NEW YORK, Amid deteriorating Afghan security situation, Prime Minister Imran Khan emphasized Tuesday that the best choice was a negotiated political settlement to the long-running conflict in Afghanistan, saying Pakistan would remain helpful in the peace process.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo, the Taliban sit down with the other side and they form an inclusive government \u2014 This is the best outcome; there is no other outcome because the military solution has failed,\u201d he said in an interview with Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) \u2018Newshour\u2019, a primetime television programme.<\/p>\n
At the outset, the programme\u2019s anchor, Judy Woodruff, asked the Pakistani leader about his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan as US completes the withdrawal of its troops from the war-torn country.<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, Judy, I think the U.S. has really messed it up in Afghanistan,\u201d Imran Khan responded.<\/p>\n
The U.S. for two decades was trying to force a military solution, he said, adding that \u201cthe reason why we are in this position now is because the military solution failed.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNow, what choices have we got? The best choice is that somehow we have a political settlement in Afghanistan where it is, as I repeat, an inclusive government.\u201d<\/p>\n
After suffering huge human and material losses while participating in the U.S. war against terrorism, the prime minister made it clear that \u201cWe want to be partners in peace, but not in conflict.\u201d<\/p>\n
Responding to questions, Imran Khan said that in the initial years, when he was raising his voice against a military solution, he was dubbed as anti-American and even called \u201cTaliban Khan\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo, when they finally decided that there is no military solution, unfortunately, the bargaining power of the Americans or the NATO forces had gone,\u201d he said, adding, \u201cWhen there were 150,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, that was the time to go for a political solution.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut once they had reduced the troops to barely 10,000, and then, when they gave an exit date, the Taliban thought they had won. And so, therefore, it was very difficult for now to get them to compromise. It\u2019s very difficult to force them into a political solution, because they think that they (have) won.\u201d<\/p>\n
The only good outcome for Afghanistan, the prime minister said, was a political settlement which is inclusive, so they form some sort of a government that includes all sorts of different factions there.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe worst situation in Afghanistan would be if there\u2019s a civil war and a protracted civil war.<\/p>\n
And from Pakistan\u2019s point of view, that is the worst-case scenario, because we then we face two scenarios, one, a refugee problem.\u201d<\/p>\n
With three million Afghan refugees already in Pakistan, he said a protracted civil war would bring in more refugees. \u201cOur economic situation is not such that we can have another influx.\u201d<\/p>\n
Secondly, he said, the worry is that the civil war will flow into Pakistan, because the Taliban are basically ethnic Pashtuns and those on \u201cour side will be drawn into it \u2014 and that also is the last thing we want.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked about the reported Pakistan\u2019s support to the Afghan Taliban fighting US troops in Afghanistan by providing them safe havens and that 10,000 jihadi fighters had gone across the border recently, the prime minister called these comments \u201cextremely unfair\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor a start,\u201d he said the claim about 10,00 jihadi fighters having crossed over was \u201cabsolute nonsense\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy don\u2019t they give us evidence of this? Firstly, let me just go back. When they say that Pakistan gave safe havens, sanctuaries to Taliban, where are these safe havens?<\/p>\n
Pakistan, he added, does have three million Afghan refugees, but the Taliban are not some military outfit. \u201cThey are normal civilians. And if there are some (non-civilians) in these camps, how is Pakistan supposed to hunt these people down? How can you call them sanctuaries?<\/p>\n
When asked about his refusal to allow the U.S. to have any sort of bases in Pakistan to support counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, Imran Khan said, \u201cWhen a country loses 70,000 people and is bankrupted by this war on terror, when we joined the U.S. after 9\/11, we do not have the capacity to have any more fighting within our border or any terrorism within our country, because, when we were in the height of that war on terror, which Pakistan joined, there were suicide bombs taking place all over the country.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe businesses collapsed. Tourism collapsed. So, what we do not want to be is part of any conflict. Now, if there\u2019s a conflict going on in Afghanistan and there are bases in Pakistan, we then become targets. We will then become part of a conflict which we were in the last 15 years, and we do not want.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked about the kind of relations he wanted to have with the U.S., the prime minister said,<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, Judy, the last relationship was transactional. Pakistan was more like a hired gun. The U.S. says that we paid you, we gave you aid, and that\u2019s why you were fighting this so-called war on terror.<\/p>\n
\u201cPakistan, on the other hand, felt that here was a country which had no need to be part of this war. It loses 70,000. I mean, where \u2014 which other country has lost 70,000 people fighting for someone else\u2019s war?<\/p>\n
\u201cSo, Pakistanis felt that here we were, fighting the U.S.\u2019 war, our economy devastated. It was minuscule compared to the amount of money we lost in the economy. And yet we were blamed for the failure in Afghanistan.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNow,\u201d Imran Khan added, \u201cPakistan\u2019s position is very straightforward. We want to help and we have helped getting the Taliban to talk to the U.S., got them on the dialogue table. We have done our bit.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat we cannot afford now, if there is civil war \u2014 what the U.S. wants is U.S. bases in Pakistan if there\u2019s civil war in Afghanistan. But if there\u2019s civil war in Afghanistan, we will immediately get stuck into it. There will be terrorism within Pakistan. We do not want \u2014 apart from anything else, our country cannot afford it.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have just recovered from a desperate economic situation. And we do not want to go through it again.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI hear that message,\u201d Ms. Woodruff, the anchor remarked, but went on to ask: \u201cAre you prepared to accept Taliban victory next door?<\/p>\n
\u201cAbsolutely, there\u2019s nothing more we can do, except push them as much as we can for a political settlement. That\u2019s all,\u201d was the prime minister\u2019s response.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut what happens in Afghanistan, we can only pray that the people of Afghanistan decide what government they want. And so we hope that that\u2019s what will happen in the end; they will form some sort of an inclusive government.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut that\u2019s for people of Afghanistan. As far as Pakistan is concerned, we have done what we can,\u201d PM Khan added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
NEW YORK, Amid deteriorating Afghan security situation, Prime Minister Imran Khan emphasized Tuesday that the best choice was a negotiated political settlement to the long-running conflict in Afghanistan, saying Pakistan would remain helpful in the peace process. \u201cSo, the Taliban sit down with the other […]<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":14140,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[243,9042,9040,1331,9041,8685],"class_list":["post-14137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-latest-world-news","tag-afghanistan","tag-best-choice","tag-messed","tag-pm-khan","tag-political-settlement","tag-u-s"],"yoast_head":"\n