Khalilzad’s Advice to Pakistan; Will Afghanistan’s Fate Repeat?
DID Press: Zalmay Khalilzad, former U.S. diplomat and chief negotiator with the Taliban in Afghanistan, has advised Pakistan to address the security threat posed by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) through political dialogue rather than military action. Analysts warn that this approach mirrors the U.S.-backed negotiation strategy in Afghanistan, which ultimately facilitated the Taliban’s rise and the collapse of the Ghani government.
Three Key Dimensions of the Challenge:
Negotiation Over Military Action: Khalilzad’s recommendation encourages Pakistan to engage in direct talks with the TTP, similar to the Afghanistan model. While intended to reduce violence, such negotiations risk legitimizing armed groups and strengthening their influence.
Afghanistan’s Precedent: Khalilzad’s negotiations with the Taliban politically legitimized the group, paving the way for their full takeover. The Afghan example illustrates that dialogue without effective oversight or enforcement mechanisms can dramatically shift power to militant actors.
U.S. Strategic Interests: The policy reflects a broader U.S. strategy of maintaining influence in Muslim-majority countries via indirect control. By negotiating with extremist groups, Washington can secure regional leverage without direct military intervention.
Potential Consequences for Pakistan:
Political legitimacy granted to TTP can weaken Pakistan’s central government in border regions.
Enhanced militant power may enable political and economic control in sensitive areas, replicating Afghanistan’s experience.
Without monitoring and guarantees, such negotiations can escalate local violence and undermine national security.
Strategic and Humanitarian Implications:
A negotiation-centered approach without proper safeguards may bolster militant networks, intensify local conflict, and create humanitarian crises. Given TTP’s ties to Afghan Taliban networks, Pakistan faces similar risks of destabilization and extremist influence.
Conclusion
While Khalilzad frames his advice as a pathway to peace, the Afghan precedent suggests potential pitfalls. Negotiating with armed groups without stringent oversight can empower militias, weaken state authority, and perpetuate regional instability. The U.S. approach in Afghanistan demonstrates how indirect influence through extremist groups can advance strategic interests at the expense of national governance. Pakistan now stands at a critical juncture, where unmonitored dialogue with TTP can jeopardize both security and state stability.
By Mohsen Mowahed – DID Press Agency