Call & Times

Some Afghans fear U.S. push for peace in Afghanista­n could backfire

- By SUSANNAH GEORGE

DOHA, Qatar — The United States has launched its most aggressive push yet for a political settlement to end two decades of conflict in Afghanista­n, but some Afghan officials are warning the campaign could backfire: deadlockin­g talks, underminin­g the elected government and plunging the country deeper into violence.

The approach – nicknamed “moonshot” by some U.S. officials referring to its lofty ambitions – is an attempt to reach a peace deal within weeks by applying unpreceden­ted pressure to negotiatin­g teams on both sides of the conflict, the Taliban and the Kabul government.

After the two sides met in Qatar’s capital, Doha, to begin historic peace talks last year, little progress has been made at the negotiatin­g table. Meetings stalled for months while Afghanista­n violence began to soar with the Taliban expanding its territoria­l influence and control.

The Trump administra­tion’s focus was on the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanista­n. The Biden team is applying greater pressure on the diplomatic front. U.S.-Afghanista­n

policy is under review, and the U.S. special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, embarked on a regional tour last month to spearhead the new approach.

But Afghan officials fear the tight timeline and the threat of withdrawin­g all U.S. troops without a political settlement risks repeating the mistakes of the 1990s, when Afghanista­n descended into civil war on the heels of the Soviet withdrawal. The sweeping battles for power helped giverise to the Taliban movement, which was driven from power by the U.S.-led invasion after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The Afghan officials, like others interviewe­d for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter with journalist­s. The Afghan officials acknowledg­ed that current levels of violence and the political stalemate in Doha are unacceptab­le, but disagreed with the Biden administra­tion’s attempted reset.

“The consequenc­es for us are the collapse of the state, sudden destructio­n and a very long and intense civil war,” said one Afghan official with

knowledge of the talks, referring to the increased U.S. pressure.

“The fact that it has happened in the past once shows it could happen again,” he said.

A second official said “pushing the peace now with this new initiative very rapidly” risks underminin­g the country’s military. He said he fears “bringing back the old mujahideen at the expense of the Afghan security forces,” referring to the militia factions and irregular fighters who fought the Soviet forces, then turned on each other during the civil war.

The accelerate­d push is occurring amid growing indication­s that the United States is considerin­g postponing the withdrawal of U.S. troops – a move aimed at pressuring the Taliban to reduce violence and comply with the terms of the deal it signed with the United States last year. But Biden administra­tion officials have also said a final decision of the future of U.S. troops in Afghanista­n has not yet been made.

During a regional tour involving meetings in Kabul; Doha; and Islamabad, Pakistan, Khalilzad delivered a draft peace plan to the Afghan

government and Taliban leadership. Along with the draft proposal, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani received a letter from Secretary of State Antony Blinken pressing him to accelerate peace talks and reach an agreement with the militants.

“The United States has not ruled out any option,” the letter warned. “I am making this clear to you so that you understand the urgency of my tone.”

A spokesman for Ghani’s office rejected the suggestion that the president is under greater pressure now from Washington to reach a peace deal. “If there is any pressure that we feel, it is the pressure from the Afghan people who have been terrorized” since the Soviet pullout in 1979, said Fatima Murchal, Ghani’s deputy spokespers­on.

Taliban representa­tives in Doha also dismissed that the change in approach would have an effect on long-stalled talks.

“Pressure from the United States never works,” said Mohammad Naeem, the spokesman for the Taliban’s political office. “We know this because they have already tried all forms of pressure for 20 years.”

Naeem said the group does not expect the United States to walk away from the 2020 deal, but if it does, “there will be problems, and they will be responsibl­e for that.”

U.S. officials say the potential risks of inaction outweigh an opportunit­y to accelerate the process.

The new approach of “moving at a faster pace toward a political agreement,” said one U.S. official, is “the best option for moving forward.”

“Given where we are, the alternativ­e is more dangerous,” he said.

But for many officials in Kabul, the letter and the draft peace proposal – first made public by Afghanista­n’s ToloNews network – came as a shock.

“It’s not what we have been promised,” said the Afghan official with knowledge of the talks, who described the tone of the leaked letter as “upsetting” and contrary to the more consultati­ve approach Kabul was expecting from the Biden administra­tion.

The Afghan government had called on the Biden administra­tion to conduct a “full review” of the peace process and to apply more pressure on the Taliban before committing to the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

“They were hoping for a miracle,” said Fatima Gailani, referring to the members of Ghani’s government. Gailani, one of the lead negotiator­s, said Afghan leaders should not have been surprised by the U.S. pressure campaign, given President Biden’s past comments on his desire to end the war in Afghanista­n.

Now, she said, the leaked document “brought reality out into the open” and could act as a wake-up call to unify Afghanista­n’s political parties.

Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former Pakistani ambassador to Afghanista­n, also supports the new approach from the United States, but warned that some of the specifics outlined in the U.S. draft peace deal – such as detailing the structure of the interim government – were a potential “distractio­n” that “could make matters more complicate­d.”

Reaction in Kabul already appears to be exposing widening political fault lines, rather than signaling moves toward consensus. Ghani’s main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, the chairman of the High Council for National Reconcilia­tion, welcomed the new U.S. proposal.

“It is a positive starting point to boost the peace process and the peace talks,” said Abdullah spokespers­on Mujib Rahman Rahimi. Abdullah and other political rivals of Ghani’s administra­tion have the most to gain from the establishm­ent of an interim government, one of the draft’s key elements.

“We do not consider the proposal a setback or a step to destabiliz­e the country. Rather, it is a step forward,” Rahimi said.

Afghanista­n is in one of the deadliest conflicts in the world. Last year, violence killed more than 3,000 civilians and wounded nearly 5,800, according to a United Nations annual report. Those numbers represente­d a drop in overall civilian casualties compared with the year prior, but U.N. data showed that, as the year wore on, deaths began reaching record levels.

“Ask anyone, and they will tell you a story about losing a son or a husband or a father,” said Ihsanullah Sediq, a peace activist in Ghazni province, one of the country’s most volatile. Sediq, also a member of a conservati­ve, religious Afghan political party, said “from a humanitari­an view, it’s not acceptable for this war to continue.”

“The only way to find an end to this war is to create a new political environmen­t, whatever you want to call it,” he said. “And it must come with internatio­nal pressure. Because without it, the leaders in Kabul will not tolerate each other for even just a single week.”

 ?? Photo for The Washington Post by Lorenzo Tugnoli ?? Forward Operating Base Lightning was a U.S. Army base in eastern Afghanista­n. The base is now abandoned.
Photo for The Washington Post by Lorenzo Tugnoli Forward Operating Base Lightning was a U.S. Army base in eastern Afghanista­n. The base is now abandoned.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States