A long way to Afghan peace

Zahid HussainFebruary 19, 2020

Facebook Count

22

Twitter Share
1

SUCH is the irony of history that yet another superpower is negotiating

its exit from Afghanistan as the war-ravaged country recently observed
the 31st anniversary of the withdrawal of the last Soviet soldier from its
soil. While the Russian forces pulled out in 1989, a decade after
invading Afghanistan, it has already been nearly two decades since the
Americans have been engaged in an unwinnable war.

Roughly, 3,500 American and allied troops have been killed in a war
costing trillions of dollars. The US went into Afghanistan in 2001 out of
revenge, with little understanding of a land, which is often described as
the ‘graveyard of empires’. The US officials are now engaged in
protracted peace negotiations that could bring their soldiers back home
. But there’s still a long way to go before the exit is possible.

Some of those whom the Americans are negotiating peace with had
also fought the Soviets with US support. Hailed then as ‘holy warriors’,
they drove out the Red Army with the weapons supplied by the US.
History took another turn when some of them turned their guns on
their former patrons.
Many of those who sat across the table with American officials in Doha
are former inmates of the infamous Guantanamo prison. For two
generations, Afghans have only seen wars and there is little hope that
their miseries will end soon despite some significant progress being
made in the peace talks between the US and the Afghan Taliban.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

A divided dispensation in Kabul makes it extremely difficult to reach a

political settlement.

In a major breakthrough, the two sides have agreed to a temporary

truce raising prospects of a deal that may bring an end to the US war in
Afghanistan. But given the complexities of the Afghan conflict,
achieving a workable political settlement may not be so easy. If
everything goes well a peace agreement between the US and the
Taliban is likely to be signed by the end of this month that will be
followed by intra-Afghan talks. The format of the talks that is likely to
be held in Oslo next month is yet to be finalised.

Indeed, the possibility of the 18-year-long US war coming to an end has

never been so close. But much will depend on the next phase that
would require intra-Afghan negotiations on the post-US withdrawal
setup. It may not be that easy given the existing political fragmentation
in Afghanistan.

A divided dispensation with various power centres in Kabul makes it

extremely difficult to reach a political settlement. The prospects of the
Ashraf Ghani government (whose legitimacy has been challenged under
a controversial election) coming up with a coherent position if and
when talks with Kabul and the Taliban follow is uncertain. The official
result of last September’s presidential election, which was mired in
allegations of rigging, was only announced late last night and has
already been contested by Abdullah Abdullah.

With the ongoing power struggle there is still no clarity on who would
represent the Kabul government in the ensuing Afghan negotiations.
While President Ghani insists that he would lead the talks, others want
a more inclusive representation. In contrast, the Taliban are much more
united and prepared for talks. Increasing international recognition has
given the militia greater confidence. There are also indications of some
of the warlords and power groups striking separate deals with the
Taliban further weakening the Kabul government’s position.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

Then there is the question of whether the Taliban would agree to a

longer ceasefire while the talks continue. There is no indication yet of
the insurgents agreeing to a permanent truce without an accord on the
future political setup. The Taliban leaders are still holding their cards
close to their chest. It’s certainly going to be a long-drawn-out and
extremely complicated dialogue process given past events.

A major reason for the Taliban not agreeing to a longer ceasefire is that
it would be hard to mobilise the fighters once they have gone home.
Reduction in violence, and that too for a shorter period, still keeps the
fighters at the post. The Taliban had only committed to a halt in
roadside and suicide bombings as well as rocket attacks.

There was a massive escalation in attacks from both sides in the days
before the truce agreement was set to be implemented. The Taliban
had launched a series of spectacular attacks on the Afghan forces in
various provinces killing several government soldiers.

Similarly, American ground and air forces have intensified their attacks
on Taliban strongholds killing a number of militants. Many civilians have
also reportedly been killed in the attack by the air forces. It remains to
be seen whether the two sides uphold the truce, a precondition for the
signing of the peace agreement on Feb 29 in Doha.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

Under the proposed agreement, some 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by

American and Afghan authorities will be released further reinforcing
the insurgent forces. It is apparent that the Taliban have also shown
flexibility in their demand for a complete withdrawal of American
forces.

The drawing down of American forces could start immediately after the
signing of the agreement — from about 13,000 to 8,600. But it would
take several months for the complete withdrawal of US troops
depending on the successful implementation of the deal. However, the
US security agencies would continue to engage in operations against Al
Qaeda and the remnants of the militant Islamic State group.
It is evident that there is bipartisan support in the US for withdrawal
from a festering war in Afghanistan that even the biggest superpower
with its entire military was not able to win. But a peace deal paving the
way for America’s exit from Afghanistan will certainly give a huge boost
to President Donald Trump’s bid for second term.

Still, there is still a long way to go for a peace settlement to end the
nearly two-decade-old US military presence that began shortly after the
9/11 terrorist attacks. Importantly, for peace to return to Afghanistan it
is imperative that all Afghan factions must reach an agreement among
themselves.

The writer is an author and journalist

Toxic city
EditorialUpdated February 19, 2020
Facebook Count

Twitter Share
0

ON Sunday evening, residents living and working close to Karachi’s

bustling port noticed a strange smell in Keamari and its adjoining areas.

Read: Mystery gas leak death toll doubles amid blame game
Then came the news of several deaths as hospitals’ emergency wards
began flooding with people complaining of dizziness, stinging eyes,
itchy throats, chest tightness and breathing problems.

Since then, schools and offices close to the site have shut down for an
indefinite period of time.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

Last evening, the total number of confirmed deaths rose to over a

dozen, which may unfortunately rise in the coming days.

Heartbreaking videos of family members weeping over the loss of their

loved ones were being circulated, as Keamari’s Jackson Market erupted
in protests, with residents demanding answers from the authorities.
And yet, two days on, the government still cannot trace the source of
the noxious fumes.

In a press conference, the chairman of the Karachi Port Trust denied

that the poisonous gas originated from the areas within its jurisdiction,
but the city’s commissioner has speculated that a ship offloading
soybean or a similar commodity could be behind the string of deaths —
which was then strongly contested by the federal minister for maritime
affairs.

While various authorities such as the Sindh Environmental Protection

Agency and police have launched probes to ascertain the cause of the
supposed leakage, the chief minister has issued evacuation orders from
the affected areas, and private bodies have released safety precautions
for residents over what they should do in such times. But explanations
are still not forthcoming.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

In the absence of information and clarity, multiple theories have arisen,

with responsibility then being shifted from one authority to another,
which seems to have now become the default mode each time tragedy
strikes the metropolis.

Amidst all this confusion and panic, one thing is certain: Karachi is
seriously unequipped and underprepared to deal with a crisis of this
scale.

This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the authorities are not
prepared to handle a disaster of a larger magnitude, let alone relatively
simple tasks of having functional monitoring systems in place that
would help mitigate future disasters.

Chemical or industrial leakages such as these are usually the result of

human negligence caused by not following proper risk assessments or
implementing safety standards. At the very least, the concerned
authorities must ensure that emergency protocols are in place