the united States is committed to removing its troops from Afghanistan. In fact, when the president, Donald Trump, has suspended negotiations with the taliban last September, the surprise was not so much to make this decision after an attack that killed a u.s. soldier, as to discover that he was at the point of enacting the covenant at Camp David. The resumption of the contacts in Doha, just three months after reinforces that idea. But the end of the longest war of EE. UU. it does not mean the end of that the UN considers “the deadliest conflict on the planet”. If instead of engaging in a national dialogue, the taliban feel the temptation of total victory, the violence and instability will continue to expel the afghans from his country.
“it Is a historic opportunity to end the war, but it is not safe [to achieve],” admitted the chief negotiator american, Zalmay Khalizad, during a session of the Forum in Doha in mid-December. Just three days before, Khalizad had announced a “pause” in the talks due to an attack by the taliban near the Bagram base, the greater of EE. UU. in Afghanistan, that killed two afghans and wounded several dozens, including five soldiers of Georgia. It was a particularly bold newly renewed contact following the suspension of September, but not exceptional.
The taliban have not renounced violence as they negotiate. They know that play with the winning cards and have shown they can’t be defeated due to the enormous human cost of the war among the population. Eighteen years after the U.S. put an end to their Islamic Emirate, controlling between 50% and 70 % of Afghanistan, who have been reconquering slowly taking advantage of the absence of the State in the rural areas, on everything from NATO to end its military mission in 2014.
In this war of attrition have sunk the hopes of 38 million of afghans, especially of the two-thirds who have not met 25 years ago and they have not known the taliban regime. Beyond the fighting, the lack of investment and services, but above all the lack of opportunities are the result of the conflict that does not cease. The fear to lose the progress made these years in freedom of expression, access to the outside world (the taliban banned television) or women’s rights, the anguish of the civil society.
The big question is whether the group-militia that ruled Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 using an extreme version and ultrapuritana of islam is willing to become an islamist party (and compete for power according to the rules of the game of a plural political system). Until now, their leaders have kept the ambiguity. Although some have made positive statements about his desire for peace, power-sharing and the protection of the rights within the islamic framework, you continue to act like insurgents to gain territory, and as despotic in that control.
Each meeting of Khalizad with representatives of the taliban awakens expectations that the pact is near, something that Trump would be an asset to the elections next November. “We have reached an agreement in principle with the taliban on the framework for the agreement: they agree that the areas under their control do not serve as a base for terrorist groups, to talk with other afghans to reach a cease-fire… Now we are talking about is reducing the violence”, explained the representative of the united STATES in the capital of Qatar.
“The agreement between EE. UU. and the taliban still won’t be a peace agreement, although the provision, or not, of the taliban for another ceasefire, temporary in around your signature will indicate the degree of their willingness and preparedness to reduce the impact of the violence for the population”, warns Thomas Ruttig, co-director of Afghan Analysts Network, who in his three decades of experience in Afghanistan has been a consultant for the UN, the EU and the German Foreign office. This covenant should open the door for the second step, the peace negotiations between the afghans, including the Government, something that the insurgents have been excluded until now. “This will take time and patience,” stresses Ruttig.
at the time, the facts are not very encouraging. UNAMA, the UN mission to Afghanistan, has expressed its “grave concern at the unprecedented levels of violence against civilians during the third quarter of 2019”, the last one for which published data. From 1 July to 30 September, has produced the greatest number of casualties [dead and wounded] since that organization began to systematically document civilian casualties in 2009. “As I got in the conversations between the united States and the taliban in Doha, in July and August, triggered the violence that cause civilian casualties”, the report says. In total, the third quarter left 1.174 dead and 3.139 wounded, 42% more than the same period of the previous year.
“it Has been a year of exceptionally bloody, perhaps the most bloody; more people are dying in Afghanistan than in Syria, Yemen and Iraq together. So no matter what happens in these conversations, the hope is that serve to reduce the violence. At least they are trying something,” says Graeme Smith, a consultant for the International Crisis Group and a former political officer of the UN in Afghanistan.
in Addition, the analyst appreciates some trends in the data of the UN that support the idea that the negotiations themselves that are having an impact on conflict. Smith mentions the fact that during the first half of 2019, the civilian casualties caused by pro-government forces have been overcome for the first time to the anti-government groups. Although in large measure has been due to the increase in aerial bombardment, it also reduced the number of attacks on urban militia.
“The taliban are trying to adapt their strategy, creating a public atmosphere conducive to the talks; the change in the second half shows his frustration. Never before had we seen those numbers vary as dramatically”, he interprets. Even so, Smith acknowledges that “it remains to be seen if an agreement will result in the two parties to reduce this level of military confrontation: the US leaving to bomb the rural areas and the taliban leaving to attack the cities.”
The own Khalizad is cautious. “The commitment of the united States with the taliban is conditional, if you do not comply with their part, we can turn back,” she warned in the Forum of Doha. “We will work with our allies to check it out. We don’t trust them, that is obvious.
