The past week witnessed a watershedin the peace process in Afghanistan and said that they are closer than ever to striking a peace deal with the Taliban.

 Though converging and divergent in times, still the news are significant.  According to the reports, the Taliban has agreed to reduce the level of violence in Afghanistan for a week. Although the parties to the negotiation are yet to define the term reduction of violence and come up with a criteria for measurement of the reduction in violence, it has been defined as halt of Taliban’s attacks against the US and Afghan targets during the given time.

The reduction in violence, which is expected to start at the end of this month or soon,would be followed by signing of a peace agreement between the Taliban and the US envoys in Doha that would be followed by a face to face talks between the Taliban and the Afghan side.After successfully meeting the first condition of reduction violence, the US would, release 5000 Taliban’s prisoners and start with-drawl of its forces in exchange of 1000 prisoners by the Taliban.

Though the US officials have given signals indicating that the US would reduce the number of forces to 8600 in Afghanistan in the first 4 to 5 months, yet the whole episode is surrounded by the lack of clarity.  The Taliban, on the other side claim that all the US forces will have to leave Afghanistan.

In addition, another ambiguity is about the future of the agreement should the intra Afghan dialogue fails.  So far, the Taliban has been avoiding in engaging in direct talks with the Afghan government from one side and the lack of political consensus among the political elites on a united formula for the establishment of a representative group for talking to the Taliban.

Superficially it might seem easier but inclusivity in the creation of negotiating team is equally a daunting problem for the Taliban. They will have to wrestle with each to have in place a comprehensive delegation,which speaks to the vintages of different Taliban fictions for the intra-Afghan peace dialogue,.

The question that worries many Afghans is what will happen if the dialogue fails?In other words what’s the guarantee for the success of the dialogues between the Afghan sides?If the direct talks between Afghan sides fail, what will happen to the agreement?

The Taliban are believed to have made greater gains from the agreement. Theyare believed to be losing nothing in this whole agreement. The skeptics argue that the reduction in violence by the Taliban is in this particular time us not something that tests the Taliban’s commitment to the reduction in violence and the peace process. In committing to reduction in violence the group commits nothing for it is not the fighting season in Afghanistan. There has already been a reduction in violence. It would have been a litmus of Taliban’s commitment has it been a fighting season.

Important in this whole saga of peace agreement is the stance of the Afghan government. The meeting between the US delegation led by secretary Pompeo and included by the US defense secretary and Ambassador Khalilzadwith president Ghanion the sideline of the Munich Security Conference and the follow up statements made by the US officials looked like that the Afghan government is on board and is happy with the deal, however president Ghani seems to be skeptical about the Pakistan’s intentions in this whole equation. On his return home, the president challenged Taliban’s potential of reaching to power through democratic channels and asked them to define the nature of their links with Pakistan.

An understanding between the Afghan government and the US would address the concerns of keeping the Afghan government at bay in the ongoing process, at least, in the initial stage. It is widely believed that any political agreement sans the Afghan government would push the country to an anarchy that the country experienced in 1990s, after the fall of Najibullah regime in Kabul.

If a scenario like that happens, the Afghans fear to lose the gains that Afghanistan has made in the last almost 20 years.

The Taliban’s commitment to cutting ties with extremist groups such as Al-Qaeeda is also a sloppy terrain for the Taliban. The puzzle is howwould the Taliban cut ties with a group that the Taliban have not only been heavily relied on for financial as well as human capital, but has been one of the major sources of getting religious legitimacy from. What if the Taliban cannot stand by its promises?

Overall, despite the US officials’ assurance and terming the agreement condition bound, the leverage of US to exercise her full leverage on affecting the course of future events in the face of untoward incidents in Afghanistan is a major concern.

The chaotic situation following the announcement of the presidential election has further exacerbated the situation. Bringing different parties inside the political system of Afghanistan to the negotiation table will prove an exhaustive exercise and will consume much energy of the US in the days to come.

However more clarity about the deal, stronger cooperation and understanding between the Afghan government and the US will pave the way for having in place gains in Afghanistan and make the peace agreement a win-win situation for all the sides.

Last but not the least, getting guaranteeof not interference in Afghanistan from the regional stakeholders is critical for the medium and long term sustainability of the peace agreement. Otherwise, the agreement will prove to be just a timely exercise in the absence of such guarantees. 

View expressed in this article are of the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Pajhwok’s editorial policy.

Visits: 2