Afghanistan : Peace making or Power Wrestling

        US special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation talks with Taliban representatives resulted in remarkable movement, pregnant with positivity of the long suffering country but also of possible dangers that may cause deep and continuing instability.  Khalilzad, the special representative tweeted that the talks had secured “elements of progress on vital issues.”

He mentioned that no agreement was reached on a ceasefire and on the nature of the “intra Afghan” dialogue that would take place to move Afghanistan to peace and stability.  Special representative briefed President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah who lead the  National Unity Government (NUG)of  Afgan.

The US has agreed Taliban's key demand for the withdrawal of foreign forces.  On its part, Taliban has accepted the important US condition, that it would neither have any connection with international terrorist groups such as al-Qaida nor allow Afghanistan’s territory to be used by such organizations. The Taliban agreement to break contacts with al-Qaida is not surprising because Taliban was always an Afghanistan oriented group. 

While the  National Unity Government (NUG) needs to appoint a credible negotiating team and reach out of all sections of Afghan political opinion,  it should not be bypassed,  they would set the clock back.  Taliban have not agreed to a ceasefire.  when presidential elections be held,  the group and NUG, or its successor, can be locked in armed  struggle for control, while a  dialogue is on.

Some US commentators warn that Trump could withdraw US forces even without an agreemen with Taliban.  He is emphasising that important regional countries should shoulder the burden of creating stable conditions in Afghanistan instead of the US which is 6,000 miles away.  If a US forces withdrawal of this kind takes place, it may precipitate a general lack of confidence in the already  tenuous Afghan policy plunging the country greater violence and instability.

While war and negotiations can go along simultaneously it makes dialogue very difficult to sustain if terrorist actions continue. 

                                                                                                                  from article of  Vivek katju

               President Donald Trump’s decision to reduce US forces from Afghanistan from 14,000 to 7000 was seen as the beginning of the end game in Afghanistan.

Earlier  Moscow hosted a meeting of representatives of Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran with Taliban. The two competing processes led by the US  and Russia respectively have only increased Taliban’s negotiating leverage.

After the last round of US-Taliban talks, the two sides indicated progress on two issues; preventing use of Afghan territory by International terrorist groups and US withdrawal.  The other issues – intra-Afghan dialogue and ceasefire – are yet to be discussed.  The US offer of withdrawal is a tangible concession; Taliban’s offer to forsake terrorism is a proissory note.  There is certainly no commitment on terror groups which affect India.  Sanitising Afghanistan is not enough; the root of the problem is Pakistan, which must be addressed.

The normal paradigm  of conflict resolution is ceasefire, disarmament, constitution making and election.  Power sharing comes at the end of the process.  Taliban has not accepted ceasefire.  They have neither agreed to an Afghan constitution, nor spelt out their vision of Afghanistan’s future.

According to the US  SIGAR, the Afghan government controls  219 districts and 63% of the population, while Taliban controls 50 districts and 10.8% of the population.  Taliban has not been able tohold territory.

Neither the  Afghan government nor Taliban will be able to gain a strategic  advantage  in the Afghan war in the coming year, at current force levels.

Current negotiations not only weaken the Ghani government, but also ignore the opposition who have accepted the Afghan constitution and the democratic process.  What has brought this extra ordinary convergence in the approach of Americans and Russians are clashing motives. ‘The Americans want to bring to a close the war of attrition.  On the other hand, the Russians and Iranians want to add cost to the American calculus. 

Taliban refused to sever  links with al-Qaida during or after the US campaign in 2001.  What are India’s options? Is Taliban today different from those who provide sanctuary to IC 814 hijackers in December 1999? Taliban was created by Pakistan and will continue to depend upon it for support.  Taliban takeover in Kabul will be a prejudice to further  radicalization of Pakistan and unleashing Jihadis in Kashmir.  India needs to strengthen the Afghan government’’s resolve.  Afghan army together with an elected government enjoying people’s mandate could provide a viable alternative to Islamabad’s proxy  government in Kabul.  Instead of a $12 billion bailout to Pakistan as the price of safe American exit, the money could be better spend in sustaining Afghanistan.  India need to hold discussions bilaterally with the Afghan government as well as US, Russia and Iran.     from article of D.P. Srivastava