A letter from Washington never written

Najm us Saqib

Forget about the Taliban. They neither deserve legitimacy nor is there any point in looking for a waiver to unfreezing their assets to start running the affairs of the government. They are the same dicey, audacious and dangerous Taliban of the 1990s and as such do not deserve any ‘mercy’. Their coming to power and that too so swiftly and completely was beyond our calculation or at least that’s what we want the world to believe. Ashraf Ghani and company ditched us as well as the people of Afghanistan or at least that is what we want the world to believe. What we could or could not achieve in our two-decade long stay is already forgotten and taken by the world as an event of the past. Yes, there are strong indications of fresh waves of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan but our focus now is somewhere else. The IS-K, TTP and others along with narcotics business, IDPs and refugees are your concerns now.

We are ready to address the humanitarian crisis and help them on the frozen banking channels, but first Kabul must have an inclusive government and provide certain assurances on account of human rights and the spread of extremism and terrorism. To demonstrate our sincerity towards the cause of humanity, the UN Security Council has unanimously adopted our resolution to allow the payment of funds and the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance to meet the basic needs in Afghanistan. However, it must be noted that the sanctions remain in place along with the stigma of the T-word attached to the Taliban. The regional countries must realise how difficult and painful it was to ‘control’ things in Afghanistan. In any case, we have done our part and now someone else should look after the ensuing chaos in and around Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, we are pleased to note the outcome of the recently concluded OIC’s extraordinary session on Afghanistan and see it as a collective action to help the needy. By all means it was a successful event and deserves the world’s appreciation for its organisation. We have also noted with pleasure the aid pledged by Riyadh, Tokyo and others to address the needs of forty million hard pressed Afghanis. The presence of a Taliban delegation in the Conference without recognising their government in Kabul is, however, not understood. None of the participating delegations either from the OIC or non-OIC entities boycotted the moot, objecting on the presence of Muttaqi and company. Does it mean the Conference wanted to find a way to help the distraught populace of Afghanistan without recognising the Taliban Government yet confirming support for them? Talk about being duplicitous.

Also not understood is how the pledged and would-be pledged funds would reach the people of Afghanistan without involving the Taliban and in the absence of any official banking channel. The most important question is: why any of the Muslim countries including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have neither rebuffed nor officially recognised the Taliban government? What happened to the idea of arriving at a regional consensus on this issue? We feel the whole world including China and Russia are waiting for a nod from us. Well, keep guessing.

Pakistan must have done the SWAT analyses and risk assessments in persistently being the focal point of the Afghan conflict. It must have also calculated the repercussions of the ‘defiance mode’ being shown to the West. If so, then its insistence on improving relations with us particularly in the trade and economic domain does not make any sense. We have made it very clear to all that our remaining interest in Islamabad begins and ends at counterterrorism. In international relations, there is a price to pay for any act or omission. Here, there is no win-win situation for the mortals. You could only choose the lesser evil.

The 15 of August was not the ultimate victory. It was just a battle that the Taliban appeared to have won. The war is not yet over. Secondly, we don’t think the majority of the Afghans have forgotten Pakistan’s role in the war on terror or facilitating the NATO trucks or siding with us. Thirdly, the Taliban’s refusal to erecting the border fence along the Eastern province of Nangarhar last week is a strong indicator and should be considered seriously. By the way, would the fence erected along the border be strong enough to preclude the influx of another million or so Afghan refugees or if the Taliban take a u-turn and defy you? How many member-states of the OIC would come forward to help the ‘brotherly’ people of Pakistan? Would a strong resolution with solemn commitment to the cause of Muslim brotherhood suffice? Ever since its establishment in 1969 following the burning of Al-Aqsa Mosque, has the OIC been successful in providing a homeland to the people of Palestine?

We have already accepted our ‘follies and miscalculations’ in the Afghan conflict. No one pointed a finger at us or demanded any rectifying measures. This fact alone establishes our power and authority over matters of global governance as well as our unique and undisputed stature in the world of geo-politics. You always look at us from your myopic perspective. We are pleased to note that you have not even once tried to see yourself from our point of view. Your complete reliance on China suits our growing strategic relations with India. We intend to keep both the neighbours embroiled in Kashmir and other bilateral issues. This animosity suits our policy for the South Asian region as well as our defence industry. We hasten to add here that you are not a threat for us or to our allies. Our fight is with China and its disproportionate economic rise. You just happen to be a pebble in the shoe. Keep thinking that your nuclear programme is a matter of concern for us. Even that line of thinking suits us. Let’s see how long you can run your kitchen without our conditional blessings.