The U.S. Negotiations with the Taliban
Published in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 21 February 2011
by Nikolai Surkov (link to original)
The U.S. is conducting direct, secret talks with the Taliban leaders, which should open the way for peace settlement in Afghanistan. However, for the present these contacts are preliminary. The purpose is to find out which of the Taliban leaders is ready to start a dialogue and on what conditions. Meanwhile, according to the words of high-ranking NATO officers, the operations of the international forces in Afghanistan should soon lead to the liquidation of the radical Islamists and make the rest compromise with the country’s government.
As for the U.S. media reports, these contacts are prospectively to become a foundation for peace talks. The Afghan leaders, and Hamid Karzai in particular, are supposed to conduct them, whereas the U.S. will play a secondary role. Washington is ready to discuss the future of the imprisoned Taliban members, who are in the hands of U.S. authorities, as well as the future of the international forces in Afghanistan. The aim of the talks is to persuade at least some of the Taliban to break off with al-Qaida, stop military operations and integrate into political process.
According to the words of the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton, the Taliban leaders will have to choose between compromise and ostracism from the international community in the near future. She emphasized that though the negotiations with the Taliban could look like a bargain with evil, one should not comprehend them too straightforwardly, for in the past the United States conducted the dialogue with the USSR and Milosevic’s regime.
At the same time, according to The New Yorker, the U.S. is aware that the peace process will be long and difficult. The adjacent countries, which include Pakistan, but also Iran, India, Uzbekistan and China, will influence it. The failure of the negotiations can lead to a new civil war between different ethnic groups, since the Taliban leans on the Pashtuns, whereas its adversaries are primarily Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazaras. However, the settlement, even partial, is of great importance for Barack Obama’s administration, as it will allow the reduction of the American contingent and subsequently, it is hoped, to finish long and bloody war.
Meanwhile, there is stagnation in the course of military operations. The international forces and the Afghan military control more or less the cities, including such Taliban strongholds as Kandahar and Helmand. The NATO officers, having recently returned from Afghanistan, told this author that for now they can freely walk about Kandahar without bulletproof vests and armed with guns only. Nevertheless, militants continue to run the rural area, terrorizing the people and impeding the country’s reunification.
The fact that the Taliban is divided now can make for the success of the talks. The group of the old guard, which is more inclined to compromise, is hiding in Pakistan. There are also Haqqani’s detachments in North Waziristan, closely connected with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence and therefore heeding Islamabad’s opinion. Finally, in Afghanistan itself there are young field commanders’ detachments, which operate rigidly and are not prone to talks.
According to the NATO officers’ words, the positive shifts in Afghanistan can occur this spring. The current operations of the U.S. and its allies’ troops are aimed at liquidation of the most radical Taliban members and constraining others to negotiate with Kabul. The high hopes are placed on propaganda among the local people, which is supposed to compel ordinary members to cooperate with the government. The militants try to demonstrate their strength in order to squeeze out of Karzai considerable concessions in future.
As for the U.S. media reports, these contacts are prospectively to become a foundation for peace talks. The Afghan leaders, and Hamid Karzai in particular, are supposed to conduct them, whereas the U.S. will play a secondary role. Washington is ready to discuss the future of the imprisoned Taliban members, who are in the hands of U.S. authorities, as well as the future of the international forces in Afghanistan. The aim of the talks is to persuade at least some of the Taliban to break off with al-Qaida, stop military operations and integrate into political process.
According to the words of the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton, the Taliban leaders will have to choose between compromise and ostracism from the international community in the near future. She emphasized that though the negotiations with the Taliban could look like a bargain with evil, one should not comprehend them too straightforwardly, for in the past the United States conducted the dialogue with the USSR and Milosevic’s regime.
At the same time, according to The New Yorker, the U.S. is aware that the peace process will be long and difficult. The adjacent countries, which include Pakistan, but also Iran, India, Uzbekistan and China, will influence it. The failure of the negotiations can lead to a new civil war between different ethnic groups, since the Taliban leans on the Pashtuns, whereas its adversaries are primarily Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazaras. However, the settlement, even partial, is of great importance for Barack Obama’s administration, as it will allow the reduction of the American contingent and subsequently, it is hoped, to finish long and bloody war.
Meanwhile, there is stagnation in the course of military operations. The international forces and the Afghan military control more or less the cities, including such Taliban strongholds as Kandahar and Helmand. The NATO officers, having recently returned from Afghanistan, told this author that for now they can freely walk about Kandahar without bulletproof vests and armed with guns only. Nevertheless, militants continue to run the rural area, terrorizing the people and impeding the country’s reunification.
The fact that the Taliban is divided now can make for the success of the talks. The group of the old guard, which is more inclined to compromise, is hiding in Pakistan. There are also Haqqani’s detachments in North Waziristan, closely connected with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence and therefore heeding Islamabad’s opinion. Finally, in Afghanistan itself there are young field commanders’ detachments, which operate rigidly and are not prone to talks.
According to the NATO officers’ words, the positive shifts in Afghanistan can occur this spring. The current operations of the U.S. and its allies’ troops are aimed at liquidation of the most radical Taliban members and constraining others to negotiate with Kabul. The high hopes are placed on propaganda among the local people, which is supposed to compel ordinary members to cooperate with the government. The militants try to demonstrate their strength in order to squeeze out of Karzai considerable concessions in future.
The U.S. is on a wrong track in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaida are comparable to weeds. Afghanistan’s destiny lies in its lucrative location as a conduit for transit of trade and commerce to and from the emerging central Asia. It is integrally linked with Pakistan. Pakistan’s location makes it trade and transshipment hub serving the Indo-Pak sub-continent. In this development, democracy, played by its rules fits like a crown jewel. The prevailing democracies are puppet shows. Afghanistan’s Young Turks would in due time put this type of democracy in place. The Taliban and Al Qaida stand to disappear like the tail f a snake. America doesn’t have to shape the Muslim world with its perceptions. There is a stipulation in the Qur’an that God rotates the days between mankind. The Muslim world would as the Muslim Arabs did in their glory days devour the knowledge and wisdom of the modern world. America has done very poorly in advancing democracy, played by the rules, even in its own backyard.