India to host summit on Afghanistan investment

[Admin Khan]

i don't know why talib supporters are up in arms about this summit when the taliban had no problem traveling to america to mull over pipeline proposals.

[faye]

it is interesting to note that certain people who complain about investors to afghanistan are never the ones to tell how they would like afghanistan to be governed or their aspirations for the future of afghanistan.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Da singa ghalat fikar ka wey? Ka yaw Hinday ghwarey che da Afghanistan dapara investment paida ke, pa de ke sa problem dey? Investments kho la Afghanano ta karoona war peyda ka ye. Zmosh kho khpala karona sara sam dey, da Afghanano pa razq ke weli laghata wawaho? Investment ka da India sa wey, ya ka da Iran sakha, da Afghanistan pa ghata ke jhey, ka zmosh sakha sam hukumat wey.

What it does is it creates a two pronged ethical problem for the nascent Afghan state. Contrary to what Randolph wrote above, the pipeline deal proposal between the Taliban and the US - and these deals are apples and oranges. Salon.com did an excellent piece on it, not to mention that Karzai, father and son, were Unocol advisers who had set up the meetings in the first place. Here is the exact quote based on evidence from raids done on AQ computers by the US itself:

http://www.salon.com/2002/06/05/memo_11/

"the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the Taliban, both to get the repressive regime to widen its government as well as look favorably on U.S. companies’ attempts to construct an oil pipeline. The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands."

So point 1 has been swiftly and easily handled; Taliban discussions about an oil pipeline were done from a position of strength and typical Taliban intransigence.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Point 2:
Regarding our Tarikh.
Yes, Ahmad Shah did have trade with India and even imported Indian bankers. Once again however, he was in a position of strength, not of weakness. The power of Ahmad Shah, who invaded India a multitude of times, versus Karzai's capabilities are drastically divergent like night and day.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Point 3:
What happens when you pursue a policy that is is as absurd as Pakistan's strategic depth, called strategic balancing? Well, Afghanistan will be a case study for this.

This is an excellent article from the editor of the famed Indian Defence Review Journal. Let me repeat that; Indian Defence Review Journal.

http://www.sify.com/news/stable-paki...gxe3iggei.html

It articles reflect the thought processes of India's military elite; who like most military elites act on a sense of paranoia and forboding and pretty much want to bulk up defense.

This title is called:

Stable Pakistan Not in India's Interest.

dispelling thoroughly the myth that Indian elites sit back cool as cucumbers, singing ohm with the cosmic note of the universe, while Pakistanis are vengeance laced, uncouth, hairy, dark beasts scaling the walls.

Rather, both sides are nearly equally paranoid per a simple reading of this article.

Here are some choice quotes:

"At the height of the recent disturbances in the Valley, when a general asked me for a suggestion to resolve the issue, I said: “ Remove Pakistan. The threat will disappear permanently.” Today the collapse of Pakistan as a state is almost certain. All the King’s men cannot save it from itself.
Looking ahead, New Delhi should formulate an appropriate strategy for ‘post-Pakistan scenario’ to secure India’s interests in Central Asia."

He says earlier inthe article, with intentions toward Central Asia:

"To defend this key threat to the Union, New Delhi should extend its influence through export of both soft and hard power towards Central Asia, from where invasions have been mounted over centuries. The cessation of Pakistan as a state facilitates furtherance of this pivotal national objective."

It gets BIGGER than Pakistan though and Verma write another article in which he lets it slip that the dance, seemingly between Pakistan and India is actually a switch up dance in which the real adversary is China:

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/n...ese-threat.htm

Some more paranoia from Verma: "Hence, it is in India's national interest to synergise with the West in Af-Pak to benefit from resource rich Central Asia and deny the centuries's old route of invasion to the adversary."

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 4: What does the above mean for Afghanistan?

Think US - Soviet relations. Most of us were young during that time but recall the paranoia.

Well, Mike Scheuer wrote about this same issue a few years ago:
"Pakistani generals also worry that India’s growing and deliberately flamboyant military ties with Israel—that the Pakistani media call the ‘Indo-Israeli nexus’—means the two countries are working together to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear capability, and will use Afghanistan as a base from which to do so. ‘We have strong evidence,’ a Pakistani foreign ministry official said in March, 2010, ‘[that India] is using Afghanistan against Pakistan’s interests and do destabilize Pakistan.’ Now none of this need be true, of course. But it clearly is how the Pakistanis perceive the intent of India’s presence in Afghanistan. And perception is always reality."

"Pakistan’s perception has been encouraged—perhaps unwisely—by Indian officials and pundits. Granting that there’s Good Samaritan-ism in India’s activities in Afghanistan, New Delhi is far from blind to the strategic advantages accruing from its Afghan involvement. Indeed, the advantages are continuously outlined in the Indian media. The Zaranj-Delaram road mentioned above, for example, has been identified as a means to hurt Pakistan’s economy by giving Afghan exports access to the sea through Iran without transiting Pakistani territory and ports."

He goes on to note:
"A good deal of the Indian media portrays India’s activities in Afghanistan as successfully winning Afghan hearts and minds and building a long-term welcome for India. This is unlikely. If the Afghans have little materially, they do possess a prodigious historical memory and recall that India fully backed the murderous Soviet occupation (1979-1989) and then the Afghan communist regime until it fell in April 1992. This knowledge will be especially fresh among all mujahedin who fought the Soviets—and believed Indian pilots flew combat missions against them—but most intense among the Taliban-led Afghan Pashtuns whose war against Ahmed Shah Masood and his Northern Alliance was prolonged and made more costly by generous Indian aid to Masood."

^^^^^^^^^
Pause here to think about the fact that if the goal of a government is to provide stability; how does Karzai repeatedly doing things to screw with neighbors, who them escalate their own proxy wars, which then result in more innocent Afghans killed justify selling off the country parcel by parcel bit by bit?

I wrote here about how Karzai did the same thing vis a vis Iran a few months ago:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthr...an+drone+beast

So basically, what this strategy does is create the same situation for countries to do exactly what Kennedy did when Soviets began to store missiles in Cuba. Kennedy near took the world to the highest defcon level and almost initiated nuclear war...

Once again, that is why strategic balancing, while a country is occupied, is as foolish a strategy as strategic depth.

No matter how many times Afghan Technocrats and Karzai swear that they mean peace and that they will not allow Afghanistan to be utilized as a launching pad for efforts against neighbors, both Commander Vermas articles and the episode with the Iranian captured Beast of Kandahar prove that they have no power to dictate what the "balanced" powers do on their turf.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Additionally, its now accepted that soft power and hegemony are to be discussed as linked concepts.

[Friend]

If India steals Afghan resources, or anyone for that matter, obviously they are wrong. But I was speaking in general terms, that if India or Australia, as I said, wish to invest and both sides have mutual interests, it should be encouraged. For some members, such as ShadowGovenor, this is rocket science and will result in Buddha statutes on the corner as he said to my IF statement.

If India wishes to invest, and Afghanistan is gaining benefits from it as well, there is no problem. It's up to a proper government to decide when it's in the interest of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we lack a strong government.

Well I have no problem if any other country invests in Pashtoons land but not India. I don't know why are you giving too much stress on Indian investment ? Why not China, Arab countries, East Asian countries or any other though these countries are more capable of investing in more sectors.
Why I am against India is because we know their mentality, their purpose of investment will not to provide jobs to the locals but they will have their own political and strategic motives which could be very dangerous for Pashtuns and the neighbour countries. In reaction the nieghbour countries will resist and at the end the Afghan people will suffer. India has got no border with Afghanistan, no cultural ties, no religious affiliation, no historic and no any other relation with Afghanistan except for the support to the northern allience that is why there is nothing to justify Indian investment in Afghanistan where we have so many other options.

[randolph85]

they were legitimate government so they could.
since they saw that it was a rip off they withdrew.

karzai has been brought in by special forces with his Unocal entrance pass still in his pocket.You dont need to be talib supporter per se to be Afghan patriot.
offcourse as i can see to you guys being Afghan patriot means something way different ,matter of fact the opposite of anything that is called patriotism.

@Admin
calling someone son is not insult ,it is normal for Afghan guys calling eachother,you should have known.

as for the reason why GOE was banned,it would be wise of you to not even ask that question.
me and you know why GOE got banned and it didnt have to do with my "ill manners".
im not disharted by you saying that you dont want to talk to me,matter of fact it is good for you that you dont because im have done my homework.
so iam a liar for saying im not GOE? the fact is im not GOE but Shadowgoverner.You are offocurse not a liar when you call real legitimate Pashtuns as puppets of isi.thats gigantic.
btw im not moved by your threats and insults.


NOW LETS STAY ON TOPIC AND NOT MAKE IT ABOUT ME BY PERSONAL ATTACKS.

MY FIRST COMMENT WAS TWO LINES OF THE POETRY OF NARAJ GUL THE POET IS EZATULLAH ZAWAB.

so for you, being the legitimate government allows the taliban to have financial dealings with an intensely anti islamic leaning america? mind you, this is at a time when american sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands of iraqis, supporting the israeli occupation, and had soldiers stationed just outside the 2 holy cities.

i suppose you would be fine with the taliban doing business with israel too at this rate.

[randolph85]

Well I have no problem if any other country invests in Pashtoons land but not India. I don't know why are you giving too much stress on Indian investment ? Why not China, Arab countries, East Asian countries or any other though these countries are more capable of investing in more sectors.
Why I am against India is because we know their mentality, their purpose of investment will not to provide jobs to the locals but they will have their own political and strategic motives which could be very dangerous for Pashtuns and the neighbour countries. In reaction the nieghbour countries will resist and at the end the Afghan people will suffer. India has got no border with Afghanistan, no cultural ties, no religious affiliation, no historic and no any other relation with Afghanistan except for the support to the northern allience that is why there is nothing to justify Indian investment in Afghanistan where we have so many other options.

the 2 biggest players in afghan investment will be the chinese and the indians. i love how you can just brush aside what will be the worlds 2nd biggest economy in a few decades. see how ignoring them will be for your country.

the purpose of investment is to make money, i don't know if you understand that.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

the 2 biggest players in afghan investment will be the chinese and the indians. i love how you can just brush aside what will be the worlds 2nd biggest economy in a few decades. see how ignoring them will be for your country.

the purpose of investment is to make money, i don't know if you understand that.

Friend is EMkhan ..and EMKhan is from Pakaistan ...that might give you some clues on his idiotic perspective

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well I have no problem if any other country invests in Pashtoons land but not India. I don't know why are you giving too much stress on Indian investment ? Why not China, Arab countries, East Asian countries or any other though these countries are more capable of investing in more sectors.
Why I am against India is because we know their mentality, their purpose of investment will not to provide jobs to the locals but they will have their own political and strategic motives which could be very dangerous for Pashtuns and the neighbour countries. In reaction the nieghbour countries will resist and at the end the Afghan people will suffer. India has got no border with Afghanistan, no cultural ties, no religious affiliation, no historic and no any other relation with Afghanistan except for the support to the northern allience that is why there is nothing to justify Indian investment in Afghanistan where we have so many other options.

Neighbor countries will resist? WHICH NEIGHBOR countries? ...Oh right Pakistan ......who has themselves used Afghanistan for their agenda, sent proxies to murder Afghan civilians and want to control and regulate over Afghanistan's international affairs

The only reason India supported the Northern Alliance is because Pakistan supports the Taliban, once the Taliban issue is over and done with, that's all the past.

We have centuries of historical connections with India, even Pakistan is just an extension of India; it's just an extension that has done us more harm than good. India's advanced science and developing technological sector can do us TREMENDOUS good. We NEED those.

The only reason you're against India, is because you Lobby for Pakistan's agenda, you're Pakistan's khadim lol

[RevolutionThroughReason]

i don't know why talib supporters are up in arms about this summit when the taliban had no problem traveling to america to mull over pipeline proposals.

That's obvious, because Pakistan would have had a "cut" of that profit


Shadowgoverner

EmKhan/Friend

are really just lobbyists for Pakistani interests. ....

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Neighbor countries will resist? WHICH NEIGHBOR countries? ...Oh right Pakistan ......who has themselves used Afghanistan for their agenda, sent proxies to murder Afghan civilians and want to control and regulate over Afghanistan's international affairs

The only reason India supported the Northern Alliance is because Pakistan supports the Taliban, once the Taliban issue is over and done with, that's all the past.

We have centuries of historical connections with India, even Pakistan is just an extension of India; it's just an extension that has done us more harm than good. India's advanced science and developing technological sector can do us TREMENDOUS good. We NEED those.

The only reason you're against India, is because you Lobby for Pakistan's agenda, you're Pakistan's khadim lol

Read Verma's article form the Indian Defence Journal. While in agreement with you that Pakistan has its own hegemony, evidenced by Zia Haq's own ramblings about how Pakistan "earned" the right to direct Kabul - while forgetting that millions of Afghans gave the actual sacrifice - to say that India's involvement was merely responsive is ahistorical. India's ties to the USSR were overt and not hidden ones and as Verma notes, the Indian military heirarchy's own view of Central asia is that hard power follows soft power.

I previously did respect your all parties are guilty stance as it was much more autonomous.

Based on this brand of logic then, the US is also justified with its presence and was justified in its presence per the USSR interference patterns?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the 2 biggest players in afghan investment will be the chinese and the indians. i love how you can just brush aside what will be the worlds 2nd biggest economy in a few decades. see how ignoring them will be for your country.

the purpose of investment is to make money, i don't know if you understand that.

Once again, read India's defence establishment issues with China. Its naive to assume that India and China march hand in hand friend to friend. They are actually at odds and the Indian establishment has labeled Pakistan as a Sino agent.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

so for you, being the legitimate government allows the taliban to have financial dealings with an intensely anti islamic leaning america? mind you, this is at a time when american sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands of iraqis, supporting the israeli occupation, and had soldiers stationed just outside the 2 holy cities.

i suppose you would be fine with the taliban doing business with israel too at this rate.

Read the Salon article detailing Atef's documentation of the proceedings. Its well known that Khalilzad and Karzai were Unocol affiliates and that they also sent out the feelers, perhaps for development purposes. As the Salon article notes, the Taliban met and did not agree with the terms. Therefore, threats started to emanate from DC.

Moreover, if such logic applies to the US, it also applies to India's own treatment of its native Muslim populations and the atrocities (done by both sides though) in Kashmir. China itself has Uighar issues as well and enjoys Russia's crushing of istan rebellions one by one.

So if you were stand on this stance, ie. to justify the soft power introduction on a moral religious standpoint, you would be back at square one as once again Talibs appear to have nixed the deal.

[JattApache]

I can't understand why Goe ( shadowgoverner, the hypocrite who deny to be Goe but IS Goe ) is so against india ?
He says nothing when pakistanis indirectly offense and intervene in afghanistan.
I noticed that this hypocrite is very racist against hindus, he should know that India is a Secular country , there are 150,000,000 muslims in india.

If India invests in afghanistan, it's for the interests of the afghans, pakistan will never invest in afghanistan like that, they only want to dominating afghanistan
Because we all know that a Powerful afghanistan, is not good for pakistan
The enemy of our enemy is our friend

[randolph85]

Read the Salon article detailing Atef's documentation of the proceedings. Its well known that Khalilzad and Karzai were Unocol affiliates and that they also sent out the feelers, perhaps for development purposes. As the Salon article notes, the Taliban met and did not agree with the terms. Therefore, threats started to emanate from DC.

Moreover, if such logic applies to the US, it also applies to India's own treatment of its native Muslim populations and the atrocities (done by both sides though) in Kashmir. China itself has Uighar issues as well and enjoys Russia's crushing of istan rebellions one by one.

So if you were stand on this stance, ie. to justify the soft power introduction on a moral religious standpoint, you would be back at square one as once again Talibs appear to have nixed the deal.

that was my initial point, and not my stance. i am not opposed to business dealings with most national entities, i was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the talib supporters here in which its ok to do business with one anti islamic country but not another and when called out on it, the argument shifts to "well they were the legit government, they can do business with whoever they want" and then ridiculous suggestions such as not dealing with india.