The Shifting Outlook in Afghanistan
Today’s scheduled peace and reconciliation talks between the U.S., the Karzai government, and Taliban have been cancelled, as President Karzai backed out and suspended negotiations with Washington regarding any potential U.S. military presence post-2014. While the cancelation is a setback, the fact that the Taliban were willing to explore negotiating a peace settlement was itself an encouraging sign. A negotiated peace remains worth pursuing and is potentially in the interests of all parties – although the future outlook is plagued by a number of serious obstacles. But as the shifting prospects of negotiations grab headlines, the long-term need to support Afghan-led efforts to build civil society remains the central underlying challenge.
Peace talks between the U.S., Karzai, and the Taliban are crucial for successful counterinsurgency. John Podesta and former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley explain: “The elimination of al Qaeda’s safe havens and the establishment of long-term peace and security in Afghanistan and the region — the key U.S. national security objectives — is best assured by a sustainable political settlement that strengthens the Afghan state… Efforts to reach a settlement should include an approach to Taliban elements that are ready to give up the fight and become part of the political process. Such an approach would not — as some have suggested — constitute ‘surrender’ to America’s enemies. Rather, convincing combatants to leave the insurgency and enter into the political process is the hallmark of a successful counterinsurgency effort.” [Stephen Hadley and John Podesta, 1/18/12]
Peace talks stalled – but remain worth pursuing and in the interests of all parties. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution explains the latest complication: “When the Qatari government (blessed by Washington) allowed the Taliban to open an office in Doha this week that had the Taliban flag flying outside and signs everywhere proclaiming the office to represent the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai took the symbolism as an affront. For Karzai and his government, the announcement, the flags and the signs brought the enemy unwanted legitimacy. Instead of being treated as insurgents or terrorists, the Taliban got the symbols of statehood… So when Karzai on Wednesday announced that his government will not participate in any peace negotiations with the Taliban under these ground rules and furthermore suspended the talks with the United States on a long-term strategic agreement to provide for a post-2014 security relationship between America and Afghanistan it wasn’t exactly a surprise. After all, he would have been savaged by his own supporters if he had done anything less.”
Nonetheless, Nic Robertson of CNN explains, “everyone has something to gain from a successful negotiation. The United States would get a dignified exit for most of its forces and an agreement on a long-term presence in Afghanistan. Karzai would get the legacy he craves as a peacemaker, and the Taliban would get a say in how the country is run.” [Bruce Riedel, 6/20/13. Nic Robertson, 6/19/13]
The potential for future talks faces a number of difficult hurdles:
Can potential negotiations settle tough issues? For example, while “The US has agreed that a formal rejection of al-Qaida by the Taliban leadership would now be a ‘negotiating aim’ rather than a precondition for talks,” the U.S. “will also seek a commitment from the Taliban to end its insurgency in Afghanistan and recognise women’s rights in the country,” reports the Guardian. [The Guardian, 6/18/13]
Will any deal survive the 2014 Afghan presidential elections? Vanda Felbab-Brown of the Brookings Institution explains, “Nor can the Taliban have any assurance that any pre-2014 deal would withstand the political earthquake of next year’s presidential elections. The Taliban has no incentive to participate in the elections – it does not poll well and its strength comes from being the outsider, the entity that delivers order if not rule of law per se against the excesses of the mafia politicians.” [Vanda Felbab-Brown, 6/19/13]
Can the U.S. make its non-military support more effective? For example, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released an alert letter cautioning unrest as result of non-payment to subcontractors. According to the letter, “SIGAR has 52 ongoing investigations based on $62 million in claimed monies owed,” and notes that “prime contractors’ failure to pay is often viewed by Afghan subcontractors as a failure on the part of the U.S. government.” Resentment has produced threats like self-immolation in front of the U.S. embassy or blowing up U.S. compounds that could needlessly destabilize the fragile country. [SIGAR, 6/17/13]
Sustainable political solutions require continued reforms of Afghan civil society and institutions, led by Afghans and supported by the international community. A working group report led by the Center for American Progress and attended by U.S. experts and representatives of Afghan civil society explains, “supporting a pluralistic and open society is essential for a sustainable and inclusive political transition process. Afghan civil society and the international community should be partners in fostering a more democratic, secure and open society in Afghanistan. To ensure public engagement, participation, and monitoring of the development process, a safe space for democratic and civil society institutions and long-term support by the international community is required. Furthermore, the Afghan government should recognize civil society as an important actor in Afghanistan’s long-term development…Civil society should respond to the needs of its people, who want peace and a functioning state that represents their interests, going beyond funding opportunities…It is incumbent upon civil society, with the support of international community, to work for the nation and its people, showing a commitment to so many Afghans, who need a voice in the transition process and beyond.” [Center for American Progress, 4/10/13]
What We’re Reading
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman has called on the Lebanese Shi’ite Muslim Hezbollah movement to pull its guerrillas out of Syria, saying any further involvement in its neighbor’s civil war would fuel instability in Lebanon.
Japan and Brazil will likely agree to resume talks on a civil nuclear cooperation pact at a summit meeting next week, paving the way for Japanese companies to export atomic power generation technology and equipment.
Somalia’s Islamist al Shabaab rebel group threatened to keep attacking “disbelievers” without respite, a day after launching a deadly assault against the United Nations in the capital Mogadishu.
Russia and China have reacted angrily after the U.S. downgraded them in a report on efforts to fight human trafficking.
Nigeria’s military banned the use of Thuraya satellite phones in northeastern Borno state, a step it said was designed to stop Islamist militants communicating.
A court in Bangladesh has sentenced 10 Islamist militants to death for assisting a suicide bombing in 2005 which killed seven people near a courthouse in the town of Gazipur.
The International Criminal Court has pushed back the trial of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta to November 12th.
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that smog conditions in the city-state, caused by Indonesian forest fires, may persist for several weeks or longer, depending on weather conditions.
Leaders in Brazil’s two biggest cities said that they had reversed an increase in bus and subway fares that ignited the anti-government protests that have spread across the nation.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said that he’s trying to broker asylum in Iceland for Edward Snowden.
Commentary of the Day
Despite economic growth, India lags behind China in healthcare and other investments in human capital, says Amartya Sen.
The number of internally displaced people worldwide has peaked at an estimated 28.8 million, says Caitlin Dewey.
In the aftermath of the Snowden leaks, Norm Ornstein discusses the threat of corruption in government contracting.
