Afghan peace push: It’s now or never

The US should realise that now is the time for peace because the July drawdown will embolden the Taliban.


Naveed Hussain April 17, 2011

KARACHI: After the ostensible failure of the 2009 'troop surge' in Afghanistan, there is a growing realisation in Western countries and even on Capitol Hill that now is the time for a 'diplomatic surge' to steer the decade-old imbroglio towards a political solution.

With the war in a stalemate, foreign policy wizards of US President Barack Obama are now publicly advocating a Taliban reconciliation – not reintegration – plan in Afghanistan which is so pivotal to a drawdown of troops, as promised, by July this year.

Two months ago, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had announced the launch of the 'diplomatic surge' seeking a "political outcome that shatters the alliance between the Taliban and al Qaeda, ends the insurgency and helps to produce not only a more stable Afghanistan but a more stable region."

War-weary America and its allies apparently want a fast exit from Afghanistan, so does President Hamid Karzai because he believes there will never be peace if foreign forces are fighting in Afghan villages.

To kick-start the reconciliation process, a plan was drawn up for a Taliban office in a neutral country. And Turkey accepted the role, though not officially, at the behest of the Afghan High Peace Council, led by former president Burhanuddin Rabbani.

This plan may have stemmed from a Western desire to make the Taliban function as an independent political group, free from Pakistan's influence.

Political analysts condone the idea of mediation. But, at the same time, they believe Islamabad has a crucial role in any peace plan.

"A successful peace deal will have to have elements of foreign brokerage, be that American or Pakistani (most likely both and more) because foreign countries and so intrinsically liked to the conflict," Jerome Starkey, a Kabul-based British war correspondent and investigative journalist, told The Express Tribune.

Starkey, however, believes that any peace plan should be genuinely Afghan led. Pakistan agrees. And this is why it is supporting the Ankara initiative, with blessing from the US because Holbrooke's successor, Marc Grossman who believes Turkey has a key role to play in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.

But this doesn’t mean all Afghans agree with the idea of talks with the Taliban. There are skeptics, too. And Afghan opposition leader and Karzai's former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah is the most vocal among them.

He told the Asia Foundation think tank in Washington last week that “without looking at realities on the ground, (peace plan) creates circumstances that can lead to sacrificing and compromising the gains of the past few years.”

Starkey believes such opposition stems from a variety of phobias. “There are elements within Afghanistan who are so vehemently opposed to peace talks (either because they are enemies of the Taliban, or they fear losing their newfound prestige and influence in the current regime) that they have raised the prospect of civil war and partition as a worst case scenario," he said.

But not all analysts are thrilled by the idea and the ongoing flurry of diplomatic activity to translate it into reality. Former ISI chief Lt-Gen (retd) Hameed Gul said all peace efforts are doomed, unless they involve the top hierarchy of the Taliban.

“Talking to the peripheral Taliban will not work. The United States is shying away from direct talks with the Taliban because it cannot sell to its public the idea of direct talks with Mullah Muhammad Omar – the man they have demonised for so long,” Gul told The Express Tribune.

The former spymaster didn’t think the insurgents would be lured into the Ankara initiative notwithstanding an American think-tank’s report claiming that the Taliban were joining reconciliation.

Saturday’s unprecedented conclave in Kabul is apparently a followup to President Zardari’s Ankara trip, where Prime Minister Gilani and Afghan President Karzai endorsed a possible role for Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the peace efforts.

The inclusion of Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and top spymaster Lt-Gen Shuja Pasha in the new-look peace commission between the two countries is perhaps meant to address the apprehensions of Afghan officials who have frequently accused the Pakistan military of playing a spoiler role by allowing the Taliban to maintain sanctuary across the Durand Line. This is a significant step towards trust-building between Kabul and Islamabad which is so important for the success of the peace process.

The US should realise that now is the time for peace because the July drawdown will embolden the Taliban, who are already sensing victory, and make reconciliation difficult. It should openly own this process, also engage the Taliban hierarchy, involve all stakeholders and address genuine concerns of Afghanistan’s neighbours to restore durable peace before exiting the region.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 17th, 2011.

COMMENTS (6)

J. Oberoi | 12 years ago | Reply @Amjid Iqbal: You, dear sir, are a product of the "peace" that the Muslim Mughals brought to the subcontinent. You're a direct result of the forcible conversions by them. Now you pretend to have an Arabic heritage. Just ask what the Arabs think of the Pakistani Muslims.
Amjid Iqbal | 12 years ago | Reply @ kumar. I donot know how and why indians are proud over their history. What they have exported to world except Kama-suthra and few spices. They must be thankful to Islam that all hindus lived peacfully under the rule of Muslims and by the way they must know this fact that Muslims ruled over them for more than 600 years
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ