Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires. After the Soviet Union in 20th century, it became a sore in the eyes of the U.S. in 21st century as the U.S. tried to find the elusive peace for Afghans. The recent U.S.-Taliban was one of the last efforts to bring peace in the region. But will it succeed?
The Usanas Foundation, an emerging Indian think-tank organized a webinar titled ‘Healing the wounds of Kandahar and Kabul: Searching for Peace in Afghanistan’ on October 30. The session was moderated by CEO of Usanas Foundation Abhinav Pandya.
Amar Sinha who was India’s former envoy to Kabul and currently member NSAB shed light on the agreement signed between U.S. and Taliban and how it has brought Afghanistan a chance to a path of peace in years. This is the first-time certain set of conditions have been placed before the Intra -Afghan talks could take place. Such negotiations are made possible because US and Taliban’s interest have coincided in reducing U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
After a long 19-year protracted war the U.S. looks for a “graceful exit” from the region.. Unfortunately, the agreement has inbuilt tolerance for violence against Afghans. Zero commitment has been given by Taliban to reduce violence particularly towards Afghan government. Taliban has justified violence on the pretext of removing foreign troops from Afghan soil and since it considers Afghan government as proxy of Foreign powers the struggle is continued until they are uprooted and an Islamic Emirate is established.
With the U.S. announcement to negotiate with Taliban there was a mad rush among other countries to reconcile with Taliban. So instead of the Taliban reconciling with Afghan government, it is the Afghan government which looked weak and hollow in the agreement which was finalized at Doha.
Sinha believes that there is a need to make Taliban accountable and honest in its approach. The Taliban gave assurances to the USA that they have cut ties with Al-Qaeda which is not true as a lot of financial transactions have taken place between these two groups. The agreement also does nothing to make Taliban cut links from its support groups outside Afghanistan. By leaving out the Taliban’s rogue friendship with ISIS and Al Qaeda unchecked peace would be elusive and a burden on Afghan government. It seems more like a US withdrawal agreement than a peace agreement. Sinha is not pessimistic but also not overtly optimistic about the peace deal. Sinha explained that the Taliban acts as a cheap option for Pak army to wreak havoc in Afghanistan and India.
Dr Michael Rubin, former Pentagon official, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, started by reminding that things could always go worse for the USA. Americans are inward looking and tend to consider diplomacy against the backdrop of American political calendar. American diplomacy with rogue regimes is more involved with the process than peace. The end goal is lost in ensuring the continuity of the process. Examples are spread throughout history in case of Iran, Iraq and North Korea or Taliban.
History is important in understanding Afghanistan as no precedent of negotiation exists within Afghanistan in modern times. But as the US economy falters and the strategic cost of remaining in Afghanistan goes up it would be wishful for any American diplomat to say that financial commitments to Afghanistan will continue, according to Rubin. He also explained that for the Taliban it is difficult to cut links with Al Qaeda as it’s like cutting links with ‘brothers, fathers and cousins’. The US has to recognize that the association will continue.
On the question of whether peace would be achieved Rubin noted that US is prepared to leave the ‘mess’ on India and Russia’ s hands
Rubin claimed that US judgement was clouded by Cold War era trust between US and Pakistan but the United States is slowly recognizing that Pakistan has become a vassal state of China and would be no longer dependable if peace is to be ensured in the region.
