pakistan and Afghanistan”, said the spokesman.

In a restrained manner he added that while Karzai was asking the Taliban to target Afghanistan’s enemies (Pakistan), “The continuing fight against terrorism and extremism warrants Pakistan, Afghanistan, and all other stakeholders to work together in a spirit of cooperation and harmony. President Karzai had in the past asked Pakistan to use its influence on the Taliban to enter into dialogue for reconciliation process. Pakistan had responded positively to that call. Pakistan will continue its support for the Afghan reconciliation process, rather than focusing on the negatives”.

Pakistan protests as Karzai raises the dead Durand Line issue, seeks Taliban help - thenews.com.pk (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-176048-Pakistan-protests-as-Karzai-raises-the-dead-Durand-Line-issue,-seeks-Taliban-help)

doppelganger
09 May 13,, 08:13
Pakistan protests as Karzai raises the dead Durand Line issue, seeks Taliban help



"Dead" for who?

They see you as squatters on their land.

Agnostic Muslim
09 May 13,, 11:55
"Dead" for who?

They see you as squatters on their land.
'Dead' in terms of any legal case the Afghan's could construct in support of their claims. The Durand Agreement and the ratification of that agreement by successive Afghan governments means the Afghan's have no hope of ever winning a legal challenge raised on an international platform.

doppelganger
09 May 13,, 12:03
'Dead' in terms of any legal case the Afghan's could construct in support of their claims. The Durand Agreement and the ratification of that agreement by successive Afghan governments means the Afghan's have no hope of every winning a legal challenge raised on an international platform.

Your legalities and lawyer talk once again.

While the reality is that while you guys like to claim the moral higher ground of giving shelter to millions of Pashtun "refugees" in "your" cities, they do not see themselves as refugees in a foreign land, but you and your government as squatter on theirs.

International courts do not settle land disputes.

Countries involved do.

Agnostic Muslim
09 May 13,, 12:09
Your legalities and lawyer talk once again.

While the reality is that while you guys like to claim the moral higher ground of giving shelter to millions of Pashtun "refugees" in "your" cities, they do not see themselves as refugees in a foreign land, but you and your government as squatter on theirs.

International courts do not settle land disputes.

Countries involved do.
I was not the one who proposed the Durand Agreement, demarcated the border, signed the agreement and ratified it multiple times - the countries with interests on both sides of the border did so.

The 'legality and lawyer talk' was established by successive Afghan governments. The Afghans can whine and complain all they want, but they have no legal case, they have no military capability to take the land they are claiming and the overwhelming majority of Pashtun's in Pakistan (who outnumber the Pashtun in Afghanistan 2 to 1) have no loyalty to a 'Greater Afghanistan' vision, not to mention that the non-Pashtun ethnic groups in Afghanistan would have little interest in seeing the Pashtun plurality become an overwhelming majority.

BTW, the establishment of laws and codes to govern relationships between entities would, by many people, be considered a hallmark of civilization, so why do you detest laws and legalities so much?

Agnostic Muslim
09 May 13,, 17:30
Afghan police demand weapons amid simmering tension with Pakistan
By Hamid Shalizi | Reuters

GOSHTA, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Afghan border police, enraged by recent clashes with their Pakistani counterparts, are pleading for more weapons to take on their neighbors, escalating the tension between the two sides.

The fighting, in which an Afghan border policeman was killed last week, has caused a sharp deterioration in relations between the important U.S. allies, coming days before the Pakistani general election.

Pakistan is seen as vital in bringing stability to Afghanistan as most Western forces prepare to withdraw by the end of next year.

The commander of border police in Goshta district in Afghanistan's eastern Nangarhar province, Bakht Jamal Eshaaqzai, said his 250-strong forces were armed with mortars and machine guns, but that it would be difficult to match Pakistan's heavy artillery and tanks, visible on the other side of the border.

Eshaaqzai says Pakistan had 12 manned outposts in Goshta, while Afghanistan had three.

"We are under threat from their superior equipment. We urge the government to send us more as soon as possible," he told reporters and members of Kabul-based think tank Afghan Analysis Awareness, who drove from the capital to Goshta on Wednesday.

Shahzada, who only goes by one name, is one of hundreds of border police who have taken up positions over the last two days in Goshta.

"We have high morale, but what we really need is heavy artillery," he said. Sporting a long beard and resting his hand on a machine gun, he added: "We're ready to eliminate our enemies."

Pakistan artillery has destroyed several Afghan outposts over the last week in Goshta, where the remains of sandbag and concrete forts stand crumbling under the baking sun.

The cross-border clashes on Monday and last week sparked large protests across Afghanistan, drawing thousands of men to the center of the capital, Kabul, where they chanted "Death to Pakistan".

The United States and other powers involved in Afghanistan have been trying to promote cooperation between the Asian neighbors, who have a history of mistrust.

Pakistan says that both clashes were the result of unprovoked action by Afghan forces.

Afghanistan and Pakistan have had testy relations since Pakistan was formed in 1947, at the end of British colonial rule over India. Afghanistan has never officially accepted the border between them, known as the Durand Line.

Afghanistan says Pakistan is encroaching on its territory. Last week, Afghan police partially destroyed a Pakistani-built gate which is located around 750 meters (820 yards) from the Afghan police outpost.

Pakistan counters that fortifications built in recent years are for better management and are on its side of the border.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated on Thursday that his country will never accept the current border.

"If they (Pakistan) are trying to force Afghanistan to accept the Durand Line by way of these attacks, they will fail," Karzai told a gathering at the 80th anniversary of the founding of Kabul University.

(Editing by Amie Ferris-Rotman and Nick Macfie)
Afghan police demand weapons amid simmering tension with Pakistan (http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-police-demand-weapons-amid-simmering-tension-pakistan-132106225.html)

Parihaka
09 May 13,, 22:38
Whether the Durand line is settled under Uti_possidetis_juris as Pakistan contends or as an executory clause as Afghanistan contends (they've never ceded anything as a nation to Pakistan) is irrelevant. It simply comes down to who has the force to hold it, which lies securely with the Pakistanis.
It is interesting to see Karzai manipulate the Afghan population into uniting against Pakistan, the man has more intelligence than I credited him with. Interesting times ahead for Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
09 May 13,, 23:55
Whether the Durand line is settled under Uti_possidetis_juris as Pakistan contends or as an executory clause as Afghanistan contends (they've never ceded anything as a nation to Pakistan) is irrelevant. It simply comes down to who has the force to hold it, which lies securely with the Pakistanis.
It is interesting to see Karzai manipulate the Afghan population into uniting against Pakistan, the man has more intelligence than I credited him with. Interesting times ahead for Pakistan.
The legality of the Durand Line is completely relevant - if the hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan does turn into a wider military conflict, the international legitimacy of the Durand Agreement and the recognition of the current Afghan-Pakistan border by the international community are factors that will be critical in establishing Afghanistan's role in any such conflict as the 'aggressor', and providing justification for any Pakistani military action undertaken in the face of 'unprovoked Afghan military aggression' against Pakistan.

And the Afghan's have no legal case supporting their position on the Durand Agreement, which is why they haven't tried to resolve the issue at a single international platform.

Parihaka
10 May 13,, 05:13
The legality of the Durand Line is completely relevant - if the hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan does turn into a wider military conflict, the international legitimacy of the Durand Agreement and the recognition of the current Afghan-Pakistan border by the international community are factors that will be critical in establishing Afghanistan's role in any such conflict as the 'aggressor', and providing justification for any Pakistani military action undertaken in the face of 'unprovoked Afghan military aggression' against Pakistan.

And the Afghan's have no legal case supporting their position on the Durand Agreement, which is why they haven't tried to resolve the issue at a single international platform.

I keep wondering where you think this mythical court is.....

Agnostic Muslim
10 May 13,, 12:33
I keep wondering where you think this mythical court is.....
Who said anything about a 'mythical court'?

Parihaka
10 May 13,, 21:15
Who said anything about a 'mythical court'?

I did. Where is this court in which your constant claims of legality/illegality can be tested?

Double Edge
10 May 13,, 23:29
I find the reaction to the news among ordinary Afghans more interesting than the actual clash, which like you pointed out are not unusual. Such an out-pouring of people for the funeral of the Afghan policeman because he was killed in a clash with Pakistanis is very revealing.
Isn't this the same with other countries that have border incidents.

Salala and recent Indo-China come to mind.

To die in such an encounter means instant fame. Media hypes it up and the people hit the streets.

When i read the title, i was thinking Afghan irredentism. But i'm straining to see any evidence of that in the recent past.

The Paks cannot defend their western border adequately, which means the Afghans can walk in & out as they please. Chances of rekindling Afghan sentiment over the Durrand line are low for the forseeable future.

Agnostic Muslim
11 May 13,, 23:47
I did. Where is this court in which your constant claims of legality/illegality can be tested?
Dunno about 'mythical courts', but the UN and the ICJ would be two avenues ...

Parihaka
12 May 13,, 01:10
Dunno about 'mythical courts', but the UN and the ICJ would be two avenues ...

Specifically, the UNSC who has not ruled on the matter nor had it brought to them. The IJC as I've already pointed out, has no jurisdiction.
So what we are left with is a claim of illegality, on which no international court has, or is likely to rule.

'It's illegal' says AM
'Says who' quoth everyone else
'Says me' says AM 'and here's some other people who thinks so'
'Well then take it to court and find out whether it is actually or not' quoth the multitude.

..............


'It's illegal' says AM

Agnostic Muslim
12 May 13,, 02:15
Specifically, the UNSC who has not ruled on the matter nor had it brought to them. The IJC as I've already pointed out, has no jurisdiction.
So what we are left with is a claim of illegality, on which no international court has, or is likely to rule.

'It's illegal' says AM
'Says who' quoth everyone else
'Says me' says AM 'and here's some other people who thinks so'
'Well then take it to court and find out whether it is actually or not' quoth the multitude.

..............

'It's illegal' says AM

Funny, but you have it arse backwards. It is the Afghans claiming the current border is 'illegal' and therefore the Afghans who have to 'take the issue to court to prove its illegality'. Pakistan merely has to point to the Durand Agreement demarcating the border, its acceptance by the Afghan government of the time and the ratification of the Durand Agreement by multiple Afghan governments since.

In the case of US drone strikes in Pakistan, there is no past or current official agreement governing drone strikes that exists (as of now) and the Pakistani government, UN investigation and now a Pakistani High Court have declared US Drone strikes to be illegal, unauthorized by Pakistan and violations of Pakistani sovereignty. The onus therefore is on the US to 'go to court' to establish the legality of unauthorized US drone strikes and show that it is not just another tyrannical regime/thug that is blatantly violating international law and attacking another nation on the basis of her superior military.

Doktor
12 May 13,, 02:19
Onus is usually on the one making the accusations, not on the one "defending" from them.

Agnostic Muslim
12 May 13,, 02:27
Onus is usually on the one making the accusations, not on the one "defending" from them.

In the context of this thread it would be the Afghans making the accusation that 'the Durand Agreement is illegal and no longer applies' and it is the Afghans carrying out military attacks against Pakistani border posts, and therefore it is the Afghans who have to 'go to court to establish the illegality of the Durand Agreement' ....

In the context of US drone strikes it would be the US making the claim that the people it is targeting are 'terrorists posing an imminent threat to US national security and thereby justifying the use of military force against another nation, despite opposition from that nation', which in turn requires to US to establish her accusations and subsequent actions are 'legal'.

Doktor
12 May 13,, 02:35
I never heard someone to prove what they do is legal.

Agnostic Muslim
12 May 13,, 02:47
I never heard someone to prove what they do is legal.
So, would you just barge into someone's house and start shooting residents and then expect the victims to prove that your actions were illegal? Once the residents/owners of the house you have attacked refuse to allow you to enter their house, only a thug/criminal would continue to commit the same actions without obtaining legal cover ...

Parihaka
12 May 13,, 04:13
Funny, but you have it arse backwards. It is the Afghans claiming the current border is 'illegal' and therefore the Afghans who have to 'take the issue to court to prove its illegality'. Pakistan merely has to point to the Durand Agreement demarcating the border, its acceptance by the Afghan government of the time and the ratification of the Durand Agreement by multiple Afghan governments since.

In the case of US drone strikes in Pakistan, there is no past or current official agreement governing drone strikes that exists (as of now) and the Pakistani government, UN investigation and now a Pakistani High Court have declared US Drone strikes to be illegal, unauthorized by Pakistan and violations of Pakistani sovereignty. The onus therefore is on the US to 'go to court' to establish the legality of unauthorized US drone strikes and show that it is not just another tyrannical regime/thug that is blatantly violating international law and attacking another nation on the basis of her superior military.

Way ahead of ya.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/doj-lethal.pdf
So you and others say it's illegal. The US Govt. say it's legal. Why don't you try sorting it out in a court?
Which of course neatly brings us back to



'It's illegal' says AM
'Says who' quoth everyone else
'Says me' says AM 'and here's some other people who thinks so'
'Well then take it to court and find out whether it is actually or not' quoth the multitude.

..............

'It's illegal' says AM

Parihaka
12 May 13,, 04:28
Anyway, back on topic.

US/NATO withdrawal next year.

OoE's reasoned assertion that with the withdrawal of western troops the Afghan army will be freed from their western SOP's and go all medieval on the Taliban and supporters.

Karzai is now looking to unit the country against an outside enemy (Pakistan).

Karzai is also hinting to the Pakistan Pastuns that they should be united under a greater/historical Afghanistan.

Hands up who thinks things are going to heat up in Pakistan from next year, presuming the US continues to supply Afghanistan with munitions and fuel?

Minskaya
12 May 13,, 09:09
Hands up who thinks things are going to heat up in Pakistan from next year, presuming the US continues to supply Afghanistan with munitions and fuel?
If the US demurs, India will certainly do all it can to fill any strategic void.

Parihaka
12 May 13,, 09:41
If the US demurs, India will certainly do all it can to fill any strategic void.

Can you imagine the conundrum: Pakistan desperate to teach the Afghans a lesson, but loath to pull any forces from the Indian border? I'd get giggly at the thought except for the lives that will be lost.

Agnostic Muslim
12 May 13,, 13:20
Way ahead of ya.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/doj-lethal.pdf
So you and others say it's illegal. The US Govt. say it's legal. Why don't you try sorting it out in a court?
Which of course neatly brings us back to

Your paper is titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force" - what exactly does that have to do with:

1. An Afghan claim that the Durand Agreement is invalid despite ratification by multiple Afghan governments
2. US drone strikes on 'non US Citizens who are not senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda or an Associated Force'



'It's illegal' says AM
'Says who' quoth everyone else
'Says me' says AM 'and here's some other people who thinks so'
'Well then take it to court and find out whether it is actually or not' quoth the multitude.

..............

'It's illegal' says AM

Nope, you still have it arse backwards despite your disingenuous little attempt here to wiggle out of a corner.

Double Edge
12 May 13,, 16:54
Hands up who thinks things are going to heat up in Pakistan from next year, presuming the US continues to supply Afghanistan with munitions and fuel?
They will have to continue supplies in one form or another. Those supplies will pass through Pakistan which should temper whatever Karzai says about them or face a cutoff. Paks already made this point. Paks need the transit fees and the Afghans need the supplies.

So no heating up just a slow simmer. When the money runs out thats when the heating begins in earnest.

SOFA is yet to be decided.

Doktor
12 May 13,, 18:08
Why is there still a grudge between Afghanistan and Pakistan? They should be very connected, instead we have reversed situation on the ground.

Brothers fight gone bad?

Agnostic Muslim
12 May 13,, 21:33
Can you imagine the conundrum: Pakistan desperate to teach the Afghans a lesson, but loath to pull any forces from the Indian border?
Pakistan hasn't had to pull any additional forces to send the Afghan president whining to the US and demanding that the US side with Afghanistan in a conflict with Pakistan (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/63989-karzai-demands-us-side-afghanistan-conflict-pakistan.html) and that too with the majority of the existing forces in the West deployed in operations against the Taliban.

Add in the leverage of being the primary transit route for Afghanistan, and how many countries actually have the financial resources and political will to commit to a major logistics line, supporting the Afghan military in a conflict against Pakistan, through Central Asia, and you'll be waiting to 'get giggly' for a much longer time than you think.

Parihaka
12 May 13,, 23:08
Your paper is titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force" - what exactly does that have to do with:

1. An Afghan claim that the Durand Agreement is invalid despite ratification by multiple Afghan governments
Nothing, it was referring to your constant allegations in this and other threads of illegality, lets stop derailing this thread further shall we?


As for the Durand line, no Afghan governments let alone 'multiple ones' have ratified the Durand line. Stop lying.





Nope, you still have it arse backwards despite your disingenuous little attempt here to wiggle out of a corner.

Nothing disingenuous about it, a simple statement of fact.

Parihaka
12 May 13,, 23:19
Pakistan hasn't had to pull any additional forces to send the Afghan president whining to the US and demanding that the US side with Afghanistan in a conflict with Pakistan (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/63989-karzai-demands-us-side-afghanistan-conflict-pakistan.html) and that too with the majority of the existing forces in the West deployed in operations against the Taliban.

Add in the leverage of being the primary transit route for Afghanistan, and how many countries actually have the financial resources and political will to commit to a major logistics line, supporting the Afghan military in a conflict against Pakistan, through Central Asia, and you'll be waiting to 'get giggly' for a much longer time than you think.
Oh don't get me wrong here, an out and out conflict between the ANA and the PA would lead to the ANA having its arse handed to it on a plate. I'm talking abut a full on insurgency sponsored within Pakistan by the Afghans with a realignment of the Pak Pashtuns to work with the Afghans the way Pakistan has been doing to Afghanistan for the last 30 odd years. Meanwhile the ANA goes all medieval on the insurgents attacking them.

As for supply, the Afghans aren't beholden to Pakistan the same way the US is. They will be free to develop supply lines through Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and even China. That's not an issue for the Afghans after the withdrawl, simply that the cash flows in. I'm sure India at least would be willing to help, and small scale weaponry can be flown in. Not that there's a shortage or anything already.

Agnostic Muslim
13 May 13,, 12:19
As for the Durand line, no Afghan governments let alone 'multiple ones' have ratified the Durand line. Stop lying.
• The International Border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is based on the map attached with the original Agreement of 1893.

• Clause 6 of the Agreement clearly states that the agreement is regarded by both the parties as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them. The Agreement has been reaffirmed by successive Afghan rulers.

• 1905 Treaty with Amir HabibullahKhan continuing the Agreements which had existed between the British Government and Amir Abdul Rahman Khan. Para 2 states "I also have acted, am acting and will act upon the same agreement and I will not contravene them in any dealing or in any promise."

• Treaty of peace between the British Government and the Independent Afghan Government concluded at Rawalpindi on 8th August 1919. Article 5 states that "the Afghan Government accepts the Indo-Afghan frontier accepted by the Late Amir.”

• Friendly and Commercial Relations treaty between Great Britain and Afghanistan at Kabul on 22 November 1921. Article 2 of the treaty states that, "The two high contracting parties accept the Indo-Afghan frontier as accepted by the Afghan Government under Article V of the treaty concluded at Rawalpindi on 8th August 1919."

• Notes were exchanged between His Majesty's Government and Afghan Minister in London, 1930 (His Highness General Shah Wali Khan to Mr. Arthur Henderson), Afghan Legation 6th May 1930. Both parties ~greed that it was their understanding that the Treaty of Kabul of 22 November 1921 continued to have full force and effect.

• On 13 June 1948, Shah Wali Khan, the Afghan envoy to Pakistan declared, " Our King has already stated, and I, as the representative of Afghanistan, declare that Afghanistan has no claims on frontier territory and even if there were any, they have been given up in favour of Pakistan. Anything contrary to this which may have appeared in the press in the past or may appear in the future should not be given credence at all and should be considered just a canard."


Nothing disingenuous about it, a simple statement of fact.
Given the limited scope of the 'white paper', attempting to use it as an official US legal justification covering ALL drone strikes in Pakistan is, if nothing else, disingenuous.

Agnostic Muslim
13 May 13,, 12:31
Oh don't get me wrong here, an out and out conflict between the ANA and the PA would lead to the ANA having its arse handed to it on a plate. I'm talking abut a full on insurgency sponsored within Pakistan by the Afghans with a realignment of the Pak Pashtuns to work with the Afghans the way Pakistan has been doing to Afghanistan for the last 30 odd years. Meanwhile the ANA goes all medieval on the insurgents attacking them.
A 'full on insurgency' in Pakistan pitting the 'Pashtun against other ethnic groups' (similar to what happened in Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal) would require similar kinds of ethnic tensions and chaos as that seen in Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal. Barring that, the best the Afghans can do is what they have already been doing through providing safe-havens and support for the Baloch terrorist groups and some TTP factions.


As for supply, the Afghans aren't beholden to Pakistan the same way the US is. They will be free to develop supply lines through Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and even China. That's not an issue for the Afghans after the withdrawl, simply that the cash flows in. I'm sure India at least would be willing to help, and small scale weaponry can be flown in. Not that there's a shortage or anything already.
Small arms are not going to make a difference, since, as you yourself pointed out, the region is flush with them as is.

Firestorm
13 May 13,, 20:49
If the US demurs, India will certainly do all it can to fill any strategic void.

I wouldn't count on it. I can't remember the last time an Indian government showed any sort of vision or forward thinking for securing our national interests. The Americans won't do anything to hurt their ally Pakistan, so Karzai can forget about them "siding" with Afghanistan in a potential conflict. When the US leaves, the Afghans are going to find themselves without an external backing if they start a conflict with Pakistan.

notorious_eagle
14 May 13,, 04:26
I am not sure I understand what exactly the Afghan's are doing. If the Afghan account is true, and the Pakistani posts they are attacking are on Afghan territory, then the occasional small arms and light artillery attacks on the Pakistani posts, without any serious attempt to take control of the posts and push Pakistani forces back, does not accomplish anything other than raising tensions in a critical transitional period.

Indeed, it was at best an attempt by Karzai and his cronies in ANA to divert attention from domestic issues. All the hysteria from Afghan side has died down as PA sharpened its claws, the ANA immediately pulled back as PA moved AK Regiment forward and has continuously fired artillery shells for the last 24 hours in Kunar where TTP thugs are hiding. The damaged posts have been rebuilt and strengthened as we speak and the ANA hasn't dared attacked them due to additional muscle provided by 56 AK Regiment. In other news, Iranian border guards just killed 10 Afghans, maybe Karzai should protest against that.

Parihaka
14 May 13,, 08:59
• The International Border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is based on the map attached with the original Agreement of 1893.

• Clause 6 of the Agreement clearly states that the agreement is regarded by both the parties as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them. The Agreement has been reaffirmed by successive Afghan rulers.

• 1905 Treaty with Amir HabibullahKhan continuing the Agreements which had existed between the British Government and Amir Abdul Rahman Khan. Para 2 states "I also have acted, am acting and will act upon the same agreement and I will not contravene them in any dealing or in any promise."

• Treaty of peace between the British Government and the Independent Afghan Government concluded at Rawalpindi on 8th August 1919. Article 5 states that "the Afghan Government accepts the Indo-Afghan frontier accepted by the Late Amir.”

• Friendly and Commercial Relations treaty between Great Britain and Afghanistan at Kabul on 22 November 1921. Article 2 of the treaty states that, "The two high contracting parties accept the Indo-Afghan frontier as accepted by the Afghan Government under Article V of the treaty concluded at Rawalpindi on 8th August 1919."

• Notes were exchanged between His Majesty's Government and Afghan Minister in London, 1930 (His Highness General Shah Wali Khan to Mr. Arthur Henderson), Afghan Legation 6th May 1930. Both parties ~greed that it was their understanding that the Treaty of Kabul of 22 November 1921 continued to have full force and effect.

• On 13 June 1948, Shah Wali Khan, the Afghan envoy to Pakistan declared, " Our King has already stated, and I, as the representative of Afghanistan, declare that Afghanistan has no claims on frontier territory and even if there were any, they have been given up in favour of Pakistan. Anything contrary to this which may have appeared in the press in the past or may appear in the future should not be given credence at all and should be considered just a canard."

Apart from the last, all of them are executory clauses between Afghanistan and British India, nothing to do with an as yet non-existent Pakistan.

The last is of course simply hearsay and meaningless even if true.

Afghanistan has never agreed to the Durand line with the Pakistan government.



Given the limited scope of the 'white paper', attempting to use it as an official US legal justification covering ALL drone strikes in Pakistan is, if nothing else, disingenuous.
Ah I see. Legal justifications of drone strikes up to and including against American citizens abroad is disingenuous, but claiming illegality based on an opinion isn't LOL :)

Parihaka
14 May 13,, 09:04
A 'full on insurgency' in Pakistan pitting the 'Pashtun against other ethnic groups' (similar to what happened in Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal) would require similar kinds of ethnic tensions and chaos as that seen in Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal.
I know


Barring that, the best the Afghans can do is what they have already been doing through providing safe-havens and support for the Baloch terrorist groups and some TTP factions.Indeed they can, that is precisely what I meant when I said this


I'm talking abut a full on insurgency sponsored within Pakistan by the Afghans with a realignment of the Pak Pashtuns to work with the Afghans the way Pakistan has been doing to Afghanistan for the last 30 odd years.


Small arms are not going to make a difference, since, as you yourself pointed out, the region is flush with them as is.I know.

So, what has Pakistan got that Afghanistan needs, post withdrawl?

Parihaka
14 May 13,, 09:05
Indeed, it was at best an attempt by Karzai and his cronies in ANA to divert attention from domestic issues. All the hysteria from Afghan side has died down as PA sharpened its claws, the ANA immediately pulled back as PA moved AK Regiment forward and has continuously fired artillery shells for the last 24 hours in Kunar where TTP thugs are hiding. The damaged posts have been rebuilt and strengthened as we speak and the ANA hasn't dared attacked them due to additional muscle provided by 56 AK Regiment. In other news, Iranian border guards just killed 10 Afghans, maybe Karzai should protest against that.

Oh you big brave soldiers you :)

lemontree
14 May 13,, 09:40
I'm a bit surprised that Afghan border guards pushed back regular PA troops from a border post.

Doktor
14 May 13,, 11:14
PA troops were concerned that if they retaliate (harder) it might provoke an invasion :rolleyes:

Agnostic Muslim
14 May 13,, 12:38
I'm a bit surprised that Afghan border guards pushed back regular PA troops from a border post.
The damaged border post seen in the video looked more like a temporary bunker built out of sand-bags and some awnings - that a surprise mortar and RPG attack on a lightly defended post would cause the troops manning the post to retreat initially before pounding the ANA back across the border with additional support does not seem that unusual to me.

Agnostic Muslim
14 May 13,, 12:44
Apart from the last, all of them are executory clauses between Afghanistan and British India, nothing to do with an as yet non-existent Pakistan.

The last is of course simply hearsay and meaningless even if true.

Afghanistan has never agreed to the Durand line with the Pakistan government.
You pointed it out yourself: "Uti_possidetis_juris"

I pointed out that multiple Afghan governments have ratified the Durand Agreement, and gave you the evidence to back it up.


Ah I see. Legal justifications of drone strikes up to and including against American citizens abroad is disingenuous, but claiming illegality based on an opinion isn't LOL :)
Since 'drone strikes against American citizens who are Senior Operational Leaders of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force' are in the single digits (if even that) out of the total US drone strikes in Pakistan, presenting that paper (not an official US government position articulated to the government of Pakistan or the international community) in an attempt to justify the legality drone strikes that the paper clearly does not cover is clearly disingenuous.

Agnostic Muslim
14 May 13,, 12:46
PA troops were concerned that if they retaliate (harder) it might provoke an invasion :rolleyes:
Provoke an invasion? By Afghanistan? The Pakistani concerns were over vitiating the complex environment of negotiations between the Afghans, US, Pakistan and the Taliban as NATO withdraws from Afghanistan.

Doktor
14 May 13,, 13:32
That was one of the reasons for not hitting US drones.

Why is now any different? We all agree that it is not the capability.

Parihaka
14 May 13,, 18:13
You pointed it out yourself: "Uti_possidetis_juris"

I pointed out that multiple Afghan governments have ratified the Durand Agreement, and gave you the evidence .
Nope, you gave evidence of a trade contract between Afghanistan and British India. Nothing to do with Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
14 May 13,, 19:01
Nope, you gave evidence of a trade contract between Afghanistan and British India. Nothing to do with Pakistan.
The Durand Agreement of 1893 demarcated Afghanistan's Eastern border with (at the time) British India - the treaties of 1905, 1919 and 1921 all specifically confirmed Afghanistan's acceptance of the boundaries defined in the previous treaties going back to the Durand Agreement in 1893. Under existing precedents in international law, the treaties continue to apply between Afghanistan and Pakistan (a successor State to the British).

And how exactly did you come up with the position that the treaties of 1905, 1919 and 1921 were merely 'trade contracts' and did not reaffirm/ratify Afghan commitment to the Afghan borders demarcated in the Durand Agreement of 1893?

Agnostic Muslim
14 May 13,, 19:02
That was one of the reasons for not hitting US drones.

Why is now any different? We all agree that it is not the capability.
Afghanistan is not the US, and for now the Afghan's appear to have backed off with the limited 'show of force' demonstration on the part of Pakistan.

Parihaka
14 May 13,, 19:31
The Durand Agreement of 1893 demarcated Afghanistan's Eastern border with (at the time) British India - the treaties of 1905, 1919 and 1921 all specifically confirmed Afghanistan's acceptance of the boundaries defined in the previous treaties going back to the Durand Agreement in 1893. Under existing precedents in international law, the treaties continue to apply between Afghanistan and Pakistan (a successor State to the British).

And how exactly did you come up with the position that the treaties of 1905, 1919 and 1921 were merely 'trade contracts' and did not reaffirm/ratify Afghan commitment to the Afghan borders demarcated in the Durand Agreement of 1893?
I'll say it reeeaaaalllllyyyy slowly.

Afghanistan did and does consider the Durand agreements with British India as executory clauses, that is in the nature of a trade agreement, where the line was a line of control beyond which neither side transgressed.

Afghanistan has never agreed with Pakistan to the Durand line being a sovereign boundary.

It's really not that hard a concept to understand.

1980s
14 May 13,, 20:41
Why is there still a grudge between Afghanistan and Pakistan? They should be very connected, instead we have reversed situation on the ground.

Brothers fight gone bad?

Brothers? Hardly. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis belong to ethnic groups that are racially and historically Indian (over 75% are native speakers of Indic languages). What do Afghanistan's various ethnic groups have in common with these majority Indo-Pakistanis? Minus Islam, nothing at all.

I would also suggest that the non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan (perhaps with the exception of its Baluch population) do not care much for the Durand border issue. They have other reasons why they hate Pakistan, which are not hard to find.

Firestorm
14 May 13,, 21:29
Brothers? Hardly. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis belong to ethnic groups that are racially and historically Indian (over 75% are native speakers of Indic languages). What do Afghanistan's various ethnic groups have in common with these majority Indo-Pakistanis? Minus Islam, nothing at all.

Well just because they are ethnically different, doesn't mean they should hate each other. The reasons for Afghans hating Pakistanis lie in the extensive Pakistani support for and involvement with the Taliban.

lemontree
15 May 13,, 06:15
The damaged border post seen in the video looked more like a temporary bunker built out of sand-bags and some awnings - that a surprise mortar and RPG attack on a lightly defended post would cause the troops manning the post to retreat initially before pounding the ANA back across the border with additional support does not seem that unusual to me.
This means that the post was recently made and the Afghans are right, about PA encroaching on their part of the spur/ridge.
The damaged post appears to be in Afghan hands now, PA is nowhere near it.

Agnostic Muslim
15 May 13,, 12:42
This means that the post was recently made and the Afghans are right, about PA encroaching on their part of the spur/ridge.
The damaged post appears to be in Afghan hands now, PA is nowhere near it.

A recently constructed bunker does not automatically imply that Pakistani forces were 'encroaching on the Afghan part of the spur/ridge'.

What are you basing your observation on, that the Pakistani post is in Afghan hands now?

Agnostic Muslim
15 May 13,, 12:46
I'll say it reeeaaaalllllyyyy slowly.

Afghanistan did and does consider the Durand agreements with British India as executory clauses, that is in the nature of a trade agreement, where the line was a line of control beyond which neither side transgressed.

Afghanistan has never agreed with Pakistan to the Durand line being a sovereign boundary.

It's really not that hard a concept to understand.

Say it as slow as you want - what the Afghan's want to believe or not does not matter given that precedent in international law is clear about treaties between two States being applicable in the case of a successor State.

Please point out where exactly the Durand border demarcation is listed as 'line of control for trade purposes'. The treaty language is clear in establishing a border between an 'Independent State of Afghanistan and British India'.

Agnostic Muslim
15 May 13,, 12:53
Well just because they are ethnically different, doesn't mean they should hate each other. The reasons for Afghans hating Pakistanis lie in the extensive Pakistani support for and involvement with the Taliban.
Afghan hostility towards Pakistan goes back earlier than that:

1. The Afghan's sheltered Baloch terrorist/separatist groups during the Khan of Kalat's time, and have continued to do so
2. They were the only country to vote against the admission of Pakistan into the UN
3. They tried to foment rebellions in Pakistan's FATA and even sent Afghan forces to support the rebels and were beaten back by Pakistan

All of the above occurred before any Pakistani involvement with the Mujahideen and Taliban.

Agnostic Muslim
15 May 13,, 13:09
@ Parihaka:

Please see the following excerpt from a British document on the territorial demarcation aspects of the Afghan-British treaties and how they apply to Pakistan (I recommend reading the entire document):
http://graanafghanistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Anglo-Afghan-Treaty.pdf

Article 2.-The first part of this' article lays down the frontier, and everyone is agreed that this frontier cannot be altered merely by the lapse of the treaty, even if it did lapse, The second part of the article confers upon the Afghan authorities certain rights as respects the drawing of water from what is now Pakistan territory, and for certain navigational rights in Afghan territory in favour of persons in Pakistan. It is true that the latter rights are expressed to be in favour of •• British subjects," but, as the rights and obligations are essentially of a territorial character as between two neighbouring territories, there seems no reason to regard them as having lapsed. Incidentally, it is not entirely clear that Pakistan are not still technically rebus sic stantibus.

Agnostic Muslim
15 May 13,, 13:26
Text of Article 2 of the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921:

ARTICLE 2: The two high contracting parties mutually accept the Indo-Afghan frontier as accepted by the Afghan Government under article 5 of the treaty concluded at Rawalpiudi on 8th August, 1919, .corresponding to the 11th Ziqada, 1337 Hijra, and also the boundary west of the Khyber laid down by the British Commission in the months of August and September 1919, pursuant to the said article, and shown on the map attached to this treaty by a black chain line; subject only to the realignment set forth in schedule 1, annexed, which has been agreed upon in order to include within the boundaries of Afghanistan the place known as Tor Kham, and the whole bed of the Kabul River between Shilman Khwala Banda and Palosai and which is shown on the said map by a red chain line...

This is not a 'trade agreement', this is a treaty demarcating the borders of two States - keep fishing Parihaka ...

Parihaka
15 May 13,, 13:30
Say it as slow as you want - what the Afghan's want to believe or not does not matter

Ah, makes me proud. We return to my original statement


Whether the Durand line is settled under Uti_possidetis_juris as Pakistan contends or as an executory clause as Afghanistan contends (they've never ceded anything as a nation to Pakistan) is irrelevant. It simply comes down to who has the force to hold it, which lies securely with the Pakistanis.

Now all you need to do is realise the same applies to Pakistan in relation to the drone strikes :)

Agnostic Muslim
15 May 13,, 13:51
Ah, makes me proud. We return to my original statement

Now all you need to do is realise the same applies to Pakistan in relation to the drone strikes :)
Taking pride in your disingenuity (truncating my comment to suit your flawed argument) only illustrates how weak your position is - the entire comment was, "what the Afghan's want to believe or not does not matter given that precedent in international law is clear about treaties between two States being applicable in the case of a successor State"

There is no US-Pakistan treaty or agreement governing drone strikes, past ICJ rulings have rejected the arguments of unilateral use of force in case of another State being 'unable and/or unwilling', the Pakistani government and courts have officially demanded an end to US drone strikes and called them violations of international law and the UN investigation into US drone strikes in Pakistan agrees with the Pakistani position. Again, keep fishing ...

Parihaka
15 May 13,, 22:32
Taking pride in your disingenuity (truncating my comment to suit your flawed argument) only illustrates how weak your position is - the entire comment was, "what the Afghan's want to believe or not does not matter given that precedent in international law is clear about treaties between two States being applicable in the case of a successor State"

There is no US-Pakistan treaty or agreement governing drone strikes, past ICJ rulings have rejected the arguments of unilateral use of force in case of another State being 'unable and/or unwilling', the Pakistani government and courts have officially demanded an end to US drone strikes and called them violations of international law and the UN investigation into US drone strikes in Pakistan agrees with the Pakistani position. Again, keep fishing ...And as I've already pointed out ad infinitum and which you continuously ignore, the deals struck between British India and Afghanistan can be viewed as uti possidetis juris or as an executory clause
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03068370902871508#.UZP_KrVTD0o
RUSI - Rethinking the Durand Line: The Legality of the Afghan-Pakistani Frontier (http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4AEB148D13F17/#.UZP9irVTD0o)

And again, as I have now thrice pointed out, none of it matters a damn because the only true sovereign line is that set by the more powerful state, in this case Pakistan.
Just like the drone strikes where for all Pakistans whining, there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

Whether the Durand line holds for the future depends on the level and type of force each party brings to the dispute. Karzai looks set to be bringing the same tools to bear as Pakistan has used against Afghanistan for the last 30 years, namely sponsorship of insurgency. As stated earlier, I would find this funny were it not for the lives that will be lost.

Doktor
15 May 13,, 22:48
Pari your comparison is wrong.

Afghans defend their border against mightier army.

Parihaka
15 May 13,, 22:52
Pari your comparison is wrong.

Afghans defend their border against mightier army.

Not sure i'm following you. The Afghans certainly haven't been able to contain the Pakistan based insurgency whether Mujahadeen or 'taliban'.

Doktor
15 May 13,, 23:01
The fight over the post. They actually engaged in a fight.

Parihaka
16 May 13,, 00:42
The fight over the post. They actually engaged in a fight.

Ah ok. That doesn't suddenly make the border secure though. It just shows the ANA is getting more aggressive.

lemontree
16 May 13,, 09:39
A recently constructed bunker does not automatically imply that Pakistani forces were 'encroaching on the Afghan part of the spur/ridge'.
Have you ever been to a forward defended locality on the LOC with India or the Durand line?
You'll know the difference, if you have seen hasty constructions or proper engr made defences.


What are you basing your observation on, that the Pakistani post is in Afghan hands now?
The absence of PA troops at the post in the TV reports.

Agnostic Muslim
22 May 13,, 13:54
Have you ever been to a forward defended locality on the LOC with India or the Durand line?
You'll know the difference, if you have seen hasty constructions or proper engr made defences.
Neither a 'hasty construction' nor a 'properly engineered defensive structure' automatically imply that 'Pakistani forces were encroaching on the Afghan part of the ridge/spur'.


The absence of PA troops at the post in the TV reports.
The video shots of both Pakistani posts are 'long distance shots' and do not show Afghan forces at either post. The larger, fixed post still has the Pakistani flag flying. The news crew was on the Afghan side, so the 'long distance shots' and 'absence of any Afghan troops at the posts in question' means that the ANA did not control them.

Agnostic Muslim
22 May 13,, 14:03
And as I've already pointed out ad infinitum and which you continuously ignore, the deals struck between British India and Afghanistan can be viewed as uti possidetis juris or as an executory clause
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03068370902871508#.UZP_KrVTD0o)
RUSI - Rethinking the Durand Line: The Legality of the Afghan-Pakistani Frontier (http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4AEB148D13F17/#.UZP9irVTD0o)

And again, as I have now thrice pointed out, none of it matters a damn because the only true sovereign line is that set by the more powerful state, in this case Pakistan.
Just like the drone strikes where for all Pakistans whining, there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

Whether the Durand line holds for the future depends on the level and type of force each party brings to the dispute. Karzai looks set to be bringing the same tools to bear as Pakistan has used against Afghanistan for the last 30 years, namely sponsorship of insurgency. As stated earlier, I would find this funny were it not for the lives that will be lost.

The articles you posted concur with the British governments legal opinion (I posted a link to it earlier) that the territorial demarcation part of the Anglo-Afghan treaties is an 'Executed Clause'. One of the arguments made by the author of the pieces you linked to is as follows:


"Further evidence to this end is adduced from the wording of the actual 1893 treaty. The form of words used is at first sight strangely convoluted. As quoted above, it merely claims to limit the states’ ‘respective spheres of influence’, and is a line over which each state pledges not to ‘exercise interference’. This is to be contrasted with the agreement that Durand signed with the Afghan King at exactly the same moment in 1893, garnering Afghan agreement for a northern border with Russia. Here, the word used is simply ‘boundary’.[19]It is striking that at the same moment such different forms of words should be used.

By convention, the word ‘boundary’ refers to international sovereign borders,whereas ‘frontier’ refers to other grades of border. The fact that the word is used in one treaty but not the other further confirms that there was no intention to make the Durand Line an international sovereign boundary.

Take the above argument and review the wording of relevant section of the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921:

Text of Article 2 of the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921:


ARTICLE 2: The two high contracting parties mutually accept the Indo-Afghan frontier as accepted by the Afghan Government under article 5 of the treaty concluded at Rawalpiudi on 8th August, 1919, .corresponding to the 11th Ziqada, 1337 Hijra, and also the boundary west of the Khyber laid down by the British Commission in the months of August and September 1919, pursuant to the said article, and shown on the map attached to this treaty by a black chain line; subject only to the realignment set forth in schedule 1, annexed, which has been agreed upon in order to include within the boundaries of Afghanistan the place known as Tor Kham, and the whole bed of the Kabul River between Shilman Khwala Banda and Palosai and which is shown on the said map by a red chain line...

The use of the words boundary and boundaries in Article 2 of the treaty refutes Omrani's own argument quoted above.

lemontree
23 May 13,, 11:54
Neither a 'hasty construction' nor a 'properly engineered defensive structure' automatically imply that 'Pakistani forces were encroaching on the Afghan part of the ridge/spur'.
Since you do not have military experience to know the difference in hasty and prepared defences, I take it that you are arguing just for the sake of it.


The video shots of both Pakistani posts are 'long distance shots' and do not show Afghan forces at either post. The larger, fixed post still has the Pakistani flag flying. The news crew was on the Afghan side, so the 'long distance shots' and 'absence of any Afghan troops at the posts in question' means that the ANA did not control them.
Neither do the PA control the damaged post, meaning that the PA was puched back.

Agnostic Muslim
23 May 13,, 12:58
Since you do not have military experience to know the difference in hasty and prepared defences, I take it that you are arguing just for the sake of it.

Why are you avoiding responding to the point being made since you claim to have the requisite 'military experience'?


Neither do the PA control the damaged post, meaning that the PA was puched back.
Why do you think the PA does not control the damaged post? Vacating the post because it was damaged does not automatically imply that the PA does not control the area in which the post is present.

You can't argue that the absence of a Pakistani soldier on every single rock in that video implies that 'the PA does not control that area'.

lemontree
24 May 13,, 05:45
Why are you avoiding responding to the point being made since you claim to have the requisite 'military experience'?
Re-read post #67... You have been answered, but you have failed to comprehend.


Why do you think the PA does not control the damaged post? Vacating the post because it was damaged does not automatically imply that the PA does not control the area in which the post is present.
:slap:....someone please takeover from me. I give up.

doppelganger
24 May 13,, 06:23
:slap:....someone please takeover from me. I give up.

Sir weren't you in Pattaya or something?

Why raising blood pressure on WAB?!!!!! :biggrin:

Agnostic Muslim
24 May 13,, 13:28
Re-read post #67... You have been answered, but you have failed to comprehend.
Your comments from post# 67:

"This means that the post was recently made and the Afghans are right, about PA encroaching on their part of the spur/ridge.
The damaged post appears to be in Afghan hands now, PA is nowhere near it."

As I pointed out to you in response to that post, how does a 'recently made post automatically imply that the PA was encroaching on the Afghan part of the spur/ridge'?

Second, as I pointed out in post#81 and post# 84, the video footage of the damaged post does not support your argument that the damaged Pakistani post is in Afghan hands.

antimony
24 May 13,, 15:09
Sir weren't you in Pattaya or something?



Captain LT

You are a family man, stay away from the beach

Matthew 26:41
“Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

:biggrin:

doppelganger
24 May 13,, 15:20
Captain LT

You are a family man, stay away from the beach


From what my brothers tell me, all the action is off the beach. I am waiting for an epic road trip there. We are looking for sponsors for this "SE Asian Friendship Tour."

P.S. LT sir is gone with wife and daughter and sister in law. I think there will be no watching also. Only praying. :Zzzzzz:

antimony
24 May 13,, 16:00
From what my brothers tell me, all the action is off the beach. I am waiting for an epic road trip there. We are looking for sponsors for this "SE Asian Friendship Tour."


That is for young whippersnappers like you :)

For crusty old married coots like us, the sights are all we have, and that is at the beach.

antimony
24 May 13,, 16:01
Why are you avoiding responding to the point being made since you claim to have the requisite 'military experience'?

Why do you think the PA does not control the damaged post? Vacating the post because it was damaged does not automatically imply that the PA does not control the area in which the post is present.

You can't argue that the absence of a Pakistani soldier on every single rock in that video implies that 'the PA does not control that area'.

Honest question : is this your interpretation or is this what your army buddies are telling you?

Agnostic Muslim
24 May 13,, 21:38
Honest question : is this your interpretation or is this what your army buddies are telling you?
I don't believe I made any reference whatsoever to any 'Army buddies' in my responses in this thread.

Agnostic Muslim
24 May 13,, 21:42
Apparently Karzai's attempt to leverage India-Pakistan hostilities into a weapons pipeline from India has met with criticizm in Afghanistan:

ISLAMABAD: Certainly not a master at fomenting strategic alliances and maintaining relationships, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been taking heat for failing to balance his country’s relations between India and Pakistan, especially after his two-day visit (May 20 to 21) to New Delhi.

Afghan officials mainly saw the visit focus on Karzai’s quest to acquire Indian weapons. He failed to muster much attention as his trip coincided with that of Chinese premier Li Keqiang’s with the Indians more interested in entertaining the latter than paying heed to Karzai and his ‘wish list’. This was the Afghan premier’s second visit to India in six months.

Although President Karzai traditionally speaks to reporters after returning from foreign trips, he has remained tight-lipped regarding his time in India. Some Indian media outlets on the other hand reported Karzai left India “empty-handed.”

Karzai could not have picked a worse time to embark to India with a wish list, considering he had not been promised anything beforehand. Some Afghan lawmakers, analysts and parts of the media concurred. The president’s spokesman confirmed the Indian government had made no concrete commitments to provide lethal weapons, but added New Delhi “will elaborate on Afghanistan’s requests.”

Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Akbaruddin was reported as saying his country is ready to discuss issues pertaining to providing military support to Afghanistan.

“We will discuss all related issues based on the strategic cooperation agreement,” said Akbaruddin. “Currently, the most important programmes for Afghanistan are aimed at helping the economic sector develop. However, we will not ignore the political and security issues of Afghanistan.” Besides making these comments, the spokesperson did not directly mention an official response to Karzai’s requests.

Afghans remain divided over how their country should form and maintain alliances with neighbouring countries. Some favour strong ties with India, while others caution seeking weapons from New Delhi may harm relations with Islamabad.

Former Afghan defence minister Shahnawaz Tanai says Karzai can attempt to pursue stronger ties with India, but he must be careful of not overstepping and affecting Afghanistan’s relationship with Pakistan.

“These are very delicate and sensitive issues and Karzai must be aware of them,” Tanai told The Express Tribune.

Tanai, who now heads the anti-war group, Afghan Peace Movement, suggested India’s relations with Afghanistan should be based on goodwill and in no way negatively affect relations with Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Afghan daily Mandegar held Karzai responsible for tense relations between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India in the region.

“Because of his behaviour, he (Karzai) has lost control of the balance between these two long-standing enemies and as a result, has made Afghanistan the theatre for a proxy war between India and Pakistan,” the daily stated on May 22 in an article titled ‘Karzai’s suspicious behaviour and Pakistan’s anger’.

Former Afghan minister and writer, Dr Farouq Azam, said Karzai must not ask neighbouring countries for military support.

“He (Karzai) does not need to ask India and Turkey, who support ethnic minorities, for military equipment and training of Afghan soldiers. Afghanistan should learn from the bitter memories of the past when similar treaties were signed,” he said, referring to the Soviet invasion in 1979.

The destinies of Afghanistan and Pakistan are intertwined and both countries will be the ultimate losers in the endgame, Azam claimed.

Political commentator Faizullah Jalal said in a TV debate that one of Karzai’s objectives in India was to win New Delhi’s support to help him in the presidential elections.

Another commentator, Abdul Ghafar Ikhlas, told a private channel Ayna that Karzai’s visit to India was “an emotional reaction” given the tensions between Kabul and Islamabad.

Neighbourhood watch: Karzai overshadowed by Chinese premier in New Delhi – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/553991/neighbourhood-watch-karzai-overshadowed-by-chinese-premier-in-new-delhi/)

antimony
25 May 13,, 13:26
I don't believe I made any reference whatsoever to any 'Army buddies' in my responses in this thread.

I understand that, but I see you drawing conclusions about what is essentially a military matter, hence the question. No offence meant, but I would trust the judgement of a military man over a civilian. That's all.

notorious_eagle
25 May 13,, 13:34
I understand that, but I see you drawing conclusions about what is essentially a military matter, hence the question. No offence meant, but I would trust the judgement of a military man over a civilian. That's all.

A military man sitting in India with no access to first hand information what so ever :confused:. I have already stated before, ANA moved back immediately after a show of force from 56th AK Regiment. Lets be honest here for a second, its not really a contest. One is a well seasoned fighting force with a disciplined officer core, the less i say about the other side the better.

Officer of Engineers
25 May 13,, 15:38
A military man sitting in India with no access to first hand information what so ever :confused:. I have already stated before, ANA moved back immediately after a show of force from 56th AK Regiment. Lets be honest here for a second, its not really a contest. One is a well seasoned fighting force with a disciplined officer core, the less i say about the other side the better.The site in question is a FOP. The question is forward observing for what? The border check point is behind it.

Double Edge
25 May 13,, 16:35
Political commentator Faizullah Jalal said in a TV debate that one of Karzai’s objectives in India was to win New Delhi’s support to help him in the presidential elections.
I've heard Karzai say he would not be running in the next elections.

How is India to 'help' him with that then.

notorious_eagle
26 May 13,, 04:12
The site in question is a FOP. The question is forward observing for what? The border check point is behind it.

Sir

Your guess is as good as mine. But i know for sure that PA has been extra vigilant in these last couple of months because many members of the TTP have been hiding out in bordering areas in Afghanistan. Several soldiers have lost their lives, this is why PA has boosted up its resources in the area to deal with this threat.

IND76
26 May 13,, 04:30
A military man sitting in India with no access to first hand information what so ever :confused:. I have already stated before, ANA moved back immediately after a show of force from 56th AK Regiment. Lets be honest here for a second, its not really a contest. One is a well seasoned fighting force with a disciplined officer core, the less i say about the other side the better.

Military man in question might not have first hand information, but I'm sure he does understand pak army psyche well, having experience dealing with them in Indo-Pak border. Do you want comments from arm chair general getting second hand info from uncles and aunties in pak army to be taken seriously?

Regarding you being honest about seasoned fight force. ANA might not be capable as Pak army yet, but they still can give your seasoned fighters run for their money.

Officer of Engineers
26 May 13,, 05:27
Your guess is as good as mine.You misunderstood me. Mine was not a guess. I saw what the ANA saw. I make no arguement as to the actual border but that the FOP was well forward of an established point.

Officer of Engineers
26 May 13,, 05:33
Military man in question might not have first hand information,Yes, we did. We have pictures of the posts in question.

notorious_eagle
26 May 13,, 13:30
You misunderstood me. Mine was not a guess. I saw what the ANA saw. I make no arguement as to the actual border but that the FOP was well forward of an established point.

Sir

So far we don't have the exact coordinates of the FOP, at least it has not been released in the media yet. PA intruding into Afghan territory would indeed be a new precedent because traditionally it has always been the Afghans that have intruded into Pakistani territory. Anyways, i have fired off a PM on PDF to a member who just returned from the front lines, will get back to you as soon as he answers my query.

Thanks

notorious_eagle
26 May 13,, 13:30
Regarding you being honest about seasoned fight force. ANA might not be capable as Pak army yet, but they still can give your seasoned fighters run for their money.

No the ANA would win, they are far too powerful :cool:.

lemontree
27 May 13,, 08:31
The site in question is a FOP. The question is forward observing for what? The border check point is behind it.

Sir,
The border management on the Indo-Pak and Pak-Afghan region is done in the following manner.

On the Loc with India: These are in the form of FDLs (forward defended localities) that are layed down in typical company level deployment in mountain terrain. They are mutualy supporting and the deployment depends if it is on a spur or a ridge (as you know).

Typically in the Afghan sector the deployment is in the form of BOPs border out posts and not in the form of FDLs. They are manned by the frontier paramilitary units and not regular troops.

In the current issue, it appears that the Pak BOP tried to dominate over disputed territory by deploying a section or sec +, to possibly control ground of tactical importance. There may be a route/ track or valley that it must be able to dominate better than the BOP in the rear. These are the prime reasons why we enchroach in the sub-continent in regions with disputed borders.

They had to bring in another inf bn from the rear, as these BOPs are not tactically sited with mutual support.

Officer of Engineers
27 May 13,, 16:23
And they're complaining NATO is not doing our jobs.

notorious_eagle
27 May 13,, 20:49
You misunderstood me. Mine was not a guess. I saw what the ANA saw. I make no arguement as to the actual border but that the FOP was well forward of an established point.

Sir

You were correct, i can confirm it. Afghan territory was encroached, but not by 45km as the Afghans claim. Drastic steps were taken after PA lost a couple of soldiers in the past few months from TTP fighters hiding inside Afghanistan.


What are you basing your observation on, that the Pakistani post is in Afghan hands now?

The observation post is occupied by FC, Icarus confirmed it.

Officer of Engineers
27 May 13,, 21:00
Tragic. It's too bad the Pakistanis and the Afghans couldn't do what the Indians and Chinese did. Throw up banners instead of throwing bullets.

n21
27 May 13,, 21:03
No the ANA would win, they are far too powerful :cool:.

ANA right now is 350K strong.

A 350K force, if heavily armed, will it not be a headache for PA? You would still need lot of bullets to kill off a 350k force.
And most of the ANA is non-pashtuns. They will have no problems killing Pashtuns or Pakistanis.

Pakistan now has two border with more than 1500 km each to guard and thousands of enemy troops on each borders and a bankrupt economy.

ANA would not have to fight. They just need to get the funds to maintain the army and ..... actually ANA might end up wining.

Agnostic Muslim
27 May 13,, 22:31
ANA right now is 350K strong.
Actually the ANA size is around 200,000 (recruited) according to ISAF documentation from May 2012:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/20120516_media_backgrounder_ANSF_en.pdf


A 350K force, if heavily armed, will it not be a headache for PA? You would still need lot of bullets to kill off a 350k force.
And most of the ANA is non-pashtuns. They will have no problems killing Pashtuns or Pakistanis.
The issue is not one of size as much as it is one of training, discipline and equipment.


ANA would not have to fight. They just need to get the funds to maintain the army and ..... actually ANA might end up wining.
Maintain the Army to what extent exactly? The current small arms and light artillery they possess?

notorious_eagle
28 May 13,, 01:40
ANA right now is 350K strong.

A 350K force, if heavily armed, will it not be a headache for PA? You would still need lot of bullets to kill off a 350k force.
And most of the ANA is non-pashtuns. They will have no problems killing Pashtuns or Pakistanis.

Pakistan now has two border with more than 1500 km each to guard and thousands of enemy troops on each borders and a bankrupt economy.

ANA would not have to fight. They just need to get the funds to maintain the army and ..... actually ANA might end up wining.

ANA has one of the highest desertions rate and the force is severely handicapped with discipline related issues. Use of Hashish and Heroin is common among the ANA recruits. ANA is a good 15-20 years away from developing a disciplined and competent Officer Corps that can operate on its own.

ANA is largely equipped with weapons to deal with asymmetric threat and not a conventional threat. At the height of its power in 1960, ANA was routed by Pakistani Tribesman when ANA invaded Bajaur. What makes you think that the result is going to be any different now? Anyways, its futile to continue this conversation and discuss a scenario that does not exist.

lemontree
28 May 13,, 04:26
The issue is not one of size as much as it is one of training, discipline and equipment.
I will second what AM has posted. In the current state ANA is no match for the discipline and training of the PA officers and troops. The ANA still has to develop an officer cadre to lead and command troops to carry out a meaningful defensive battle (I'm not even discussing offensive operations).

lemontree
28 May 13,, 08:21
The bone of contention....the disputed gate and wall at Goshta

32999

lemontree
28 May 13,, 08:32
View of the height commanded by the feature...

The tents in the lower part of the pic are ANA tents...

33000

n21
29 May 13,, 22:14
ANA has one of the highest desertions rate and the force is severely handicapped with discipline related issues. Use of Hashish and Heroin is common among the ANA recruits. ANA is a good 15-20 years away from developing a disciplined and competent Officer Corps that can operate on its own.

ANA is largely equipped with weapons to deal with asymmetric threat and not a conventional threat. At the height of its power in 1960, ANA was routed by Pakistani Tribesman when ANA invaded Bajaur. What makes you think that the result is going to be any different now? Anyways, its futile to continue this conversation and discuss a scenario that does not exist.

ANA is Northern Alliance. ANA may not fight, but Northern Alliance will, for their life depends on it.

With enough funding and resources the may be able to field a army of 100k. Still would require lot of Pakistan men and bullets to kill them.

Asymmeteric or not, Pakistan would have to field resources to defend against them, which would still mean manning two very long hostile borders.

Pakistan always talks about the escalation if there are Indian troops in Afghanistan. Well why would India have troops, when it can fund the ANA. 1 billion from it's 35 billion defence budget? 1 billion a year can get lot of men for Northern Alliance/ ANA.

antimony
29 May 13,, 23:43
ANA is Northern Alliance. ANA may not fight, but Northern Alliance will, for their life depends on it.

With enough funding and resources the may be able to field a army of 100k. Still would require lot of Pakistan men and bullets to kill them.

Asymmeteric or not, Pakistan would have to field resources to defend against them, which would still mean manning two very long hostile borders.

Pakistan always talks about the escalation if there are Indian troops in Afghanistan. Well why would India have troops, when it can fund the ANA. 1 billion from it's 35 billion defence budget? 1 billion a year can get lot of men for Northern Alliance/ ANA.

"Enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a slippery business. I have no issues with India investing in Afghanistan or even some sort of military alliance but I would rather we stay out of this business of using the NA/ ANA as our cannon fodder, may not bode well in the long run.

Tronic
30 May 13,, 04:42
ANA is Northern Alliance.

Terrible misconception. ANA is not the Northern Alliance. The Tajiks may be over-represented, but the Pashtuns still dominate the ANA if you're counting numbers.

notorious_eagle
30 May 13,, 17:30
ANA is Northern Alliance. ANA may not fight, but Northern Alliance will, for their life depends on it.

With enough funding and resources the may be able to field a army of 100k. Still would require lot of Pakistan men and bullets to kill them.

Asymmeteric or not, Pakistan would have to field resources to defend against them, which would still mean manning two very long hostile borders.

Pakistan always talks about the escalation if there are Indian troops in Afghanistan. Well why would India have troops, when it can fund the ANA. 1 billion from it's 35 billion defence budget? 1 billion a year can get lot of men for Northern Alliance/ ANA.

Pakistan already has the FC stationed to protect its Western Borders. Several projects are in place to raise the efficiency of FC, once they are completed there won't be any need of additional regular PA troops. The terrain serves as a natural disadvantage for an attacker, it naturally serves the defender which is exactly what Pakistan will be doing.

Follow the latest news, the Indian Government has refused to provide weapons that Karzai was looking for. The only thing the Indians have committed to is non-lethal weapons, there is no sign of India providing Karzai with heavy fire power. The Indian funding you are talking about is only a utopian dream, we can have a conversation about it once the Indian Government commits the $1 billion.

Officer of Engineers
30 May 13,, 18:58
Leakage is going to be a big problem and the very fact that you had to intrude onto Afghan territory with no RRF, or even a fall back position speaks just how unprepare Pakistan really is.

n21
30 May 13,, 19:55
"Enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a slippery business. I have no issues with India investing in Afghanistan or even some sort of military alliance but I would rather we stay out of this business of using the NA/ ANA as our cannon fodder, may not bode well in the long run.

Not saying use ANA as cannon fodder. Fund the ANA to guard the Afghan border, which is a legit task for ANA. They let the Taliban through, their families are going to get killed.

A army of 100 to 200K men, even guarding the Afghan border will a HUGE threat for PA. No need to have skills to invade Pakistan or take on PA.

Just stand on the border and shoot anything that crosses in to Afghanistan.

n21
30 May 13,, 20:18
Pakistan already has the FC stationed to protect its Western Borders. Several projects are in place to raise the efficiency of FC, once they are completed there won't be any need of additional regular PA troops. The terrain serves as a natural disadvantage for an attacker, it naturally serves the defender which is exactly what Pakistan will be doing.

Follow the latest news, the Indian Government has refused to provide weapons that Karzai was looking for. The only thing the Indians have committed to is non-lethal weapons, there is no sign of India providing Karzai with heavy fire power. The Indian funding you are talking about is only a utopian dream, we can have a conversation about it once the Indian Government commits the $1 billion.

It is a very simple logic for India. As far as Pakistan is busy on it's western border, it's eastern border will be peaceful. India will and can easily make sure Pakistan is busy on it's western borders.

What is non-lethal weapons? Weapons are by nature lethal. As far as India providing weapons is concerned where is the manpower to manage them? How much heavy weapons have the US supplied to Afghanistan?
Do you really believe the US will allow India to sell weapons to Afghanistan when they are about to leave the place.

Lot of Afghan officers are getting trained at Indian defence academy. Officers who would be at the frontline post 2014. So the relationship is been put in place.

lemontree
31 May 13,, 06:13
Pakistan already has the FC stationed to protect its Western Borders. Several projects are in place to raise the efficiency of FC, once they are completed there won't be any need of additional regular PA troops. The terrain serves as a natural disadvantage for an attacker, it naturally serves the defender which is exactly what Pakistan will be doing.
The FC are border police nothing more, and are used as screens for trip wires before regular units are deployed. Just as the terrain helps the defender, it also helps the attacker in infiltration, isolation of enemy units and killing him.


Follow the latest news, the Indian Government has refused to provide weapons that Karzai was looking for. The only thing the Indians have committed to is non-lethal weapons, there is no sign of India providing Karzai with heavy fire power. The Indian funding you are talking about is only a utopian dream, we can have a conversation about it once the Indian Government commits the $1 billion.
India investments to repair the infrastructure and develop the ecponomy of Afghanistan are way above the $1 billion mark (in fact it is $ 10.8 billion as of 2012).
Militarily, India is already churning out batches of Afghan Army officers from our military academies, hundreds of Afghan soldiers and policemen are being trained by India. These activities have been low profile so as not to antagonise Pakisan The main focus is economic development. We do not want to use Afghanistan as a stick to beat Pakistan, but to develop Afghanistan to be a player in the regional economy. India has already signed a deal for the first Afghan steel project, that will bring about a major boost to its economy and aid ancillary growth of related industries.

Afghanistan needs economic growth more than Indian military supplies. Once that happens then Pakistani formations will be re-allocated to the western border, eleminating the current strategic reserves that the PA has w.r.t India. Thereby reducing the chances of any mis-adventure that PA may desire. This will reduce the chances of any major conflict within the region.

But after 2014, if Pakistan insists on using the Taliban in Afghanistan, then military supplies and assistance will pour in. Besides China too will not allow Pakistani ruin the billions it has invested in Afghanistan.

cataphract
31 May 13,, 06:23
What is non-lethal weapons? Weapons are by nature lethal.

Riot control gear, like tear gas, sound cannons, etc. I don't know if these are really supplied by India to Afghanistan, but perhaps that's what notorious was referring to.

cataphract
31 May 13,, 06:26
Not saying use ANA as cannon fodder. Fund the ANA to guard the Afghan border, which is a legit task for ANA. They let the Taliban through, their families are going to get killed.

A army of 100 to 200K men, even guarding the Afghan border will a HUGE threat for PA. No need to have skills to invade Pakistan or take on PA.

Just stand on the border and shoot anything that crosses in to Afghanistan.

The ANA is far from a cohesive, national army under the control of the central government. Defections to the Taliban are the norm rather than exceptions. If Indian funds/arms are funneled to them, what is the guarantee that they won't end up with "non-state actors :rolleyes:" in Kashmir via the ISI?

cataphract
31 May 13,, 06:38
The FC are border police nothing more, and are used as screens for trip wires before regular units are deployed. Just as the terrain helps the defender, it also helps the attacker in infiltration, isolation of enemy units and killing him.


India investments to repair the infrastructure and develop the ecponomy of Afghanistan are way above the $1 billion mark (in fact it is $ 10.8 billion as of 2012).
Militarily, India is already churning out batches of Afghan Army officers from our military academies, hundreds of Afghan soldiers and policemen are being trained by India. These activities have been low profile so as not to antagonise Pakisan The main focus is economic development. We do not want to use Afghanistan as a stick to beat Pakistan, but to develop Afghanistan to be a player in the regional economy. India has already signed a deal for the first Afghan steel project, that will bring about a major boost to its economy and aid ancillary growth of related industries.

Afghanistan needs economic growth more than Indian military supplies. Once that happens then Pakistani formations will be re-allocated to the western border, eleminating the current strategic reserves that the PA has w.r.t India. Thereby reducing the chances of any mis-adventure that PA may desire. This will reduce the chances of any major conflict within the region.

But after 2014, if Pakistan insists on using the Taliban in Afghanistan, then military supplies and assistance will pour in. Besides China too will not allow Pakistani ruin the billions it has invested in Afghanistan.

Sir, wouldn't India be obliged to protect its massive investments in Afghanistan? If not with boots on the ground, at least with money and/or influence? One thing is certain, after the US drawdown, Indian engineers, workers and installations will become prime targets for Haqqanis and other Pakistan-backed factions in Afg.

lemontree
31 May 13,, 08:54
Sir, wouldn't India be obliged to protect its massive investments in Afghanistan? If not with boots on the ground, at least with money and/or influence? One thing is certain, after the US drawdown, Indian engineers, workers and installations will become prime targets for Haqqanis and other Pakistan-backed factions in Afg.
Before 2010, the US and EU kept India out from any involvement under Pak pressure, but after 2011 they want us to replace the NATO. India has made huge investments in Afghanistan infrastructure. The engineers and workers are protected by the Indian paramilitary units and local security system. The majority of workers are locals, so if the Taliban kill locals they kill they support base. The protection of the investment is crutial not only for India but also for China.

The recent Chinese visit to India and Pakistan was marked by a paradigm shift in Chinese policy towards India. I see a more cohisive collaboration between India and China on Afghanistan. China cannot afford a rabid jihadi base south of Xinjiang. Regarding Tibet it is assured that India will not instigate any insurgency, but to prevent islamic fighters from Afghanistan into Xinjiang, China will have to increasingly collaborate with India to neutralise that threat.

I cannot comment on what the US or EU will do as that will depend on the will of the administration and priorities at that time. But Pakistan will not be able to use the Taliban in Afghanistan the way it feels it can after NATO withdraws in 2014.

Agnostic Muslim
31 May 13,, 12:15
The FC are border police nothing more, and are used as screens for trip wires before regular units are deployed. Just as the terrain helps the defender, it also helps the attacker in infiltration, isolation of enemy units and killing him.


The FC have been increasingly utilized in FATA for combat operations, on their own and in conjunction with the regular Army - FC units are typically led by officers deputed from the regular Army. There has been an increased focus on the capacity building of the FC in the last ten years or so given the increased TTP activities so your claim of 'screens for trip wires' is rather exaggerated.

Doktor
31 May 13,, 12:19
Aren't FC units the ones who entered Shamsi after US left it?

Agnostic Muslim
31 May 13,, 12:31
Aren't FC units the ones who entered Shamsi after US left it?

http://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/305005-shamsiairbaseispr-1323611299-431-640x480.jpg

The image above shows regular Army troops deployed at Shamsi.

If the FC was deployed at Shamsi, it would be the FC Balochistan (a separate subdivision led by a separate commander, also deputed from the Pakistan Army, raised for Balochistan).

lemontree
31 May 13,, 13:00
The FC have been increasingly utilized in FATA for combat operations, on their own and in conjunction with the regular Army - FC units are typically led by officers deputed from the regular Army. There has been an increased focus on the capacity building of the FC in the last ten years or so given the increased TTP activities so your claim of 'screens for trip wires' is rather exaggerated.
You an I both know what the FC is made up of...so lets leave it at that.

lemontree
31 May 13,, 13:06
A view of the Frontier Constabulary

33030

Agnostic Muslim
31 May 13,, 13:12
A view of the Frontier Constabulary

33030

The Frontier Constabulary is a not the same paramilitary force as the Frontier Corps - the former is smaller and more regional compared to the latter.

The Frontier Corp (FATA/NWFP) uniform is as below:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/02/22/20090223TERROR/27047575.JPG

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/02/22/20090223TERROR/27047423.JPG

Agnostic Muslim
31 May 13,, 13:15
You an I both know what the FC is made up of...so lets leave it at that.

I am not contesting the fact that the Frontier Corps is not as capable as the regular Army, however I am contesting your characterization of the force as 'screens for trip wires before the regular Army comes in', especially given the fact that FC units in combat roles are led by officers deputed from the Pakistan Army, and each Frontier Corp sub-division is led by a Major General deputed from the Pakistani Army.

notorious_eagle
31 May 13,, 13:24
The Frontier Constabulary is a not the same paramilitary force as the Frontier Corps - the former is smaller and more regional compared to the latter.

The Frontier Corp (FATA/NWFP) uniform is as below:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/02/22/20090223TERROR/27047575.JPG

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/02/22/20090223TERROR/27047423.JPG

Here are pictures of FC Balochistan:

http://s7.postimg.org/owf4r2def/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/owf4r2def/)
http://s7.postimg.org/7umaoyyjf/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Under the leadership of Maj Gen Tariq Khan now a Lt Gen, the performance of FC has improved by leaps and bounds. This was proved when in 2008 Lt Gen Tariq Khan defeated the TTP in Bajaur. The FC is now fully capable of conducting operations independently, PA is only called in as a last resort.

Doktor
31 May 13,, 13:35
http://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/305005-shamsiairbaseispr-1323611299-431-640x480.jpg

The image above shows regular Army troops deployed at Shamsi.

If the FC was deployed at Shamsi, it would be the FC Balochistan (a separate subdivision led by a separate commander, also deputed from the Pakistan Army, raised for Balochistan).

From the same wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamsi_Airfield#U.S._friction_with_Pakistan_and_ev iction_.282011.29)article that links the Telegraph pic you posted:

On 9 December 2011, soldiers of Pakistan's Frontier Constabulary arrived at the nearby village of Washuk to position themselves to retake Shamsi. All roads to and from Shamsi were closed. Some US equipment was destroyed by the US military.[15] The US finally vacated Shamsi on 11 December 2011 with two flights carrying the remaining US soldiers and equipment.[16][17] Soldiers of the Pakistan Army, the Frontier Constabulary and officials of Pakistan's Civil Aviation Authority[1] immediately took control of the airfield.

However I was not aware there are two units with FC abbrev.

notorious_eagle
31 May 13,, 13:54
From the same wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamsi_Airfield#U.S._friction_with_Pakistan_and_ev iction_.282011.29)article that links the Telegraph pic you posted:


However I was not aware there are two units with FC abbrev.

Don't know about the article but the troops present in the picture are regular PA troops. The bullet proof vest is blocking their insignia, so its impossible to state which Unit they belong to.

Agnostic Muslim
31 May 13,, 13:58
From the same wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamsi_Airfield#U.S._friction_with_Pakistan_and_ev iction_.282011.29)article that links the Telegraph pic you posted:

However I was not aware there are two units with FC abbrev.


Don't know about the article but the troops present in the picture are regular PA troops. The bullet proof vest is blocking their insignia, so its impossible to state which Unit they belong to.

It is entirely possible that regular Army, Frontier Corps (Balochistan) and other local forces were deployed simultaneously at Shamsi.

notorious_eagle
31 May 13,, 19:11
The FC are border police nothing more, and are used as screens for trip wires before regular units are deployed. Just as the terrain helps the defender, it also helps the attacker in infiltration, isolation of enemy units and killing him.

Sir

You need to do a bit more research on FC. The force was re-hauled from top to bottom under the leadership of Maj Gen Tariq Khan. TTP suffered a major defeat at the hands of FC in 2008 in Bajaur, and this is the town where TTP fighters had the highest concentration in terms of numbers. PA Planners calculated it long ago that in order to pacify the Western border, modernization of FC was essential. Training, funding and equipment has been increased to bring the FC rank and file to the same level as regular PA troops.


India investments to repair the infrastructure and develop the ecponomy of Afghanistan are way above the $1 billion mark (in fact it is $ 10.8 billion as of 2012).
Militarily, India is already churning out batches of Afghan Army officers from our military academies, hundreds of Afghan soldiers and policemen are being trained by India. These activities have been low profile so as not to antagonise Pakisan The main focus is economic development. We do not want to use Afghanistan as a stick to beat Pakistan, but to develop Afghanistan to be a player in the regional economy. India has already signed a deal for the first Afghan steel project, that will bring about a major boost to its economy and aid ancillary growth of related industries.

Afghanistan needs economic growth more than Indian military supplies. Once that happens then Pakistani formations will be re-allocated to the western border, eleminating the current strategic reserves that the PA has w.r.t India. Thereby reducing the chances of any mis-adventure that PA may desire. This will reduce the chances of any major conflict within the region.

But after 2014, if Pakistan insists on using the Taliban in Afghanistan, then military supplies and assistance will pour in. Besides China too will not allow Pakistani ruin the billions it has invested in Afghanistan.

That is great but India is not the only country investing in Afghanistan right now. In fact, Indian investments are quite minuscule compared to that of the West. Despite the huge economic crunch Pakistan is suffering from, Pakistan has invested more than a $1 billion in Afghanistan. Majority of Afghan trade is reliant upon Pakistan's land routes and sea ports. While India might be training ANA Officers, Pakistan is also doing exactly that at Kakul. India still has a long way to go before it will be considered a major player in Afghanistan. Pakistan wants a stable and prosperous Afghanistan, but not a hostile one that hosts Anti Pakistani elements in its territory.

Only time will tell what the future of Afghanistan will be like.

n21
31 May 13,, 20:45
The ANA is far from a cohesive, national army under the control of the central government. Defections to the Taliban are the norm rather than exceptions. If Indian funds/arms are funneled to them, what is the guarantee that they won't end up with "non-state actors :rolleyes:" in Kashmir via the ISI?

Not that I am saying ANA is fully capable, however I would be interested to know how many ANA base/positions have the taliban been able to over run? Agreed there is NATO support.

Taliban is not that stupid. They know ANA is the weakest. Hence they would want to concentrate attacks on ANA bases/positions to get the propaganda victory and show ANA in poor light. So how many battles have the ANA abandoned position and fled?

As far as Indian funds are concerned, there can be a argument that money paid by IPL to Pakistan players also go to "non-state actors", when they make "charity" to JuD.

n21
31 May 13,, 20:51
Sir

You need to do a bit more research on FC. The force was re-hauled from top to bottom under the leadership of Maj Gen Tariq Khan. TTP suffered a major defeat at the hands of FC in 2008 in Bajaur, and this is the town where TTP fighters had the highest concentration in terms of numbers. PA Planners calculated it long ago that in order to pacify the Western border, modernization of FC was essential. Training, funding and equipment has been increased to bring the FC rank and file to the same level as regular PA troops.



That is great but India is not the only country investing in Afghanistan right now. In fact, Indian investments are quite minuscule compared to that of the West. Despite the huge economic crunch Pakistan is suffering from, Pakistan has invested more than a $1 billion in Afghanistan. Majority of Afghan trade is reliant upon Pakistan's land routes and sea ports. While India might be training ANA Officers, Pakistan is also doing exactly that at Kakul. India still has a long way to go before it will be considered a major player in Afghanistan. Pakistan wants a stable and prosperous Afghanistan, but not a hostile one that hosts Anti Pakistani elements in its territory.

Only time will tell what the future of Afghanistan will be like.

The scale is no where similar. Example ANA chief (Sandhurst and Indian Academy). ANA's Academy Commandant is a Indian Military Academy graduate. There is relationship right at the top. The numbers bandied about in the press is 200-600 serving and new officers. Just saying India is building major relationship with the ANA officer corps.

Agnostic Muslim
31 May 13,, 21:13
Just saying India is building major relationship with the ANA officer corps.

The relationship is pointless from the perspective of an Afghan military threat to Pakistan in the absence of any actual Afghan military capability to pose a threat to Pakistan. You argue that Afghan economic growth will overcome the capability issue, but that is, at best, an optimistic long term goal/view, and ignores the potential economic growth in Pakistan that will in turn allow Pakistan to upgrade and improve her military and paramilitary forces over the period of time in question.

notorious_eagle
31 May 13,, 22:14
The scale is no where similar. Example ANA chief (Sandhurst and Indian Academy). ANA's Academy Commandant is a Indian Military Academy graduate. There is relationship right at the top. The numbers bandied about in the press is 200-600 serving and new officers. Just saying India is building major relationship with the ANA officer corps.

Good but your analysis paints a very optimistic scenario that Afghans will stay united and the ANA will stay intact. The only thing the Afghans have proved they are good at, is being disunited. Now lets for argument sake say the ANA stays intact Post 2014, why do you automatically assume that it will be Anti-Pak and will automatically toe the Indian line. India still does not has the same level of influence that the US or Pakistan has on Afghanistan. Pakistan is and will continue to be Afghanistan's most important partner. In terms of geopolitics, trade route and almost 4 million Afghans living in Pakistan makes Afghanistan extremely reliant on Pakistan. India has a long way to go before it can groom Afghanistan to be a reliable and stable ally. All signs from India point to the fact that they have given more importance to their relationship with Pakistan compared to Afghanistan. This was perfectly demonstrated when the Indian Government refused to entertain Karzai's list of military shopping.


The relationship is pointless from the perspective of an Afghan military threat to Pakistan in the absence of any actual Afghan military capability to pose a threat to Pakistan. You argue that Afghan economic growth will overcome the capability issue, but that is, at best, an optimistic long term goal/view, and ignores the potential economic growth in Pakistan that will in turn allow Pakistan to upgrade and improve her military and paramilitary forces over the period of time in question.

Post 2014 withdrawal, it will be extremely difficult for the Afghan Government to maintain a sustained growth rate.

cataphract
01 Jun 13,, 04:02
Not that I am saying ANA is fully capable, however I would be interested to know how many ANA base/positions have the taliban been able to over run? Agreed there is NATO support.

Taliban is not that stupid. They know ANA is the weakest. Hence they would want to concentrate attacks on ANA bases/positions to get the propaganda victory and show ANA in poor light. So how many battles have the ANA abandoned position and fled?

I will respond with links to prove ANA incompetence later. It has been mentioned multiple times on this very board that they are illiterate, divided along tribal lines and ill-trained. They have been defeated by the Taliban in a few battles as well.


As far as Indian funds are concerned, there can be a argument that money paid by IPL to Pakistan players also go to "non-state actors", when they make "charity" to JuD.

Pakistani players are banned in the IPL, perhaps for this very reason :biggrin:. On a serious note, the scale of funding for the ANA and GoA is vastly bigger than a few millions paid to Pakistani celebrities in India. Besides, you are ignoring potential military aid to the ANA, guns and equipment, that could be conveniently transferred to LeT.

cataphract
01 Jun 13,, 04:05
Before 2010, the US and EU kept India out from any involvement under Pak pressure, but after 2011 they want us to replace the NATO. India has made huge investments in Afghanistan infrastructure. The engineers and workers are protected by the Indian paramilitary units and local security system. The majority of workers are locals, so if the Taliban kill locals they kill they support base. The protection of the investment is crutial not only for India but also for China.

The recent Chinese visit to India and Pakistan was marked by a paradigm shift in Chinese policy towards India. I see a more cohisive collaboration between India and China on Afghanistan. China cannot afford a rabid jihadi base south of Xinjiang. Regarding Tibet it is assured that India will not instigate any insurgency, but to prevent islamic fighters from Afghanistan into Xinjiang, China will have to increasingly collaborate with India to neutralise that threat.

I cannot comment on what the US or EU will do as that will depend on the will of the administration and priorities at that time. But Pakistan will not be able to use the Taliban in Afghanistan the way it feels it can after NATO withdraws in 2014.

Sir, do you really think we can depend on China to safeguard our interests in Afghanistan? As far as I understand, the Chinese do not have a lot of direct influence there. While they are certainly able to pull strings in Islamabad, I doubt that would translate into calm in Afg. Otherwise, we would have seen Chinese pressure by now on the GoP to rein in their dogs.

Besides, the Chinese are on their way to solve their Xinjiang problem by flooding the province with Hans.

cataphract
01 Jun 13,, 04:09
Good but your analysis paints a very optimistic scenario that Afghans will stay united and the ANA will stay intact. The only thing the Afghans have proved they are good at, is being disunited. Now lets for argument sake say the ANA stays intact Post 2014, why do you automatically assume that it will be Anti-Pak and will automatically toe the Indian line. India still does not has the same level of influence that the US or Pakistan has on Afghanistan. Pakistan is and will continue to be Afghanistan's most important partner. In terms of geopolitics, trade route and almost 4 million Afghans living in Pakistan makes Afghanistan extremely reliant on Pakistan. India has a long way to go before it can groom Afghanistan to be a reliable and stable ally. All signs from India point to the fact that they have given more importance to their relationship with Pakistan compared to Afghanistan. This was perfectly demonstrated when the Indian Government refused to entertain Karzai's list of military shopping.



Post 2014 withdrawal, it will be extremely difficult for the Afghan Government to maintain a sustained growth rate.

It's optimistic for Pakistanis to assume that Afghanistan would revert to the good ol' days of 1995 where they call the shots again. There is no guarantee that the ANA will indeed fall apart, and even less so that a Pakistani backed Pashtun faction would emerge victorious. I'm sure Dostum and co have learned their lessons by now. I do agree with your point though that the ANA is no threat to Pakistan, now or in the near future.

Officer of Engineers
01 Jun 13,, 04:13
Besides, the Chinese are on their way to solve their Xinjiang problem by flooding the province with Hans.Propaganda. The current census recorded still puts the Uyghars as the plurality and the strongest plurality. It would take all the other ethnic groups, Han, Hui, Mongols, etc combined to outnumber the Uyghars.

The Han Chinese in Xinjiang are skilled labourers, ie machine operators. They're concentrated around the urban areas because that's where their skills are demanded. They could just as easily be in Saudi Arabia where Chinese companies won contracts and are willing to pay for that skill.

That's only in the Eastern urban part of the province. The Uyghars owned the rest.

notorious_eagle
01 Jun 13,, 12:26
It's optimistic for Pakistanis to assume that Afghanistan would revert to the good ol' days of 1995 where they call the shots again. There is no guarantee that the ANA will indeed fall apart, and even less so that a Pakistani backed Pashtun faction would emerge victorious. I'm sure Dostum and co have learned their lessons by now. I do agree with your point though that the ANA is no threat to Pakistan, now or in the near future.

Not really, there is a lot of bad blood that exists between Pakistan and the Taliban. The Taliban will not forgive Pakistan this easily for betraying them and switching alliances. The fact that TTP is allowed shelter to take shelter in Afghanistan is proof enough that some level of cooperation exists between TTP and Taliban. You indeed are correct, things won't revert back to the old days because neither side is strong enough to crush the other completely. Post 2014 will be a very interesting scenario, almost impossible to predict what the future holds for us. As long as the Pushtuns whom make up the majority of the population are kept on the sidelines, the chaos in Afghanistan will continue.

n21
01 Jun 13,, 14:29
The relationship is pointless from the perspective of an Afghan military threat to Pakistan in the absence of any actual Afghan military capability to pose a threat to Pakistan. You argue that Afghan economic growth will overcome the capability issue, but that is, at best, an optimistic long term goal/view, and ignores the potential economic growth in Pakistan that will in turn allow Pakistan to upgrade and improve her military and paramilitary forces over the period of time in question.

The point is not to force Afghanistan to fight PA/ Pakistan. It is to make sure Afghanistan has a standing army, for which PA HAS to divert resources to defend against. No one is asking for a ANA which can invade Pakistan.

n21
01 Jun 13,, 14:45
Good but your analysis paints a very optimistic scenario that Afghans will stay united and the ANA will stay intact. The only thing the Afghans have proved they are good at, is being disunited. Now lets for argument sake say the ANA stays intact Post 2014, why do you automatically assume that it will be Anti-Pak and will automatically toe the Indian line. India still does not has the same level of influence that the US or Pakistan has on Afghanistan. Pakistan is and will continue to be Afghanistan's most important partner. In terms of geopolitics, trade route and almost 4 million Afghans living in Pakistan makes Afghanistan extremely reliant on Pakistan. India has a long way to go before it can groom Afghanistan to be a reliable and stable ally. All signs from India point to the fact that they have given more importance to their relationship with Pakistan compared to Afghanistan. This was perfectly demonstrated when the Indian Government refused to entertain Karzai's list of military shopping.


Pakistan never was and never will be Afghanistan's ally. Even when Taliban was in power, they were not ready to confirm the Durrand line as the official border.
Pakistan wants no one other than Taliban in power and ANA's job would be to defend the borders. Unless ANA becomes fully Pashtuns, they will fight at the Afghan-Pak border.

It is delusional to think Pakistan and Afghanistan will be friends. And if India wants to keep Pakistan busy, it will fund the ANA.

As far as Indian arms are considering, India does not want to pick side at this moment. It does not want to be seen anti-Pashtun.

Post 2014, if there are chances of Taliban coming to power by force, rest assured arms will start flowing from India and Russia.

Vinod2070
01 Jun 13,, 19:40
Funny, but you have it arse backwards. It is the Afghans claiming the current border is 'illegal' and therefore the Afghans who have to 'take the issue to court to prove its illegality'. Pakistan merely has to point to the Durand Agreement demarcating the border, its acceptance by the Afghan government of the time and the ratification of the Durand Agreement by multiple Afghan governments since.

In the case of US drone strikes in Pakistan, there is no past or current official agreement governing drone strikes that exists (as of now) and the Pakistani government, UN investigation and now a Pakistani High Court have declared US Drone strikes to be illegal, unauthorized by Pakistan and violations of Pakistani sovereignty. The onus therefore is on the US to 'go to court' to establish the legality of unauthorized US drone strikes and show that it is not just another tyrannical regime/thug that is blatantly violating international law and attacking another nation on the basis of her superior military.

Any post independence Afghan government that accepted the Durand agreement with Pakistan?

Tronic
01 Jun 13,, 20:49
Despite the huge economic crunch Pakistan is suffering from, Pakistan has invested more than a $1 billion in Afghanistan.

That's news to me.



Majority of Afghan trade is reliant upon Pakistan's land routes and sea ports.

Won't be the case if Chah Bahar goes through.


India still has a long way to go before it will be considered a major player in Afghanistan. Pakistan wants a stable and prosperous Afghanistan, but not a hostile one that hosts Anti Pakistani elements in its territory.

India hasn't stepped up to the plate, and it doesn't seem like they even want to call shots in Afghanistan or bother about becoming a big player. Karzai was tripping over himself to get India to sign a weapons deal with Afghanistan, yet India denied him. India's only role in Afghanistan seems to be to promote Indian goodwill while denying Pakistan influence in the country. And by the look of things, Afghans don't really seem to have much love lost for Pakistan.

cataphract
02 Jun 13,, 05:02
Propaganda. The current census recorded still puts the Uyghars as the plurality and the strongest plurality. It would take all the other ethnic groups, Han, Hui, Mongols, etc combined to outnumber the Uyghars.

It's only a matter of time sir. The Hans were next to 0% in Xinjiang when PRC was established.


The Han Chinese in Xinjiang are skilled labourers, ie machine operators. They're concentrated around the urban areas because that's where their skills are demanded. They could just as easily be in Saudi Arabia where Chinese companies won contracts and are willing to pay for that skill.

That's only in the Eastern urban part of the province. The Uyghars owned the rest.

The key difference is that the skilled labourers won't be deported from Xinjiang once they have no work. They'll likely settle in the urban areas. Besides, the provincial economy is pretty much run by Hans.

cataphract
02 Jun 13,, 05:05
Not really, there is a lot of bad blood that exists between Pakistan and the Taliban. The Taliban will not forgive Pakistan this easily for betraying them and switching alliances. The fact that TTP is allowed shelter to take shelter in Afghanistan is proof enough that some level of cooperation exists between TTP and Taliban. You indeed are correct, things won't revert back to the old days because neither side is strong enough to crush the other completely. Post 2014 will be a very interesting scenario, almost impossible to predict what the future holds for us. As long as the Pushtuns whom make up the majority of the population are kept on the sidelines, the chaos in Afghanistan will continue.


We don't even know if the Pashtuns constitute a majority or a plurality of the population anymore. There hasn't been a nationwide census since the Soviet days.

Agnostic Muslim
02 Jun 13,, 15:31
Any post independence Afghan government that accepted the Durand agreement with Pakistan?
It isn't necessary for any post independence Afghan government to accept the Durand agreement for the agreement to remain valid - territorial demarcations are considered 'Executed Clauses' (as I pointed out to Parihaka earlier in the thread) and therefore they do no lapse and 'transfer' to the successor State or States, in this case from the British to Pakistan.

Vinod2070
02 Jun 13,, 17:37
It isn't necessary for any post independence Afghan government to accept the Durand agreement for the agreement to remain valid - territorial demarcations are considered 'Executed Clauses' (as I pointed out to Parihaka earlier in the thread) and therefore they do no lapse and 'transfer' to the successor State or States, in this case from the British to Pakistan.

OK. I just asked because you keep on mentioning this:


its acceptance by the Afghan government of the time and the ratification of the Durand Agreement by multiple Afghan governments since.

Apparently Afghanistan refused to accept Pakistan at UN at it's creation and since then not a single government has accepted the Durand as settled international border.

So this claim is a bit over the top.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Jun 13,, 00:26
OK. I just asked because you keep on mentioning this:

Apparently Afghanistan refused to accept Pakistan at UN at it's creation and since then not a single government has accepted the Durand as settled international border.

So his claim is a bit over the top.

The claim is not over the top - 'successive Afghan governments' refers to the Afghan rulers that 'ratified' the original Durand Agreement by signing subsequent treaties with the British.

lemontree
03 Jun 13,, 05:36
It isn't necessary for any post independence Afghan government to accept the Durand agreement for the agreement to remain valid - territorial demarcations are considered 'Executed Clauses' (as I pointed out to Parihaka earlier in the thread) and therefore they do no lapse and 'transfer' to the successor State or States, in this case from the British to Pakistan.
This view point does seem to be applied when Pakistan gave 63,000 sq miles to China in 1963 as per their non-acceptance of the Mac Mohan line.
You are a legal professional, so you should know that a predence set will be copied, followed and quoted.

Vinod2070
03 Jun 13,, 08:33
The claim is not over the top - 'successive Afghan governments' refers to the Afghan rulers that 'ratified' the original Durand Agreement by signing subsequent treaties with the British.

Apparently Pakistan is not able to convince the Afghans of this argument.

Neither the government nor the people.

I have yet to see a single Afghan who agrees with the Durand as the international border. Online or offline.

lemontree
03 Jun 13,, 09:10
Sir

You need to do a bit more research on FC. The force was re-hauled from top to bottom under the leadership of Maj Gen Tariq Khan.
This is the Frontier Constabulary that you are referring to?...not the Frontier Corps. While AM was referring to the Frontier Corps.

TTP suffered a major defeat at the hands of FC in 2008 in Bajaur, and this is the town where TTP fighters had the highest conce


Despite the huge economic crunch Pakistan is suffering from, Pakistan has invested more than a $1 billion in Afghanistan.
Where was this money spent??...in arming and logistics for the Taliban!!

Pakistan wants a stable and prosperous Afghanistan, but not a hostile one that hosts Anti Pakistani elements in its territory.
Nobel words, but the actions of PA and its intelligence agency indicate otherwise.


Only time will tell what the future of Afghanistan will be like.
Yes I agree with you here.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Jun 13,, 12:28
Apparently Pakistan is not able to convince the Afghans of this argument.

Neither the government nor the people.

I have yet to see a single Afghan who agrees with the Durand as the international border. Online or offline.
Afghanistan has to resolve her irrational hostility and hatred of Pakistan on her own - Pakistan cannot make Afghanistan change. That said, my point is that the Afghan-Pakistan border demarcated under the Durand Agreement (and subsequent Anglo-Afghan treaties) is recognized as valid under international law, regardless of what the Afghan government and people think.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Jun 13,, 12:35
This view point does seem to be applied when Pakistan gave 63,000 sq miles to China in 1963 as per their non-acceptance of the Mac Mohan line.
You are a legal professional, so you should know that a predence set will be copied, followed and quoted.
I am not sure how Pakistan's position on Aksai Chin translates to a non-acceptance of the Mcmahon line - I am not really familiar with the Pakistani position on the issue of the Mcmahon line and would appreciate any material/references.

I do understand your point about 'precedence', in fact a few commentators have pointed out the dilemma Indian faces in supporting the Afghan position on the Durand Line:

However, New Delhi’s stand on the row will be dictated by tensions with China over the disputed Sino-Indian border, where its position mirrors that of Pakistan on the Durand Line. Like in the case of the Durand Line, the McMahon Line dividing China and India is a vestige of the British colonial era and is not recognized by China.

Agreed by Britain and Tibet in 1914, the line became the de-facto China-India border after Beijing’s annexation of Tibet in the 1950s. Unlike Beijing, New Delhi considers the McMahon Line a settled international boundary. This dispute sparked the recent three-week standoff in Ladakh after the Chinese military set up an outpost, 19 kilometers inside Indian territory.

It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows. In the case of the Afghan-Pakistani border row, it seems likely that India’s position will be dictated by its own territorial row with China, rather than any hope of winning a game of strategic one-upmanship over Pakistan.

Afghan-Pakistani Border Row: A Double-Edged Sword for India | The Pulse (http://thediplomat.com/the-pulse/2013/05/16/afghan-pakistani-border-row-a-double-edged-sword-for-india/)

Officer of Engineers
03 Jun 13,, 15:38
Afghanistan has to resolve her irrational hostility and hatred of Pakistan on her own - Pakistan cannot make Afghanistan change. That said, my point is that the Afghan-Pakistan border demarcated under the Durand Agreement (and subsequent Anglo-Afghan treaties) is recognized as valid under international law, regardless of what the Afghan government and people think.Oh Horse Puckey. If that were true, Rome would still own UK and Afghanistan all of the sub-continent.

Borders change all the time. 100 years from now, Pakistan's borders will not be what it is today.

Vinod2070
03 Jun 13,, 15:44
Afghanistan has to resolve her irrational hostility and hatred of Pakistan on her own - Pakistan cannot make Afghanistan change. That said, my point is that the Afghan-Pakistan border demarcated under the Durand Agreement (and subsequent Anglo-Afghan treaties) is recognized as valid under international law, regardless of what the Afghan government and people think.

I agree with the basic idea that "irrational hostility and hatred" of a neighbor can be quite tricky and irksome. ;)

Will leave the specifics of this particular issue to you two great neighbors to work out.

Firestorm
03 Jun 13,, 18:55
FATA: Behind Pakistan's Iron Curtain - Melissa Roddy Filmmaker and member of the Fieldwork International Group (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-roddy/fata-behind-pakistans-iro_b_3361772.html)


The following is the result of numerous conversations and correspondence with civilians in and from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan (FATA).

The FATA agency of Waziristan is sealed behind an Iron Curtain controlled by the Pakistan Army. Journalists are forbidden entry, except accompanied by army handlers. Meanwhile, Pakistani officials, think tank intellectuals and government-controlled media fill the information vacuum with tales of their nation's constant battle against the Taliban and its fierce tribal allies. The Pashtun people of FATA tell the story differently.

Sometimes the American military makes mistakes. Sometimes they are tricked into making mistakes. Sometimes the U.S. does beneficial work for selfish reasons, and sometimes its policies are bad or just plain stupid. But far more often the thousands of service men and women from the 50 nations participating in the ISAF Coalition are performing vital assistance, rebuilding Afghanistan, a nation that, from 1978 to 9/11, was completely demolished. American Cold War politics contributed greatly to this demolition. However, the inability to accept that all of these things are true makes so-called "anti-war" activists such as Code Pink, easy for Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to manipulate. Clinging to the simplistic Vietnam era mind-set, where ere goes the U.S. military, misery follows -- they fail to comprehend the ground reality of their impassioned "Troops Out -- Stop the Drones" mission.

Pakistan's policy towards Afghanistan, called "strategic depth," is about aggression. In pursuit thereof, truth and respect for human life are the first casualties. No high-priced Hollywood psychic is needed to foresee that terror acts by the Taliban, along with aerial and ground attacks by the Pakistan Army are depopulating FATA's border regions to facilitate a post-ISAF invasion of Afghanistan.
...

Read it whole. Certainly paints a different picture than what the pakistanis would like us to believe.

Agnostic Muslim
04 Jun 13,, 12:14
Read it whole. Certainly paints a different picture than what the pakistanis would like us to believe.

Right, lines like "However, the inability to accept that all of these things are true makes so-called "anti-war" activists such as Code Pink, easy for Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to manipulate. Clinging to the simplistic Vietnam era mind-set, where ere goes the U.S. military, misery follows -- they fail to comprehend the ground reality of their impassioned "Troops Out -- Stop the Drones" mission" don't exactly point to an objective analysis on the part of the author ...

Agnostic Muslim
04 Jun 13,, 12:15
Will leave the specifics of this particular issue to you two great neighbors to work out.
The Afghan's have to work out the 'specifics' with respect to the Durand Agreement, not Pakistan - the legal case is on Pakistan's side.

Agnostic Muslim
04 Jun 13,, 12:17
Oh Horse Puckey. If that were true, Rome would still own UK and Afghanistan all of the sub-continent.

Borders change all the time. 100 years from now, Pakistan's borders will not be what it is today.
Try and understand the post before responding please - I didn't say anything about 'borders never changing' - I pointed out that the Durand Agreement (and subsequent Anglo-Afghan treaties) demarcating the Afghan-Pakistan border are valid under international law.

Doktor
04 Jun 13,, 13:22
That agreement has been signed some time ago. Afghan discomfort with that agreement is a solid indicator there will be a change. Not saying they will gain land, but that there might be adjustments on the border line.

Agnostic Muslim
04 Jun 13,, 13:34
That agreement has been signed some time ago. Afghan discomfort with that agreement is a solid indicator there will be a change. Not saying they will gain land, but that there might be adjustments on the border line.
Pakistan negotiated separate agreements with the various tribes in FATA after independence under which the tribal areas became part of Pakistan. Any 'border adjustments' would have to take into account the impact on the tribes in that area, and tribal sentiment (on the Pakistani side) is not going to be in favor of territorial concessions to Afghanistan - it could open a whole new can of worms in terms of tribal unrest.

notorious_eagle
04 Jun 13,, 22:03
Pakistan never was and never will be Afghanistan's ally. Even when Taliban was in power, they were not ready to confirm the Durrand line as the official border.
Pakistan wants no one other than Taliban in power and ANA's job would be to defend the borders. Unless ANA becomes fully Pashtuns, they will fight at the Afghan-Pak border.

It is delusional to think Pakistan and Afghanistan will be friends. And if India wants to keep Pakistan busy, it will fund the ANA.

As far as Indian arms are considering, India does not want to pick side at this moment. It does not want to be seen anti-Pashtun.

Post 2014, if there are chances of Taliban coming to power by force, rest assured arms will start flowing from India and Russia.

Off course we are not Allies, never were and never will be. I was just stating the obvious truth, the Afghans need Pakistan more than Pakistan needs Afghanistan. The bulk of Afghan trade which includes items such as fuel, medicine, food and other essential products is conducted through Pakistan. There are over 3 million Afghans living in Pakistan, most of them are working and supporting their families back in Afghanistan. If Pakistan cuts off the cord, the Afghans starve, plain and simple.

I don't think anyone and most certainly Pakistani strategists are under the assumption that Taliban will come into power Post 2014. Taliban are a major force in Afghanistan, but don't have enough weight to take complete control of the country. The Indian stance is quite clear, it is apparent from Indian overtures that they place more importance to their relationship with Pakistan compared to Afghanistan. With the Indian friendly NS in power, expect Indo-Pak relations to improve.

notorious_eagle
04 Jun 13,, 22:12
That's news to me.

Pakistan reviews its projects in Afghanistan


Wednesday, October 14, 2009

ISLAMABAD: A high level delegation led by Planning Commission (PC) Member Lt General Muhammad Zubair concluded a three-day visit to Afghanistan to review progress on reconstruction projects being undertaken in the country by Pakistan.

Pakistan is undertaking several development projects in Afghanistan under bilateral assistance programme. The focus of projects is on the sector of health and education. Pakistan has also allocated 1,000 scholarships for Afghan students in their institutions.

During site visits, the delegation assessed the work progress and examined in detail factors impeding the progress and took decisions on key issues to expedite the work. Zubair also called on Afghan ministers of higher education, health and public works to discuss a coordinated approach for completing the reconstruction projects.

The delegation will pay a separate visit to eastern Afghanistan, later this month, to assess the work on development projects Pakistan is undertaking. Pakistan is also in the process of identifying areas where more development projects could be initiated. The current development and assistance projects undertaken by Pakistan would cost around $500 million.

The News International: Latest, Breaking, Pakistan, Sports and Video News (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=203058)

In addition, there are more than 3 million Afghans living and working in Pakistan.


Won't be the case if Chah Bahar goes through.

If Chahbar is a success and starts minting money for the Iranians, the Americans are likely going intervene. Also, the Iranians are nowhere near as accommodating as the Pakistanis when it comes to Afghan trade or generally dealing with Afghanistan.


India hasn't stepped up to the plate, and it doesn't seem like they even want to call shots in Afghanistan or bother about becoming a big player. Karzai was tripping over himself to get India to sign a weapons deal with Afghanistan, yet India denied him. India's only role in Afghanistan seems to be to promote Indian goodwill while denying Pakistan influence in the country. And by the look of things, Afghans don't really seem to have much love lost for Pakistan.

Indeed, with Indian friendly PM in power in Pakistan, it appears that Indian Strategic Planners have placed more emphasis on Pakistan as compared to Afghanistan.

Tronic
04 Jun 13,, 23:17
Pakistan reviews its projects in Afghanistan


Wednesday, October 14, 2009

ISLAMABAD: A high level delegation led by Planning Commission (PC) Member Lt General Muhammad Zubair concluded a three-day visit to Afghanistan to review progress on reconstruction projects being undertaken in the country by Pakistan.

Pakistan is undertaking several development projects in Afghanistan under bilateral assistance programme. The focus of projects is on the sector of health and education. Pakistan has also allocated 1,000 scholarships for Afghan students in their institutions.

During site visits, the delegation assessed the work progress and examined in detail factors impeding the progress and took decisions on key issues to expedite the work. Zubair also called on Afghan ministers of higher education, health and public works to discuss a coordinated approach for completing the reconstruction projects.

The delegation will pay a separate visit to eastern Afghanistan, later this month, to assess the work on development projects Pakistan is undertaking. Pakistan is also in the process of identifying areas where more development projects could be initiated. The current development and assistance projects undertaken by Pakistan would cost around $500 million.

The News International: Latest, Breaking, Pakistan, Sports and Video News (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=203058)

In addition, there are more than 3 million Afghans living and working in Pakistan.

I don't buy that.. Your bolded line in the article doesn't give the amount Pakistan actually spent, just an estimate of what it thinks it 'would' spend.

Moreover, it still doesn't add up to a billion in aid.


If Chahbar is a success and starts minting money for the Iranians, the Americans are likely going intervene. Also, the Iranians are nowhere near as accommodating as the Pakistanis when it comes to Afghan trade or generally dealing with Afghanistan.

So you're counting on the Americans to still come in handy for Pakistan?

notorious_eagle
05 Jun 13,, 00:53
I don't buy that.. Your bolded line in the article doesn't give the amount Pakistan actually spent, just an estimate of what it thinks it 'would' spend.

Moreover, it still doesn't add up to a billion in aid.

My apologies, the number was $500 million but i don't know why i wrote $1 billion. But you are right, there is no exact number of how much Pakistan has given in aid to Afghanistan. The Afghan Government also collects duties on products imported by Afghanistan, only to be smuggled into Pakistan to evade higher Pakistani duties. 'Bazars' in Pakistan especially in Peshawar are littered with goods smuggled through Afghanistan. Point being, despite Pakistan's severe economic crunch, it has still contributed aid to Afghanistan. Here are more details:

By AMBASSADOR MOHAMMAD SADIQ

KABUL, Afghanistan—While addressing the media in Islamabad on 11 March 2010, President Hamid Karzai very aptly said Pakistan and Afghanistan were conjoined twins. The remarks were not new but they hit the headlines, showing that nature of relations between the two countries continued to baffle many.

Mark Twain, the great American writer, had famously said Johann Sebastian Bach's music was better than it sounded. If Twain were around today, he would have pronounced Pak-Afghan relationship ‘better than portrayed.’

Some 52,000 Afghans crossed border with Pakistan everyday in 2009 for business, jobs, medical treatment, education and to visit relatives. This was a significant increase over a year ago when 44,000 Afghans traversed the border daily. More visitors now undertake documented travel between the two countries by obtaining visas or visit permits.

Our Missions in Afghanistan have geared up to issue quarter of a million multiple entry visas to Afghan nationals during 2010. Pakistan issues more visas to Afghans than the rest of the world combined. Pakistan does not charge any visa fee from Afghan passport holders.

Contrary to the craftily promoted perception that Afghans of only one ethnicity are welcomed in Pakistan, one finds people from all over Afghanistan in Pakistani cities. Our consular records show that visas issued to Afghan nationals closely represent the ethnic composition of the population.

Despite occasional ups and downs at certain levels, the overall bilateral relations remained remarkably frequent and cordial. This explains the continued presence of over three million Afghan refugees in Pakistan for last 30 years. At one point, over 5.5 million Afghans were living in Pakistan. 37 percent of the refugees who voluntarily repatriate to Afghanistan are back in Pakistan within weeks.

In last thirty years, Afghans of all ethnicities and of political views had taken refuge in Pakistan: whether it was mass exodus against the Soviet occupation or flight from atrocities of a decade long internecine war. They looked at Pakistan as a place where they could find safety, at least temporarily, for their families.

The world hurriedly left Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. The unfortunate events of 9/11 have reengaged the world in Afghanistan but still little attention is paid to the honourable return of refugees to their homes. The international community’s attitude towards Afghan refugees is rather callous. Just one example: they were disenfranchised in the last Presidential elections because the international community claimed that it was short of funds!

Due to Pakistan’s longstanding policy on educating Afghan nationals, some 28,000 Afghans had attended Pakistani universities and colleges in last three decades. Today, 6,000 Afghan students are enrolled in Pakistan's colleges and universities. This represents about 60 percent of all Afghans studying in institutions of higher education abroad. In addition, about half a million Afghan refugee children attend schools in Pakistan.

To facilitate the capacity building efforts of other donors, Pakistan also encourages third party sponsorship of training of Afghan students and officials in its institutions. Under this policy, over five hundred Afghan nationals attended courses in the field of agriculture from a few weeks duration to postgraduate degrees in the Agriculture University of Peshawar alone. Scores were trained in other professions ranging from medicine to civil aviation.

Over the years, Afghan students in Pakistan have mostly been allowed the same opportunities and treatment which are extended to our own nationals. A whole generation of Afghans is thus educated, and now gainfully employed, inside Afghanistan or abroad.

Most successful professionals in today's Afghan society had studied in Pakistan. They dominate the work place not only in government offices, international organizations and NGOs but also as professionals, businessmen, and skilled and semi-skilled workers.

And more proudly, Afghan graduates from Pakistani universities are paid significantly higher salaries than graduates from any other neighboring country.

Pakistan is further providing 2,000 fully funded graduate and post-graduate scholarships to Afghan students in its institutions of higher learning over the next four years. The placements are being made in ten different fields from medicine to IT to agriculture. The first batch of the students under this programme had already left for Pakistan early this year.

Providing consistent and across the board education and capacity building opportunities is Pakistan’s greatest gift to the people of Afghanistan and it is considered so innate that it is hardly mentioned in any discourse in Kabul.

Another important area where Pakistan has been of unlimited help to the people of Afghanistan is healthcare. Afghans are provided free medical care in Pakistan’s government hospitals, a facility available to our own nationals.

Over 90 percent of Afghans who seek medical treatment abroad visit Pakistan. Most of the Afghan patients opt for free treatment at government or philanthropic healthcare facilities. Moneyed Afghan patients are welcomed by many countries but for their less fortunate compatriots only Pakistan has kept its doors opened.

Just a few examples of the effects of this facility: 40 percent of patients in Peshawar’s major government hospitals and 11 percent patients in tertiary hospitals all over Pakhtunkhwa province are Afghans; over 50 percent patients in major government hospitals in Quetta are Afghan nationals; and two Pakistani philanthropic hospitals perform free eye surgeries on about 30,000 Afghans every year.

Since 2001, Pakistan has also played an active, but unpublicised, role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction and providing humanitarian assistance.

Following are some of the major assistance projects which Pakistan had completed, or about to complete:

1. A state of the art Allama Iqbal Faculty at Kabul University is completed.
2. As a separate project, the Government of Pakistan is furnishing the Iqbal Faculty building.
3. The building of Sir Syed Science Faculty Block is near completion in Nangarhar University, Jalalabad.
4. The structure of Liaqat Ali Khan Engineering Faculty in Balkh University, Mazar-e-Sharif is almost complete.
5. Rehman Baba High School in Kabul was completed, where 1200 students are currently enrolled.
6. As another project on the same campus, hostel for 1000 students is under construction.
7. Donated buses for the students of Kabul University.
8. A sprawling Jinnah Hospital Complex with ten towers is under construction in Kabul. It will provide the most modern health facility in the country.
9. Civil work on Nishter Kidney Hospital in Jalalabad is completed. Afghan doctors, paramedics and technicians to run this facility are also trained in Pakistan.
10. A 200 bed Naib Aminullah Khan Logari Hospital is under construction in Logar.
11. Donated mobile field hospitals and ambulances to several provinces.
12. Construction of Torkham-Jalalabad Road in eastern Afghanistan is completed.
13. On request of the Afghan Government, Pakistan has undertaken to convert Torkham-Jalalabad road in a dual carriage highway. About 60 percent work is already completed on this project.
14. Built three intra-city roads in Jalalabad.
15. Provided earth-moving and road building machinery to various provinces.
16. Donated fifty buses for public transportation.
17. Provided cash assistance to the Afghan Government.
18. Distributed food packages to the needy and school supplies to students in large numbers.

Several other major projects, including two Eye Hospitals, Limb Centre at Badakhshan, two Nuclear Medical Centres in Kabul and Jalalabad, are in the pipeline.

Pakistan has committed US$330 million for reconstruction and assistance projects in Afghanistan. However, every dollar spent by Pakistan has more effect when it is compared with a dollar spent by other donors. Our foreign assistance accounting system does not add establishment, oversight and inspection costs to the projects. If expenditure in these heads is charged to the projects, our committed amount would easily increase by another 50 percent.

Pakistan was also instrumental in facilitating the launch of several industries in Afghanistan after 2001. For example:

20. State-owned National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) was the first foreign bank to operate in Afghanistan after 9/11. Two private Pakistani banks followed NBP to Afghanistan. The emerging banking sector of Afghanistan was heavily depended on Pakistan's human resource in its initial phase.

21. The telecommunication industry of Afghanistan drew Pakistani manpower, or Afghans trained in Pakistan, in its nascent stage.

22. State-owned Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) pioneered the opening of Afghanistan to international air traffic. It was the first foreign airline to start operations to Kabul after 9/11. Ariana Afghan Airlines uses Pakistan’s civil aviation training facilities.

Robust trade and economic interaction is another important feature of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. Pakistan is the largest trading partner of Afghanistan while Afghanistan is Pakistan's third largest export market.

Pakistan has provided transit trade facility to Afghanistan for decades without any reciprocity. The two countries are presently engaged in negotiating an improved Transit Trade Agreement to further facilitate Afghan transit trade through Pakistan.
To enhance Kabul’s connectivity to the world, Pakistan plans to improve its road links and develop rail connections with Afghanistan.

A sad casualty of foreign occupation and long civil war was the performing art tradition of Afghanistan. Pakistan was instrumental in preserving some of this tradition: many performing artists took refuge, or grew professionally, during their stay in Pakistani cities. Today, a large number of Afghan artists have close links, and wide following, in Pakistan.

Pakistan is pursuing a close, friendly and cooperative relationship with Afghanistan. A peaceful, stable and prosperous Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s national interest while war and instability in Afghanistan is detrimental to our prosperity and stability. Contrary hypothesis promoted so assiduously by certain quarters is disingenuous.

The unique relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan - which is rooted in common religion, culture, tradition, history and values - is not just a relationship between two states or governments. It is way beyond this. It is between the two peoples and societies. Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship is unmatched in spirit, level of interaction and variety of interface by relationship between any other two nations.

Mr. Sadiq is Pakistan’s Ambassador to Afghanistan. This is the revised version of an op-ed he wrote and was published in Afghanistan’s English- and Dari-language newspapers on the occasion of Pakistan Day on March 23, 2010.

PakNationalists Forum | Google Groups (http://groups.google.com.pk/group/paknationalists/web/pakistan-afghanistan-the-conjoined-twins)


So you're counting on the Americans to still come in handy for Pakistan?

Not really, common logic dictates that. Besides, India alone does not has enough diplomatic and economic muscle to push through the Chahbar Project. Also as i previously stated, the Iranians are not nearly as accommodating when it comes to the Afghans compared to Pakistan. There is a reason why Afghanistan conducts majority of its trade through Pakistan.

cataphract
05 Jun 13,, 01:58
Contrary to the craftily promoted perception that Afghans of only one ethnicity are welcomed in Pakistan, one finds people from all over Afghanistan in Pakistani cities. Our consular records show that visas issued to Afghan nationals closely represent the ethnic composition of the population.


My impression from online Pakistanis has been that a chunk of them have favorable views of Afghan Pashtuns, while the rest are uniformly negative about all Afghans. However, there is absolutely no love lost for non-Pashtun Afghans, the so-called farsiwans (I'm guessing that refers to Tajiks but not Uzbeks?). How far is this true on the ground in Pakistan?

antimony
05 Jun 13,, 02:07
With the Indian friendly NS in power, expect Indo-Pak relations to improve.

The same guy who plunged a knife in India's back during Kargil, after he had signed the Lahore Declaration?

lemontree
05 Jun 13,, 05:21
The same guy who plunged a knife in India's back during Kargil, after he had signed the Lahore Declaration?
Lol...ya the same chap is being portrayed as "India friendly" :biggrin:.....
That does not change our Afghan strategy.

Firestorm
05 Jun 13,, 17:36
Lol...ya the same chap is being portrayed as "India friendly" :biggrin:.....
That does not change our Afghan strategy.

The worst part is that NS is portrayed as such in the Indian media. How much more dumb can these guys get?

Agnostic Muslim
05 Jun 13,, 18:06
The worst part is that NS is portrayed as such in the Indian media. How much more dumb can these guys get?
Well, Nawaz Sharif does claim that he was not consulted properly on Kargil by Musharraf - now whether that actually is the case or not is yet to be conclusively determined.

cataphract
05 Jun 13,, 21:10
Well, Nawaz Sharif does claim that he was not consulted properly on Kargil by Musharraf - now whether that actually is the case or not is yet to be conclusively determined.

Every wannabe president of Pakistan promises a new start with India and/or claims to have made major progress in their previous term with India. That's just their international facade. After all, who would give an interview to the BBC claiming he'll launch another sneak invasion into Indian territory?:rolleyes: Before she got blown up, we had Benazir claiming to be a champion of good ties with India. The same woman who pushed hundreds of savage jihadis into Kashmir in the early 90s.

On the domestic front, any mention of a compromise on Kashmir will be political suicide. Every politician is expected to toe the line with the usual BS about Kashmiri aspirations and dem Hinjew baniyas.

Agnostic Muslim
06 Jun 13,, 13:04
On the domestic front, any mention of a compromise on Kashmir will be political suicide. Every politician is expected to toe the line with the usual BS about Kashmiri aspirations and dem Hinjew baniyas.
And what was the PMLN and PTI rhetoric (about India) during the election campaign?

antimony
06 Jun 13,, 20:36
And what was the PMLN and PTI rhetoric (about India) during the election campaign?

PTI on Kashmir
“I will make Kashmir issue my top priority”: Imran Khan | AAJ News (http://www.aaj.tv/2012/11/i-will-make-kashmir-issue-my-top-priority-imran-khan/)

Excerpt:

He claimed that the people of Kashmir will be the key element in this process, as they will decide their own fate.

Translation : more "moral support", and we all know what it means.

PMLN
That fucker NS gave the go ahead for Kargil. Rhetoric? How about actual actions???:mad: