The arrival in Pakistan of Deputy US Secretary of State John Negroponte and his Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher at a time when the nascent government is undergoing the process of transformation has met with stern criticism. Analysts say that the diplomats came to personally observe this significant political situation in Pakistan and want to influence the decision-makers as well as to solidify the position of President Pervez Musharraf without whom war on terror could not be handled according to the US wishes. Denying this impression, Negroponte said their visit had been arranged eight weeks ago and the US wanted to work mutually with the new government. However, leaders of the new government clearly told the US diplomats that no more bombings would be tolerated and that the country's policy as an ally of war on terrorism would be reviewed. The new coalition government of Pakistan believes in opening channels of communication with militants. Negroponte partially supported this view, but had reservations. There are some elements with whom it's impossible to have negotiations, he said. Well, this seems a quite peaceful and positive approach to open channels of communication with militants. But the question arises as to how this would be implemented? Militants would not trust Pakistan Peoples Party's policy of soft approach since its assassinated leader Benazir Bhutto had taken a tough stand against militancy when she returned to Pakistan. However, Nawaz Sharif spoke clearly against the US policy of bombing Pakistani territories. But, since Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) is in coalition with PPP, it is also not trustworthy to militants. Many similar previous peace efforts have failed. For instance, militants continued their suicide attacks immediately after polling process despite the fact that secret meetings were held between the military and militant leader Baitullah Mehsud. He had differences with many militant groups. He differs with militants of Bajaur and Swat, who do not obey his orders. Hence, if the new coalition government is willing to open dialogue with militants then who would be the second party since there is no central figure among the militants and no umbrella organization. Militants had come from south and north Waziristan and spread to Swat and other tribal regions. It would be difficult to have settlements on the same conditions with the extremists and Talebans of south Waziristan, north Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat. Yet the picture has changed in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. People have chosen a liberal Awami National Party (ANP) instead of the religious Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). Although ANP mentioned that it believes in opening channels of communication with tribal militants, but it is also a known fact that it took tough stand against extremism long ago. Therefore, tribal militants are not pleased with ANP victory. During the Afghan war ANP supported the invading army of Russia against Mujahideen. It did not have any relations with Taleban after they took over Afghanistan. Yet, ANP has good relations with the present government of Hamid Karzai. But militants do not have such a good relation with the new ANP government. Suppose all these difficulties are removed and the new government opens negotiations with militants and Taleban on a single platform, will parliament pass a clemency bill for Mehsud, who has been accused of involvement in Bhutto's murder? Another important thing to be considered here is whether the new government would be able to openly go against the US by inviting militants for a dialogue since the Bush administration has financially supported it a lot in the name of war on terror. US has said time and again that it wants to help Pakistan economically. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte stated that US wants to help Pakistan in social sector and wishes to develop its tribal areas. US believes that it is important to pressurize militants through constant military operations. Given these scenarios, the best way for the new government is to keep both the military and dialogue options open. It should open talks with militants, but without any commitments. If the militants try to play tricks, then the military option should be used. __
