Lahore, Oct 7(ANI): Pakistan should have striven for becoming part of the strategic pact between Afghanistan and India, to make the agreement more comprehensive for lasting peace in the region, German Parliamentary State Secretary Gudrun Kopp has said.
The accord signed between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh outlined areas of common concern including trade, economic expansion, education, security and politics.
Talking to a selected group of media persons at the South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA), Kopp termed the Indo-Afghan agreement a good initiative, as US troops would leave Afghanistan by 2014.
One hopes that Pakistan will strive for becoming part of the security agreement, as inclusion of Islamabad in the agreement will be considered a real success for stability in the region, the Daily Times quoted the German Parliamentary State Secretary, as saying.
The inclusion of Pakistan in the strategic agreement would have helped de-escalate tension in the region, she said, adding that at the moment, Pakistan is not only feeling singled out, but is also viewing the agreement as hostile.
The Indo-Afghan pact came on the heels of former Afghan President and High Peace Council leader Burhanuddin Rabbani's assassination, and is widely being seen as a move that puts pressure on Pakistan to rein in militants and negotiate a peace settlement in Afghanistan.
On Thursday, Pakistan warned Afghanistan to behave responsibly in the wake of Kabul signing the strategic partnership agreement with India on Tuesday, at a particularly sensitive time in relations between the two countries.
"At this defining stage when challenges have multiplied, as have the opportunities, it is our expectation that everyone, especially those in position of authority in Afghanistan, will demonstrate requisite maturity and responsibility," Foreign Office spokeswoman Tehmina Janjua told reporters.
"This is no time for point-scoring, playing politics or grandstanding," she said in her weekly press briefing. (ANI)
|
Comments: