The difficult, tortuous peace process in Afghanistan through talks between the US and the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, has come to an abrupt and unexpected halt. At this point, it is difficult to say whether the talks have been permanently halted or will begin again. To recount how things have reached this pass, we need to review the talks process and its ups and downs.
While US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has held nine (and the recent half) rounds of talks with the Taliban in Doha, he has been at pains to retain an optimistic outlook and present the results of these parleys as almost a done deal. Ah, but that 'almost' has finally caught up with him and the draft agreement he has prepared in collaboration with his Taliban interlocutors.
US President Donald Trump has been unusually quiet on the issue during recent days, despite his very public views on the futility of the 18-year-old US war in Afghanistan and his desire, as a candidate and incumbent president, to quit before his 2020 re-election bid. One reason for this uncharacteristic silence may have been the moves afoot behind the scenes to arrange a meeting of Trump with the Taliban at the president's Camp David retreat, alongside a separate meeting with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, perhaps in the hope of direct or proximity talks between Ghani and the Taliban. The latter's visit was reportedly postponed by Washington after Zalmay Khalilzad failed to persuade Ghani to support the draft agreement. After a spate of attacks by the Taliban in recent days in the western provinces of Afghanistan and back-to-back attacks in Kabul that also killed a US soldier, Trump cancelled the Taliban meeting, citing concerns about the Taliban's sincerity in delivering on their commitments. The Khalilzad plan rested on a phased process of an agreement between the US and the Taliban on US troop withdrawals in exchange for guarantees from the Taliban that Afghan soil would never again be used for attacks on the US or its allies a la 9/11. The Taliban's strategy of fighting while talking, however, and the casualties it was inflicting, raised serious questions about the ultimate goals and intent of the Taliban. Their refusal to talk to the Afghan government, which they dismiss as a US 'puppet', threw a dark cloud over what might ensue after the US forces departed.
Now US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has declared the talks dead for the moment. Some reports underline concerns whether the talks can be restarted at all. Trump has put the onus for the breakdown squarely on the Taliban's seeming 'go for broke' (i.e. total seizure of power) intent. The Taliban in turn have blamed Trump for the debacle, saying the cancellation of talks has exposed the US's anti-peace stance, eroded its credibility and reliability, and will invite more loss of American lives. The last bit merely serves to put a lid (either temporary or permanent) on the talks process.
The inherent problem with the US approach to a negotiated settlement of the war has been that Trump has exposed his hand even before the process began, and continued to emphasise his desire to withdraw and end the war before the Taliban conceded anything. Knowing the US president's pressing desire for withdrawal strengthened the Taliban's negotiating posture as well as their will to press home the strategic advantage they have gained on the battlefield by now. From the Taliban's point of view, there was no compelling reason to abandon their successful military, political and diplomatic strategy. The only surprise in this, if any, is the naiveté of the US in not seeing through the thinly disguised Taliban thrust for a total takeover of power after the US withdraws.
After Trump's cancellation of the talks with the Taliban in Camp David, Zalmay Khalilzad has been recalled to Washington for consultations from his travels in Kabul, Doha and Brussels, in that order. If the future of the Doha talks is now uncertain, that has implications for Khalilzad's future too. Reports from time to time have revealed the schisms in Trump's administration over the agreement Khalilzad has been trying to hammer out. The Pentagon, State Department, National Security and any number of retired military and diplomatic experts have been warning for months that the US is conceding too much on the foundations of untrustworthy 'guarantees' by the Taliban negotiators. Those warnings seem finally to have hit home and persuaded Trump to put the brakes on. Now Pompeo has stated unequivocally that the US will not abandon its Afghan allies and will continue its (military) support of the Afghan government.
This breakdown and the Trump administration's statements in its wake point to the foreseeable future shape of things in the war-torn country. The fighting will continue, and perhaps intensify. The US command in Afghanistan may be persuaded to go on the offensive rather than its present seemingly defensive battlefield posture. If this prognosis is correct, the negotiating process will be one more step removed from a credible revival.
In the context of the breakdown of the talks and possible intensification of fighting inside Afghanistan, Pakistan has expressed its wish for a resumption of talks since there is no military solution to the conflict. Pakistan was persuaded to press the Taliban to engage in talks with the US after Trump, soon after taking office, withdrew aid to Pakistan and expressed his anger and frustration at what he saw as Pakistan's 'double-dealing' (being ostensibly allied with the US but surreptitiously supporting the Taliban with safe havens on its soil). Now Pakistan may come under enhanced direct and indirect (FATF, IMF) pressure to bring the Taliban back to the negotiating table with further concessions to the US and the Afghan government to ensure a successful negotiated peace. Whether Pakistan can deliver on this is an open question. But a continuation and threatened intensification of the Afghan war will negatively impact Pakistan in its quest for revival of its economy, a problem that promises ruction on a mass level. The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government, already under criticism for its inept and contradictory economic policies, will thereby be subjected to the political fallout domestically of the Afghan peace process's manifest failure.
[email protected]
rashed-rahman.blogspot.com
Comments
Comments are closed.