TALKS on Afghanistan without Pakistan are like playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. No instigation to anti-Americanism is intended, but there is a lot of disorientation in Washington's policy. On Wednesday, Defence Secretary Robert Gates welcomed the Afghan defence and interior ministers to turn bilateral what was originally a tripartite conference. Surely, there are better ways available for America to express its displeasure over the Raymond Davis affair. Pakistan's exclusion from security talks on Afghanistan's future seems to be stupefying and does not advance the cause dear to Washington — regional stability and a peaceful post-America Afghanistan. At the same time, a high-level American military team, which included Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm Mullen and Nato forces commander in Afghanistan Gen Petraeus, had a meeting with Gen Kayani in Muscat, with both sides pledging to “explore new ways to better coordinate military operations”.

Unlike its hurried disengagement with Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, America this time has repeatedly expressed its resolve to have a long-term relationship with this country. More economic and military aid to Pakistan has been pledged, and Obama administration officials continue to acknowledge from time to time the role Pakistan has played in the war on terror. Yet it is equally common to hear unpalatable remarks on 'safe havens' and Pakistan's purported failure to 'do more'. To sustain a long-term and mutually beneficial relationship, both sides need to resolve if not ignore passing irritants instead of allowing them to sour their relationship. Pakistan's exclusion from the Pentagon talks comes at a time when the Obama administration has started the negotiating process with the Taliban, and there are reports some militant leaders may be released from Guantanamo. Ultimately, there has to be a negotiated settlement if Afghanistan is to have peace after three decades of conflict, and this cannot be achieved without a goal-oriented unity of purpose between the four parties concerned — Washington, Kabul, Islamabad and the militant leadership on both sides of the Durand Line. This strategic aim is too important to be allowed to fall victim to a diplomatic incident.