Expert Speak Raisina Debates
Published on Jun 13, 2019
Power struggles, legitimacy crisis and improper US approach hamper the Afghan peace process.
The problem with the Afghan peace process

One year ago, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani announced an unconditional truce with the Taliban on the occasion of Eid, hoping it would help the Taliban realise that their violence was destroying the nation. The Taliban to everyone’s surprise agreed to the ceasefire and stopped all offensive operations against Afghan security forces for the holiday. The move was celebrated across the country, giving millions hope that peace was not a distant dream.

This year, despite entering into peace negotiations, that have been ongoing for months, there was no ceasefire. Taliban leader Mullah Akhundzada’s annual Eid message stated that “no one should expect us to pour cold water on the heated battlefronts of jihad or forget our forty-year sacrifices before reaching our objectives”. In other words, they are ready to talk about peace but they are also ready to continue the fight.

Since, the Afghan government withdrew its previous preconditions and the United States appointed a special representative Zalmay Khalilzad to seek reconciliation last year, negotiations have been ongoing. There have been over six rounds of talks between the US and the Taliban in Doha and a number of meetings between the Taliban, certain government officials and representatives of regional nations in Moscow. This is over and above all bilateral meetings taking place between Khalilzad and regional nations such as Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia and India. Peace negotiations are always slow and time consuming and in the case of Afghanistan, no one is expecting any decision anytime soon. However, there are a number of glaring problems with the current negotiations that makes one wonder whether peace is too much to ask for.

Since, the Afghan government withdrew its previous preconditions and the United States appointed a special representative Zalmay Khalilzad to seek reconciliation last year, negotiations have been ongoing.

One of main hurdles in the peace process is the severe legitimacy crisis that the National Unity Government headed by Ghani suffers from. Power struggles within the government have dominated the news, with regional strongmen and former allies of Ghani speaking out against the government. Elections have been delayed, over skepticism about the Election Commission ability to be unbiased.  Ghani,whose term expired earlier this year is continuing as president, with elections being postponed until later this year. His supporters say this is to provide stability while negotiations are on-going but those who oppose him see it as opportunistic and deceitful. Parliamentary elections, which were finally held in October 2018, were marred by allegations of fraud. All of this has done has nothing to improve the government’s legitimacy and build faith in the democratic system of governance.

For years any discussion on reconciliation with the Taliban has emphasized the importance of negotiations being ‘Afghan-led and Afghan-owned’. Presumably, this meant that while other nations have a stake in the peace process, it must be ensured that the people of Afghanistan are the ones who are leading the negotiations, putting forth their conditions and requirements directly to the Taliban. Unfortunately, this has not been the case as the Taliban has refused to talk with the Kabul government, viewing them as a puppet regime, dancing to the strings being pulled by Washington. The lack of political unity in Kabul has meant that the government has been unable to find a way around this fundamental dilemma, presenting instead a mammoth list of 250 individuals to meet the Taliban in Doha. How such a large group can make progress or whether there was any internal consensus on what the main objectives or goals are, is anyone’s best guess.

Another hurdle in the reconciliation process has been the attitude of the United States, who have failed to stabilize Afghanistan in spite of spending billions in the country over the of eighteen years. The Taliban have repeatedly stressed that it will continue fighting until all foreign forces have the country. This adds pressure on the US, who have been trying to extract themselves from the region steadily since 2014. They need to leave in order for the Taliban to stop fighting, however this remains risky as their departure would most likely cause an increase in violence with the Taliban seeking to control more territory before negotiating. Khalilzad continues to negotiate for peace, but it is highly questionable whether he has that the authority to do that. The best he can do in his role, is negotiate when the US is leaving.

While other nations have a stake in the peace process, it must be ensured that the people of Afghanistan are the ones who are leading the negotiations, putting forth their conditions and requirements directly to the Taliban.

The Trump administration is also, reportedly, planning to pardon US soldiers accused of war crimes in Afghanistan. News reports show that over 1.17 million war crimes claims have been filled by Afghans, but it remains uncertain whether the Hague will launch an investigation into these after intense pressure from Washington. This would be a serious blow to Afghan citizens who have been victims of the brutal war. The Taliban have instituted a court system for the area under their governance and pride themselves on being able to deliver ‘swift and fair justice;. Moves to pardon those guilty of war crimes against Afghans would be a major propaganda tool for the Taliban, who can point out US atrocities against citizens and the lack of justice they received.

The biggest flaw in the US approach to peace has been the lack of attention given to Pakistan’s role in the continuing the war. It is because of the sanctuary provided to Taliban fighters and leaders post 2001 by Pakistan, that the group remains relevant today. There is a negligible possibility of peace in Afghanistan, unless the US brings the full weight of its leverage to bear on Pakistan. While putting Islamabad on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) blacklisting is one such step, there remain plenty of unused tools in Washington’s diplomatic arsenal to bring Pakistan to heel.  This includes halting all loans, financial assistance, military assistance and aid to the country and designation of the specific military and intelligence officers as supporters of terror. There seems to be little done to this effect until now. The US needs to realise that the reason they are pursuing peace with the Taliban, after fighting them for nearly two decades, is because Pakistan wants them to. Their inability to militarily defeat the group has been because of Pakistan’s support and the reason they are now at the table to “negotiate” is because it is in Pakistan’s interest. If the US truly wants to leave Afghanistan “as a friend of the region, not as a failure” as the Pakistan military spokesperson advised them to, they will need to wake up to the realization that the buck stops with Pakistan.

The biggest flaw in the US approach to peace has been the lack of attention given to Pakistan’s role in the continuing the war. It is because of the sanctuary provided to Taliban fighters and leaders post 2001 by Pakistan, that the group remains relevant today.

While Khalilzad’s negotiates a withdrawal, Ghani fights for political relevance and Afghan security forces come to terms with the fact that they need to make friends with the enemy; the cultivation of poppy, the Taliban’s cash cow is stronger than ever, Pakistan remains determined to meet its objectives and regional warlords, strongmen and former presidents all work towards being the ones who deliver peace after decades of war. Meanwhile the Taliban reside at five-star hotels in Doha negotiating with the US, while their fighter and foot soldiers remain belligerent as ever, continuing their onslaught across the country.

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

Contributor

Kriti M. Shah

Kriti M. Shah

Kriti M. Shah was Associate Fellow with the Strategic Studies Programme at ORF. Her research primarily focusses on Afghanistan and Pakistan where she studies their ...

Read More +