Afghanistan: Qatar Parleys

There are some positive indicators emerging from Qatar parleys on Afghanistan over the weekend. It would however be difficult to forecast that it sums up as an endgame. In spite of the emerging pros, US envoy engaged in parleys—Afghan American Zalmay Khalilzad is right in striking a note of caution. He noted in a tweet, “We have a number of issues left to work out. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and “everything” must include an intra-Afghan dialogue and comprehensive ceasefire.” The caution was mixed with an optimistic tone, “Meetings here were more productive than they have been in the past. We made significant progress on vital issues.”  Zalmay Khalilzad has a job in hand after six days of parleys in Qatar. He has to convince other stakeholders on what has been concluded so far. It includes Ashraf Ghani led Afghan government, besides others.

US on the diplomatic turf lost half the battle by making known its willingness to withdraw, instead of making it a bargaining point. Taliban has just to up the ante, and hasten the retreat. In return of US actualizing the withdrawal, Taliban gave an assurance not to provide space to any outside group to use Afghan territory for militant activities that could hurt US interests. In 2001 following 9/11, US intervened in Afghanistan on the plea of Al-Qaeda being based in Afghanistan. Taliban providing safe sanctuary to Osama bin laden was an additional reason. For the US it constitutes returning to square one, though it could be said that following 9/11, US intervention in Afghanistan was a morale booster to get even with Al-Qaeda. Little attention was paid to the historical fact that getting into Afghanistan is easier than getting out. The British in 19th century and Russians in 20th learnt it to their peril. US is registering the glaring fact in 21st century.

   

Taliban is not making it easy for US. As the week closed on Sunday, Taliban while acknowledging progress in Qatar parleys, denied either an agreement on ceasefire or talks with Afghan government. Both constitute stigma for Taliban. There were enough indications that Taliban would not give up the offensive, until foreign troops are clearly seen to be withdrawing as per the agreed schedule, as and when it is reached. Taliban control more or less 50 percent of Afghan territory, and are clearly in a position to push for more. Ashraf Ghani admitted losses in a recent statement in Switzerland, as much as 45,000 members of security forces killed since he took office in 2014. However, Ashraf Ghani regime may be down but not out, given the ethnic make-up of Afghanistan. Taliban is mainly a Pashtun grouping, though it may not claim the support of all Pashtuns. There are other Pashtun groups, which may not rhyme with Taliban. Moreover, Pashtuns constitute less than half the population of more or less 31 million. There are other ethnicities, such as Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras. 

Ashraf Ghani’s regime is pushing for an election in the coming months, though US would opt for an interim government that could accommodate Taliban in power structure. Taliban’s antipathy to elections is obvious, as they cannot win it outright. On the contrary, continuing with an armed offensive might give them the control of the government, in case Americans decide to leave, leaving Ashraf Ghani regime in a wobble. That is what Americans are trying to avoid, hence pushing for a ceasefire and an intra-Afghan dialogue for reconciliation. On both counts Taliban is not relenting, hence the snag. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid at the end of six days of Qatar parleys denied his group had reached any agreement on a ceasefire with Khalilzad. He said emphatically, “Reports by some media outlets about agreement on a ceasefire and talks with the Kabul administration are not true.” Instead the spokesman harped on withdrawal of foreign troops, stating that, “In accordance with the agenda, this round of negotiations revolving around the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and other vital issues saw progress”. He did not shed enough light on other issues apart from calling them critical needing comprehensive discussions. Taliban statement read, “But since issues are of critical nature and need comprehensive discussions, therefore it was decided that talks about unresolved matters will resume in similar future meetings in order to find an appropriate and effective solution and also to share details of the meetings and receive guidance from their respective leaderships”. 

Afghanistan is geopolitically sensitive. Its south and east borders Pakistan, west borders Iran, north Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and far northeast-China. Iran would hardly contemplate a Taliban dominated government, though in recent years, it has established a growing relationship with Taliban. Russians have called Taliban a nationalistic grouping, giving them due recognition. However, like Iranians, a Taliban dominated regime without providing the desired space to northerners—Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmans may not sell with Russia. China is wary of militant Islamic groups on its borders; hence it has reservations on Taliban dominated regime. Even Pakistan taken to be staunch Taliban supporter wants an intra-Afghan dialogue, as Taliban dominated regime would spell resistance from other ethnicities, and continued armed conflict. Afghanistan locked in armed conflict would add to the woes of landlocked state.  Deprived of maritime access, the country needs the goodwill of its neighbours for transit and trade. 

Given the contrary stands of stakeholders–within and without, the path to peace is difficult to tread, however bereft of it, leaves an Afghanistan locked in perpetual conflict—not a happy augury.

Yaar Zinda, Sohbat Baqi [Reunion is subordinate to survival]

iqbal.javid46@gmail.com  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 × 2 =