In recent interviews, retired Pakistan Army officers Lt.-Gen. Hamid Gul and Brig. Shaukat Qadir argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan would not agree to peace negotiations with the U.S. Urging the Pakistani leadership to take an independent course in foreign policy, the former officers said that Pakistan should defend its interests when the same are not in consonance with the U.S's. objectives. The two interviews were published by the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Ummat.
Lt.-General Hamid Gul, who headed the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) during the 1980s Afghan jihad, argued: "Today, the Taliban are demanding that the U.S. has done wrong things and that is why it is better for the U.S. to leave Afghanistan unconditionally. I know Afghans and I am aware of their mindset. They would not hold any conditional talks with the U.S."
The interviews were conducted amid mounting U.S. pressure on Pakistan during September-October 2011 to order military operations against the Taliban's Haqqani Network in North Waziristan and to get Taliban groups to engage in peace negotiations. Following such U.S. demands and some compromises between the U.S. and Pakistan, on October 13, 2011 Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani "welcomed America’s initiatives for peace in Afghanistan" and added that "the world should recognize Pakistan’s efforts in the war against terror."[1]
In the interviews, both officers also rejected any prospect of positive outcomes from the November 2-3 conference in Istanbul, which was attended by top government leaders from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, India, the U.S. and the U.K.
The interviews were part of a report titled "The Taliban Will Not Agree To Negotiations With the United States," and were published as the Istanbul conference was underway.
Following are excerpts from the interviews:[2]
Hamid Gul: "The U.S. is Pressuring Pakistan to Bring the Taliban to the Negotiation Table, But the Taliban would Not Be Ready for Talks in Any Case"
Question: "Prime Minister Gilani has said that Afghans are ready for anything in the reconciliatory process while there is news that Pakistan is ready to facilitate the talks between the U.S. and the Haqqani Network."
Hamid Gul: "The prime minister has rightly said that we are ready for all such steps which could bring peace in Afghanistan. If we could play a positive role in bringing peace, we must play a proactive role so that the U.S. could make an 'honorable retreat' from the region. But it should also be kept in mind as to whether the aims and objectives of those who fought the war for freedom and gave so many sacrifices are being fulfilled. Why would they talk to a retreating aggressor force? I don’t think that the Taliban would hold any talk in this situation.
"[Pakistani ambassador to the United States] Husain Haqqani has sent an appropriate message to the U.S. that he could not do anything as the Taliban are not ready for talks. The U.S. is not showing sincerity in holding talks with them. Their [Taliban] prisoners are not being freed while the U.S. is demanding that they should lay down their arms and be part of the [Afghan] government, which has been constituted by the U.S. The Taliban's demand is that the U.S. should rectify its wrongdoings and that the aggressor troops should withdraw from Afghanistan. At the time of Soviet occupation we used to say that Soviet Union should withdraw from Afghanistan unconditionally.
"Today, the Taliban are demanding that the U.S. has done wrong things and that is why it is better for the U.S. to leave Afghanistan conditionally. I know Afghans and I am aware of their mindset. They would not hold any conditional talks with the U.S. They have already put their demand before all. If Pakistan tries to pressure them for talks, there would be no bigger mistake than that. Pakistan should not annoy the Taliban at a time when situations are changing and are going in our favor. Presently, the U.S. is pressuring Pakistan to bring the Taliban to the negotiation table, but the Taliban would not be ready for talks in any case."
"The U.S. Wants… [To] Create a Situation of War Between Pakistan and Afghanistan; At This Critical Juncture of History We should Not Annoy the Taliban, Who are the Future of Afghanistan"
SUPPORT OUR WORK
Question: "Now, are there talks about reducing India's role in Afghanistan?"
Hamid Gul: "These steps are just for show. In principle, it should be decided that India should not sit in Afghanistan like an aggressor force. It is true that Afghanistan has the right to trade with any country it wants to trade with, including India. In the same way, Afghanistan has no right to let our enemy establish to the west of our border [i.e. in Afghanistan]; it is already present there on our eastern [border with India].
"At present, we should build good relations with the future Afghan government [i.e. the one that will be led by the Taliban]. We have a very long and intricate border with Afghanistan. We cannot bear war with Afghanistan. We are finding it difficult to control our long border with India. We are facing economic problems because of that. Where would we go if we also had to take care of our border with Afghanistan in this situation? The very thought is painful.
"It is very important to be on friendly terms with China and our other neighboring brethren countries – Iran and Afghanistan. Since we have our disputes with India, which become cause for war, there is no possibility of friendship without the resolution of disputes. But we don't have any reason for war with Iran and Afghanistan. The U.S. wants to create a situation of war between Pakistan and Afghanistan after its withdrawal from the region and for us remain involved in it while India keeps on becoming powerful.
"At this critical juncture of history we should not annoy the Taliban, who are the future of Afghanistan in any case. We have done injustices to the Taliban in the past. We have arrested the Taliban – e.g. Mullah Abdul Salam and Mullah Barader. Many of their big leaders are still languishing in Pakistani prisons. But it is the character of the Taliban that they keep quiet on Pakistan because they don’t want to make Pakistan their enemy. Therefore, we must not take any step on the behest of the U.S. which could prove harmful in future."
Question: "In your opinion, is there a hope for any outcome from the Istanbul Conference?
Hamid Gul: "The conference and its result would be a big zero. There is no hope of any result from this."
Brigadier Shaukat Qadir: "Insofar As the Americans are Concerned, They have Now Understood That We are No Longer Under Their Control"
Question: "The prime minister says that we would support any step in the Afghan reconciliatory process. What is the cause of sudden change in the Pak-U.S. relations?"
Shaukat Qadir: "This statement by Prime Minister Gilani is the reiteration of Pakistan's fundamental stand that only Afghans will decide the future of Afghanistan. We should not do that. However, we are ready to do whatever we can do in this regard. Insofar as the Americans are concerned, they have now understood that we are no longer under their control. They had reached to hold us by our collars and the way we got our collar freed was shocking for them.
"After that they needed space to claw back. In the beginning they took to threatening us, but when it did not succeed, they changed their stand and started saying that they did not mean that. [They said that Admiral Mike] Mullen had said that in a fit of rage, [that] we accept our mistake, and that ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] has no links with the Haqqani Network. In fact, Americans want to take flight from Afghanistan now.
"The Istanbul conference is being held in this regard only where President [Asif] Zardari, General [Ashfaq] Kayani and perhaps ISI chief [Lt.-Gen. Shuja Pasha] have also gone. No promising things could be said about this conference at present because it is a matter of interests between us and the U.S. We would prefer to keep our interest intact where we don’t find it in consonance with the United States. The U.S.'s interests would not be preferred. This impression that we would give preference to U.S. interests over Pakistan's has been done away with. That is why the U.S. is looking dejected. Since 9/11, they had gotten used to all their orders being followed, but when we stood against it, it was no less than a shock for them.
"The U.S. has realized that they cannot use force to get any of their decisions accepted by Pakistan, and now they must find a path acceptable to both. The very path as to how could the U.S. and Pakistan go along with each other could have been be found at the Istanbul conference. This situation was bound to come, because it had reached the extent that either they start a war or retreat. They [the U.S.] found it better to step back, and then two situations emerged: one, they should get totally annoyed with Pakistan; and two, they should accept Pakistan's important role in Afghanistan, and they accepted that."
"We Think That the U.S. Cannot Move Forward without Strengthening Pakistan's Interest in Safeguarding Its Interest in Afghanistan"
Question: "Will any picture appear from the Istanbul Conference?"
Shaukat Qadir: "Nothing will come out from the statements to be made at the Istanbul Conference but when the secret decisions would be uncovered [sometime later], only then it would come to the fore as to what happened [at the conference]."
Question: "What conditions has Pakistan put in the face of U.S. eagerness to hold talks with the Taliban after Pakistan has taken the tough stand?"
Shaukat Qadir: "The importance of the Istanbul Conference is that a way is being sought out which serves the interests of both Pakistan and the U.S. This path could not be found at a conference where there would be lots of people in the conference. Only the secret matters would be dealt with. But behind-the-scene matters would come out in the private meetings during the conference.
"This is the way the Americans do. They start making some leaks in the press after sometimes. Something slips out automatically and something they say into someone’s ears. In this way, something would come out and within five to seven days, it would come to fore whether there was any meaningful dialogue in the conference. Then there is the Bonn Conference [organized by the UN on December 5] which would decide the NATO’s withdrawal strategy from Afghanistan. If Bonn Conference fails, this time many countries would step back [from active role in Afghanistan] after becoming exasperated. This is hoped that some way would be found at this conference. It is also better for Pakistan that it should find some way-out which is beneficial for both the countries."
Question: "What would happen to India’s interference into Afghanistan?"
Shaukat Qadir: "This is yet to be settled down. The debate is continuing in the U.S. that India should not have been given such a bigger role in Afghanistan and that we are committing a mistake and perhaps it is not a right path. We think that the U.S. cannot move forward without strengthening Pak[istan's] interest to safeguard its interest in Afghanistan. Pakistan would not support the U.S. unless it does not safeguard Pak interest and the U.S. cannot move forward in Afghanistan…."
