Secretary Kerry’s optimism notwithstanding, it remains to be seen what the framework for talks between the US and the Afghan Taliban is. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has vigorously defended the peace overtures made by the US to the Afghan Taliban. After a decade of spending trillions and the human destruction, the US is taking the pragmatic line before it pulls out of Afghanistan next year. The public opinion in the US has clearly titled towards an early withdrawal and doing all it takes to wrap up the unsuccessful Afghanistan adventure. Secretary Kerry’s rationale is rather linear: he has said that the greatest issue between the US and the Taliban was the handing over of Osama bin Laden, who is now dead. Furthermore, the US also considers al Qaeda to have been defeated in Afghanistan and therefore, a broad-based Afghanistan government, which includes the Taliban as a power stakeholder, makes sense.
Secretary Kerry’s optimism notwithstanding, it remains to be seen what the framework for talks between the US and the Afghan Taliban is and whether there are conditions attached to these parleys. For example, what are the key areas of discussions and can these talks lead to a durable post-Nato stasis. Would the larger questions remain shrouded in mystery: would the Afghan Taliban accept the existing constitution and what would be their stance on women’s participation in politics? Would the Afghan Taliban stick to agreements, or renege on the commitments made? What would be the fate of non-Pashtun political players in these arrangements? Most importantly, what would be the relationship between the Afghan Taliban and their Pakistani counterparts wreaking havoc in the neighbouring country?
In Pakistan, this olive branch to the Afghan Taliban is viewed as some sort of a justification to engage in talks with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). This is somewhat problematic, as the TTP does not agree to the Constitution of Pakistan, and wants to undo the state structure. The Afghan Taliban do not reside in the ungoverned corners of the United States, therefore, talking to them is definitely not the same. Despite the hype created around the proposed talks with the TTP, it may just turn out to be an exercise in futility as the earlier half-a-dozen peace agreements with them failed. This is an existential crisis that Pakistan will have to grapple with, regardless of what happens between the US and the Afghan Taliban.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 29th, 2013.
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Both Talibans do agree for walk a talk but want their opponents to walk on a minefield to get blown up. Americans are smarter and shall negotiate online but nevertheless leave Afghanistan whether there is any agreement reached or not and Afghanis shall be left high and dry to bear the brunt of the civil war thereafter. Pak Taliban has already backed out after drone attack and pledged to take revenge means killing of many more innocent people with military watching as a mute spectator, waiting till govt and opposition reach a consensus which has already been hinted as a condition to launch operations...
Great EPicFAIL I really appreciate your comments. IRONY AT ITS BEST!
Afghan Taliban also don't agree with Afghan constitution but both US and Afghan government want talks with them. Same with TTP. Even the seculars at Express Tribune don't agree with Pakistans constitution because of islamic clauses haha irony at its best.