Strategic convergence? New US envoy talks about Afghanistan, India even ISI

ISLAMABAD: ‘Same page’. ‘Convergence’. ‘Understanding’. Hours after the F-8 Court attacks - and just around the time the “third power” narrative was being floated around in Islamabad as the TTP denied involvement, these were the buzz words that were being pushed at a roundtable chaired by Ambassador Beth Jones.

She is the newly appointed Principal Secretary for the Special Representative to Afghanistan-Pakistan (effectively making her the number two in the broadly empowered US-SRAP establishment that oversees the region for the State Department), who had some indications for a select group of journalists where US-Pak bilateralism is headed:

About the Pak-US relationship at large: Jones said that she appreciated “How much understanding there is, despite difficulty. How the overarching goals we have remain strong. And even when we have a difficult situation we nevertheless keep talking...and reaching what Sartaj Aziz calls these ‘areas of convergence...[Regarding the Strategic Dialogue] the five working groups, each with individual goals, is indicative of where the strategic relationship is going...economic issues, energy issues, trade issues.”

About the Pakistani government’s attempts to reconcile with the Pakistani Taliban: “We are supportive of Government of Pakistan’s stance to counter terrorism. The talks themselves we consider an internal matter.”

About whether Pakistan’s reconciliation plans fit into the US’s agenda for 2014 in Afghanistan: “Yes. We’ve been grateful for Pakistan’s support of the reconciliation process [In Afghanistan]. I’m sorry that it’s not proceeding....[But Pakistan has helped] promote, advocate for Taliban joining negotiations with the Higher Peace Council. We hope that happens.”

About the ‘Zero Option’ across the border: “As it became clear that President Karzai didn’t want to sign the BSA [Bilateral Strategic Agreement] that allows for US troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014]...we made an assessment that we actually had sufficient time to have prudent planning.

The Loya Jirga was fully supportive [about the BSA]. And every one of the [presidential] candidates had said that he would sign the BSA. So we made the judgement that we should be open to that possibility...If the BSA is signed, we will take a different route of planning...[Regarding other Nato alliance members] As for the Nato defence ministers, they took [Karzai’s moves] into account and decided that they understood that zero troops was a possibility but would also plan for other contingencies.”

About a preferred/optimal solution to the Afghan war:“Reconciliation is the way to go...We believe very firmly that the future of Afghanistan will only be decided by Afghanistan, not outsiders.”

About possible convergence with the Pakistani military as it prepares for the potential of a last ‘wrap up’ operation: “There is an extremely strong view in support of the Pakistani government, the Afghan government, or any government working against terrorism...None of us want these groups to be able to continue to kill Pakistanis, to run into courts and do what they’ve done [on Monday].”

About Coalition Support Funds coming through smoothly for the Pakistani military: “We’d like to continue that, as much as possible, to continue counterterrorism work. It’s in the US’s national interest, and also in Pakistan’s.”

On the chances of a civil-nuclear deal between Washington and Islamabad: “Nuclear energy discussion is underway [in the Strategic Dialogue], and a welcome initiative. I don’t know what the end result will be.”About sanctions being placed if the Iran-Pakistan Pipeline went underway: “All sanctions would remain in place, and it would apply to this [Iran-Pakistan pipeline] as well.”

About the Indian role in the region: First, we are very much in support of Pakistani government’s efforts and hard work to find convergence with India, particularly on trade, investment and economic issues. There have been a series of meetings that have been very productive. And a connection with Afghanistan’s [economic future]. No one here has said India shouldn’t have a role in Afghanistan. It should have an economic role in Afghanistan, absolutely.”

About being on the same page with the Pakistani military’s version of fighting terrorism despite serious differences highlighted in 2011: “What we keep hold of is how important it is to know how much we want to fight terrorism. No one in Pakistan wants terrorism to be permitted to be operated from anywhere.”

About Admiral (now retired) Mike Mullen’s infamous allegation that the Haqqani Network was a ‘veritable arm of the ISI’: “He wasn’t speaking for the US government. He was speaking personally.”