Strained and tense talks between Afghans and Pakistanis
Turkish president Abdullah Gul Pakistani (C) with Hamid Karzai (L) and Ali Atif Zerdari (R)
November 1st, 2011
03:02 PM ET

Strained and tense talks between Afghans and Pakistanis

By CNN's Ivan Watson reporting from Istanbul, Turkey

With the help of Turkish mediation, Pakistani and Afghan leaders signed a series of agreements Tuesday aimed at mending relations which almost collapsed after last September's assassination of former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani in Kabul.

At a joint press conference where he sat flanked by his Afghan and Pakistani counterparts, Turkish president Abdullah Gul announced that both Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to open a "cooperation mechanism" between their intelligence agencies to investigate the murder, which Afghan officials initially blamed on Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence.

"There was almost an end of negotiations between us," Afghan President Hamid Karzai said, in reference to the suicide bombing that killed Rabbani. "So on that what happened today in Turkey has been a significant move. I hope the mechanism for pursuing the death of Rabbani will lead us to more fruitful and intense talks."

In public, the three presidents appeared relaxed and friendly when Gul led them down the marble stairs of an Ottoman palace to a waiting Mercedes.

But behind closed doors, the opening to some of the discussions were strained and tense, said one Turkish diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Read the whole story here

Post by:
Filed under: Afghanistan • Diplomacy • ISI • Karzai • Pakistan • Turkey
soundoff (3 Responses)
  1. Alejandro

    things that pleases the prneest audiences regardless. He was the one who called the International War Against Terrorism instead the Afghan War, which made the normal or ordinary citizens of many western countries that terrorism is an Afghan phenomena or otherwise, westner soldiers are losing their precious lives for the Afghan war and worst than ever, the taxpayers now think the billions of dollars spent on war against terrorism is not the fact, it is the money spent for fighting terrorists from Afghanistan and the world is so damaged by the Afghan war. He didn't realize he needed some media-speaking education or diplomacy to ensure he does not side or take stand against any country. One day he blames Taliban and warns of severe punishments for their wrong-doings, the next day he calls them unspet brothers brothers who need some help and sympathy or worst he keeps releasing Taliban fighters arrested during operations with the cost of civilian lives and poor and empty-stomach Afghan military soldiers or police. One day he publicly blames Pakistan and in the serious tone for their support to Taliban and terroristic groups, but next day he calls Pakistan the better-half brother. He doesn't seem to have a political agenda for the country, nor a strategy to help Afghanistan end the years of war. I never seen any diplomacy skills in his tone or words except emotional and canning ones. He hails democracy, but the other hand allows militant groups kill Hazara etnicity so brutally and in one case he refused MPs from Ghazni claiming the Hazaras did not reprneest Ghazni residents. By all means, he was/is the wrong person for the job. I partly believe U.S. may intentionally need or place such an incompentant counter-part for some reasons if U.S. did not or will not take any stand against him instead of continously supporting him to remain Afghan president.

    April 7, 2012 at 1:16 am | Reply
  2. Tom

    Maybe a peace can be brokered in Afghanistan? However, it is time for the US to stop supporting Pakistan and cut our involvement in Afghanistan. Neither of those two countries are the friends of the West. It would be much smarter of America to support India. India is a legitimate democracy and its people and culture are much more Westernized and friendly to the west than either Afghanistan or Pakistan. In the long run, India would make a powerful ally against either Muslim incursions or potential future Chinese aggression. Afghanistan is just a money and blood pit for the West to waste its efforts in and Pakistan plays both sides of the game supporting radicalization of elements of its population while catering to the West when forced to. As for Pakistani nukes, there is a very simple solution. It is called Mutually Assured Destruction and worked very well in the Cold War. If one nuke from any Muslim country is used in the West, then the West responds with total destruction of the originating country whether the nuke was officially sanctioned by that countries' government or not. That policy would kind of make any nation think twice about trying to be covert in supplying terrorists nukes. None of the Muslim nations have the capability of launching a massive attack against the West. There is the danger of the loss of a Western city, but Pakistan, and potentially Iran, would be faced with the utter destruction of their country if they supplied terrorists with a nuke.

    November 2, 2011 at 8:00 am | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.