Afghan war can’t be fought on Pak soil: Khurram

ISLAMABAD: Minister for Defence Khurram Dastgir Khan on Monday said the Afghan war could not be fought on the Pakistan soil as the US could not achieve success there even after 16 years and the way forward to a viable solution to the problem was that the US should hold negotiations with all the stakeholders in the war-torn country.

He said that Pakistan should not be made a scapegoat for the US failures in Afghanistan and the way forward for the Pak-US relations should not be through threats, notices and suspension of support. “The United States had been fighting in Afghanistan for the last 16 years but failed to achieve the targets,” he said.

He pointed out that the sufferings in war against terrorism had been immense and painful and it was unfair by the US to blame Pakistan when it had not been able to pacify the situation in Afghanistan. “Pakistan had suffered a huge loss in the war against terrorism as an ally to the United States. Pakistan had to face economic loss and damage to lives and property of citizens,” the defence minister said.

Khurram Dastgir said Pakistan considered Afghanistan a sovereign neighbour who shared abiding bonds of history, trade and culture. He said Pakistan respected sovereignty of Afghanistan and wished to see its neighbour to prosper as a democratic state but Pakistan would like this courtesy to be reciprocated. He maintained that Pakistan was a responsible nuclear state and it would continue with its policy of full spectrum deterrence and avoidance of armed race.

Giving a policy statement on the floor of the National Assembly, the defence minister said Pakistan's defence is robust and country’s vigilant and highly trained armed forces continued to protect and defend land, sea and air borders. “The government will meet with vigour and commitment the growing challenges to Pakistan's security and work to maintain strategic stability in the region,” the defence minister said.

The opposition members immediately countered the statement on the floor of the House saying that there was no clarity in the statement and it had created further ambiguity. The parliamentarians said that the minister should also have spoken in response to the recent Indian Army chief’s statement in which he said they were ready to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff.

He pointed out Pakistan and China had also agreed to see Afghanistan as a peaceful country saying that Gwadar Port and CPEC were proof of high economic cooperation between the two countries.

The minister told the House that the Indian government had accelerated Pakistan bashing as a highly militarised and belligerent neighbour. “The case of Kalbushan Yadhav was proof of his efforts for unrest in Pakistan,” he said. He informed the National Assembly that Indian forces committed more than 1,300 ceasefire violations in 2017 at the Line of Control, which resulted in 52 deaths and injuries to 175 persons. He said only on Monday, four valiant soldiers embraced martyrdom in unprovoked firing by Indian forces.

He said the nation salutes these martyrs and prays Almighty Allah to grant fortitude to their families. Reacting to the defence minister’s statement, Dr Shireen Mazari of Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) said there was not clarity in the policy statement, rather it had created more confusion.

She pointed out that the United States had also refuted a statement of Pakistan’s defence minister that Pakistan had stopped intelligence sharing with the US authorities following stoppage of financial assistance.

Calling upon the Pakistani rulers to revive dignity and self-respect of the country and the nation, the PTI parliamentarian said it was true that the United States was a superpower but they still needed Pakistan’s cooperation.

She stressed that the defence and foreign policies should come from parliament and not from the ministries. PPP member Syed Naveed Qamar said there were contradictions in the policy statement. He was of the view that all the institutions and ministries should be on one page when it came to defence and foreign policy.