Talking to Taliban – moving Afghan peace agenda forward

Afghan security officials standing guard at a checkpost in Logar. An Afghan citizen present at the London meeting  expressed irritation with the patronising view that Afghans could not order their own affairs.  Sometimes, he said, Western powers gave the impression that this was beyond their capabilities.By Denise Marray/LondonA senior member of the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion gave the benefit of his experience at a meeting in London organised by the Institute of Islamic Strategic and Socio-Political Affairs (IISA) attended by members of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Members of the House of Lords, former high-ranking members of the Pakistan Army, representatives from leading think tanks in Islamabad, Pakistan, War Studies academics, humanitarian and medical aid organisations and journalists. The subject for discussion was “Talks with the Taliban” which is the first in a series of round-table events in an IISA project entitled, “US Afghan Withdrawal Analysis: Regional and Global Security Implications”. The  April 25 meeting took place in a committee room in the House of Lords, Westminster, under the Chatham House Rule which means that participants cannot be identified. This rule enables people to speak without constraint and certainly the discussion was frank and of interest to anyone wanting to see Afghanistan take its place as a peaceful, productive country on the international stage. The Mujahideen leader urged those in a position of influence not to repeat the mistakes of the past. He recalled how after repelling the Soviet invaders and liberating Afghanistan in 1989, triumph quickly turned to disaster in the absence of a peace plan. He said that there was no discussion or negotiation between the factions. All the energy and unified effort had been channelled into fighting a common enemy but once that goal had been achieved there was a loss of direction. As he expressed it, “a moment of happiness turned into a nightmare”.He called for serious internal dialogue between Afghans on all important elements shaping the country, with the outcome achieved through elections.He said that in recent meetings held in Europe with Taliban representatives, it had been made clear that the Taliban were not prepared to recognise the government of President Hamid Karzai. He noted that the setting up of an office for the Taliban in Doha  was “a big achievement”. Until recently, he observed, “the word ‘negotiation’ was a completely strange thing”. The Taliban had been unable to engage in dialogue because they didn’t have an address at which they could be contacted. Now that address exists, but, he cautioned, though this was a major step forward, a massive amount of work remained to be done with the 2014 withdrawal of the Nato troops fast approaching.   An Afghan citizen present at the meeting expressed irritation with the patronising view that Afghans could not order their own affairs. Sometimes, he said, Western powers gave the impression that this was beyond their capabilities. “We have ideas, we have brains, we can think,” he said. He accused Pakistan of deliberately keeping tensions alive in the region in order to shore up its own economy with the billions of dollars received from the US as a reward for joining the US War on Terror.This view was robustly challenged by a speaker from Pakistan who pointed out that “Pakistan is bleeding too”, and that it was not in the interest of the country to pursue such a policy of destructive interference.A War Studies professor warned that it was vital to understand the importance of the role of Mullah Mohamed Omar. “Any attempts to isolate Mullah Omar will not lead to a settlement,” he said. He added that according to his contacts, the Taliban wanted a neutral caretaker government and the establishment of a constitutional assembly with more emphasis on Islam. They see a future in a power-sharing agreement with other national groups but absolutely rule out working with Hamid Karzai  or members of his clan. In fact, the options for Karzai, in the eyes of the Taliban, could, it seems, be summed up, he said, as being “either a coffin or a suitcase”. So, it seems Karzai could take the easier option. In fact, he noted, Karzai was due to step down next year, so his presence was not an insuperable obstacle.He said that the Taliban were prepared to enter negotiations because they recognised that they could not win an outright victory and feared an endless civil war and break-up of the country into warlord factions if compromises were not reached. They also fear Indian involvement in aiding their opponents - not in the shape of troops, but in the form of supplies.He said that Pakistan played a pivotal role in securing a peaceful resolution and observed that contrary to impressions given by Western and Indian sources, the Pakistan High Command did not favour an outright Taliban victory. Moreover, he observed, Pakistan had been calling for negotiations with the Taliban since 2006. Key questions, he noted, included the extent of American commitment to talks with the Taliban.A representative of a secular humanitarian-aid NGO said an obstacle to dialogue between the US and the Taliban was that both sides “are caught up in their military rhetoric”. After 10 years of engaging in “hard language” it was not easy, he maintained, to move away from the terminology of “infidels” and “terrorists”. He added that back in 2009 when he was negotiating with the US forces and two branches of the Taliban about setting up field hospitals in the war zone, he found support for the plan from all sides. However, he was also put in an impossible situation as the US threatened that if they saw him talking to the Taliban he would be arrested, while the Taliban said that if they saw him talking to the Americans they would kill him as an enemy spy.A retired Pakistan general expressed the view that “whatever is good for Afghanistan is good for Pakistan”.He cautioned that, “no-one can dictate terms to the freedom fighters”, and added that for the British to play any meaningful role in mapping out a peace strategy it would first be necessary for them to “accept that they had made a mistake in going in”. In his view, Afghanistan would not accept Western democracy and would definitely not accept Hamid Karzai.A British Foreign Office representative said that there was an offer on the table to the Taliban and that the preconditions were not onerous. IISA noted that there had been “a change in tone” in recent months and recognition that “reconciliation and negotiation” was the way forward.