US-Taliban talks must go on

Syed Nooruzzaman

Security forces stand guard after a suicide bombing rocked Afghan capital Kabul's diplomatic enclave,
which killed 10 people and left 30 others wounded, on September 5

Trump speaking to the press The US decision to call off the ongoing talks with the Taliban for peace in Afghanistan is unfortunate, though not surprising. The Donald Trump administration wanted the Taliban to ceasefire and stop their suicide bombings during the peace negotiations, but the Afghan militants ignored the US plea. The militants insisted that this could be done only after reaching an agreement.
They gave an indication that violence was part of their bargaining tactics to force Washington to accept their demand that no foreign troop should remain on the Afghan soil once an accord was signed between the two sides.
The US, which was tolerating Taliban suicide bombings as the cost to pay for a larger goal, had declared that the promised troop withdrawal did not mean complete desertion in one go of the land they had captured in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US mainland. The US wanted 8000 of its 14000 troops to stay put in Afghanistan at this stage. But the 17000 NATO troops along with 6000 US fighters had to leave for home after successful conclusion of the US-Taliban peace negotiations in the Qatari capital, Doha, and signing of an accord.

Trump's Afghanistan policy included putting pressure on Pakistan not to provide any kind of even clandestine support to the Taliban factions which had been in the good books of Islamabad. In return, Pakistan got US assurance of liberal financial assistance, including the revival of aid which was discontinued after Pakistan got declared as a terrorismpromoting nation.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani speaking during a ceremony in Kabul The Trump strategy included periodic troop withdrawal, which appeared to be unacceptable to the Taliban. But they had, willy-nilly, agreed to this condition along with giving an assurance to eschew violence and not to allow any foreign terrorist group like the Al-Qaida and the IS, to use any part of Afghanistan for indulging in destructive activities.
The talks had almost concluded and an agreement could be finally signed at Camp David, Maryland, but President Trump appeared to be unsure of the calculated gains from the eight-month-long exercise when there was no end to the Taliban's killing spree. Hence the decision.
There was undeniably a huge trust gap between the two sides. In view of this fact, it is believed that Trump was, perhaps, looking for an excuse to snap the negotiations and he got such an opportunity when an American soldier was one of the 12 casualties in the suicide bomb attack on September 5.

Trump announced his decision through a series of tweets after the Taliban accepted responsibility for their involvement in the heinous act. In one of his tweets, he said, "If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don't have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway."

Whether Trump will review his decision in the interest of peace and stability in Afghanistan and the rest of the region remains to be seen.

The Taliban, however asserted that the "Americans will be harmed more than any other people". The militant group also stated, "The US credibility will be harmed; their anti-peace stance will become more visible to the world; their casualties and financial losses will increase, and the US role in international political interaction will be discredited even further."

The Taliban, of course, are no great diplomats. They were believed to be knowing only the language of violence to achieve their objectives.

But now they are providing proof that they are not bad negotiators. Perhaps, they now realise that diplomacy must be given a full chance to bring about peace in a country which has not seen it for over 18 years.

Of course, it was unbelievable when the US and the Taliban began to hold talks for peace in Afghanistan. The skeptics thought that the US, despite its unchallengeable military might, had ultimately come to realise that the Taliban could not be defeated or decimated.

So, the new strategy that was devised had it that the US must withdraw from the Afghan war theatre and leave Afghanistan to its own people to govern it. The time had come, it was thought, to allow them to take care of the affairs of their country and find solutions to Afghanistan's problems as responsible members of the global community.

Trump's Afghanistan policy included putting pressure on Pakistan not to provide any kind of clandestine support to the Taliban factions which had been in the good books of Islamabad. In return, Pakistan got US assurance of liberal financial assistance, including the revival of aid which was discontinued after Pakistan got declared as a terrorism-promoting nation. Besides Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia were also associated with the process of peace negotiations as dialogue facilitators.

President Trump had declared that he stood for the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan even before he was elected to the highest office in the US. He had clearly stated that the best option for his country under the circumstances was to order its forces to come back home after bringing the Taliban leadership to the negotiating table to make them agree to share power . It is a painful development that he has suspended the negotiations even when the US and the Taliban were about to sign the eagerly awaited accord at Camp David.

However, there is no point in running away from the talks. The skeptics must be proved wrong. The US has, no doubt, invested heavily in Afghanistan in terms of money and manpower (highly trained troops), but it now realises that there is no option better than a total troop withdrawal even if Washington would appear as a fool in the eyes of the American public as well as the rest of the global community.

Shunning violence was impossible for a militant movement like the Taliban, yet it agreed to do so after the signing of the expected accord. The Taliban are conscious of the fact that their survival capacity even under extremely trying circumstances forced the sole surviving super power to agree to discuss peace across the table as equals. They also demonstrated the capacity to hit the interests of the US and its proxy government in Kabul at a place and time of their choosing. But how long can this go on? Bloodshed must end in Afghanistan and, therefore, the two sides must come back to the negotiating table. The time is running out.

The writer is a Delhi-based
political commentator.



		EDITOR'S MAIL EDITOR'S COMMENT HOUSTON’S MEGA SHOW TACKLING SAGGING ECONOMY FEARS OF RECESSION SAGA OF CHANDRAYAAN-2 REALPOLITIK FRANKLY SPEAKING GUBERNATORIAL CHALLENGE LEFT IN KERALA KARNATAKA EDUCATION WINDOW ON PUNJAB CHANDIGARH DIARY PUJA BOAT TRAGEDY REMEMBERING RAM JETHMALANI HITS & MISSES INDIA-CHINA SUMMIT AFGHAN WAR THEATRE HONG KONG & CHINA BOOK BAZAAR BOOK BAZAAR SIGNS OF THE TIMES DISCOVERY IN DERMATOLOGY NATIONAL AWARDS ART OF LIVING Issue:June' 2019 Subscribe Now	AFGHAN WAR THEATRE US-Taliban talks must go on Syed Nooruzzaman Security forces stand guard after a suicide bombing rocked Afghan capital Kabul's diplomatic enclave, which killed 10 people and left 30 others wounded, on September 5 Trump speaking to the press The US decision to call off the ongoing talks with the Taliban for peace in Afghanistan is unfortunate, though not surprising. The Donald Trump administration wanted the Taliban to ceasefire and stop their suicide bombings during the peace negotiations, but the Afghan militants ignored the US plea. The militants insisted that this could be done only after reaching an agreement. They gave an indication that violence was part of their bargaining tactics to force Washington to accept their demand that no foreign troop should remain on the Afghan soil once an accord was signed between the two sides. The US, which was tolerating Taliban suicide bombings as the cost to pay for a larger goal, had declared that the promised troop withdrawal did not mean complete desertion in one go of the land they had captured in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US mainland. The US wanted 8000 of its 14000 troops to stay put in Afghanistan at this stage. But the 17000 NATO troops along with 6000 US fighters had to leave for home after successful conclusion of the US-Taliban peace negotiations in the Qatari capital, Doha, and signing of an accord. Trump's Afghanistan policy included putting pressure on Pakistan not to provide any kind of even clandestine support to the Taliban factions which had been in the good books of Islamabad. In return, Pakistan got US assurance of liberal financial assistance, including the revival of aid which was discontinued after Pakistan got declared as a terrorismpromoting nation. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani speaking during a ceremony in Kabul The Trump strategy included periodic troop withdrawal, which appeared to be unacceptable to the Taliban. But they had, willy-nilly, agreed to this condition along with giving an assurance to eschew violence and not to allow any foreign terrorist group like the Al-Qaida and the IS, to use any part of Afghanistan for indulging in destructive activities. The talks had almost concluded and an agreement could be finally signed at Camp David, Maryland, but President Trump appeared to be unsure of the calculated gains from the eight-month-long exercise when there was no end to the Taliban's killing spree. Hence the decision. There was undeniably a huge trust gap between the two sides. In view of this fact, it is believed that Trump was, perhaps, looking for an excuse to snap the negotiations and he got such an opportunity when an American soldier was one of the 12 casualties in the suicide bomb attack on September 5. Trump announced his decision through a series of tweets after the Taliban accepted responsibility for their involvement in the heinous act. In one of his tweets, he said, "If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don't have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway." Whether Trump will review his decision in the interest of peace and stability in Afghanistan and the rest of the region remains to be seen. The Taliban, however asserted that the "Americans will be harmed more than any other people". The militant group also stated, "The US credibility will be harmed; their anti-peace stance will become more visible to the world; their casualties and financial losses will increase, and the US role in international political interaction will be discredited even further." The Taliban, of course, are no great diplomats. They were believed to be knowing only the language of violence to achieve their objectives. But now they are providing proof that they are not bad negotiators. Perhaps, they now realise that diplomacy must be given a full chance to bring about peace in a country which has not seen it for over 18 years. Of course, it was unbelievable when the US and the Taliban began to hold talks for peace in Afghanistan. The skeptics thought that the US, despite its unchallengeable military might, had ultimately come to realise that the Taliban could not be defeated or decimated. So, the new strategy that was devised had it that the US must withdraw from the Afghan war theatre and leave Afghanistan to its own people to govern it. The time had come, it was thought, to allow them to take care of the affairs of their country and find solutions to Afghanistan's problems as responsible members of the global community. Trump's Afghanistan policy included putting pressure on Pakistan not to provide any kind of clandestine support to the Taliban factions which had been in the good books of Islamabad. In return, Pakistan got US assurance of liberal financial assistance, including the revival of aid which was discontinued after Pakistan got declared as a terrorism-promoting nation. Besides Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia were also associated with the process of peace negotiations as dialogue facilitators. Shunning violence was impossible for a militant movement like the Taliban, yet it agreed to do so after the signing of the expected accord. The Taliban are conscious of the fact that their survival capacity even under extremely trying circumstances forced the sole surviving super power to agree to discuss peace across the table as equals. President Trump had declared that he stood for the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan even before he was elected to the highest office in the US. He had clearly stated that the best option for his country under the circumstances was to order its forces to come back home after bringing the Taliban leadership to the negotiating table to make them agree to share power . It is a painful development that he has suspended the negotiations even when the US and the Taliban were about to sign the eagerly awaited accord at Camp David. However, there is no point in running away from the talks. The skeptics must be proved wrong. The US has, no doubt, invested heavily in Afghanistan in terms of money and manpower (highly trained troops), but it now realises that there is no option better than a total troop withdrawal even if Washington would appear as a fool in the eyes of the American public as well as the rest of the global community. Shunning violence was impossible for a militant movement like the Taliban, yet it agreed to do so after the signing of the expected accord. The Taliban are conscious of the fact that their survival capacity even under extremely trying circumstances forced the sole surviving super power to agree to discuss peace across the table as equals. They also demonstrated the capacity to hit the interests of the US and its proxy government in Kabul at a place and time of their choosing. But how long can this go on? Bloodshed must end in Afghanistan and, therefore, the two sides must come back to the negotiating table. The time is running out. The writer is a Delhi-based political commentator.