US aversion to peace talks

The government coming to power as a result of Feb 18 elections in Pakistan seemed determined to negotiate with those who would lay down their arms and opt for a peaceful course. It wanted to restore peace because people detested the army action. To show their good intentions and to assess government's future course of action, the militants suspended their offensive against the government. But PM Yousuf Raza Gilani, after meeting George Bush in Egypt, returned with a transformed mindset. Instead of reconciliation, Mr Gillani talked tough against tribesmen and vowed not to negotiate with the hard-line militants, which was the reflection of Mr Bush's mindset.

Why is US administration averse to our peace negotiations with the tribesmen? It realises the talks have no chance of success. Negotiate about what is the question. People of an independent country cannot reconcile to occupation of their homeland by the invaders. Freedom-loving Afghans, having lost countless of their men, women, and children to US-led invasion, would never allow the foreigners to continue to occupy their land. Even the US would like to negotiate with the Taliban but with an imperial attitude: Listen rustics, we have occupied your country and we are here to stay, define your terms for good behaviour.

Moreover, there is not much difference between the militants, extremists, and Pashtoons when it comes to fighting an enemy.

In this respect, to believe that majority of them inhabiting the southern regions of Afghanistan are different from Pashtoons living in our tribal areas is misleading. Ethnically, linguistically, and historically they share the same roots. A thread of common lineage inextricably links them regardless of the Durand line between them. Pashtoons have a long history of resistance in the past to protect their freedom.