Moving forward on Afghan talks
It would be sensible if US sorts out options of Afghan peace than discoursing China’s containment in Afghanistan
File photo of US-Taliban talks in Qatar. PHOTO: REUTERS
In an interview with Bloomberg in October 2018, the stalwart Afghan Taliban supporter Maulana Sami Ul Haq called on China to play a greater role in the Afghan peace negotiations. While asserting to welcome Beijing as an arbitrator to the insoluble Afghan conflict, he said that China should not “leave matters of such a great importance solely to the US”.
Though there were already backdoor communication links between China and Taliban, Maulana stressed on an increased Chinese engagement because of its larger stakes in the region. Even after the “Father of the Taliban’s” death, the Taliban did pay heed to his advice and hailed Beijing’s efforts for “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” negotiations.
In June, before talks fell apart, Mullah Baradar led a Taliban delegation to China to discuss peace prospects in Afghanistan. Last month, another Taliban team met China’s Special Representative on Afghanistan to renew peace talks with the US.
Pakistan is believed to have brokered all China-Taliban peace consultations. However its efforts have been largely veiled.Last week, Taliban spokespersons Zabihullah Mujahid and Suhail Shaheen claimed that China had invited them to talks to restore Taliban-US peace talks and anchor intra-Afghan dialogue with Afghan government officials in personal capacity.
Though the Chinese spokesperson declined to confirm the dates of intra-Afghan talks, the recent China-Russia-Pakistan-US joint statement is a testament that Beijing might anchor peace talks between leading Afghan political figures, government officials and the Taliban. Beijing and Islamabad, through the Afghanistan-China-Pakistan trilateral foreign ministers’ dialogue, have extended support to advance connectivity among the trio.
While the two countries are endeavouring for the Taliban to announce a truce and directly negotiate with Kabul, the world must understand that the Afghan peace process is bound to be complex.
Until recently, the US has consistently accused Islamabad for harbouring terrorists. Lately, it abandoned its hostile attitude towards Islamabad but it needs to realise while all the assailants bade to conquer Afghanistan and not Afghan hearts, the strategy further deteriorated the conditions in the battle-weary country.
China is coming up with an economic solution to war-torn Afghanistan trying to utilise its enormous economic vigour, policy to elude interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, and experience to rebuild infrastructure to overwhelm Kabul’s economic downslide.
According to a World Bank research, Afghanistan-adjacent BRI corridor can scratch the trade cost by 10.2%. If the border delays were halved, the reduction of shipment times could be lowered by 21.6% too.
For the US, it might be intolerable that China reaps the post-peace economic and strategic gains. Thus, China’s containment in Afghanistan would be America’s priority even if it flees Afghanistan. Since China would rely on Pakistan — given the history and deep-rooted relations between the people of Kabul and Islamabad — for its economic ambitions in Afghanistan, US could press Pakistan to curtail plausible Chinese plausible in Kabul.
But considering the Sino-Pak relations and Pakistan’s economic and defence reliance on China, Islamabad might not be in a position to help the US. Additionally, Pakistan won’t adhere to US guidelines against China because PM Imran Khan staunchly supports a peace dialogue with Taliban, even when they were thought to be “pariahs”.
It would be therefore more sensible if the US could sort out the options of Afghan peace with Pakistan rather than discoursing China’s containment in Afghanistan. Once peace is achieved, the US can work with Pakistan, the Afghan government, and the Taliban for its commercial and strategic interests and economic development of Afghanistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 2nd, 2019.
Though there were already backdoor communication links between China and Taliban, Maulana stressed on an increased Chinese engagement because of its larger stakes in the region. Even after the “Father of the Taliban’s” death, the Taliban did pay heed to his advice and hailed Beijing’s efforts for “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” negotiations.
In June, before talks fell apart, Mullah Baradar led a Taliban delegation to China to discuss peace prospects in Afghanistan. Last month, another Taliban team met China’s Special Representative on Afghanistan to renew peace talks with the US.
Pakistan is believed to have brokered all China-Taliban peace consultations. However its efforts have been largely veiled.Last week, Taliban spokespersons Zabihullah Mujahid and Suhail Shaheen claimed that China had invited them to talks to restore Taliban-US peace talks and anchor intra-Afghan dialogue with Afghan government officials in personal capacity.
Though the Chinese spokesperson declined to confirm the dates of intra-Afghan talks, the recent China-Russia-Pakistan-US joint statement is a testament that Beijing might anchor peace talks between leading Afghan political figures, government officials and the Taliban. Beijing and Islamabad, through the Afghanistan-China-Pakistan trilateral foreign ministers’ dialogue, have extended support to advance connectivity among the trio.
While the two countries are endeavouring for the Taliban to announce a truce and directly negotiate with Kabul, the world must understand that the Afghan peace process is bound to be complex.
Until recently, the US has consistently accused Islamabad for harbouring terrorists. Lately, it abandoned its hostile attitude towards Islamabad but it needs to realise while all the assailants bade to conquer Afghanistan and not Afghan hearts, the strategy further deteriorated the conditions in the battle-weary country.
China is coming up with an economic solution to war-torn Afghanistan trying to utilise its enormous economic vigour, policy to elude interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, and experience to rebuild infrastructure to overwhelm Kabul’s economic downslide.
According to a World Bank research, Afghanistan-adjacent BRI corridor can scratch the trade cost by 10.2%. If the border delays were halved, the reduction of shipment times could be lowered by 21.6% too.
For the US, it might be intolerable that China reaps the post-peace economic and strategic gains. Thus, China’s containment in Afghanistan would be America’s priority even if it flees Afghanistan. Since China would rely on Pakistan — given the history and deep-rooted relations between the people of Kabul and Islamabad — for its economic ambitions in Afghanistan, US could press Pakistan to curtail plausible Chinese plausible in Kabul.
But considering the Sino-Pak relations and Pakistan’s economic and defence reliance on China, Islamabad might not be in a position to help the US. Additionally, Pakistan won’t adhere to US guidelines against China because PM Imran Khan staunchly supports a peace dialogue with Taliban, even when they were thought to be “pariahs”.
It would be therefore more sensible if the US could sort out the options of Afghan peace with Pakistan rather than discoursing China’s containment in Afghanistan. Once peace is achieved, the US can work with Pakistan, the Afghan government, and the Taliban for its commercial and strategic interests and economic development of Afghanistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 2nd, 2019.