KABUL, Afghanistan – After four decades of oppressive fighting in Afghanistan, peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban have at least raised the possibility that the long cycle of violence may one day end.
But that milestone is still a long way off. The most recent round of discussions, which began in September, was riddled with bureaucratic blockades and months-long debates on minor issues.
And while these negotiations have resulted in an agreement on the principles and procedures that will guide the next round of peace negotiations, they have come at a price. As the two sides clashed in Doha, Qatar, bloodshed increased on the battlefields and in Afghan cities.
Now, with peace negotiations scheduled to take place again on January 5, the details of what is being negotiated next remain unclear.
While the Afghan government and the Taliban have said they will not publicly disclose their priority lists for the next round of negotiations, here is what security analysts, researchers and government and Taliban officials hope to be on the agenda for – and what obstacles are in those negotiations must overcome.
What are the ultimate goals of these conversations?
The ultimate goal of the negotiations is to create a political roadmap for a future government. The head of the government’s negotiating team, Masoom Stanikzai, said on Wednesday that a ceasefire would be the delegation’s top priority. The Taliban, which used attacks against security forces and civilians as leverage, instead seek to negotiate a form of governance based on strict Islamic law before discussing any ceasefire.
But getting to these bigger fundamental issues will not be easy, as both sides remain stuck with the meaning of basic terms like “ceasefire” and “Islamic”. There are many forms of ceasefire, from permanent and national to partial and conditional, but the public part of the February agreement between the United States and the Taliban that calls for the complete withdrawal of American troops mentions, but does not specifically or fully determine how must be.
The Taliban also refuses to specify what it means by “Islamic”, and the government’s own insistence on an “Islamic” republic has been the subject of intense debate.
“The Taliban say they want an Islamic system, but do not specify what type,” said Abdul Haifiz Mansoor, a member of the Afghanistan negotiating team, pointing out that there are almost as many systems as there are Islamic countries.
Also complicating the next round of negotiations is the Taliban’s demand that the government release more Taliban prisoners. The government’s release of more than 5,000 prisoners removed the last obstacle to negotiations in September, but President Ashraf Ghani has so far refused to release any others.
Where’s the fight?
Both sides exploited local violence in Afghanistan to gain an advantage during the Doha negotiations, but the Taliban have been more aggressive in their attacks than the government, whose troops tend to remain at the bases and checkpoints, responding to persistent attacks. .
The killing of members of the security and civilian forces increased while negotiations were underway this fall, according to a New York Times count, before falling when the Afghan government and Taliban negotiators announced in early December that they had arrived agreement on the procedures for future negotiations. cold weather probably also contributed to the decline. At least 429 pro-government forces were killed in September, and at least 212 civilians were killed in October – the worst deaths in each category in more than a year.
“The killing and bloodshed have reached new heights,” said Atiqullah Amarkhel, a military analyst in Kabul. “What kind of will for peace is that?”
Ibraheem Bahiss, an independent Afghan research analyst, said the Taliban is pursuing two paths simultaneously: violence and negotiation.
“Their goal is to come to power and have a specific type of government system,” said Bahiss. “Whether they achieve this through conversation or fighting, both involve costs that they are willing to bear.”
What role is the United States playing now?
Although the Taliban have greatly reduced direct attacks on US forces since February, the insurgent group has inexorably expanded the territory it controls by besieging local security forces.
In response, the Americans launched air strikes in situations where Afghan troops were under extreme pressure during Taliban attacks. A Taliban official framed the group’s levels of violence as a direct response to air strikes by the United States, or to military diplomatic movements and poorly received by the Afghan government.
The US air strikes saved the destroyed defenses of Afghan units in Kandahar and Helmand provinces this fall, exposing, once again, the deficiencies of Afghan land and air forces that are under constant attack. The fall in force morale has drawn growing concern from General Austin S. Miller, commander of the US-led mission in the country, according to American officials.
At the same time, the number of American soldiers dropped from around 12,000 in February to a projected 2,500 in mid-January, with a complete withdrawal planned for May, if the agreement is maintained. This left the Afghan authorities unsure how their forces can maintain the ground without American support.
The importance of negotiations for the United States was underscored in November, when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Doha and met with negotiators, and again in mid-December, when Joint Chiefs President General Mark A. Milley did so. the same.
A Pentagon statement said that General Milley lobbied the Taliban for “an immediate reduction in violence”, a term that American officials have used several times and that is open to a wide range of interpretations. American officials are trying to strike a balance on the battlefield.
Both sides are also waiting to see whether President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. will honor the troops’ withdrawal schedule or possibly move to renegotiate the entire deal.
If Biden decides to leave a residual American military counterterrorism force in Afghanistan after May 2021, as some American lawmakers are proposing, Bahiss said, “the Taliban made it clear that it would nullify the entire agreement”.
What other obstacles can hinder the negotiations?
Given the recriminations and suspicions in Doha, some Afghan analysts fear that the talks may remain paralyzed for months.
“The distrust between the two sides has led to an increase in violence, but nothing has been done to eliminate this distrust,” said Syed Akbar Agha, a former leader of the Taliban’s Jaish-ul-Muslimeen group.
This could indefinitely delay serious attempts to address key government concerns, such as human rights, freedom of the press, rights for women and religious minorities and democratic elections, among others.
Taliban negotiators said they support women’s rights, for example, but only under strict Islamic law. Many analysts interpret this to mean the same harsh oppression against women practiced by the Taliban when it ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.
The deeply divided government in Kabul also fears that the Taliban will try to run out of time until all American forces leave, while the Taliban say that Ghani, who was re-elected in a tightly contested election last spring, is stalling to serve his five-year term. years. If some form of national unity government or a transitional government were agreed, it would be unlikely that Ghani would continue as president.
Another complication is the division within the Taliban, from hardline commanders in Afghanistan to political negotiators in Doha hotels. Some Taliban factions believe that they should fight and defeat the Americans and the Afghan government, not negotiate with them.
Agha, the former Taliban leader, said that little progress is likely unless an impartial mediator emerges and can break the lack of confidence in Doha.
“Otherwise,” he said, “I don’t think the next round of negotiations will end with a positive outcome.”
Some analysts fear an even more sinister result. Torek Farhadi, a former adviser to the Afghan government, said: “One thing is certain – without a deal, we are heading for civil war.”
Najim Rahim, Fahim Abed and Fatima Faizi contributed reports from Kabul.