Bronwen Maddox: World Briefing
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000
It is hard for President Bush to be friendly with the Afghan and Pakistani presidents at the same time, given the clash of interests between them. It will be much easier for him to fall out with both of them, as US frustration with their policies grows.
Yesterday’s summit between the US leader and President Karzai of Afghanistan at Camp David was not one that Bush appeared to enjoy. With Iraq at the top of national attention, and with the Democrat-controlled Congress doing its best to keep it there, the last thing he can have wanted was to have been reminded of the other war that is going badly - one which, critics say, has suffered so much from his preoccupation with Saddam Hussein.
Afghanistan has gone through one of its worst months of turmoil since the US-led invasion of late 2001: kidnappings, roadside bombings, the opium poppy harvest at record levels, and a resurgence of the Taleban. That is not to mention the persistent elusiveness of Osama bin Laden, thought to be in the shelter of sympathisers on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Bush and Karzai, standing on the Camp David lawns, briskly admitted those setbacks while insisting that, in Bush’s words, “progress is being made”. It is progress, certainly, that Karzai is meeting President Musharraf of Pakistan in the coming week, in Kabul, the Afghan capital, to talk about the lawlessness of the border, the main issue that set them at odds in the past couple of years.
Karzai has blamed Musharraf for tolerating the Taleban, even helping them. Like the US, he has criticised Musharraf’s deal last autumn that handed responsibility for the hunt for militants to tribal leaders in the border territories, who are Pashtun, like the Taleban, and often have close family ties with them.
Pakistan officials retort that they are given no credit either for the loss of more than 700 soldiers (their figure) in the border fighting or for the steady capture of senior Taleban and al-Qaeda figures, which they do not want to publicise for fear of a backlash from sympathisers. They add that Karzai refuses to acknowledge his own part in allowing Afghanistan’s problems to swell, and tries to blame everything on his neighbour to the east.
Both accusations are right, unfortunately for US policy. Karzai is entirely justified in blaming Musharraf for the failure of a deal that looked like a bad idea from the start. Musharraf has a point in arguing that he had to strike the deal because the army couldn’t stand the casualties. He has an even better one in claiming that Karzai’s Government is barely worth the name, has little control over the provinces, and has stayed in power only by striking deals with unpleasant provincial governors or chiefs.
But that is an accusation that Karzai might throw back, word for word, at Musharraf. The Pakistani President will survive the next presidential “election” by parliament on September 15 - there is no other candidate - but is still wrangling with Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the main opposition party, about whether she will back him for another five-year-term after the next parliamentary elections (which have slipped back until at least January). That follows the unravelling of deals with religious parties who (as was easily predicted) disliked his liberal agenda and pursuit of the Taleban.
Afghanistan is a failed state topped by an elected leader backed by the US; Pakistan is within sight of being the same. Either president is bound to cling to power by searching for deals with extreme groups which might otherwise topple him. Both “allies” will frustrate the US, even if it backs away from its hopes that they will deliver democracy, and asks them simply to hand over bin Laden.
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2006
£10,750
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Great Investment, River Views
Special Offers now available
At the new sophisticated
Encore Las Vegas Resort!
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Both âalliesâ will frustrate the US, even if it backs away from its hopes that they will deliver democracy, and asks them simply to hand over bin Laden.All this is a hogwash.Democracy is a hogwash.US is in afghanistan to control the Ex Soviet states oil and the routes to warm waters.So it needs both Afghanistan and Pakistan.US was the one which pushed Pakistan to support Taleban against Anti US and Pro Russia Dashtoum and other northern warlords.US knew that Northern alliance will never be able to control Pushtoon sppeeking majority Afghans.So it supported the Taleban via Pakistan.
After Taleban succeeded in getting control,they were invited to Texas for discussions with James Baker,UNOCAL and other important US officials.They were told US terms to stay in POWER(to hand over UZBEK warlord Mr Jumaa).They were told that they can walk on the carpet of gold or they can sign their own death warrants.Taleban refused to hand over the uzbek war lord.Rest you already know.911 and invasion.
kelly, greenville, SC
I can tell the author has never set foot in the region. To imply Pakistan as failed state simply because it cannot control the NWF province, the british empire couldn't control it either, I've never heard them being called a 'failed state'.
Akram, London,
I agree that Pakistan is surely but definitely slipping towards a failed state, but the reasons are Pakistanis themselves, with a little help from the American friends. What Pakistan needs is a democratic set up without the army making the shots. Army is eating up more than 60 % of the budget resources and control civilian, military and political power. People are fed up. Democracy may not work that well, but still worth a try. The government must fight the terrorists with full force, not because US wants it, but because it is in Pakistan's interest. Western hypocrites should take note. You cannot preach freedom and law of rule in Zimbabwe and Iran, but give only lip service in Pakistan.
Sharif Lone, Nidderau, Germany
nothing could be better than what Maddox has painted in most appropriate words. She has put the finger on the core of the mess created by the cross currants of trio interests in the cursed land its innocent people who have for centuries lived a life of honesty even though it had rough edges of religious fervor and bigotry. The hard working survivors of natures worst surroundings they proved their mettle and maintained their life style and rigid following of their ideals.
As if Pakistan's next door notorious unneighborly interests were not enough, US and its poodle Karazai have complicated the messy state of affairs already made miserable by US creation of Talbaans in 90's to dislodge the soviets. the picture painted by Maddox is painfully true and intriguingly clear and above all worth the eyes of every serious student of politics.
Balraj Cheema, mississauga, Canada
The US is the worlds sole super power, and worlds largest coward. They went in dollars blazing and bought the Taliban. Now the Taliban and ordinary Afghans have had enough and are fighting the US. The US needs to send in troops by the 10s of 1000s if it is really serious, and has the stomach. My guess is not, problems in Iraq, problems in Afghanistan - blame someone else, but yourself. Let's see how tough you are - ask the Ruskies
Shaffiq Mahmood, Halifax, UK
As an Afghan I am hopeful that the future of Afghanistan is brighter. Afghanistan has gone through period of voilence and insecurity many times before specially after her independence. The people who are causing problems are not really Afghans they are from the North West Frontier of Pakistan who are looking the same as Afghans and speak the same language but they are Pakistani national . They are always working as mercenaries for the foreign powers only for money . Now when I see the new projects of economic developements in the north like the Gas Pipeline between Turkmenistan and Afghanistan and the Elecricity power from Uzbekistan and Tadjekistan etc . these projects will atract many unemployed people not only in Afghanistan but also from the neighbouring countries like Iran, Pakistan, India etc . as such the mercenaries will get the work and will have imcome for themselves and their familied and stop fighting and killing others .
Hashim, Kent, UK
nothing could be better than what Maddox has painted in most appropriate words. She has put the finger on the core of the mess created by the cross currants of trio interests in the cursed land its innocent people who have for centuries lived a life of honesty even though it had rough edges of religious fervor and bigotry. The hard working survivors of natures worst surroundings they proved their mettle and maintained their life style and rigid following of their ideals.
As if Pakistan's next door notorious unneighborly interests were not enough, US and its poodle Karazai have complicated the messy state of affairs already made miserable by US creation of Talbaans in 90's to dislodge the soviets. the picture painted by Maddox is painfully true and intriguing and worth a note.
Balraj Cheema, mississauga, Canada
Musharraf's deal with religious parties leaders, as the author has indicated in her article, is far from sight because its only the Jamiat Ulama Islam(F) that could possibly strike deal with Musharraf and that too only by Maulana Fazl ur Rahman who won't be backed up by most of his party members. The MMA would, in that case, would simply dissolve and so Musharraf would have to look somewhere else for a deal, most probabaly Benezir Bhutto, who would favour Musharraf rather more easily, despite a some resentment from her, if he bowed a little more down.
Shah Khalid, N.W.F.P, Pakistan
Pakistan need be neutral in Afghanistan matters. But we can not. Because our national interest are there. We can not afford any enemy in Afghanistan .neither Talibanâs, or karzi, or any one else. Good relation over all with government and opposition it is much needed for Pakistan. Because any anti Pakistani elements in Afghanistan can affect us for many reasons.Pakistan need to tell America, that we can not afford any type of enemy in Afghanistan. Northern alliance is anti Pakistan , karzi donât have good feeling and Talibanâs also in other campSo Pakistan must engage Taliban in political talks, let them know talibanization style government not acceptable. If Taliban like participate in political activity, if they like to become the part of political system. We must support them. seek exemption for all Talibanâs include mullein Omar and former Taliban regime and free all Talibanâs prisoners form jails, pardon for every Talibanâs
mehboob alam khan, gujranwala Maan, pakistan