The Use of Term 'Afpak' in American Circles

[Note: The Balochistan Province of Pakistan borders both Balochistan-Sistan Province in Iran, and Afghanistan, with familial ties historically transcending these borders.]

We have been hearing the term, “Afpak”, used recently in U.S. circles, referring to a combination of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan and Afghanistan are separate countries, with separate realities; however, use of the term, “Afpak”, implies that the U.S. has begun to think of the two countries as one, sharing a common land. We oppose the use of this term.

It is true that some Afghani tribes live on both sides of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Family members cross borders, from Afghanistan to Pakistan and from Pakistan to Afghanistan, to visit and perhaps help relatives, traditions rooted in history.

Richard Holbrook is the U.S. special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan. A new U.S. policy, regarding Afghanistan, is under consideration. We need to prepare for headaches from this new U.S. Afghanistan policy; it will demand that, for drone strikes to end, Pakistan must take actions against the colonies living around:

• FATA [The Federally Administered Tribal Areas, areas outside the four provinces, bordering Afghanistan, comprising a region of some 27220 km²] and

• Quetta [provincial capital of Balochistan,which borders Afghanistan and Iran]

Emulating U.S. style, Britain and Germany have also appointed special representatives for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Currently, the U.S. is calling for support for the initiation of bilateral talks with moderate elements of the Taliban, and President Barack Obama is offering an olive branch to Iran. Although Pakistan has yet to hear of complaints from Iran, Iran is offering complaints about the Jindullah [an insurgent Sunni Islamic organization] within the Pakistani border. And who is backing Jindullah? The finger points to the U.S., because of its agenda regarding Pakistani and Iranian Balochistan.

Some time ago, UN representative [stationed in Quetta], John Solecki, was kidnapped by the Balochistan Liberation United Front (BLUF). Although the Balochistan Liberation Army, itself, is very old, this organization, the BLUF, is completely new, first coming to light in the kidnapping of Solecki.

Recently, former Pakistani President, Parvez Musharraf, visited India. In defense of the Pakistani Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan, he expressed the belief that the world should know of activities in Afghanistan being undertaken by the Indian embassies in Jalalabad and Khandahar, as well as the use of the embassies by RAW (the Indian secret service). The former Pakistani President has received no reply.

Secret service agencies, RAW of India, the Mossad of Israel, and the U.S. CIA have a presence in Afghanistan, with strong ties among them, providing a logical explanation for the disharmony and rebellious activities currently witnessed in Balochistan. The losses thus engendered will be Western losses.

Outfits, such as the BLUF, are using secret service agency training and assistance provided in Afghanistan, to conduct activities, such as the kidnapping of John Solecki. Although no relationship exists between outfits, such as the BLUF, and the Pakistani government, pressure is on and demands have been made; thus, the government and the army are engaged in seeking the return of John Solecki.

These questions must be answered: Why are the RAW of India, the Mossad of Israel, and the U.S. CIA playing these questionable games? Why are Pakistan and Iran being victimized in these vicious games centering on Balochistan?

These questions are for U.S. President Obama, who is engaged in planning new policies regarding Afghanistan, while his strategists endeavor to represent Pakistan and Afghanistan as one and the same entity by using the term “Afpak”. Shouldn’t they be made aware of the mistakes they are making?