US ownership dilemma and Afghan peace process
There is no stocktaking on the part of the US viz challenges that may emerge in any post-US exit strategy
The writer is an Assistant Professor at Area Study Centre for Africa, North and South Americas at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad
The sixth round of the ongoing US-led peace talks with the Afghan Taliban in Doha has entered a crucial phase. Though security situation remains bleak in Afghanistan amid intense fighting between the two warring sides, there is still a ray of hope that the current round of talks will end up with an agreement on the issue of the ceasefire and a timetable for the US to militarily withdraw from Afghanistan.
While the current US efforts to ensure durable peace in Afghanistan may not be questioned, its approach remains a cause of concern, as on the one hand, it ignores the core realities of the Afghan polity and the Afghan state and society on the other. There is seemingly a lack of “sense of ownership” of the entire process by the US in particular and the Afghan stakeholders in general, due to which the US efforts may not deliver the anticipated results.
A glance at the whole Peace Process would reveal that the US ownership dilemma is driven by its efforts towards meeting the ultimate objective of its troops’ withdrawal from Afghanistan. Washington’s war fatigue is quite evident and is immensely affecting the peace process. In a rush to exit the war theatre at the earliest, the US is paying little attention to the intricacies surrounding Afghan polity. A three-layered analysis of the current US approach reveals that the sense of ownership which the US had exhibited for the post-WWII reconstruction and rehabilitation of Germany and Japan is clearly missing in the case of Afghanistan. The US seems to be turning a blind eye towards some of the glaring challenges which may ultimately result in failure of the said peace efforts in the war-ravaged country.
First, there is little deliberation on what would be the shape of the Afghan government structure after the US exit and the entry of the Taliban in the new future Afghan setup. The US Special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, is currently monopolizing peace through imposing a “regime change” which may have only a short-term benefit. The Taliban have shown their dismay over the current Afghan constitution and have clamored for a system that should be in synchronisation with Shariah. Yet, how the current Afghan government and the people would react to any such demand by the Taliban in the governance structure is yet to be seen.
Second, the US efforts to pull in the Taliban as a legitimate political actor in the Afghan mainstream has the negative effect of delegitimising the current government in Kabul. While it is true that peace is about making compromises, however, compromising one political group at the expense of another will create further internal schisms. Democracy in post-Bonn Afghanistan is yet to take strong roots. In September this year, Afghanistan will hold the fourth presidential elections. At such a crucial juncture when the country is facing a political transition, the imposed entry of the Taliban without taking into confidence the National Unity Government (NUG) will further complicate the internal political dynamics of the country. Such practices in a post-conflict scenario may pave the way for political fracturing and revival of the conflict.
Last but not least, there is no stocktaking on the part of the US viz challenges that may emerge in any post-US exit strategy. How would the intra-Afghan dialogue proceed given a plethora of complex power centers which are most of the times working at cross-purposes with each other? There seems to be little efforts being put at drawing out a road map to mitigate some of the expected challenges. Such a peace which is led with the sole agenda of relieving the US only of its “war fatigue” is going to serve the US interest only, and not of the Afghans – thus making the ownership dilemma a core problem of the process.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 8th, 2019.
While the current US efforts to ensure durable peace in Afghanistan may not be questioned, its approach remains a cause of concern, as on the one hand, it ignores the core realities of the Afghan polity and the Afghan state and society on the other. There is seemingly a lack of “sense of ownership” of the entire process by the US in particular and the Afghan stakeholders in general, due to which the US efforts may not deliver the anticipated results.
A glance at the whole Peace Process would reveal that the US ownership dilemma is driven by its efforts towards meeting the ultimate objective of its troops’ withdrawal from Afghanistan. Washington’s war fatigue is quite evident and is immensely affecting the peace process. In a rush to exit the war theatre at the earliest, the US is paying little attention to the intricacies surrounding Afghan polity. A three-layered analysis of the current US approach reveals that the sense of ownership which the US had exhibited for the post-WWII reconstruction and rehabilitation of Germany and Japan is clearly missing in the case of Afghanistan. The US seems to be turning a blind eye towards some of the glaring challenges which may ultimately result in failure of the said peace efforts in the war-ravaged country.
First, there is little deliberation on what would be the shape of the Afghan government structure after the US exit and the entry of the Taliban in the new future Afghan setup. The US Special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, is currently monopolizing peace through imposing a “regime change” which may have only a short-term benefit. The Taliban have shown their dismay over the current Afghan constitution and have clamored for a system that should be in synchronisation with Shariah. Yet, how the current Afghan government and the people would react to any such demand by the Taliban in the governance structure is yet to be seen.
Second, the US efforts to pull in the Taliban as a legitimate political actor in the Afghan mainstream has the negative effect of delegitimising the current government in Kabul. While it is true that peace is about making compromises, however, compromising one political group at the expense of another will create further internal schisms. Democracy in post-Bonn Afghanistan is yet to take strong roots. In September this year, Afghanistan will hold the fourth presidential elections. At such a crucial juncture when the country is facing a political transition, the imposed entry of the Taliban without taking into confidence the National Unity Government (NUG) will further complicate the internal political dynamics of the country. Such practices in a post-conflict scenario may pave the way for political fracturing and revival of the conflict.
Last but not least, there is no stocktaking on the part of the US viz challenges that may emerge in any post-US exit strategy. How would the intra-Afghan dialogue proceed given a plethora of complex power centers which are most of the times working at cross-purposes with each other? There seems to be little efforts being put at drawing out a road map to mitigate some of the expected challenges. Such a peace which is led with the sole agenda of relieving the US only of its “war fatigue” is going to serve the US interest only, and not of the Afghans – thus making the ownership dilemma a core problem of the process.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 8th, 2019.