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.”
