Resuming Afghan peace talks CENJOWS 07 Oct 19
https://cenjows.gov.in/article-detail?id=215
Resuming Afghan peace talks CENJOWS 07 Oct 19
The Taliban leadership, under Mullah Baradar, was in Islamabad last week at the invitation of the Pak government. Receiving them at the venue for talks was the country’s foreign minister and DG ISI. The warmth in the reception indicated the proximity and control that Pakistan retains over the Taliban. The Pak government is desperate to re-kickstart the talks. A press release by Pak stated that both, Pakistan and Taliban, called for resumption of talks between the US and the Taliban. The Pakistani leadership is of the view that in case it can facilitate peace talks, it will be a major diplomatic victory and enhance their standing in the eyes of the US, while securing their western borders.
There were also reports in the Pak media that the Taliban leadership met Imran Khan in the presence of General Bajwa and discussed future strategies for resuming peace talks. This was reported by the BBC and Pak press. Subsequently, Imran’s personal assistant denied the same and the report vanished from Pak media networks, where it was originally published. The meeting reports are possibly correct, however were removed because it would have indicated the involvement of the Pakistan national leadership in supporting terrorist groups in the region.
It was also reported that the Taliban had a discussion with Khalilzad, the former US special representative for talks, who was also in Islamabad at the same time. The meeting lasted for about an hour. A Pak official stated, ‘The Taliban officials held a meeting with Zalmay Khalilzad…all I can tell you is that Pakistan played a big role in it to convince them how important it was for the peace process.’ He added that the meeting did not involve formal negotiations on the peace process but was aimed at building confidence.
Trump had called off earlier peace talks at the final stage, just prior to holding separate meetings with the Taliban and Afghan leadership at Camp David as a prelude to signing the agreement, negotiated by Khalilzad. The reason was continued attacks by the Taliban in Kabul, seeking to enhance pressure on the US. The Indian foreign minister, Jaishankar, stated after his visit to the US that Afghanistan and peace in the country was discussed during his visit and inputs made available to him were not for public consumption.
The US thus is working on a strategy to push peace forward. In an interaction with the press last week, Trump stated that post the calling of the talks, the US has been ‘hitting’ the Taliban hard. If this is correct, then there is a requirement to reassess the US’s Afghan strategy.
The US made multiple mistakes the last time Khalilzad led the talks. It cannot repeat them again and continue with a failing strategy. It ignored the Afghan government, throughout the process, conveying to the Taliban that they are not in the picture, despite penning in the draft agreement that intra-Afghan talks would commence post the signing of the accord.
Throughout the entire discussions, Khalilzad towed the Taliban line and discredited the Afghan leadership. Simultaneously, the US kept harping that the talks should be ‘Afghan led, Afghan owned,’ a statement which it refused to follow. It also permitted the Taliban to continue launching its offensives in the country.
The second blunder which the US made was providing all guarantees for their withdrawal and accepting none from the Taliban on their not resorting to violence during intra-Afghan talks and not supporting terror groups on their coming to power or sharing the national leadership with the Afghan government. This gave the Taliban unbridled power to break the agreement at will.
The third blunder was banking on Pakistan to push the Taliban into talks, ignoring the fact that Pak has its own agenda, and this has nothing to do with peace in the country. Apart from hosting Afghan refugees, Pak has not contributed in any way towards assisting in Afghanistan. They have only claimed that they lost 70,000 lives in the ‘Global War on Terror,’ a statement which has never been substantiated. Further, its losses have been due to attacks by the Pakistan Taliban (TTP) which rose to limelight post the Pak army’s flawed attack on the Lal Masjid and not due to the US led war in Afghanistan.
On the contrary, Pakistan has been hiding the Taliban in Quetta. All actions by the Taliban have the blessings of the ISI. The proximity between the Pak leadership and the Taliban was evident in Islamabad last week. The Taliban leadership, housed in Quetta, coordinates talks with one hand while directing violence in Afghanistan by the other. Thus, the pressure on the US by continuing strikes was being done under guidance of the Pak ISI. Hence, by moving forward on talks with the assistance of Pak would be repeating a blunder.
Finally, it had boiled down to talks concerning US withdrawal. This implied that the US had accepted defeat and was seeking a safe withdrawal. It was the opposite of what was meant to be conveyed. This led to the Taliban sending messages to its rank and file on victory over the US, post the conclusion of the last round of talks. Such a message also conveyed a victory for the ISI, which desperately wanted the US out and the Taliban in.
In brief, Khalilzad was handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban on a platter, ignoring the wishes of the Afghan people and announcing to the world that the US has lost and is withdrawing in defeat.
Presently, the Taliban is at a loss. It has neither firmed its present strategy nor can convince its fighters that the victory it claimed was hastily judged. It may also be losing fighters to the ISIS. Finally, it has caused panic in Pakistan and hence the desperation from both sides to resume talks.
If the US is serious for peace in Afghanistan, rather than its own withdrawal as a priority, then it needs to change tack and engage with the Taliban, not from a position of weakness, as Khalilzad had done in his earlier engagements, but from a position of equality or strength. Khalilzad had throughout the process towed a line which degraded Afghanistan and its government, while accepting the power of the Taliban. The US, from the outset, must lay down clear preconditions to the Taliban.
These should include the following. Firstly, the US is only a facilitator, while the talks should be held between the Taliban and the new Afghan government. This implies that the final agreement is not aimed to justify a US withdrawal but to create an environment of peace within the country.
Secondly, the Taliban will announce a ceasefire prior to commencement of talks. Any violation of the ceasefire would imply that the Taliban does not desire peace and hence, the talks can be called off. Thirdly, withdrawal of US troops would only commence post the signing of the deal and the establishment of a government (power sharing) based on the deal. Fourthly, the talks would not be held in a neutral country but in Kabul. This will ensure that there are no Taliban attacks in Kabul. Finally, Pakistan and its ISI should not be in any manner involved, nor should Khalilzad brief them on the progress.
Trump by nominating Khalilzad earlier had possibly asked him to get a deal to ensure US withdrawal. The strategy failed. It cannot reinforce the same failed strategy. Its calling of the talks did cause panic within the Taliban leadership, which had expected to be gifted Afghanistan. It should now press home the advantage. It cannot ditch the people of Afghanistan only because of its rush to withdraw. Backing down now would make Afghanistan the second Saigon for the US. It now has the upper hand and should hold onto it.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army