Trilateral summit in Kabul

EDITORIAL:

As the endgame of war in Afghanistan heats up the strategic interests of the concerned stakeholders become increasingly less opaque, and the trilateral summit in Kabul on Thursday suggests these may not be anymore matching, if not clashing. Of course, the usual bonhomie that should abound interlocution at such a high level as it was with prime ministers of Pakistan and Britain being guests of President Karzai was quite visible. And it was duly reflected in the joint statement issued after their trilateral meeting. But what Prime Minister Cameron said ahead of the meeting and how desperate is the Afghan president to meet Taliban leadership undercuts the very spirit of that bonhomie. Of course, for Raja Pervez Ashraf the visit to Kabul being his maiden venture into international diplomacy it was not without water-marking achievement. Were the three of them there at the same time by accident or something else, there is not much in evidence to provide the right answer. That the summit couldn't be more than what such a chance encounter could be is understandable. With bridegrooms, the United States and the Taliban leadership, missing from the scene the get-together could be anything but a genuine wedding ceremony - but not that their absence was not being missed, albeit variously. President Karzai has once again dangled the carrot of 'participation' to the Taliban. He knows full well that they will not bite the bait, but he is insistent in his tone, perhaps being more aware of the fact than his foreign allies that the so-called ragtag Taliban militia cannot be defeated in the battlefield. In his latest invitation he has offered Mulla Omar to be part of future government in Kabul. But the echo that has come consistently from the Taliban is that unless foreign troops leave Afghanistan there could be no negotiations with government in Kabul. But, if the foreign military presence is being vacated from Afghanistan till recently the reports were yes all combat operations would end by the end of 2014. But of late there appears to be revised thinking in the Nato capitals on the time and mode of troop drawdown, a rather frank depiction was presented by David Cameron at his media encounter in Kabul. 'We are not going away from Afghanistan anytime soon,' he said as if challenging the Taliban's famous observation that 'while the coalition has the watches we have the time'. Britain that has lost some 422 soldiers in the arid deserts of Afghanistan over the last decade wants to stay on, but for what. Has this human sacrifice helped Britain, or any other foreign government in proving to their publics that their decision to jump in war in Afghanistan was correct? All recent public opinion surveys in these countries show that their participation has lost public support and their boys and girls should be brought back home. Afghanistan belongs to the Afghan; let them manage their own affairs. The only role cut for international community, including Britain, in general and neighbours in particular, is to help in making transition from a state of war to general peace in Afghanistan. If the Kabul administration can help discourage the renegade Pakistani Taliban sheltering in their country from misusing its hospitality by launching raids in Chitral and Upper Dir it would improve mutual trust and confidence. No doubt Raja's interaction with President Karzai would help smooth some edges that irritate Islamabad, but there does exist a real possibility of extending the Pak-Afghan co-operative format with the expected visit of the Salahuddin Rabbani-led Afghan High Peace Council next month. The geography, history and the alternating incidence of war and peace tend to place these two neighbours in the cast of a special relationship that should be used by the international community to help restore normality in Afghanistan - than to promote confrontation by planting unwanted proxies.