A dream of peace

Donald Trump and Barack Obama’s presidential terms may end up sharing nothing in common apart from a deepseated frustration felt towards the war in Afghanistan. A war that has displaced Vietnam as the longest-fought American conflict in history. It has cost the United States more than $932 billion an amount that sources claim exceeds the expenditure spent on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe in the aftermath of World War II. It is war without an end, a war that cannot be won.

A fact that the United States is now waking up to. So, the current peace talks between the Americans and the Taliban are perhaps no different from the Paris peace talks on Vietnam. Sporting the label of peace are actually the attempts by the US to negotiate favourable terms of surrender.

Optimistic analysts say that such cynicism is mistaken. The peace talks are showing promise with the Taliban agreeing to a ceasefire while US troops undergo a phased withdrawal. Furthermore, the Taliban pledge not to allow international terror groups to use Afghanistan as a launching pad for attacks against the United States. Reality tugs us towards being pessimistic about these promises.

There is no guarantee that the Taliban will actually hold to their end of the bargain if and when the US does withdraw troops. The Afghan police and military are so far ill- equipped to tackle militancy without the support of the US military. Even if the Taliban peace delegation’s word is taken regarding a ceasefire, there is no confirmation regarding whether the delegation speaks for the entire group.

More crucial is the problem that a ceasefire with US troops does not mean that one of the most vital aspects needed for peace in Afghanistan will be achieved: the acceptance of the democratically- elected Afghan government by the Taliban.

The Taliban have repeatedly stated that they do not accept the legitimacy of the Afghan government under President Ghani. And the fact that the Afghan government has been excluded from the talks with the Taliban compounds the problem. It seems that the US in an attempt at a hasty exit is throwing the Ghani government to the wolves. Without resolving the hostility between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the US may be leaving behind a land ripe for civil war. Consider the statement of the Taliban’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, who has said that he expects the Afghan army to be disbanded after a peace deal.

Nobody should need to remind the US that a similar event in Iraq led to the birth of ISIS. The acceptance of a democratically- elected Afghan government is vital for any form of peace to be achieved in Afghanistan. How else is the Afghan constitution supposed to work?

Democracy depends upon people viewing the process of elections as a legitimate means of selecting leadership. The Taliban rebuke this concept, seeing Ghani as an American puppet. With a key element of stability missing, peace seems elusive at best.

It is also worth questioning whether the Taliban can actually deliver on their promise that they will not let another terrorist group like al Qaeda spread their roots in Afghanistan.

According to the former defence secretary for Trump, Jim Mattis, there are around 20 terrorist groups — many of whom are byproducts of al Qaeda and ISIS — existing in Afghanistan, who would be more than willing to capitalise on the US withdrawal of troops to launch attacks in the region. We cannot forget what nestled within the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, a branch of ISIS known as ISIS-K has now become the strongest and largest ISIS affiliate outside Syria and Iraq. The ‘ peace terms’ seem superficial in an Afghanistan still plagued by many of the same problems that existed when the US first embarked on its war.

The US never had a concrete plan lined out regarding grassroots nation- building. Take the Afghan economy, currently it has no real moneymaking prospect apart from the trade in narcotics in the region.

The US never laid down a sustainable method of growth for Afghanistan and will now leave it floundering and unstable. Instability suits the Taliban, it spells disaster for the people of Afghanistan who have only known a life of conflict in the region.

In its willingness to broker a peace with the Taliban it is almost inevitable that the Afghan constitution’s principles of civil liberty will be compromised.

This is because it is highly likely that the Taliban, in the absence of the US having any leveraging point in the peace talks, will negotiate themselves into being accommodated in the new Afghan political order.

The first casualty of such an arrangement will be the rights of women. One of the few achievements of the war in Afghanistan. A political system involving members of the Taliban may never agree to constitutional principles protecting women from discrimination, or for the upholding of democratic values.

The Taliban will never agree to peace unless they get a share in power. That share comes with the US having to make concessions regarding hard- fought constitutional rights and democratic values.

Given how this war was about creating an Afghanistan that upheld such values, the US is not granting Afghanistan peace, it is merely surrendering. What it is negotiating in the peace talks is how best to surrender.

Here, the parallel with Vietnam cannot be avoided. As Ryan Crocker, a former American ambassador to Afghanistan, pointed out: “By going to the table, we basically were telling the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, ‘ we surrender… we’re just here to work out the terms.”

- The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and also teaches at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.