Afghan Peace Process: Is it failing?

In Blog, Economic Security, Human Security
June 10, 2021
Hamna Sajjad
19 Views
0 comments

On the twenty ninth of February of last year in Doha, the United States (US) and the Taliban signed a peace agreement to end the long war in Afghanistan. The peace talks which began were described as “truly momentous”. But they seem to be moving at a snail’s pace. Due to change in administration, the

On the twenty ninth of February of last year in Doha, the United States (US) and the Taliban signed a peace agreement to end the long war in Afghanistan. The peace talks which began were described as “truly momentous”. But they seem to be moving at a snail’s pace. Due to change in administration, the US has decided to review the agreement, for which the Afghan government was not consulted and, the Taliban insisting for the US troops to completely leave by 1^st May 2021, a date which has already passed by. But with a change in the US administration and the Taliban and the Afghan government unwilling to cooperate, the process was stalled, with an impending risk of failure.

The first reason doe such a risk is the uncertainty caused due to the change in US administration, as the Biden administration came into office. This delayed the peace process because the new administration decided to review the February agreement, as it may not be considered valid due to it being negotiated and signed by the Trump administration. It also expressed the need to assess if the Taliban is fulfilling its side of the agreement and this decision has led to the question, whether the US troops will be leaving the country completely as per the agreement? This is because the deadline, which was initially agreed upon, was 1^st May 2021 and has already passed.

But US intelligence warns against a complete troop pullout, despite the US President announcing that the troops will leave. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) also refused to meet the May deadline, after its two-day virtual meeting in February this year. The NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg expressed that the presence of the troops is “conditioned-based” on the Taliban needing to “meet their commitments”.

Although the Taliban officials have publicly argued that they have fulfilled their terms, an argument which is back up by top Russian diplomats, the Pentagon has recently hinted at the Taliban not having taken concrete steps in severing its links with Al-Qaeda. All of this has caused a delay in the peace process, with confusion concerning the prosperity of the agreement having increased, as the Taliban has been called out to negotiate in “good faith” by NATO while it has insisted that it is doing so.

Moving on, the second reason is that the relationship between the Taliban and the Afghan government has seemed to have worsened. Violence against the Afghan state from the Taliban has only intensified, as reported by the United Nations (UN). The UN annual report stated that civilian casualties rose over 45% at the start of the negotiations, with 3,000 civilians killed and 5,800 injured last year. The numerous negotiations which were planned to take place between the two parties since last year have also not properly commenced and this hints towards the clear disagreements which exist between the two.

To begin with, the Afghan government was not involved in the forming and signing of the peace agreement last year, reportedly because of the Taliban’s insistence. This has inevitably led the government into disagreeing with provisions of the agreement, feeling no obligation to comply. An example is the refusal of the Afghani President, Ashraf Ghani, to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners as per the agreement. Instead, the President announced that only 1,500 prisoners will be released. Had the government been involved from the beginning, the bumpy road upon which the parties to the process have embarked on would have been a smoother journey, for the differences which the Taliban and the Afghan government hold would have been aired at the appropriate time and solutions would have been sought.

This points towards the third reason, that the agreement simply assumes the compliance of the Afghan government, indirectly overlooking the sovereignty of the Afghan state as it is upon the democratically elected government to decide upon compliance. The agreement does not consider the fact that the stance currently held by the Afghani government is one which does not give room for the Taliban to join, with a major point of contention between the two being democracy. The Taliban stand against it whereas the Afghani government stand for it.

As the term ‘peace process’ would indicate, every party in the process needs to be heard and understood with their issues taken seriously. However, the third reason for the failure of the process may be because it highlights the safety of the US and its allies more than it highlights the safety for the nationals of Afghanistan. But the failure of doing so is causing a lack of agreement between the parties, with the President Ghani refusing to support parts of the agreement. The Taliban has also refused the government’s demand for a ceasefire, insisting that a complete ceasefire is linked to a political agreement which should be reached in the ongoing negotiations. Similarly, it refused to accept a proposed early election by the government, with Zabihullah Mujahid, Taliban’s spokesperson, claiming that going to election would be “scandalous”, will never be supported and, that any decision of Afghanistan’s future must be reached in the ongoing talks.

Nevertheless, the fourth reason for the peace process failing is the Taliban itself. The radical group is facing internal complications, for despite its political leaders signing the agreement, those who are on the battlefield may not be entirely on board, having their own agendas which can very well be at odds with the agreement. Their differences may have only increased after the US’s failure to completely withdraw its troops by May’s deadline, as the radical group had previously expressed that such a failure will be seen as a “violation” and that it will be “compelled to…continue its Jihad and armed struggle against foreign forces to liberate its country.”

Moving on, the fifth reason is the lack of urgency seen from both the Taliban and the Afghan government in reaching an appreciable conclusion, moving forward, and reducing violence. This has also been observed in the recent negotiations to be held in Qatar from the first week of June. Despite the members from all parties arriving at Qatar to resume negotiations talks, Taliban’s spokesman who is based in Qatar, Mohammad Naeem, said that “no exact date has been set for the meeting yet.”

Conclusively, the peace process is facing the risk of failure, and this is because the will to cooperate between the Taliban and the Afghan government is lacking, along with the intention to reach an acceptable conclusion that benefits the parties and helps the state of Afghanistan in moving forward.