For more than two years, the United States has been promoting the idea of negotiations free of preconditions with little result, as Taliban insurgents seemed unwilling to risk talking to their adversaries, particularly Afghan leaders in Kabul.
But Pakistan, which has deep links to the Afghan Taliban, appears to have forced them to come to the table, clearing the way for negotiations after numerous false starts, said Scott Smith, a former UN official who worked in Afghanistan.
"One thing that changed was the Pakistani support for it (peace talks)," Smith told AFP. "At some level there's a shift."
The move comes from a newly-elected government in Pakistan, which faces its own battle with extremists at home and may have calculated that the Afghan Taliban needed to be reined in next door, experts said.
"You have a deterioration of the situation in Pakistan," said Smith, referring to violence from militants inside Pakistan.
"Maybe they've made a calculation it's getting too dicey," he said.
Islamabad's support for peace talks "may not be a change in policy, but it's definitely a deliberate decision on their part to have the Taliban go this far," he said.
US officials made a point of crediting Pakistan for helping to clear the way for the dialogue, which will see US and Taliban representatives meet as early this week.
Not long ago Islamabad was accused by Afghan officials of sabotaging an earlier reconciliation initiative with Saudi Arabia as mediator, as Pakistan reportedly felt sidelined.
"Pakistan has been very important in this because Pakistan has always been and will always be a potential deal spoiler," said Jonah Blank, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation think tank.
"Any deal it wants to crush it can do so quite easily."
For the Taliban, peace talks are fraught with risk, potentially sapping the morale of fighters, sowing divisions among leaders and undermining its propaganda, according to the diplomat who will be leading the US delegation, James Dobbins.
"The Taliban leadership is fighting a war with a view to reimposing a religiously based form of government rooted in an extreme interpretation," Dobbins wrote in a report he co-authored before he returned to the State Department.
"Engaging in negotiations for something short of that goal undercuts the purity of that message," said the report.
The talks are coinciding with the gradual withdrawal of US-led forces, which ironically poses a dilemma for the insurgents, as they risk being perceived by Afghans as merely another armed faction that threatens civilians, said Smith.
"They have portrayed themselves as opponents of a foreign occupation. But with foreign troops leaving, they're going to have to make clear what do they stand for," he said.
Peace talks from their new office in Doha may offer a way for the Taliban to adapt, offering the insurgents a means of gaining what they crave, a bit of international legitimacy. And they also will be interested in trying win the freedom of senior figures held at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As for Washington, the US holds bargaining chips in the form of detainees in its custody and its military presence now and in the future.
The United States has been quietly working to kick-start peace talks since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, though it had initially pinned hopes on a stepped up military campaign to prod the Taliban to negotiations.
Then in February 2011, the United States announced Washington would no longer insist on preconditions for talks.
While Pakistan will be expected to serve as a broker for the Taliban, the United States will be playing a similar role for Kabul and its mercurial president, Hamid Karzai, who has reservations about the Doha initiative.
Karzai fears that over time, the Taliban could exploit its Doha platform to paint themselves as a government-in-exile, and he said Tuesday the discussions should be moved to Afghanistan as soon as possible.
But the Taliban will resist that idea and US officials do not want to see disputes over the venue derail the process.
"You could have a breakdown over that issue fairly early on," Smith said.
COMMENTS (14)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@BruteForce: "Yes, Pakistanis worry only about Kashmir."
Why should Pakistanis not worry about Kashmir? Its a part of Pakistan!
ET it seems more indians than pakistanis read your newspaper now a days. May they have lost confidence on Indian media.
@Lala Gee:
"We are not the ones visiting Indian websites and spending most of our times there. "
10000000000+ Indians in the entire world, about a 100 comment here(taking the upper limit). Yes, that is certainly a trend and you are very smart for finding and commenting on it and generalizing entire 1/6th of Humanity on a bunch of us who comment here.
Very smart.
" Pakistan’s only interest in India is to find a just solution of Indian Occupied Kashmir which is acceptable to Kashmiri people. And that is all we want from India."
For Kashmir Pakistan is pursuing strategic depth in Afghanistan, by supporting the Taliban.
Yes, Pakistanis worry only about Kashmir.
@BruteForce:
"Alas, Pakistan will be consumed by its own paranoia of India. India without having to do much is destroying Pakistan."
@R. Subramanian:
"I hope Pakistanis will change their attitude towards India and focus more on their country’s development."
Pakistanis are hardly interested in India, so please dispel your false self-aggrandizement as you are not even close to any such thing. We are not the ones visiting Indian websites and spending most of our times there. Pakistan's only interest in India is to find a just solution of Indian Occupied Kashmir which is acceptable to Kashmiri people. And that is all we want from India.
@abdussamad: the article does not say western media. these are the opinions of experts/think tanks. and they are not praising Pakistani tactic or stance , they are just reflecting what they have analyzed based on the data and experience they have.
besides , who cares about western media , who rent out prostitutes in their ads and half of the time are concerned about animal rights rather than human life in the third world.
The Pakistani situation is really interesting, and in many, many, myriad, different ways very poetic.
They very supporting an Islamist group, which they thought will help them influence Afghanistan. What they didn't realize was that Afghanistan will inturn start influencing Pakistan.
The ideology of the Islamist group started influencing the influence-r.
If Taliban do come gain dominance, if not outright power, in Afghanistan, that'll only mean the Taliban on the Pakistan side gets stronger. Pakistan can't abandon its proxy, yet has to fight the ideological spillover of supporting those Taliban is enormous, potentially life threatening!
What is the best way to go ahead? Depends on what your priorities are.. If you priority is India and keeping India out of Afghanistan by supporting Taliban, then that is the path Pakistan will take.
If you priority is Pakistan, then it means fighting the Taliban, whether they are in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
We all know the latter is unlikely. Alas, Pakistan will be consumed by its own paranoia of India. India without having to do much is destroying Pakistan.
I guess this might be an eye wash by Pakistan.
Pakistan might have persuaded Talibans but it might be to cheat US, so that after US retreats from Afghan Pakistan and Talibans may take over Afghan for strategic depth.
As long as Pakistan does not changes its mindless hatred towards India, peace is not going to return to this region. Luckily India's focus is on economic development, if India also behaved like Pakistan means it would have been blood bath for entire region.
I hope Pakistanis will change their attitude towards India and focus more on their country's development.
News agencies like Reuters and AFP write articles for different audiences. Sometimes the same article is written with a different spin to suit the tastes of people in different parts of the world. The article you see above is not for western audiences. The western media is not crediting Pakistan with anything.
DOUBLE STANDARD US
Has started negotiations with Afghan Extremists/Terrorists because its in their so called "National Interest"
And the other side of the coin is that its still attacking Pakistani side with drones. Since its troops are not in Pakistan therefore negotiations are not in its "National Interest"
PAKISTAN , what is your national interest ????!!!!!!!
Karzai's head on platter or he gets his head on heels with Pakistan.. His choice. I wish he chooses wisely this time
i hope US will also allow pakistani taliban to have peace talks with GoP. . Nice move!
Funniest thing I heard from "experts" in a while.
@karachiwala: Please consult some good English dictionery to find out the meaning of word"mecurial" and then comment.
"mercurial president, Hamid Karzai" ???? His writ doesn't go beyond the Presidential Palace..... And you call him "mercurial"