Home / Articles / Afghan Peace Process: Pulls and Pushes

Afghan Peace Process: Pulls and Pushes

US and Afghan Taliban Negotiation

The US and Afghan Taliban negotiators wrapped up their latest round of marathon peace talks on March 12 with “real strides” made but no agreement on a timetable for troop withdrawal, the US special envoy Ambassador  Zalmay Khalilzad said. He divulged that the next step would be discussions in Washington, adding that “there is no final agreement until everything is agreed”. The talks spanned 16 days, which is the longest consecutive discussions held between both sides. It is unclear as yet when the next round of talks will take place. Taliban’s chief negotiator has also acknowledged progress.

The talks focused on the withdrawal of US troops and assurances that insurgents would not use Afghanistan’s territory to stage future attacks. “Progress was achieved regarding both these issues,” said a Taliban spokesperson. “For now, both sides will deliberate over the achieved progress, share it with their respective leaderships and prepare for the upcoming meeting.”

Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Maleeha Lodhi, has stated that ongoing troubles with India in Kashmir are diluting Pakistan’s attention and influence in Afghan peace process. “The current crisis between Pakistan and India will obviously mean that Pakistan will have to put its full focus on its eastern border and it could affect what it is trying to do on the front with Afghanistan,” Maleeha Lodhi told Fox News.

“In other words, our full focus is going to be on the eastern frontier rather than the western front and that could affect the peace process.Our attention is going to be where we feel there is a military threat to us.” Pakistan believes that real threat is from the Indian border.

Zalmay Khalilzad has held a series of meetings with senior Taliban officials including Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, younger brother of erstwhile Taliban Supremo Mullah Umar who heads Taliban’s Doha office in Qatar. Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban was released last year from a Pakistani prison. His lead role in the talks with Khalilzad is considered significant because of his important role within the Taliban. His appointment is widely seen as a fresh effort by the Taliban to emerge from the political and diplomatic shadows. Baradar gave the opening address, met with all the US and Qatari officials.

Afghan Peace Process: Pulls and Pushes
Afghan Peace Process: Pulls and Pushes

These talks mark the highest level negotiations between the two sides since the US ramped up peace efforts last year. General Scott Miller, the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has also attended at least some of the talks.  And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has suggested he could visit Doha to help advance the negotiations “in a couple (of) weeks”. Notwithstanding, on March 07, General Joseph Votel, head of US Central Command, said the military has received no directions yet to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Taliban have once again denied that they were discussing a ceasefire and dialogue with the Kabul government during ongoing talks with the US, contrary to statements from Washington. Earlier US State Department spokesman Robert Palladino had affirmed the opposite. “What we’re focusing on are the four interconnected issues that are going to compose any future agreement”, Palladino said — terrorism, troop withdrawal, intra-Afghan dialogue and ceasefire.

The path to peace doesn’t often run in a straight line.  Situation in Afghanistan is complex and like all sensitive talks, not everything is conducted in public. Sources close to the Taliban said details of the negotiations will not be announced unless the two sides reach a conclusion on some disputed topics, including a timeline for withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and the assurance by the Taliban that Afghanistan’s territory is not used as a threat against interests of any other country. Afghan government worries that Washington could negotiate an abrupt pull-out in their absence, leaving communities that opposed the Taliban in danger and imperilling reforms.

General Joseph Votel told the House Armed Services Committee that the political conditions of where we are in the reconciliation right now don’t merit ‘withdrawal’.  He pointed out that “Afghan government troops are not yet ready to stand on their own.  Therefore withdrawal decisions have to be based more on conditions than specific times and must “pivot off political progress.”  He advised that any decision to reduce forces in Afghanistan should be done in full consultation with other coalition partners and the government of Afghanistan.

US Troop Withdrawal

US troop withdrawal and counter terrorism assurances by Taliban are the main issues under discussion. While these two agenda items are significant, neither is simple and neither are they sufficient to achieve piece. These are moves in a chess game that has run for quite some time. The US troop withdrawal has long been the Taliban’s priority, and that desire dovetails with President Trump’s apparently similar hope to withdraw US troops. In December in the aftermath of Trump ordering the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, the US press reported on chatter within the White House that Trump wanted to do much the same in Afghanistan.

The last round in January had secured a broad framework agreement but few details on critical aspects of a cease-fire and withdrawal. US President Donald Trump had told Congress in February that he intended to reduce US forces from Afghanistan as negotiators make progress in talks with Taliban insurgents, saying: “Great nations do not fight endless wars.” And, “We have all the right people in the room on both sides.” Trump declared.

The US is pushing Taliban to meet with the Afghan government, which the group has so far snubbed, and to agree to a cease-fire ahead of its annual spring offensive. Taliban consider the Afghan government a puppet regime of the US and have refused direct talks. President Ashraf Ghani has, time and again, expressed frustration at being excluded from the negotiations.

According to President Ghani’s spokesman, Haroon Chakhansuri, main topics of the talks are withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, ensuring that Afghanistan’s territory is not used as a threat against any other country, a comprehensive ceasefire and direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. And, Taliban are likely to refrain talking on other issues if the two sides do not reach a conclusion about the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Maleeha Lodhi, has stated that ongoing troubles with India in Kashmir are diluting Pakistan’s attention and influence in Afghan peace process.

According to New York Times assessment of March 08, captioned “Afghan talks hinge on one question: What is terrorism?” More than a week after the US and the Taliban began another round of peace negotiations with high hopes, both sides are beginning to realize that their efforts will likely be complicated and frustratingly slow. Even the definitional issues regarding basic terms like terrorism have disagreements. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has complicated matters by saying that he considered the “Taliban themselves terrorists”. The peace effort and Taliban’s major attacks continue in tandem, in one such attack, Taliban fighters killed at least 23 Afghan security forces in an attack on Camp Shorab, a sprawling military base in Helmand.

While the Taliban continue to emphasize on the withdrawal of US forces, at the same time the group has stated that the Taliban would like to have friendly ties with the US and would want the US to come back and help build the country through reconstruction and development, which is a clear departure from their previous views. Taliban are certainly making a conscious effort to resolve the conflict, for which they need appreciation.

About admin

Check Also


New Zealand Massacre: ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis Stalks the World!

The horrific massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand on 15th March, Friday 2019 has shaken the World. The killer, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, is an Australian citizen. Nearly 50 People died in the attack as two mosques were attacked. Those killed include nine from India. Tarrant had fixed the camera on his head so as to live stream the massacre. What prompted him to undertake this violence was his ideology which holds that today Europe is facing the threat of Muslim immigration and violence. The Christchurch terrorist was consumed by intense racism and hatred of Muslims. He posted a long statement, “manifesto” on ‘white nationalism’ before undertaking the dastardly act. All over the World there were diverse reactions to this horrific act. New Zealand Prime Minster Jacinda Ardern, who at 38 years of age is also among the youngest heads of government in the world, declared that the victims, many of whom may be migrants or refugees, “are us” and the shooter “is not”. The overriding theme of the Prime Minister’s statements was that her country represents “diversity, compassion and refuge”. “I want to assure people… that all our agencies are responding in the most appropriate way that includes at our borders.” The Pope in a very touching speech said, “In these days, in addition to the pain of wars and conflicts that do not cease to afflict humanity, there have been the victims of the horrible attack against two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand… I am close to our Muslim brothers and all that community… ”Today we are facing the times where American politics of control over oil wells led to the formations like Al Qaeda and after 9/11 twin tower attacks; US media popularized the phrase Islamic terrorism. What we are witnessing today is the fall out of the policy which has been pursued to control oil wealth. The aftermath of this has been the White Nationalism which has resulted in Islam-Muslim phobia, which needs to be countered ideologically by promoting the inherent global tendency of alliance between diverse cultures. What is noteworthy is that there is strong parallels between Breivik’s manifesto and ideology of Hindu nationalism – or Hindutva – on the question of nature of Islam—Muslims and coexistence with Muslims. Much like European mainstream rightwing parties BJP in India does condemn the violence for name sake but does not condemn the underlying ideology which is based on Islam phobia.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *