Tag: Afghan peace talks

UNSC Watch: Today’s Meeting on Afghanistan Will Indicate How Fast Taliban Will Be Recognised

Eight months into its eighth term at the Council, Afghanistan is a recurring leitmotif for India’s latest stint as a non-permanent member. 

New Delhi: The United Nations Security Council on Monday, August 16, will be the platform for countries to indicate if they will work with the new Taliban regime by accepting the latter’s argument of a “peaceful transition” or argue that there had been an unacceptable military takeover.

Over the last week, there had been meetings on maritime security, Somalia, and Lebanon in the Security Council, but the issue of Afghanistan largely transfixed member states as provinces fell like ninepins in front of the Taliban’s rapid progress.

The emergency meeting of the UN’s most powerful body will take place at 10 am (New York local time, 7.30 pm IST) on Monday following an urgent request made by Estonia and Norway, the two penholders for the Afghanistan file in the Security Council. 

The call for the meeting was made even as reports from Kabul stated that president Ashraf Ghani had left Afghanistan. Taliban security forces entered the capital city within a few hours and eventually took over the presidential palace.

This will be the second time the Council will meet on Afghanistan in August – the month of India’s Council presidency. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will brief the members.

Eight months into its eighth term at the Council, Afghanistan seems to be a recurring leitmotif for India’s latest stint as a non-permanent member. 

When India selected the 2021-22 term for its candidacy seven years ago, the first obstacle had been Afghanistan. Kabul had already announced that Afghanistan would stand for election for the first time as a non-permanent member. The issue had to be escalated to the political level to secure then-President Hamid Karzai’s approval to India’s request.

After India joined the Security Council, an expectation was raised with the help of Indian media that New Delhi would have some leverage in Afghanistan.

This was further bolstered when India became the chair of the Security Council’s 1988 Committee that covered Taliban sanctions matters. “Our chairing this committee at this juncture will help keep the focus on the presence of terrorists and their sponsors threatening the peace process in Afghanistan. It has been our view that peace process and violence cannot go hand in hand,” said India’s permanent representative to UN, T.S. Tirumurti, in January.

Also read: UNSC Watch: With Last-Minute Afghanistan Session Before Troika Plus Meet, India Ticks Off Priority

Ironically, during India’s presidency, the Taliban have scored their spectacular victory of taking over the entire country, 20 years since US forces invaded Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.

Earlier on August 3, UNSC had issued a press statement which had expressed deep concern about the high levels of violence following the Taliban’s military offensive and called for an “immediate reduction of violence”. It also called on both the Taliban and the Afghan republic to “engage meaningfully in an inclusive, Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process in order to make urgent progress towards a political settlement and a ceasefire”.

According to the website Security Council Report, the press statement was modified after some Security Council members asked for the removal of language that blamed only the Taliban for the rise in violence and pushed for peace talks. Some contended that the Taliban had had a disproportionate role in increasing the recent violence.

Three days later, India quickly accommodated a request from the Afghanistan penholders to hold a meeting. 

At the August 6 briefing, the UN special envoy on Afghanistan, Deborah Lyons, had asserted that the international community must convey to the Taliban that “a government imposed by force will not be recognised”. Among the member states, the UK and Niger had also reiterated this principle. 

Outside the Council, US’s special envoy for the Afghan peace talks, Zalmay Khalilzad had also said on August 10 that a Taliban government that comes to power through force would not be recognised.

This principle, however, may not hold with many countries eager to give legitimacy to a Taliban government.

A day after television channels flashed photos of armed Taliban sitting in an empty presidential palace, it is now clear that the transition process, negotiated behind the scenes, was a non-starter, with Ghani leaving without taking part in a transfer of power ceremony.

The arrival of an Afghan political leaders’ delegation in Islamabad – many of whom are members of the erstwhile Northern Alliance – shows also that Pakistan is trying to forge a transitional arrangement.

Meanwhile, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said that the Taliban should ensure a “smooth transition” and establish an “open and inclusive Islamic government”. China, whose embassy remains operational, was willing to develop “friendly and cooperative relations with Afghanistan”, she said.

This is likely to be the line adopted by China, Russia and others who want a transitional arrangement in place at the earliest, which will allow them to recognise the new government quickly.

Only Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia had recognised the Taliban government formed in 1996. But this time, it is likely to be different.

It will also be interesting to see the line taken by Afghan envoy Ghulam Isaczai, who had previously asked the UNSC to properly implement the sanction regime against the Taliban to pressure them to engage in talks with the Afghan government.

Facing the Council, Isaczai would be in a difficult position, but it remains to be seen whether he will go down the Myanmar envoy or dodges the bullet.

As per SC procedure, the UN had not recognised the Taliban regime in 1996, and the previous Rabbani government’s diplomats were treated as Afghan representatives at the UN. 


This could mean that the UN General Assembly credentials committee in September may have to decide on whether to recognise new representatives for Afghanistan, along with Myanmar.

Last week, even as the Taliban was swiftly advancing across the country, UNSC member states were also negotiating a draft statement that would have condemned the assault on cities and threatened sanctions.

However, with the Taliban takeover complete, events may have overtaken the Council’s negotiation process.

It remains to be seen if India will use its chairmanship of the 1988 Sanctions Committee to take a diverging view from the major powers and propose strict implementation of the sanctions against the Taliban. Any such proposal will not likely go through the committee, which decides by consensus, but at least it will show the cards held by most countries.

Indian diplomats had been satisfied with the adoption of the presidential statement on Maritime Security. It was issued after the high-level discussion on maritime security, touted as the first-ever focused meeting on the topic held in a “holistic manner”. The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had chaired the meeting, which saw participation from the Russian president Vladimir Putin, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vietnam Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh.

The presidential statement had been in work for several months.

Diplomatic sources confirmed that China had objected to listing the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing as a threat to maritime security, which was removed from the draft text. This was first reported by Security Council Report.

Sources added that India’s position on IUU was similar to that of China as New Delhi also did not consider it an issue that threatened international security.

India considered it a triumph that China had endorsed the presidential statement, which affirmed that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was the “legal framework applicable to activities in the oceans, including countering illicit activities at sea”.

This week in UNSC

After the Afghanistan meeting on Monday, the Council will have a private meeting on Myanmar. 

India’s external affairs minister S. Jaishankar will also be in New York to preside over two meetings – an open debate on ‘Technology and Peacekeeping’ and a discussion on the UNSG’s report on threats from Islamic State.

This is a weekly column that tracks the UNSC during India’s current term as a non-permanent member. Previous columns can be found here.

Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan at Record Level in May-June: UN

Negotiators have been meeting in Qatar’s capital of Doha in the recent weeks but diplomats have cautioned that there’s been little progress since peace talks have begun in September.

Kabul: Nearly 2,400 Afghan civilians were killed or injured in May and June as fighting between Taliban insurgents and Afghan security forces escalated, the highest number for those two months since records started in 2009, the United Nations said on Monday.

The UN‘s Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) said in a report it had documented 5,183 civilian casualties between January and June, of which 1,659 were deaths. The number was up 47 percent from the same period last year.

The figures underscored the dire situation for Afghan civilians as intense fighting picked up in May and June after US President Joe Biden announced American troops would withdraw by September, bringing an end to 20 years of foreign military presence in the country.

“Of serious concern is the acute rise in the number of civilians killed and injured in the period from 1 May, with almost as many civilian casualties in the May–June period as recorded in the entire preceding four months,” UNAMA said in a statement.

Also read: Biden Authorises $100 Million in Emergency Funds for Afghan Refugees

Heavy clashes around the country have taken place in the past two months as the Taliban launches major offensives, taking rural districts, border crossings and surrounding provincial capitals, prompting Afghan and U.S. forces to carry out air strikes to try and push back the insurgents.

Negotiators have been meeting in Qatar’s capital of Doha in recent weeks but diplomats have cautioned there has been little substantive progress since peace talks began in September.

“I implore the Taliban and Afghan leaders to take heed of the conflict’s grim and chilling trajectory and its devastating impact on civilians,” said Deborah Lyons, the U.N. Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan. “Unprecedented numbers of Afghan civilians will perish and be maimed this year if the increasing violence is not stemmed.”

(Reuters)

‘US’s Power-Sharing Formula Side-Steps Mujahideen, Not Equitable’: Former Afghan Warlord Ismail Khan

The Jamaat-e-Islami leader cautioned that any perception of injustice would impair the peace process’s success. ‘If we don’t see the fairness in the sharing of power, then problems will arise.’

New Delhi: Even as intense behind-the-scenes manoeuvring takes place over intra-Afghan peace talks, one of Afghanistan’s most influential mujahideen leaders warned that any perceived inequity in terms of power-sharing in the interim Afghan government and political settlement would lead to problems.

In an interview with The Wire at his hotel this weekend, 75-year-old Ismail Khan, whose writ ran large in north-western Afghanistan, makes no bones that he is not satisfied with the proposals circulated by the US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad.

He began his career as an Afghan army captain rebelling against the Soviet Invasion. During the Taliban regime, Khan was a senior commander of the Northern Alliance, backed by Iran, India and Russia. In the post-Taliban era, he became a governor of Herat, followed by a 10-year-long stint as minister of water and energy in the Hamid Karzai government.

The former jihadi leader was in New Delhi for a visit, during which he met with the Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar last week.

His visit to India takes place against the backdrop of the fast-paced developments that have followed the Biden administration’s concerted push to find a settlement to the Afghanistan solution and withdraw all US troops.

He noted that the US has already paid financially for the human cost in the war in Afghanistan. “I also believe if the US had gone alone and the other countries in NATO had not contributed, the Americans would not have been able to continue this war.”

Former Afghan warlord Ismail Khan with external affairs minister S. Jaishankar. Photo: Twitter@DrSJaishankar

At their peak, US troop levels in Afghanistan were over 100,000, which came down to around 12,000 in early 2020. Currently, there are about 3,500 US troops posted in the country.

“They have been trying their best to leave Afghanistan in the best way possible…That was the reason that the Americans started negotiations with the Taliban. In the last two years, a lot of meeting and negotiations have gone on…the people of Afghanistan were very keen and happy that a peace agreement was reached”.

The peace agreement

In February 2020, the US and the Taliban signed a peace agreement that agreed on a timeline on US troops’ conditional withdrawal, reduction in violence and counter-terrorism guarantees. It also kick-started the intra-Afghan talks, which began in Doha in September last year.

Khan considered the peace agreement tilted towards the Islamist group. “The Americans gave the opportunity more to the Taliban…That’s why there are so many challenges to the peace process right now”.

However, the Doha talks stalled. The letter signed by the new secretary of state has shaken the peace process, pushing for talks between Afghan leadership and the Taliban in Turkey this month. It also proposed the immediate formation of an “inclusive” interim government, with the Taliban in its power structure.

Khan said that the “road map to peace” in Blinken’s letter conveyed by Zalmay Khalilzad had “positive and negative points”.

The former jihadi leader stated that giving equal power to the Taliban in an interim government would be unfair.

“Especially, one section of the road map which is about the sharing of the power, proposes it would be 50-50 between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban. This is not a good point, and this is not acceptable,” he told The Wire.

Khan, who does not speak English, spoke in Dari for the duration of this interview. His son, Syed Taha Sadeq, a member of 0arliament in Kabul, served as a translator for the interaction.

Also read: The US’s Latest Plan For Afghanistan and Why India Is Counting On Afghan Leaders

Khan asserted that the power-sharing formula side-steps the mujahideen groups, several of whom have remained outside Kabul circles.

“Seven years prior to the involvement of the US in Afghanistan, the mujahideen and the resistance coalition started to fight with the Taliban… In the wars in Afghanistan, there are three parties involved – the government of Afghanistan, Taliban and there is the resistance coalition that was there before this government and the involvement of America,” he said.

The Jamaat-e-Islami leader cautioned that any perception of injustice would impair the peace process’s success. “If we don’t see the fairness in the sharing of power, then problems will arise.”

As a counter-proposal, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has drawn up a “three-phase” plan. For the first time, Ghani has not outrightly rejected an interim government and has offered to hand over power to an elected successor. He planned to present it at the Istanbul conference.

The Afghan High Council for National Reconciliation’s 15-member panel went through over two dozen peace plans proposed by various political parties. A final draft peace proposal, drawn from these plans, would be then presented at Turkey.

Afghanistan’s second vice-president, Mohammad Sarwar Danesh, has criticised the HCNR’s unified peace proposal as being non-inclusive and creating more rifts.

When The Wire had spoken to Khan, the outline of a unified peace proposal had not yet been finalised. To a query whether a deeply divided Afghan polity could rally behind a single proposal, he expressed confidence.

“There is a lot of work going on to bring people around to support one plan. There is a good possibility of 80% of people backing it. Of course, some sides may not agree with the conclusion. But we are trying hard to gather everyone around so that there is strong support for one unified proposal,” he said.

The Istanbul conference was supposed to have been held on April 16, but the Taliban refused to join.

The conference’s new dates are April 26 to May 4, but the Taliban have not yet announced their readiness to send a delegation. But, there is greater optimism that the Taliban will take part in the talks now that the US government set a date for the withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan.

As per the February 2020 agreement, the US had to withdraw all its troops by May 1. The US administration had stated that the deadline was not logistically doable, which had led to warnings from the Taliban.

On Wednesday, US President Joe Biden declared from the White House that all the remaining American troops will leave Afghanistan by September 11.

Despite all the misgivings, Khan, who has usually not seen eye-to-eye with President Ghani, said that there was a degree of urgency and determination about the latest process, making the possibility of reaching an agreement high.

“We see the world community is more serious about these peace talks at this time. We also see that the government is more flexible with the talking. They have also shown flexibility about the elections. Everyone in Afghanistan is more serious and more optimistic about the Istanbul talks.”

There is more pessimism in some quarters in Washington. The US Intelligence Community’s Annual threat assessment report released on April 9 stated that “prospects for a peace deal will remain low during the next year”.

Khan also pushed for the regional countries of Afghanistan to find a common voice.

“For this unified proposal, as important as the team of Afghans is for the regional countries to work in unity. Their involvement is also key to the success of the peace process. If they are not, the peace process will not be successful.”

He hoped that India would get a front seat at the Turkey talks. “India is very large and economically, politically important in the region. It is like a neighbour to Afghanistan. It is very vital that everyone should see the presence of the Indian government in the peace process that is going on”.

India’s role in peace building

India, one of Afghanistan’s top aid donors at $3 billion, has been consistently sceptical of the peace talks between the US and the Taliban. Still, it attended the signing ceremony in February and subsequently at the inauguration of the intra-Afghan negotiations in Qatar.

The US secretary of state’s letter to the Afghan leadership had come as a surprise to New Delhi, just as it did to Washington’s other partners. There is rising acceptance of the reality that the Taliban will be part of the government, sooner than later.

While India does not have a direct role in the intra-Afghan talks, New Delhi believes that its interests will be protected as it is similar to that of the senior Afghan political leadership. This is despite the fact that the Afghan polity is riven with factions and would prefer to see the back of Ghani at the earliest.

In the last six months, India has been trying to revive its old links among the Afghan political elite. Before Khan, there had been visits by Abdul Rashid Dostum, Atta Muhammad Nur and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf to New Delhi.

Asked whether India made a mistake by putting all its eggs in the basket of Arg Palace and not embracing former Northern Alliance leaders as ardently, Khan answered carefully. “India thought that the (post-Taliban) situation would be stable. But, due to the wrongful actions (of the international community), the situation got worse”.

Also read: Afghan Govt Will Hold Early Elections if Taliban Accepts Electoral Transfer Of Power: Foreign Minister

The primary mistake was the resurgence of the Taliban after their defeat. “Taliban had surrendered and totally destroyed in Afghanistan. For them to come back fighting and gain territories again, it was all due to the wrong political decision of the world community in Afghanistan.” But, he didn’t want to resurrect old wounds at this crucial junction. “At this very important time of the peace process, I don’t want to talk about all these wrong decisions and name their perpetrators.”

Among the major regional players, India is the only country that has refrained from talking to the Taliban. Even Iran, which had looked at the Taliban as an enemy, fostered ties with the insurgent groups, with delegations publicly visiting Tehran.

To a question whether he would ask for India to also talk with the Taliban, Khan hesitated. “India having more contact with Taliban is more difficult than Iran.” He didn’t expand on this observation, but Khan was likely referring to Taliban’s Pakistani backers, who don’t have a similar antipathy to Iran as they have towards India.

The Herati leader also cited Iran’s example as a country that has managed to carve a role for themselves in the intra-Afghan talks despite the qualms. “You know Iran also has the same concerns about the peace talks in Afghanistan. So, if they join any meeting, they are joining with a lot of concerns.”

Iran has been the largest foreign investor in Herat province, which is economically and culturally integrated with the neighbouring country since historical times.

Whenever the Taliban had been hot on his tails during the 1990s, Ismail Khan had fled to Iran to take refuge and recoup. After 2001, Iran had been Khan’s key backer, providing material support to consolidate his power in the region.

However, Khan came into the conflict with Iran over a critical resource for the border province – water.

Salma Dam’s significance in India-Afghan ties

It was control over water that brought Ismail Khan and India in close partnership during the decade long construction of 42 megawatt Salma Dam over the Hari Rud river. When it was finally inaugurated in 2017, India had spent over Rs 1,775 crore on the dam construction.

For Ismail Khan, the principal significance of Salma Dam has been the sovereignty it allows over water resources. “Yes, it is mainly for the storage of water, which is for agricultural purposes, not just for electricity generation”.

Iran had strenuously objected to the Salma Dam’s construction, worried that it will restrict water flow. “Hari Rud river is a seasonal one. The water level in the border of Iran-Afghanistan is so low that there is not enough for drinking and agriculture. Iran might have thought that building this dam will make for greater shortage”.

When Iran refused to allow dynamite required for dam construction, Khan, who was then the minister of water and energy, personally scoured for alternative channels.

“We had asked a lot of countries, but no one was willing to give this explosive. The president of Tajikistan had very good relations with me. When I went to Tajikistan for a contract about power, I made a request. He ordered his minister to provide any amount of dynamite required for the dam”.

After the completion of the dam, Herat province for the first time, began producing its electricity. But, Khan notes that five years after the dam was finished, the utilisation of water for agriculture has not been optimal. “Because of the lack of canals, it is not divided equally through the lands,” he said, adding that only agricultural plots nearer to the dam were getting adequate water.

Khan pointed out that the building of the dam and other infrastructure, far from cities and located in remote, insecure areas, meant a lot for Afghanistan.

“We were completely confident that however long the project takes, we would give proper security to the Indian engineers… And really, we tried our best. We ensured whatever they need for their comfort, we would arrange that”.

Khan stated that this was accomplished by the cooperation of the former mujahideen, who were the local militia in the rural areas.

He explained that the security for the Indian workers had been a matter of personal pride. “Everyone who came from India, they were going to the mountains, very difficult places and working day and night, for us. It was very important to return them safely to their homes”.

Can India’s Multi-Polar Commitments in the Indo-Pacific be a Game-Changer for the U.S.? 

There is no dearth of converging narratives between India and the U.S. But it depends upon how agile the US can be in accepting India’s stance on Afghanistan, Iran, and the Indo-Pacific.

When India’s Prime Minister meets the US President, Donald Trump soon, it would be good if ‘Howdy’ Modi can become an American and be candid in telling Trump how New Delhi sees the Indo -acific and its own strategic interest. And, more importantly, that it may not always be in line with what Trump thinks. 

Given the geo-strategic advantages that India possess through continuing embrace of multi-polarity while implementing its Indo-Pacific doctrine, there is a strategic opportunity for partner countries to build on India’s multi-polar commitments. A case in point is the US, with which India has bolstered its strategic partnership, particularly under Trump and Modi. 

There is no dearth of converging narratives between India and the U.S. But it depends upon how agile the U.S. would be in accepting India’s stance on Afghanistan, Iran, and the Indo-Pacific.

Minimise the conflict in Afghanistan 

Debunking the conclusion of the Afghan peace process while citing ‘increasing violence by the Taliban as a false leverage’, Trump has prevented a historic blunder. Since the roll out of the peace talks, growing violence in Afghanistan has affected civilians and officials including American soldiers. 

It is a great move that the U.S. has rejected ‘terror-in-exchange-for- peace’ bluff of the Taliban as a measure to seek gains in the peace process. Nevertheless, the outcome of U.S. efforts may have been different if they factored in Indian concerns, as a major factor in shaping and concluding the outcome of intra-Afghan peace talks.

For instance, India strongly holds the view that Pakistan plays a destabilising role in Afghanistan. It even urged Pakistan “to join international efforts to bring inclusive peace in Afghanistan by putting an end to all kind of support to cross border terrorism from territories under their control”, but it went in vain.

Neutralise the impact of U.S.-Iran conflict 

Since the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran post its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action last year, tensions in the region have intensified. As a counter step, news about Iranian nuclear enrichment have begun surfacing. Besides that, Iran has received renewed attention after Russia and China appeared to be engaged in providing overt and covert support to the beleaguered nation. 

The Russia-backed administration in Crimea has even invited Iran to use ports in Crimea as a workaround to U.S. sanctions. In addition, Russia has offered Iran to undertake joint patrolling in the fiery Persian Gulf. Smothering of Persian Gulf by American, British, Russian and Iranian warships including those of others is prone to precarious escalations. 

Also suspicion (and thereby punitive measures) on Iran for sponsoring recent drone attacks on Saudi Arabia’s state owned  Aramco’s oil facility, which is allegedly carried by Houthis rebels from Yemen, may have grave repercussions. This can even aggravate the simmering tensions and thwart any resolution unless great powers agree to find common ground. Along with France, India can play a major role in bringing peace to the Strait of Hormuz. 

Dealt with differences in the Indo-Pacific 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s formal engagement with President Vladimir Putin at the 20th Indo-Russia Annual Summit and 5th Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok earlier this month was successful in providing strategic directions to bilateral cooperation on issues of mutual and global concerns.  

On Indo-Pacific, it implied what Prime Minister Modi deliberated at the Shangri La Dialogue in June 2018.  It was then heralded that for India turning east (including Southeast Asia, East Asia and Russia) remains crucial for the implementation of India’s ‘Free, Open and Inclusive’ Indo-Pacific doctrine.

In fact, Modi’s emerging nomenclature for Russia as an important partner in Indo-Pacific could eventually help contextualise U.S.-Russia convergence on strategic matters. 

Almost two decades ago, it was Narendra Modi who as a Chief Minister of Gujarat accompanied the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the First Indo-Russia Summit. At that time, Russia had Vladimir Putin as its President. Such an extent of mutual understanding and personal chemistry between the two leaders is likely to help them leverage Indo-Russia relationship beyond imagination.

The proposed maritime route between Chennai and Vladivostok can generate tremendous scope on economic and strategic fronts. The route may even lead to the creation of eastern production and transport networks, connecting India, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. 

Being a major port city and the eastern terminus of the Trans-Siberian Railway, Vladivostok can help India penetrate into Russian markets and beyond from the eastern front. For example, beyond Russia, the Chennai-Vladivostok route will bolster India’s economic and strategic ties with the landlocked Mongolia and other parts of the erstwhile greater Manchuria. Also, it will help India to become a major player in future geo-political developments in the Arctic region.

In fact, since 2015, the Indian government has augmented extensive exchanges with the resource rich Mongolia. Prime Minister Modi and Mongolian President Khaltmaagiin Battulga met on the side lines of the Eastern Economic Forum. The two countries are slated to review the status and scope of bilateral cooperation during the ongoing visit of President Battulga to India.  

Eventually, the revival of this historic connectivity between Russia’s far east and India’s east coast will complement another multi-modal connectivity initiative – i.e. the International North-South Transport Corridor connecting India’s west with the European partner of Russia via Central Asia.

In this context, Indo-Russia cooperation in ensuring ‘Free, Open and Inclusive’ Indo-Pacific remains ever more important. The recently announced India’s Act Far East Policy can potentially be an architect of this notion.

Facilitate a common ground 

India’s role as a possible ice-breaker in every context discussed above is becoming increasingly important. Its overture towards Russia in the context of Indo-Pacific could significantly be leveraged by the U.S. in placating differences elsewhere, including on Iran. 

But it will first require America to be agile enough in acknowledging India’s contribution in shaping up, though in a different form, the Indo-Pacific narrative. In this context it is important to note that Iran and Russia enjoy long standing economic and strategic relations with India and the European Union, among others. In spite of this, India complied with the U.S. Iranian sanctions and reduced the procurement of Iranian oil considerably.   

However, pressurising India not to buy the Russian S-400 missile defence system will only undermine American influence. Thus, instead of being resentful, it will be essential for the U.S. to respect sovereign choices of its partners including India. For example, Turkey, despite being a NATO ally, has taken the delivery of the Russian missile defence system. The U.S. should keep strategic transactions out of the purview of secondary sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act. 

This special consideration could create space for the U.S. to build on India’s multi-polar advantages in furthering American interests and influence in the Indo-Pacific. Therefore, it is vital for the U.S. to emphatically engage India on matters related to the Indo-Pacific. 

It could also serve the interests of the incumbent U.S. government domestically. President Trump joining Prime Minister Modi for the latter’s address to the largest gathering of the Indian-American community on 22 September in Houston, Texas, USA should deepen that engagement.

Prashant Sharma and Pradeep S. Mehta work for CUTS International, a global public policy research and advocacy group.

Misguided Talks With the Taliban Won’t Bring Peace to Afghanistan

An interim government arrangement involving the Taliban may be politically expedient for the US but will leave Afghanistan and the entire world worse-off.

Dark, bizarre, surreal: we are short of adjectives to accurately capture the current political situation in Afghanistan. On May 8, even as they were in talks with the US, the Taliban attacked the Kabul office of a US aid NGO, killing nine. On May 5, the Taliban mounted attacks on armed forces outposts in northern Afghanistan, killing more than a dozen servicemen.

Earlier in March, the Taliban’s shadow police subjected women to public lashings evoking comparisons to their brutal medieval-era style rule between 1996 and 2001. This is to say nothing of the 75,000 plus Afghan civilians who have been killed in heinous acts of terrorism since 2001.

And despite all this, the US seems determined to strike a deal with the Taliban through negotiations which erode the authority of the Afghan national unity government, a government midwifed by them and one that couldn’t have survived this long without them. On May 9, the US Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad tweeted that slow but steady progress was made on the framework to end the Afghan war and the Doha round of talks were now getting into the ‘nitty-gritty’.

If we are to believe Khalilzad, the US remains hopeful of forming an interim government involving the Taliban on the basis of this quid pro quo: the US will scale down its presence in Afghanistan in return for security guarantees by the Taliban. Though the details are yet to be worked out, there appears to be an in-principle agreement on this broad arrangement between the US, the Taliban, and the Taliban’s minders – the ISI. If it works out, President Trump will appeal to the voters in the 2020 presidential elections that he has brought soldiers back from Afghanistan – from a war he now refers to as “ridiculous”.

Is peace even on the cards?

Frustrated by the violence, many analysts feel this arrangement is the only way to end decades of civil conflict. But this hope is bereft of underlying realities.

Also read: India to US: Not in Favour of ‘Interim’ Government in Afghanistan

First and foremost, a US-led Pakistan-owned dialogue bypassing the legitimate government of Afghanistan has very little chance of success. For the talks to have any impact on the ground, an intra-Afghan dialogue is a prerequisite since the Taliban represents a small minority of Afghans.

US special envoy for peace in Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad. Credit: Reuters

But thus far, the Taliban has consistently held that it will talk only with the US and that too about a quicker withdrawal of troops. Only after that will it engage with the Afghan government, a condition which is irrelevant as the government will cease to exist in any meaningful manner once the Americans exit.

The Taliban is negotiating from a position of strength; they have even declined the call by the loya jirga – a grand assembly having significant normative legitimacy – for a ceasefire during Ramzan.

An interim government arrangement involving the Taliban will leave Afghanistan and the entire world worse off. To give any serious consideration to guarantees by a terrorist group that it would not support other terrorist groups indicates incompetence, short-sightedness, or both.

Just as a reminder of how hollow these promises are: the Taliban continues to sponsor and engage in terrorism and the deputy chief of the Taliban is from the Haqqani network, a group with ties to the al Qaeda and other terror groups. This Haqqani network has been referred to, by the Americans themselves, as “a veritable arm of the ISI”.

Amongst those that the US is negotiating with are Taliban figures accused of war crimes, some who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay and a few who represent those who have the blood, of not just Afghans, but also of Americans and Indians on their hands. Some of them are charged with war crimes for summary executions of surrendered Northern Alliance cadres and Hazara Shias in Bamiyan.

Moreover, the Taliban’s links with other terrorist groups continue to remain strong. The al Qaeda had sworn loyalty to the Taliban in the past. As recently as May 11, the al Qaeda’s As Sahab released a video advertising the group’s role in an ambush on an Afghan National Army (ANA) convoy in Paktika province.

Also read: Interview | Taliban’s Military ‘Reverses’ Could Increase Possibility of Intra-Afghan Talks: Daudzai

Al Qaeda went further and used the footage to emphasise its alliance with the Taliban. What should not be forgotten is that the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba was born in Kunar and operated from Taliban-occupied territory till Operation Enduring Freedom.

The precursors to the Jaish-e-Mohammad – Harkat-Ul-Ansar or Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami – also trained its cadres in Afghanistan. Other Pak-based jihadi tanzeems, with the support of the ISI, have used Afghan soil for sanctuary, training and battle inoculation – something that could not happen without tacit approval from the Taliban.

Some reports suggest a mechanism will be instituted to monitor the Taliban’s assurances regarding terrorism and that the US will retain a small counter-terrorism force. Very little is known of this apart from hints that the monitoring mechanism will be international in nature.

The Pakistanis are said to be supportive as an international presence could help to ensure that international aid does not dry up. However, in the east, which is India’s concern, an international monitoring group will find it next to impossible to be effective as the border is porous, sanctuaries are easily available across the border and Pakistani agencies are unlikely to cooperate, if not be complicit.

Members of Taliban delegation take their seats during the multilateral peace talks on Afghanistan in Moscow last December. Credit: Reuters

Pakistan is adept at providing shelter to international terrorists, as was demonstrated in the case of Osama bin Laden. The monitoring mechanism in the east can only address Pakistani concerns which are currently the Kunar-based Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, now rebranded as ISIS in Afghanistan.

Finally, to give the benefit of the doubt, even if the Taliban leadership was to have a sudden change of heart, it’s not as if they will be able to resist other groups with whom it has fraternal ties or other bonds. When 100,000 US troops with aerial support could not succeed, it is unlikely that the Taliban and a small US counter-terrorist force would.

Also read: The Afghanistan of Today is Not Yet Ready for Peace

So what can India do?

A few days ago, foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale reiterated to Zalmay Khalilzad that India would be uncomfortable if a drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan, as a consequence of the talks with the Taliban, was followed by an interim arrangement. Khalilzad had been told much the same thing earlier in January when he visited Delhi.

India’s position has been consistent that the peace process should be Afghan-driven and Afghan-owned. Consequently, there has been disquiet in India about the direction of these talks.

If keeping the Taliban out is no longer an option, India should push for a transitional government with a mandate to hold elections within a specific timeframe. The next best alternative would be to ensure that the head of the arrangement is an internationally acceptable figure with the necessary gravitas, clout and ability to run the government.

Independent-minded Afghan leaders should be encouraged to take up appropriate portfolios in the transitional government while ensuring that the most obnoxious elements of the Taliban are kept away from governance. India should also put its weight behind measures to ensure that the Afghan National Security Forces and other government structures are kept intact.

One of the pressure points would be the deliberations at the international level. There is noticeable ennui at the international level and the US has failed in presenting an alternative. While this makes a compact with the Taliban more acceptable, India needs to resist the easing of UN restrictions till such time there is proof that the Taliban has changed.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Credit: Reuters

The worsening US-Iran relationship is another variable that weakens the Indian position. It is not too early to imagine that Trump’s focus will now shift to Iran. India has temporarily been exempted from CAATSA sanctions to build the Chabahar Port but this is unlikely to be maintained for long.

Also read: Will an Imposed Peace End All Peace in Afghanistan?

India needs to continue to stress the importance of this port not only as an alternate route to Afghanistan but also as a route to Central Asia. We need to get more of the world involved in this project – the Japanese, for example, need to be convinced that the project is worth funding; China needs to be assured that it is not intended to undermine CPEC and that Chabahar cannot be a competitor to the enormous capability of Gwadar but will at best be a feeder port. More importantly, India needs to convince the US of the importance of this port and the Iranians of our seriousness.

Finally, the onus is on the Taliban to prove that they have eschewed plans of a military conquest, are ready to participate in electoral politics, and have moved away from their medieval mindset. It is equally important to force Pakistan away from its preference for a weak regime in Kabul.

If the Taliban is allowed to continue on its path, Afghanistan will be led towards a disastrous civil war. This will damage Pakistan’s credibility even more, put strains on its already precarious financial position, and bring instability to the region. Hope is a good thing but also a misleading one. And hope definitely doesn’t make for good policy. In negotiating with the Taliban, the US is placing hope over reality. Afghans and the world will suffer the consequences of this mistake if they do not course correct.

Anand Arni and Pranay Kotasthane are with the Takshashila Institution, a centre for research and education in public policy

India to US: Not in Favour of ‘Interim’ Government in Afghanistan

India’s views were expressed before the ‘successful’ six days of talks between the US and the Taliban in Doha.

New Delhi: When the US special envoy on reconciliation talks, Zalmay Khalilzad, came to India last month, New Delhi told him that it was not in favour of an interim government in Kabul and that any continuation of its economic largesse will depend on the ground situation in Afghanistan.

India’s views were expressed before the ‘successful’ six days of talks between the US and the Taliban in Doha. After both sides noted that there had been “significant progress”, the Indian foreign ministry spokesperson’s first official response stated the presidential elections should “take place as scheduled”. This was an indication of India’s message to the US conveyed behind closed doors.

Sources said that Indian officials told Khalilzad that New Delhi understood Washington’s reasons for urgency in withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan. But any peace agreement should safeguard the current “political and constitutional structure”, India insisted.

This line of discussion led to New Delhi communicating to the US special envoy that it does not favour “interim arrangements” in Afghanistan.

Also read: Afghan Presidential Elections Should Be Held as Scheduled: India

There had been furious speculation for the last few months that the US will reach a peace deal with the Taliban, which will include some kind of pact on a new interim government with a role for the insurgent group. Any discussions on this topic will, of course, raise questions about the presidential elections scheduled to be held in July.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s first priority in his public statement after Khalilzad’s briefing on the Doha talks had been to debunk the rumours that the US diplomat had discussed interim government with the Taliban. Khalilzad also confirmed this to Afghan reporters in Kabul on the same day.

Despite the protestations, India is clearly worried that the US is attempting to steam-roll a peace agreement which may not be entirely in its interests.

Afghan leaders, including former President Hamid Karzai, will be meeting with Taliban representatives over the next few days in Moscow. However, as usual, the Taliban refused to meet with anyone from the Afghan government.

The New York Times quoted “officials close to Mr Ghani” accusing the Afghan leaders of “rallying to a rushed peace process because they want a share of power in any interim government formed with the Taliban, even if that means jeopardizing the progress the country has made since the insurgents were driven from power in 2001”.

India’s position on the presidential elections – which is certainly an intervention in the current scenario – is not per se a deviation from its policy of taking cues from the elected Afghan government. India has supported an “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled” peace process. When Taliban representatives attended the multilateral Moscow format talks in November 2018, India had send retired ambassadors, instead of serving government officials.

Asserting that India was a “direct neighbour”, Indian officials had also reminded Khalilzad of New Delhi’s major economic and security interests.

Also read: India, Others Briefed by US Envoy on ‘Progress’ in Taliban Peace Talks

Sources noted that India told the US official that India was the “only country” to put significant economic assets on the ground. However, Indian officials cautioned that “continuation” of the economic largesse will depend “on how the situation evolves in Afghanistan”.

India has provided development assistance worth $3 billion to Afghanistan, which has been used to build major road networks, hydropower project, transmission lines and the Afghan parliament.

However, sources explained that this doesn’t mean that India will stop all economic ties with Afghanistan. They cited the Maldives model, when India kept open channels of business and travel so that the population was not impacted, despite a hostile government in Malé.

With an eye towards the domestic audience, sources noted that they were aware of the criticism that India was not being active and didn’t have any role in the current reconciliation talks.

“Merely because we are not visible in the discussion doesn’t mean that India is not acting to protect its interest,” sources argued.

Also read: In Jibe at ‘Friend’, Trump Belittles Indian Assistance to Afghanistan

They claimed that India’s position on “interim arrangements” was shared by Central Asian governments. “We are also in touch with Russia and Iran and will also discuss the changing situation with China,” said sources.

Several Afghan leaders, including Pashtun representatives, have also been to Delhi in recent days. However, sources said that their names cannot be disclosed due to sensitivities.

“We do not want to react in haste,” said sources. They pointed out that there had been familiar voices asking the Indian government to take action during crisis in the Maldives and Sri Lanka, but not taking a hasty position has “paid dividends recently”.

Afghanistan Seeks Russian Help to Press Taliban Into Peace Talks

The Taliban, fighting to oust US and other foreign forces and defeat Afghanistan’s Western-backed government, plan to take part in talks on Afghan peace in Moscow on September 4, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying.

Kabul: Afghanistan hopes Russia can press Taliban insurgents into holding peace talks with the government, Afghanistan’s top security official said on Wednesday after he met Russia’s ambassador in Kabul.

The Taliban, fighting to oust US and other foreign forces and defeat Afghanistan’s Western-backed government, plan to take part in talks on Afghan peace in Moscow on September 4, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

Afghanistan’s national security adviser, Hanif Atmar, told Russia’s ambassador that Afghanistan appreciated Russia’s support for the peace process and called upon it “to put pressure on Taliban insurgents to begin negotiations with the Afghan government”, Atmar’s office said.

The Taliban this week rejected a government offer of a three-month ceasefire and said they would press on with their war, two insurgent commanders told Reuters, after a series of militant attacks in which hundreds of people have been killed.

Russian ambassador Alexander Mantytski, said his country was ready to help Afghanistan make “the peace process a success”, Atmar’s office said.

According to a senior diplomat in Kabul, Moscow in recent months has stepped up direct contacts with the Taliban, which is formally banned in Russia.

Russia has invited 12 countries, including the United States, to the Moscow talks next month but the United States has declined the invitation. Russia’s foreign ministry said on Wednesday it regretted the US decision.

Nearly 40 years have passed since Moscow sent its troops into Afghanistan, beginning a bloody decade-long occupation and factional conflict which is still going on.

This year, Russia rejected an accusation by NATO’s top commander in Afghanistan that it had been supporting and even supplying weapons to the Taliban.

A Western diplomat in Kabul said Russia was seeking to increase its influence and improve its image in Afghanistan by inviting Taliban leaders for talks.

The Taliban have yet to announce if they would attend the Moscow talks.

Back-channel diplomacy between the Taliban and a range of countries — including the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia — has taken place over the years to end the latest phase of Afghanistan’s decades of war, which began with a US invasion in 2001.

Taliban Names New Chief, Dashing Obama’s Hopes of Reopening Afghan Peace Talks

The US president has made extracting the United States from its 15-year war in Afghanistan a top priority, unsuccessfully pursuing efforts to bring the Taliban into talks with successive Afghan governments.

Taliban new leader Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada is seen in an undated photograph, posted on a Taliban twitter feed on May 25, 2016, and identified separately by several Taliban officials, who declined be named. Credit: Reuters

Taliban new leader Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada is seen in an undated photograph, posted on a Taliban twitter feed on May 25, 2016, and identified separately by several Taliban officials, who declined be named. Credit: Social Media via Reuters

Washington: The selection of a hard-line cleric as the new Taliban chief on Wednesday all but dashes US President Barack Obama’s hopes for opening peace talks before he leaves office, one of his top foreign policy goals, current and former US defence and intelligence officials said.

The Taliban leadership council tapped Mullah Haybattulah Akhundzada, a conservative Islamic scholar from the group’s stronghold in southern Afghanistan, to succeed Mullah Akhtar Mansour, four days after Mansour was killed in a US drone strike.

US officials had called Mansour a major impediment to peace talks, and some had expressed hope his death would eliminate an obstacle to peace negotiations between the Taliban and the government of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

Instead, some experts said, Akhundzada is likely to pursue aggressive attacks throughout the summer, intensifying the pressure on Obama to reconsider his plan to withdraw US military trainers and special forces and leave the decision on how to end America’s longest war to his successor.

Late last year, Obama announced he would keep 9,800 US military personnel in Afghanistan through most of 2016. He added that US troops would be drawn down to 5,500 by the start of 2017.

Obama has made extracting the United States from its 15-year war in Afghanistan a top priority, unsuccessfully pursuing efforts to bring the Taliban into talks with successive Afghan governments.

“Prospects for the Afghan peace process remain poor. The Taliban leadership, including the new commander, Mullah Akhundzada, believe military victory is only a matter of time,” said Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution expert and former CIA officer who headed Obama’s first Afghanistan policy review.

Riedel said Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency also believed that the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan for five years before their ouster in a US-led invasion in 2001, could win a military victory.

“The war is entering a more violent phase,” he added, his prediction punctuated by a suicide bombing in Kabul that killed 11 people shortly after Akhundzada’s selection was announced.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (2nd L) listens as Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani (C) speaks at the start of their bilateral commission talks at Char Chinar Palace in Kabul April 9, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst - RTX296NZ

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (2nd L) listens as Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani (C) speaks at the start of their bilateral commission talks at Char Chinar Palace in Kabul. Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Troop plan under review

Confronted with Taliban gains, a weak Kabul government and the emergence of an Islamic State branch, the top US commander in Afghanistan is reviewing the withdrawal plan and is expected to complete his findings within a month.

The administration remains committed to its strategy of pressing for peace talks while providing funds and military advice, training and equipment to Afghan forces, said Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who indicated the US troop drawdown would resume.

The Taliban should realize “that they cannot win, that the Afghan security forces aided by us are going to be stronger than them and are going to be able to defend the state of Afghanistan and the government of national unity there, and therefore that the alternative to coming across and making peace with the government is their certain defeat on the battlefield,” Carter said on Wednesday in Rhode Island.

But current and former US government experts and independent analysts said they saw little chance of that happening, with one US defence official noting the Taliban announcement of Akhundzada’s accession made no mention of negotiations.

‘What have they been smoking?’

“Whenever I hear anyone in the administration talking about the prospects for peace negotiations or how killing Mullah Mansour could improve them, I have to ask what they’ve been smoking,” a US military officer with extensive experience in Afghanistan, said on condition of anonymity.

“Regardless of who leads them, the Taliban have zero incentive to negotiate on their determination to restore their brand of Islamic rule.”

He and other US military and intelligence officials pointed out that the Taliban had been making steady battlefield gains against Afghan security forces, who have been suffering high casualty rates.

Moreover, the coalition government brokered by the United States between Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, his former rival and now the country’s chief executive, is riddled by disputes and deeply unpopular.

The insurgents have little reason to trust the coalition government or Obama’s successor, who takes office in January, to keep any agreement, said a US official with experience in Afghanistan.

(Reuters)