Pakistan

Separating al Qaeda from Taliban

Resistance leaders have a fear that once fighting ceases as result of ‘peace talks’, the campaign will lose momentum.

Rustam Shah Mohmand June 23, 2011

The UN Security Council has decided to prepare separate lists for the Afghan Taliban and for al Qaeda activists. Henceforth, the Taliban and al Qaeda will be treated as two separate entities. In another move, the council will also approve the removal of about twenty Taliban leaders from the UN blacklist.

According to US perceptions, this is a confidence building measure and will, in their view, pave the way for the start of a dialogue with leaders of the Afghan resistance. At the same time, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed that the US is engaged in talks with the Taliban. While it appears that some covert contacts have been made with the resistance in Afghanistan, this does not mean that talks for ending the conflict have begun. One possibility is that talks are underway with the ‘go-betweens’. The US and other western countries, principally the UK, may have been talking to those who claim to take messages back and forth to the main resistance leaders. Future talks will centre around items such as agenda, scope, level of delegations, venue and preconditions, if any. Whether these also relate to the release of prisoners before an ambience can be created for conflict resolution talks remains to be seen.

There are no indications yet of the Taliban showing any inclination to deviate from their consistent stand: No negotiations as long as the coalition forces are on the soil of their country. It appears highly unlikely that this stand has been abandoned or modified. Further, there are two factors that have constantly haunted the Taliban leadership in the context of opening talks with the US. One, resistance leaders believe that the offer of talks is bait designed to create a rift in the ranks of the Taliban. Second, they are of the view that any news of formal talks with the US will blunt their campaign and demotivate their supporters from waging a relentless war against the coalition forces. Resistance leaders have this nagging fear that, once fighting ceases as a consequence of ‘peace talks’, the campaign will lose momentum.

But there could be a genuine US effort aimed at seeking reconciliation with the resistance under some mutually agreeable conditions. A way out could be the installation of a caretaker administration that comprises representatives, chosen in consultation with members of the resistance and the Afghan government, under an overarching peace accord. Under this accord, the coalition forces will withdraw completely and a limited peace-keeping force under UN mandate will be inducted to prevent any possible factional fighting. Elections after a stipulated period of time will be held under UN auspices that will create a parliament which reflects the aspirations of the Afghan people.

Another model could be the convening of a conference of all stakeholders — Russia, China, Turkey, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — which will lay down certain basic benchmarks for the future of Afghanistan. The agreement, ratified by the UN, will bind these countries to a commitment to ensure that al Qaeda and its affiliates have no space in the country and that Afghanistan does not allow its soil to be used against any other country. This would be done parallel to the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The blacklist will go, prisoners will be released and Afghans will be facilitated in devising appropriate political and administrative institutions for their country.

If the intention is to save and stabilise Afghanistan and launch it on a trajectory of peace and prosperity, underpinned by institutions and the rule of law, the opportunities are vast and the options are many. But if the emphasis is on turfs, personal agenda or regional hegemony, then the future looks bleak and dark. If history is any guide, one cannot create an edifice of stability on shaky foundations. Afghanistan should not be made a scapegoat for hegemonic ambitions.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 24^th, 2011.

COMMENTS (8)

Saad A | 12 years ago | Reply The misconception of tension between Pashtoon and non-Pashtoon Afghan is just a shortsightedness. Yes the non-Pashtoons don't like Talibs but that doesn't mean they don't like Pashtoons. North (the non-Pashtoon dominant area) voted more for Karzai then any other area, so it's just a baseless thinking. And then Pashtoons are about 75 - 85% of the Afghanistan population. It's not about the ethnicities in Afghanistan, it's about the neighbors lie us who won't stop meddling in Afghans afairs and we just don't want to clear from history at all, see we have put fire to our own house in the stubbornness of keeping Afghanistan under our hands. Pakistan will be the last country to support Pashtoons in Afghanistan, yes they will support talibs who are not at all Pashtoons/Afghans, they are Arabs in Pashtoons dress and language. What will we do with our own Pashtoons if we support the Pashtoon there? let them unify their homeland and we lose half of the country? this is the reality which we don't wana hear. The Pashtoons on our side will very much stand on us if we stop killing them and their brethren on the other side of durand line (still a line, not a border). . Let's stop playing with Afghanistan and Afghans/Pashtoons, let them sort out their issue and then only can they like us and will not resort to damage. They like Pakistan more then any other country, only if we would stop butchering them. .

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Sanjeev Jha | 12 years ago | Reply The author has provided a workable solution # conference of all stakeholders — Russia, China, Turkey, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan Just one change would require - Addition of US and removal of Saudi Arabia, the simple reason being ...Afghanistan still needs a lot of money.....which other countries are not in position of those big pockets. If Saudis are there only because Taliban trust them.....then again it would have religious overtures (Iran v/s Saudi), Pakistan can play the role of the trusted group for Taliban.

Frank | 12 years ago | Reply

Another model could be the convening of a conference of all stakeholders — Russia, China, Turkey, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — which will lay down certain basic benchmarks for the future of Afghanistan.

India has no geographic, ethnic, linguistic or cultural connections to Afghanistan at all. India is therefore in no way a 'stakeholder' in Afghanistan. Pakistan rightly excluded India from the last conference on Afghanistan and will keep India out of any future conferences and any final settlement. Central Asia does not exist as far as India is concerned. We will make sure of that.

Usman Ahmad | 12 years ago | Reply Faraz you're right but it will be too far to say that there will be no solutions. There can be amicable soultion to ethnic problems.

Mir Agha | 12 years ago | Reply Which is why Afghanistan should be de-facto partitioned. The fallout on Pakistan can't be any worse than the current fallout of getting engaged in an ethnic civil war. The pashtunists will get sidelined when their goal of 'pashtunizing' Afghanistan ends. The secular, former communist, nationalists can then fight it out with their Islamist adversaries and ruin their current land and people even further. They, the nationalists, will probably run away again to another country since they've never been able to face the rural masses. The thorn in the side of non-pashtun afghanistanis and Pakistani relations will go away which is due to Pakistan choosing sides based on ethnicity rather than strategic concerns. The brotherhood between Pakistan Pashtuns and pashtuns in afghanistan is overstated. No Pakistani Pashtun in his right mind would like to throw their lot in with the folk across the border.

faraz | 12 years ago | Reply You have ignored the real problem of ethnic conflict between pushtoon and non pushtoon that wont allow stability in Afghanistan.

Replying to X