1. TLDR: What will it take for Pakistan to pressure the Taliban into a ceasefire? Pressure, concessions, clear priorities, & ultimately cooperation from Pakistan. A very tall order.

2. Many Afghanistan policy proposals require some action by Pakistan. But as usual there is a disconnect where Washington believes it can demand Pakistan "do more" without providing much in return and Islamabad thinks half-measures will suffice. It is a destructive dance.
3. Pakistan helped bring the Taliban to the negotiating table in Doha but stopped there & instead opted to tacitly support the Taliban’s bargaining position to enter into a ceasefire only after further concessions from Kabul & US troops leave.
4. The Taliban are overplaying their hand by delaying talks & escalating violence, while Pakistan is underplaying its hand by refusing to add pressure.
5. Why won’t Pakistan further pressure the Taliban?
- What’s in it for me? (sensitive to "do more")
- Less influence over current TB leadership.
- Scared of blowback from sectarian groups, TTP (so they say).
- Some sympathy for group.
6. Any policy proposal that prioritizes a political settlement to the war in Afghanistan requires Pakistan’s help. Neither “maximum pressure” nor “strategic love and affection” will work. In fact, nothing may work. But the Biden team can start with the FATF.
7. Escaping the FATF “grey list” would be a big political win for PM Imran Khan & the military, which makes it a source of leverage. Its effect is more political than economic.
8. Pakistan is on the FATF “grey list” due to support for anti-India terrorists & the Haqqani Network. The US can’t fundamentally alter Pakistan’s calculation on the anti-India groups using the list. But it may be able to improve the situation in Afghanistan. Time to prioritize.
9. The U.S. should clearly communicate its willingness to offer support for Pakistan at the FATF, in exchange for specific results-oriented actions to lower violence in Afghanistan. If progress is made, then options like releasing Coalition Support Fund $$ may also be considered
10. Next is India. The Biden admin must accept that Pakistan--not India--is key to ending the conflict in Afghanistan. US calls for India to play a bigger role in Afghanistan’s peace process, politics, & economy only fuel paranoia in Pakistan, however irrational.
11. If Washington wants Pakistan’s cooperation on Afghanistan, then it will have to take its India anxieties seriously, decouple Afghanistan from the broader Indo-Pacific strategy, & provide assurances in exchange for actions.
12. ACCEPT THEM LIMITS OF WASHINGTON’S OWN INFLUENCE
13. WAKE UP ISLAMABAD: Feigning inability to motivate the Taliban falls on deaf ears when much of the leadership & their families reside in Pakistan. Rising violence in Afghanistan ends one of two ways & neither is good for Pakistan↓
14. Pakistan's leadership must face reality: If things implode in Afghanistan & the above scenarios unfold, then Islamabad could face a coordinated campaign in DC to label it a state sponsor of terrorism. This would be a mistake, but one w/ dire consequences for Pakistan.
15. But the Biden admin must walk a tightrope. It should not allow this effort to consume other regional interests such as long-term CT cooperation, nuclear security, or trade & climate change. It must also acknowledge Pakistan’s real sacrifices in the GWOT.
16. Every time Pakistan faces a decision on Afghanistan, the Biden admin should offer Pakistan’s leadership a clear choice between positive & negative outcomes. But ultimately, the US should not tie a withdrawal to benchmarks that rely on cooperation that may never materialize.
17. Why does the article leave out the "K word"? Simple. Attempts to link the dispute in Kashmir to outcomes in Afghanistan failed in the past. Richard Holbrooke reportedly was threatened with an Indian visa denial over attempts to connect Pakistan-India disputes to Afghanistan.

More from World

MISREPRESENTED CONTEXT

1. I am indeed disgusted with attempts to misrepresent and take out of context what I wrote on my blog yesterday.


2. Those who did that highlighted only one part of paragraph 12 which read: “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”

3. They stopped there and implied that I am promoting the massacre of the French.

4.If they had read d posting in its entirety & especially the subsequent sentence which read: “But by & large the Muslims hv not applied the “eye for an eye” law. Muslims don’t. The French shouldn’t. Instead the French should teach their people to respect other people’s feelings

5. Because of the spin and out of context presentation by those that picked up my posting, reports were made against me and I am accused of promoting violence etc… on Facebook and Twitter.
I'll bite, Mr. Gray. We can even play by your rather finicky rules.

Let's begin with some of the things you have said about Xinjiang, notably absent from your more recent media appearances, but still present in your blog about your 2014 biking trip.


The following is taken from an ongoing list I keep of people who have been to Xinjiang and written/spoken about their experiences. It is separate from the testimony of detainees and their relatives I also keep. Jerry is on this

Jerry, your article for CGTN, as well as your various Medium pieces, belabor themselves to emphasize the smoothness of your time in Xinjiang. Why did you leave out so many details from your log of your 2014 trip? They seem relevant.

For example, would CGTN not let you speak about Shanshan, the town that evidently disturbed you so much?


Why, pray tell, after noting how kind and hospitable Xinjiang police were to you in 2019 for CGTN—and how you were never told where you could or could not go—would you omit these details?

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party