By Nick Allen Dec 28, 2006, 11:36 GMT
Islamabad - Amid growing US concern that Pakistan has allowed safe havens for al-Qaeda and the Taliban on its territory, a controversial tribal peace deal favouring the militants is coming under fire.
At the end of a year that saw a fierce resurgence of Taliban attacks in neighbouring Afghanistan, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher named the presence of the militants in the tribal belt by the border as 'one of the key items' on Washington's agenda.
'The Taliban have been able to use these areas for sanctuary and for command and control and regrouping and supply,' Pakistani media quoted Boucher as saying this week.
The focus of the criticism is a September 5 treaty between Pakistan's government and pro-Taliban tribal leaders in North Waziristan, a barren part of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) that for centuries was self-ruled by jirgas, or councils of elders.
Under its terms, the government agreed to abandon military operations and release prisoners in exchange for promises that the militants would cease cross-border attacks into Afghanistan and disarm foreign terrorists in their midst.
The insurgents and government forces ceased hostilities. But the deal's architect, NWFP governor Lt. General Ali Mohammed Jan Aurakzai, in December questioned tribal leaders over continuing infiltration into Afghanistan and the presence of foreign militants.
But the governor is not expected to reverse his stance on the treaty. Concerning the greater conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan, he said he believes in talking with the militants rather than increasing NATO forces to fight them.
'Bring 50,000 more troops and fight for 10 to 15 years more and you won't resolve it, Aurakzai recently told British media. 'There will be no military solution, there has to be a political solution.'
Meanwhile, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf insists that no one is striking deals directly with the Taliban, and that the agreement with tribal elders was aimed at isolating the enemy.
'We have to go for a multi-pronged approach of military action against the militants and also wean away the population from getting on their side,' he said in the United States before meeting President George Bush in September.
But experts doubt there is a clear delineation on the ground.
'When the government engages in a peace deal it makes sure that the militants' representatives are present along with the tribal elders,' said defence analyst Talat Masood, a retired general of the Pakistani army.
US troops patrolling the Afghan border claim the insurgents train, recruit and run armaments and logistics depots in Pakistan and even enjoy the support of Pakistani army units - a charge hotly denied by Islamabad. In the latest step to prove its commitment to sealing infiltration routes, Pakistan's government announced that it will fence and mine selected stretches of the frontier.
But in the absence of improvements under the peace deal, calls are mounting in the United States for action against the militants' sanctuaries.
'Action must be taken against Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Pakistan before spring, when another major offensive against US and NATO forces can be expected unless the enemy bases and supply lines are disrupted,' The Washington Post wrote on December 21.
However, direct US military action may only boost support for the Taliban in the ethnic Pashtun tribal belt, as well as fuel broader resentment towards Musharraf, who is a key ally in the US-led war on terror.
On October 30, a US drone rocketed a madrassa religious school in the NWFP town of Bajaur, killing more than 80 people. Fearing a backlash, Pakistani authorities took the blame for the attack and refuted reports that many civilians died, saying the school was a militant training centre.
Notably, the attack coincided with the planned signing of another peace treaty in South Waziristan. Amid outrage at the Bajaur strike, the agreement was abandoned.
Defence analyst Masood said he did not expect further unilateral action by US or NATO forces in the tribal areas, noting that Islamabad still had useful leverage from the treaty.
'Pakistan's government is trying to put pressure on the elders and leaders of the militants, that if they do not comply then it would have to revert to the military operation,' he said.
Your Talkback on this Story